Teun A. Van Dijk

Antiracist Discourse
in Brazil
in Brazil
From Abolition to
Affirmative Action
Teun A. van Dijk
LEXINGTON BOOKS
Lanham • Boulder • New York • London
Published by Lexington Books
Lexington Books is an imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.
4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706
www.rowman.com
6 Tinworth Street, London SE11 5AL, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2020 by The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by
any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval
systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who
may quote passages in a review.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020944443
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of

American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper
for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.
Contents
Acknowledgments vii
1 Introduction 1
2 Theoretical Framework 9
3 Antislavery and Abolitionist Discourse 29
4 Antiracist Discourse after Abolition 75
5 Contemporary Antiracist Discourse 105
6 Parliamentary Discourse on Affirmative Action 123
7 Conclusions 203
References 213
Index 233
About the Author 247
v
Acknowledgments
I am indebted to many people, and especially to
• Ronaldo Vainfas for reading and commenting on chapter 3.

• João Feres for inviting me to participate in his GEMAA group at the Insti-
tute of Social and Politicas Studies (IESP, UERJ), specialized on the study
of affirmative action.
• Angela Alonso for her comments on chapter 4.
• Paulina Alberto for her comments on chapter 4.
• Antônio Sérgio Guimarães for his comments on chapter 5.
• Bruna de Anhaia for her comments on chapter 6.
• Verónica Fox for her corrections of the first chapters.
Special thanks for Lucia de la Presa for her English translations of the Por-
tuguese examples.
And last but not least, to Patricia Gouveia, for her comments on the whole
book, as well as for her daily presence, expertise, advice and patience during
the years of its writing in Rio de Janeiro and Barcelona.
vii
Chapter One
Introduction
Much has been written about racism in Brazil, but less about racist discourse,
and even less about antiracism and antiracist discourse. This book presents a
brief theory of antiracism and antiracist discourse and summarizes the history
of antiracist discourse in Brazil from abolition to affirmative action. Part of
this historical study is a detailed case study of parliamentary debates between
2000 and 2012 on university quotas for poor, black and indigenous students.
The general theoretical framework of this study is an extension of the mul-
tidisciplinary approach of Critical Discourse Studies (CDS). Whereas (also
our own) earlier CDS studies primarily focused on many forms of discursive
power abuse, a study of antiracist discourse and its history requires the more
specific framework of a theory of resistance and social transformation. Be-
yond an analysis of the structures and strategies of antiracist discourse, and
their historical development, such an approach also requires integrated politi-
cal, social and cognitive analysis.
Among the many forms of social and political resistance against domina-
tion and other forms of power abuse, antiracism in this study will be defined
as a global and historical social movement, comparable with feminism. While
marginally in European Antiquity, but increasingly since the 16th century, this
movement initially criticized and combated slavery, especially (but not only)
in the Americas, including the resistance of slaves themselves, until abolition
in the 19th century. At the same time, the movement opposed the domination
and other abuses of indigenous peoples in the Americas, Asia, Africa, Austra-
lia and New Zealand, especially in the many European colonies.
After abolition, the movement became more explicitly antiracist in the
sense that it resisted and combated explicit racist ideologies, prejudice and
discrimination of black and indigenous peoples in the (former) colonies, as
1
2 Chapter One
well of non-European immigrants and refugees in Europe and North America

until today (for references, see next chapters).
Within this global perspective of slavery, colonization and other forms of
racism and antiracist resistance, Brazil has played a significant role. Not only
it was the largest European colony, it also imported most African slaves (4.9
million) and was the last country to abolish slavery—in 1888. Today, it has the
largest population of African descent outside of Africa (around 50% of a popu-
lation of 209 million) facing widespread forms of racist prejudice and discrim-
ination. Slaves resisted slavery from the start and formed important maroon
communities, such as the famous Palmares community, led by Zumbi. As we
will see in this book, black intellectuals and movements played a prominent
role in the abolition movement and against racism after abolition until today.
Racism (and antiracism) in Brazil today should also be understood against
a complex socioeconomic background of poverty, defining the close relation
between race and class: For example: 13.5 million Brazilians are below the
extreme poverty line; unemployment is 12% (of these 62% are Afro-Brazilian);
since 2016, 27 million workers earn less than the benchmark of one Salario
Minimo of around $200 U.S. per month; 41.1 million are in the informal sector,
without a license and rights and with very low remuneration; the police have
an informal ‘license to kill’ blacks in the favelas, etc. (of many critical stud-
ies, see Amparo Alves, 2018). Thus, to understand the history and properties
of antiracist discourse as examined in the book, it is crucial to realize that the
domination of blacks by whites is a structural characteristic of Brazilian soci-
ety and its profound economic and cultural inequalities. Thus, many resistance
movements (workers, slums, peripheries, women) inform antiracist discourse.
After the general introduction in this chapter—stressing also what this
book does not offer—the next chapter will elaborate the theory of antiracism
and antiracist discourse summarized below, followed by historical chapters
on antislavery and antiracist discourse from the 16th century until today. A
more detailed analysis of antiracist discourse will be presented in the chapter
on the parliamentary debate on university quotas for black students.
Antiracism
A simplified theory of racism
Antiracism presupposes racism, so let’s briefly start with racism. There are
many theories of racism. Our own approach defines racism as a specific
form of power abuse or domination, based on any form of real or imagined
‘racial’ or ethnic differences between dominant and dominated groups or
peoples. More specifically, also in this book, we deal with ‘white’ racism of
Europeans, or people of European descent, against non-white, non-European
Introduction 3
peoples. In Brazil, such racism is primarily directed against people of African

descent, on the one hand, and against Amerindian, indigenous peoples, on
the other hand. Although both scholarly as well as popular discourse makes
many differences among Afro-Brazilians, especially between blacks (pretos)
and browns (pardos), we will use the practical as well as political shortcut
advocated by the Movimento Negro, and refer to them as ‘blacks’ (negros), a
concept we’ll examine in more detail later. Hence, given its prevalence, rac-
ism in Brazil is ‘white on black’ racism.
As a system of domination, racism features two major subsystems. Its so-
cial or political manifestation consists of many forms of racist practice, usu-
ally described as discrimination. Such practices are based on cognitive rep-
resentations such as personal mental models of specific events and socially
shared, generic racist prejudices and ideologies. Racist discourse is a racist
practice in its own right, but at the same time the usual means of the acquisi-
tion and diffusion of racist prejudices and ideologies. In that sense, discourse
is an interface between the sociopolitical practices and the sociocognitive
representations of the system of racism.
Toward a theory of antiracism

Against the background of this very general and simplified theory of racism,
and especially of the role of discourse in its reproduction, as developed in our
previous studies (e.g., in Van Dijk, 1993), the first main aim of this book is
to present some elements of a theory of antiracism.
As the very notion of antiracism implies, the first conceptual aspect of a
theory of antiracism requires analysis in terms of opposition, dissent, struggle
and related notions, summarized as resistance against any aspect of the sys-
tem of racism.
As is the case for racist domination, antiracist resistance also may be
analyzed at two levels, namely as antiracist sociopolitical practice, on the
one hand, and antiracist social cognition, on the other hand. Again, antiracist
discourse, as a major form of antiracist resistance, is the interface between
antiracist sociopolitical practice and antiracist attitudes and ideologies. The
second major aim of this book is to offer a theory and history of antiracist
discourse, specifically applied to Brazil.
A more general theory of resistance can be developed in various frame-
works. The framework we prefer is one of a multidisciplinary theory of social
movements. In that sense, antiracism is a social movement, comparable for
instance with feminism. Antiracism as a social movement is more general and
more global than for instance the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. or the
Movimento Negro in Brazil. Hence, as is also the case for feminism, we deal
with some kind of macromovement, consisting of many smaller social move-
4 Chapter One
ments taking place in different historical periods and in different countries

and with different protagonists and goals.
More than is possible here, the theory of antiracism as a social movement
has been and should be inspired by theories and comparisons with that of
feminism (see, e.g., Twine & Blee, 2001). We’ll see, for instance, that both
white and black women—before they acquired the vote (both in the U.S. and
Brazil)—were active in the organization and the discourses of abolitionist and
antiracist movements. Their struggle and discourse offer multiple strategies
for antiracist resistance and its theory.
Also in Brazil, within antiracism as a general movement there are several
more specific movements, including the abolition movement as a whole, it-
self consisting of several other movements. These movements include black
slave revolts and religious criticism of slavery by Jesuits in the 17th and 18th
centuries, many local abolition movements in the 19th century, as well as
black and white opposition and struggle against racism in the 20th and 21st
centuries, such as the Movimento Negro Unificado (MNU) founded in 1978.
Defining antiracism as a social movement requires both theoretical and
historical flexibility. If antiracism presupposes racism, we first need to ac-
cept that slavery, as practiced in Brazil, was a form of racism, even when the
notions of race and racism did not exist until the 19th and 20th centuries,
because it was a specific form of domination of black people by white people.
Traditionally, social movements as forms of collective resistance are usu-
ally defined for dominated protagonists. For antiracism this would mean that
strictly speaking only black antiracist movements would qualify as resistance
movements. Yet, as is also the case in Brazil, the antiracist movements also
have (had) white protagonists who opposed and struggled against racism,
often in solidarity with black protagonists. In other words, also members
of the dominant group may become change agents opposing the system of
domination. We’ll see in this book, for instance, that not only whites were
involved in several abolition movements, but also in political decision mak-
ing in parliament in favor of quotas for black students. In that sense, thus,
any protagonist opposing the prevailing system of racist domination should
be considered to be part of the antiracist movement. This is a very general
theoretical principle, which needs to be elaborated in more detail in the next
chapter. For instance, it would not include those who opposed slavery only
for economic or other practical reasons. So, we might need to require that
antiracist opposition to slavery (and racism) is based on a judgment that
slavery and racism are morally wrong. This again brings in the cognitive
basis (norms, values, ideologies) of social practices. We see that a theory of
antiracism requires further conceptual analysis, as do the defining notions of
resistance and social movement.
Introduction 5
The history of antiracist discourse presented in this book contributes part

of such a complex theoretical framework. Judged by contemporary standards,
early religious opposition against slavery was hardly antiracist, because such
opponents often did have negative stereotypes about black slaves. Thus, we
see that antiracism as a movement is constantly historically changing, using
increasingly stricter criteria of (resistance against) power abuse. The same is
true for the feminist movements—whose protagonists in the 18th and 19th
century often showed gender stereotypes about women and advocated more
limited rights for women than today. We may even generalize even further and
say the same for the historical development of democracy and human rights.
Hence, systems, movements and notions such as antiracism, feminism and
democracy are always contextually (locally and historically) relative. So,
advocating better treatment of the enslaved in the 17th and 18th century may
be defined as part of the history of antiracism, even when the abolition of
the system of slavery was not yet advocated, and slaves still may have been
described in terms of stereotypes—and therefore hardly antiracist by contem-
porary criteria. Such historical relativity does not necessarily imply either
that there is always progress in the struggle against inequality in general and
against racism in particular—as increasing contemporary racist, xenophobic
and nationalist developments both in Brazil, the U.S. and Europe show. For
Brazil, it is especially relevant to examine the history of slavery, antislavery
and antiracist resistance and their structural influence on contemporary society
(among many studies, see, e.g., those of Lilia Moritz Schwarcz, 1999, 2019).
We have seen that antiracist discourse is a special antiracist practice of the
antiracist movement. Thus, based on a theory of antiracism, we also need
to develop a theory of antiracist discourse, with an application in the his-
tory of such discourse in Brazil. Among other social and political practices,
discourse is special for various reasons. First of all, discourse is arguably
the most complex of human activities, more sophisticated even than human
language. Secondly, as we have summarized above, discourse expresses
and communicates complex mental structures, including intentions, goals,
knowledge, opinions, attitudes, norms, values and ideologies. Thus, antiracist
discourse not only has specific discourse structures, such as antiracist topics,
themes, arguments, narratives, metaphors or lexicon, but also is based on, and
reproduces, specific antiracist cognitions, such as attitudes, norms, values and
ideologies. For instance, as we shall also see in this book, antiracist discourse
may counter racist arguments in favor of slavery or make explicit the racist
ideologies of racist text and talk.
6 Chapter One
History of Antiracist Discourse

Although a detailed case study of antiracist discourse, as we present it in
chapter 6 on parliamentary debates on quotas, may exhibit the many specific
structures of such discourse, such as statistical proof of racist discrimina-
tion, the history of such discourse must also show how such discourse has
developed, e.g., as a function of changing social, political and communicative
contexts. Jesuits opposing slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries had different
addressees and readers than Members of Parliament today and different social
and political roles in different social and political systems. It is the second
main aim of this book to trace and show these discursive developments and
their changing contexts.
Theoretically, there is a relation between text and context—hence also
the very notion of con-text. In linguistics and much discourse studies, such
a relation has usually been formulated in terms of direct, causal influence of
properties of some social context and properties of language, language use or
discourse, such as the use of specific forms of politeness (such as the pronoun
vous in French) indicating a social relationship between speaker and addressee.
Our theory of context, on the contrary, holds that there is no such direct,
causal relationship between social structure and discourse structure, if only be-
cause these are very different kinds of structures. Indeed, having more power
does not cause the use of specific pronouns. Rather, the relation between
social structure and discourse structure is cognitively mediated. It is our cogni-
tive representation of a social structure that is able to influence the cognitive
structure of discourse. Thus, it is not the social relation of power that influ-
ences pronoun choice, but our knowledge of such power as it is represented in
the cognitive representation of the communicative situation, called the context
model, a notion we will examine in the next chapter. Obviously, this also holds
for the historical changes and developments of antiracist discourse: speakers
and writers adapt their antiracist discourse to their subjective representation
of their own social and political identities, their current goals, knowledge,
opinions and attitudes, as well as their representation of the identities of their
addressees. And since these context models of the authors are changing, also
their discourses are personally as well as socially changing.
Finally, this book is not about antiracism and antiracist discourse and its his-
tory in general, but about antiracism and antiracist discourse and its history in
Brazil. Hence, the social, political and historical contexts of these discourses
need to be related to the ways the Brazilian authors personally and collectively
represented these contexts and thus related them to the structures of their
discourses. This may mean, for instance, that the rhetorical structures of their
antiracist discourse were different from those of antiracist discourse in Europe
and the U.S. we have studied in a separate monograph (Van Dijk, 2021).
Introduction 7
Also in this book, as is the case generally, the study of history does not
merely show how antiracist discourse has changed or remained the same
between antislavery resistance and contemporary antiracist discourse. Rather
it allows analytical depth to the study of contemporary race relations and
discourse, as we’ll also see in the use of black history as a strategic move
in the discourses of (especially black) Members of Parliament in chapter 6.
Knowledge and consciousness of the Brazilian racist past offers analytical
insights into the understanding of contemporary (anti)racism, discrimination,
authoritarian attitudes and practices. We’ll see that many political activists
and academic analysts have observed the continuity between the mentality of
slaveowners and especially the economic elites (and their media) today. At
the same time, knowledge of the historical context provides protection against
anachronic analyses of past discourse, e.g., in distinguishing between antislav-
ery discourse of earlier centuries and contemporary antiracist discourse today.
The Multidisciplinary Theoretical Framework

We see that a theoretically satisfactory account of antiracist discourse and its
history requires a complex theoretical framework, relating antiracist discourse
as antiracist practice with antiracist cognition, including mental representa-
tions of historically changing communicative contexts, as part of a theory
of antiracism as a social movement. Each element of such a complex theory
then also needs to be related to the historically changing social, political and
communicative structures of Brazilian society, as represented by Brazilian
authors. And this is only a summary of a framework that analyzes the nature
of antiracist practices, antiracist personal and social cognitive structures (such
as knowledge and ideologies), the multiple structures of antiracist discourse,
and the different historical aspects of these structures and transformations.
Limitations
The complexity of the theoretical framework would require an encyclopedia
of studies on antiracist discourse and its history in Brazil. Hence, in one
monograph, we can only offer a partial account of such discourse, with the
following limitations:
• The general theoretical framework of antiracism, antiracist discourse and

its history can only be summarized here but requires much more detailed
elaboration. Some of the missing theoretical elements are presented in our
other publications.
8 Chapter One
• There are many antiracist authors in the history of Brazil. We only discuss
the work of some prominent ones, especially also the ones of which we
have access to their discourses.
• Most of these authors have engaged in many spoken and written dis-
courses, only a few can be cited here.
• A complete discourse analysis of these examples would require many
pages, so that we are able to mention only some relevant structures of their
discourses. A more complete analysis of antiracist discourse is offered in
chapter 6 on parliamentary debates on quotas.
• To understand and explain the discourse structures of these examples, we
would need to make explicit the complex, historically changing, social,
political, cultural and communicative contexts as they are subjectively
represented by these authors. For the authors and discourses discussed
here, only a few aspects of these contexts can be mentioned here. Each
author and his or her antiracist discourse deserves to be studied in separate
monographs.
• Antiracist discourse may consist of many discourse genres. Our examples
will generally be limited to social and political genres, and ignore poetry,
novels, theater, movies as well as many other discourses of a social move-
ment, such as personal conversations, slogans, programs and so on.
• The history of antiracist discourse in Brazil should be studied in relation-
ship with a study of such discourse in the U.S., Europe and, for instance,
South Africa and other countries in Latin America. No such international
context can be offered here, but we may refer to our study of antiracist
discourse in Europe and the U.S. (van Dijk, 2021)—for which this book
may be seen as a companion volume.
• All original examples in Portuguese have been translated into English in
this book but can be found at the following URL: www.discourses.org
/AntiracistDiscourseinBrazil.pdf. Names of organizations, newspapers, etc.
mentioned in the text have been left in the original Portuguese, with an Eng-
lish translation only if the original would require knowledge of Portuguese.
With these limitations this book hopes to contribute to a variety of fields and
disciplines, such as Critical Discourse Studies, Historical Discourse Studies,
Political Discourse Studies, as well as a large variety of studies of racism and
especially antiracism in the humanities and social sciences. As a case study
of antiracist discourse in Brazil, the book also intends to contribute to more
general Brazilian Studies, as well as Latin American Studies. As a study of
antiracism as a global and historical (macro) movement, the book is also a
contribution to multidisciplinary studies of social movements.
Chapter Two
Theoretical Framework
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter we present elements of the theoretical framework for the

study of antiracist discourse and its history in Brazil as presented in the next
chapters. As we have summarized in the previous chapter, this framework
is multidisciplinary. Though related to our other work on Critical Discourse
Studies, the study of antiracism, antiracist discourse and their history in
Brazil also needs political, social and historical theory. Some of this theory,
for instance on discourse, racism, racist discourse, knowledge, ideology and
context, has been offered in previous studies, to which we will refer for detail.
The theory of antiracism and antiracist discourse is new, as well as the his-
torical and Brazilian dimensions, but presupposes our earlier studies of racist
discourse (e.g., Van Dijk, 1984, 1987, 1991, 1993).
The structure of the theoretical framework also used in previous studies
is triangular: We analyze and relate sociopolitical structures with discourse
structures through an interface of sociocognitive structures (see, e.g., Van
Dijk, 1998, 2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2014). New in this book, as well as in my
other book on antiracist discourse (Van Dijk, 2021), is the fourth dimension:
history. This dimension characterizes the other three components of the the-
ory: Thus, sociopolitical structures, cognitive structures as well as discourse
structures each have their own historical dimension. Each also have a specific
local dimension: Brazil. Thus, in the next chapters, the sociopolitical, cogni-
tive and discursive structures and their historical developments are applied
and specified for Brazil—hence we need to describe and explain Brazilian
antiracist discourse and its specific historical development.
Compared to our previous work on racism, also new is the analysis of
antiracism as a historical and global social movement. The theoretical frame-
9
10 Chapter Two
work sketched here is therefore also a first installment of a more general

study in preparation on social movements, discourse and cognition. Such a
study is relevant given the fact that both the cognitive and discursive aspects
of social movements have been less developed in the dominant approach
of social movements, which is largely sociological (see, e.g., Della Porta &
Diani, 2015; for a multidisciplinary approach to social movements, see, e.g.,
Klandermans & Roggeband, 2010).
Antiracism
Before we deal with the main components of a multidisciplinary theory of
antiracism, in general, and of antiracist discourse, in particular, we need to
examine them in more general and informal terms.
Antiracism as historical, global movement

As we have briefly stated in chapter 1, a first useful approach to antiracism
is to define it as a social movement, comparable to for instance feminism
(Twine & Blee, 2001). The overall goal of that movement is to oppose all
forms of racism, as well as antisemitism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, colo-
nialism, slavery and related forms of ‘racial’ and ethnic inequality and power
abuse. This means that antiracism as a movement presupposes the existence
of racism as a widespread system of racial or ethnic domination.
Antiracism is a historical social movement, because it has opposed vari-
ous forms of racist inequality and domination throughout many centuries, in
Europe and the Americas first as a movement to criticize and combat slavery
of African and indigenous peoples, even before notions of ‘race,’ ‘racism’ and
‘antiracism’ were created in the 19th and 20th centuries (see Aptheker, 1992;
Van Dijk, 2021). In other words, we use contemporary inclusive terms to
describe systems of inequality and domination and the struggle against them,
not because the participants used them but because, as analysts, we need the
notions to describe these systems of domination and their opposition.
Antiracism is also a global movement, because it has been involved in the
critical opposition and struggle of many forms of racism in many countries
and on all continents (Bonnett, 2000; Bowser, 1995). However, especially
for the purpose of this book, we’ll limit racism to any form of power abuse
(domination) as engaged in by European (‘white’ or ‘whiter’) people and
their descendants anywhere in the world, against ‘non-white’ peoples, espe-
cially people of African descent as well as indigenous peoples. So, antiracism
will be understood here especially as a movement opposing ‘white racism’
(among many books, see, e.g., Feagin, Vera & Batur, 2001). Although rel-
evant for a more general theory of antiracism, we here ignore all forms of
Theoretical Framework 11
opposition against, for instance, Japanese prejudices against Koreans, inter-

ethnic conflicts in Asia, Africa or Europe, such as xenophobic or regional
discrimination in Europe or in North Italy against South Italians, among
many—which might be called forms of xenophobia or ethnicism. For histori-
cal reasons, however, antisemitism is analyzed as a form of racism, and hence
also opposed as part of antiracism. Despite the vast historical and regional
differences of racism, antiracism or (anti)ethnicism, there are interesting
structural similarities between the ideologies, prejudices and discriminatory
practices of dominating groups against ‘ethnic’ or ‘racial’ dominated groups.
Antiracism as a historical and global ‘macromovement’ consists of many
local and more specific social movements, such as abolition movements in
Europe and the Americas, the Civil Rights Movement and Black Lives Matter
in the U.S. or the Movimento Negro in Brazil.
As we will see in more detail below, antiracism as movement of resistance
may be more or less organized. From incidental acts of resistance of some
individuals or smaller groups to local, national or international formal social
movements organizations (SMOs).
Antiracism as resistance
As a social movement, antiracism is first of all actively engaged in by those
who are the target of slavery and other forms of racist domination, in our
case especially people of African descent and indigenous people, for instance
in Brazil. In that specific sense, antiracism is a form of resistance against
all forms of ‘racial’ or ethnic power abuse and violations of human rights
(among many books, see, e.g., Alexander, 1987; Berry, 1971; Brazil, 2002;
Cypriano & Anjos, 2006; De Mattos, 2008; Marable, 1996; Rodriguez,
2007b; Sivandan, 1982, 1990).
The abstract and generic notion of ‘resistance’ summarizes many forms of
oppositional, sociopolitical attitudes and practices, including discontent, dis-
approval, criticism, denunciation, non-cooperation, challenge, confrontation,
combat and struggle.
Antiracist resistance may be personal, but as a movement the main focus
is on collective resistance by the targets of racism as a dominated group
(Tajfel, 1982). Resistance by its members, thus, presupposes a shared identity
and consciousness as members of that group, and hence as part of collective
resistance (see, e.g., Stern, 1987). Therefore, besides a detailed analysis of
antiracist practices, the movement also needs to be defined in terms of its
socially shared cognitions, such as antiracist attitudes and ideologies, to be
discussed below.
Not all targets of racist domination are necessarily conscious of that domi-
nation, and in that sense not (yet) members of the antiracist movement. Hence
12 Chapter Two
the important ingroup activity of consciousness raising, that is, of antiracist

education (among many books, see, e.g., Kailin, 2002). As we know of many
other social movements, members may well be conscious of racist discrimi-
nation, but fail to participate in any personal or collective form of resistance.
Such resistance itself may take many forms, from non-compliance or disobe-
dience, collective actions such as protests and marches, to armed struggle.
Failure to actively participate, however, does not mean failure to agree or to
sympathize with the movement and its actions and its goals. Detailed analy-
ses of antiracist cognitions and actions of members or sympathizers yield
such complex patterns of antiracism as a social movement.
Membership of antiracism as a social movement is not limited to the tar-
gets of racism. Many white people may also resist racist domination, e.g.,
because such domination is against shared norms and values of equality and
justice, and their forms of resistance a form of solidarity with the targets of
racism (see, e.g., Crass, 2015; O’Brien, 2001). As is the case for the mem-
bers of dominated groups, also the participation of members of the dominant
group may take many active or passive forms, such as sympathy, support,
cooperation and participation in collective action. Interesting as well as
complex is the antiracist identity and consciousness of such members of the
antiracist movement, which may require critical analysis of their whiteness
(Tochluk, 2008). Intragroup criticism may produce conflict and being treated
as ‘traitors’ of the group. In that sense, white antiracists may face similar
reactions from other whites, and especially white racists, as do men who are
active members of feminism confronted by male chauvinists (Okun, 2014).
Antiracist members of the dominant group may occupy positions of power,
as is the case for change agents among the symbolic elites such as leading
professors, journalists or politicians (Van Dijk, 1993). In such a position their
antiracist attitudes and practices may contribute significantly to the antiracist
movement—possibly in conflict with the symbolic elites who sustain the
system of racism—because they have preferential access to public discourse
and hence to public opinion formation. In our study of parliamentary debates
on quotas for black students, for instance, we will observe how also white
Members of Parliament, especially those of the Partido dos Trabalhadores
(PT) in Brazil, are actively engaged in the political struggle in favor of quo-
tas. At the same time, they may be confronting white elites such as professors
and journalists opposed to quotas (for analysis and references, see chapter 6).
We see that the theoretical analysis of antiracism as a social movement
needs to accommodate also the incidental or structural participation of domi-
nant group members, organizations, political parties as well as organizations
of the state, such as government agencies and parliaments. It seems strange
to treat these as members of a movement of resistance, but the opposition of
a powerful and profoundly embedded system of racism may precisely require

such complex opposition—in which each member and organization has its
special goals and roles in the movement.
Through antiracist constitutions and legislation, national institutions such
as parliaments may thus become part of the antiracist movement in order to
curb specific racist practices such as slavery and racist discrimination on the
job (Cheng, 2017; Wodak & Van Dijk, 2000). In that case, antiracism may
become systemic as part of the sociopolitical transformation of society, as is
also the case, at least in some countries, for feminism or the environmental
movement. This may also be the case for antiracist policies of some business
corporations (but see the criticism of such policies in Blake, Ioanide & Reed,
2019). It should be noted, however, that official documents such as constitu-
tions, laws and policies do not mean that they have decisive influence on the
actual antiracist beliefs and practices among the majority of the (white) popu-
lation at large, making the system of racism marginal, or at least less prevalent.
Antiracism as Social Transformation

Antiracism goes beyond the struggle against racism, even when this may
be its permanent first aim. It is not only against power abuse, but also for a
democratic society without racism and respecting human and social rights.
Although the critical function of antiracism has its theoretical and practical
problems, it is fairly transparent by what criteria it opposes racist prejudices
and discrimination, e.g., by the criterion of the violation of fundamental val-
ues such as freedom, equality and justice. But the more general question then
remains: what if we were able to eradicate all forms of racism? Is it enough
to have a non-racist society?
These and related questions have been debated also in the many studies
on multiculturalism. How are ethnically diverse societies managed, how are
ethnic or race relations implemented, how is power equally distributed, how
can minorities be protected within a democracy where, by definition, the
majority has the political power? In other words, we also need to theorize
about antiracism as social and political transformation when we observe that
many forms of ethnic or racial injustice and inequality are still prevalent in
diverse societies. The questions here are more abundant than the answers, and
we may even not yet have the right questions. The issues also go far beyond
racism and antiracism and touch fundamental philosophical and political
challenges of just democratic societies, topics that are beyond the scope of
this chapter and this book (for debate see, e.g., about various aspects of mul-
ticulturalism, Arneil, 2006; Benhabib, 2002; Kelly, 2002; Kymlicka, 1995;
Modood, 2013; for multicultural debate in Brazil, see, e.g., Adesky, 2001;
14 Chapter Two
Barros, 2008; De Oliveira, 2006; Kabengele Munanga, 1999; Santos, Barreira

& Baumgarten, 2003).
Without even a complete summary of issues, let us briefly mention a few
topics where antiracism and multiculturalism overlap in the definition of the
goals of a democratic society without racism. This means, first of all, that any
kind of racially, ethnically or culturally diverse society should continue to
struggle against all forms of racism. This continuous struggle is as complex
as society itself, and may involve broad legislation, rules, agencies, support of
antiracist organizations, protection of vulnerable minorities, antiracist educa-
tion and textbooks, processes against racist media and so on. This very task,
at the societal level, is so complex that obviously, because of lacking infinite
resources and time, priorities must be set, such as prohibition and persecution
of the most violent, dangerous and consequential forms of racist aggression
against, and discrimination of, the largest or most vulnerable ethnic/racial
minorities. The same is true for the protection against the massive manipula-
tion of ethnic/racial prejudices and ideologies.
Since most societies are ethnically/racially diverse, obviously a democratic
society needs other sociopolitical goals, rules and rights beyond the struggle
against all forms of racism. Here are some that are closely related to the
struggle against racism, partly illustrated with examples from Brazil:
• Antiracist Legislation. Obviously, a main task of an antiracist society is

legislation against all forms of racism, and especially against the many
forms of discrimination. In Brazil, the new constitution of 1988 declared
racism a “crime inafiançável e inprescriptível” (Lafer, 2005).
• Affirmative Action. Does the state need to offer special support to (mem-
bers of) ethnic/racial minorities that were historically enslaved, oppressed
and discriminated against and as a consequence are still in a socioeconomi-
cally subordinate position? Is denying such special support a form of racism
because it prevents such minorities from advancing to an equal position
with dominant white groups? The question is relevant for the analysis of
parliamentary debates in Brazil about quotas for black students, who until
the early 2000s were severely underrepresented in universities. As we’ll see
in the discourses analyzed in chapter 6, politicians, media and professors
opposing such a form of affirmative action were often accused of racism by
proponents of this form of affirmative action. The question more generally
is relevant for many other forms of affirmative action, e.g., on the job, pro-
motions, appointments, and diversity in political parties, government agen-
cies, and so on. Thus, we’ll see in chapter 5 that famous African Brazilian
politician, activist and scholar Abdias do Nascimento criticized the military
regime for failing to appoint black ambassadors even to African countries.
• Black History. Among the many topics discussed in debates about mul-
ticulturalism is the (lack of) official attention for the culture, language,
religion or history of ethnic minority groups. Thus, black students in Brazil
hardly ever read about their African heritage until black history became an
obligatory topic of education under President Lula. In other words, part of
an antiracist society is providing official recognition, provisions and sup-
port for the fundamental sociocultural dimensions of minority groups. Such
group rights also are personally relevant because they may contribute to the
self-esteem of minority group members, and hence to their socioeconomic
opportunities. In Brazil, Black Consciousness Day (November 20) is widely
respected and celebrated, and in chapter 6 we’ll see that many of the par-
liamentary debates on affirmative action and racism are held on that day.
These are merely a few examples directly relevant for this book. But there
are many other aspects of multi-ethnic societies were freedom, equality and
justice for minority groups need to be guaranteed, protected or promoted,
typically their political representation, autonomy, language and religion, and
so on. Such “identity politics” however has many contradictions, e.g., when
dominant laws, norms and values clash with those of minority groups, and
when individual freedoms of minority group members are limited by the
norms and values of the group. Such contradictions have been discussed in the
debate between communitarian vs. liberal perspectives on minority groups and
race relations, and more general theoretical and political criticisms of (some
tenets of) multiculturalism. For instance, against the view of separate cultures,
a cosmopolitan perspective holds that in most contemporary societies cultures
have interacted and have become hybrid. Some theorists hold that only indi-
vidual human rights should be protected, not group rights, and others that a
multicultural focus on minority groups may harm the social rights of all those
who need a politics of redistribution rather than of identity. Some of these top-
ics will become relevant in the analysis of parliamentary debates in chapter 6.
Relevant for this theoretical chapter, as well as for the analyses in the next
chapters is the point that a democratic, egalitarian society not only should
be non-racist and provide all means to oppose all forms of racism, but also
should create guarantees that original or immigrant minority groups and their
members are able to exercise the same rights and opportunities as dominant
groups and their members.
Antiracist Cognition
Although often neglected in social and political approaches to social move-
ments in general, and in the study of antiracism in particular, the cognitive
16 Chapter Two
aspects of antiracist practices and discourse are crucial to understand anti-

racism. This does not mean that we thereby individualize a sociopolitical
movement such as antiracism. On the contrary, an important part of the
cognitive theory is social, and dealing with mental representations shared by
the members of a social movement. But these members also have personal
characteristics, such as their personal experiences, memories, opinions and
goals as they are expressed or implemented in their personal discourse and
other antiracist practices. In sum, we need to analyze both personal as well
as social antiracist cognition, and explicitly relate these in a general theory
of antiracism. Although a fully fledged cognitive theory of antiracism and
antiracist discourse would require a monograph by itself, we will briefly
summarize the main cognitive notions used, such as knowledge, attitudes,
ideologies and mental models, and focus on the history of antiracist discourse
in the next chapters.
Knowledge
Socioculturally shared knowledge is the basis of all cognition. Without such
knowledge we are unable to engage in action and interaction, produce or
understand discourse, or understand the world in which we live. This vast
knowledge of the world is slowly built up during our lives, and generated from
multimodal experiences, interaction and discourse as well as the inferences
derived from them (among a vast number of books, see, e.g., Goldman, 1986).
Knowledge is assumed to consists of specific concepts and beliefs stored
in ‘social’ Long Term Memory (LTM) as they are coded in the brain and
organized in various ways making it efficiently accessible, e.g., in hierarchi-
cal categories (e.g., cars and bicycles are vehicles), component relations (cars
have wheels), schemas or socially conventional scripts (we know how to go
to the movies).
Relevant for the theory of this book is that knowledge is basic for the
production and comprehension of antiracist discourse (for references, see
Van Dijk, 2014). To understand words, sentences and larger fragments
of discourse, we not only must activate the grammar and the lexicon of a
specific language, but also our socially shared knowledge of the situations
and events the discourse is about, together construing the local and global
meaning of a discourse.
Antiracist knowledge
As is the case for all knowledge as a basis of perception, action and discourse,
antiracist knowledge is necessary to engage in antiracist practices, in general,
and antiracist discourses, in particular. To oppose racist action or talk, we
need to know that they are racist in the first place, or at least that they violate
certain social norms and values. For instance, one of these values is equal-
ity, and if we are treated unequally because of our color, gender, sexuality or
class, we know that we are being discriminated against—and we may learn to
conclude the same when others are being treated differently because of such
a violation of norms and values. As members of a ‘racial’ or ethnic group,
we acquire such knowledge as part of our socialization as group members.
Besides very general knowledge about social norms and values and their ap-
plication in specific situations of social interaction, we may also acquire spe-
cific ‘script’ knowledge about prototypical racist events and situations, e.g.,
when the police stop our car without reason, check our papers, or otherwise
treat us differently from white folk. Similarly, such racist practice may more or
less subtly be engaged in when people talk to us, e.g., when violating general
norms of politeness (see, e.g., Dei & Calliste, 2000; Prah, 2000).
A systematic analysis of antiracist discourse presupposes such knowledge
of racist situations, events and actions. As we shall see in more detail below,
such discourse may simply tell a story about a racist event, or protest against
specific aspects of such an event.
To interpret discourse and events as racist, we obviously need to know
what racism is in the first place. Such knowledge, however, is historically
dated as well as unequally socially shared. Many of the discourses in this
book, for instance, are about slavery, and presuppose knowledge about slav-
ery, but—strictly speaking—not about racism, a concept developed only in
the 20th century. Still, we call them antiracist today because they oppose the
bad or unequal treatment of black people, and because the authors of such dis-
course oppose slavery as a violation of fundamental social norms and values
such as equality, liberty and justice.
To know that a situation, event, action or discourse is racist, we not only
must activate and apply our knowledge about racism and about the viola-
tion of specific social norms and values. We may need to analyze a social
situation, including its participants, actions, interactions, discourses, circum-
stances, as well as the assumed intentions or goals of the participants and their
current identities, roles and relations.
Antiracist attitudes
Besides socioculturally shared knowledge, we also have socially shared opin-
ions about important social issues such as immigration, abortion or the death
penalty: attitudes. These attitudes relate generic situations, action and events
with evaluations based on socially shared values and norms. Such an evalua-
tion may be summarized as being for or against an issue. Antiracist attitudes
usually presuppose racist attitudes. In many of the discourses of this book, for
18 Chapter Two
instance, authors share an antiracist attitude about slavery, and by expressing

or otherwise showing such an attitude they may oppose racist attitudes about
slavery. We’ll assume that their antislavery/antiracist practices are based
on an antislavery/antiracist attitude (for attitudes and race, see, e.g., Banks,
2014; Grant, 2000; Helbling, 2012; for Brazil, see Bailey, 2009).
Although there are many theories about the cognitive structure or orga-
nization of knowledge, we know little about the cognitive properties of at-
titudes—also because they were traditionally studied by behaviorist social
psychology rather than cognitive psychology (Petty, Fazio, & Brinol, 2008).
Different from traditional social psychology, for instance, we define attitudes
as socially shared by the members of social groups, and not as personal opin-
ions of individuals.
Given the many discourses about slavery examined in this book, we may
try to reconstruct their socially and historically changing social attitudes
about slavery, based on their socially shared knowledge about slavery. Such
complex attitudes may feature knowledge about slaves, where they come
from, what work they do and how they are treated, and about slave masters
and their abuses, as well as about laws and regulations on slavery—among
many other aspects. The antiracist attitude on slavery may thus feature critical
opinions on slavery as a system at a general level, and opinions about slave
masters and their practices, the work slaves must do, as well as empathy with
their “wretched” condition. For instance, Jesuits critical of the treatment of
slaves at length wrote about punishments and other abuses, the need of rest,
food and clothes, and so on. Their discourses thus contributed to the (slow)
development of socially shared critical attitudes about slavery, attitudes that
finally led to the political abolition of slavery.
The example also shows that there are significant personal differences of
social attitudes. Many people may only have a general negative attitude about
slavery, without detailed knowledge of the ways slaves are or were treated.
We may generally assume that dominated groups have more extensive anti-
racist attitudes about the ways they are discriminated, e.g., about policing or
affirmative action.
Antiracist ideology
Racist discourse and other social practices are assumed to be based on racist
ideology. The same may be assumed for antiracist activities as well as their
underlying antiracist attitudes—which need to be organized by a fundamental
antiracist ideology. Although we don’t know what the general structure of
ideologies are, they probably feature such categories as the identity, general
actions, goals, norms and values and reference groups (Van Dijk, 1998). Such
an ideology must be quite general and abstract, because it must organize
many different antiracist attitudes as well as interpretations of many group

members of many situations and discourses. Thus, an antiracist ideology
underlies antiracist attitudes—and the discourses and other practices that ex-
press them—about such general issues as slavery, colonialism, immigration,
refugees or affirmative action, among other issues.
Ideologies are typically polarized by ingroups and outgroups, Us vs. Them.
This polarization influences the structure of attitudes as well as the discourses
based on them, as we shall also see in our analysis of antiracist discourse in
the next chapters. Often this polarization is expressed in discourse by empha-
sizing the negative characteristics of Them, and the positive ones of Us—as
is also the case in antislavery and other antiracist discourse.
Since racist practices are ultimately controlled by racist ideologies, one of the
important aims of antiracism is to critically analyze, oppose and delegitimate
racist ideologies, in general, and the general racist attitudes they control, in
particular. The antislavery discourses examined in the next chapters, for in-
stance, challenge the racist ideology of the superiority of white people and the
inferiority of black people, and the attitudes based on them, such as those about
slavery as a system and practice and the treatment of black people in general.
Antiracist ideology is based on values of equality and justice, and antiracist
ideological discourse may thus challenge the opposition against affirmative
action claiming that giving priority to black students violates the value of
equality by showing that requiring equal treatment for people in unequal
position actually reproduces racist inequality, as we shall see in the debates
in chapter 6.
The same is true for the universalist opposition against quotas, claiming
that special support should not be given to (usually poor) black students, but
to all poor students, or should rather focus on the improvement of all pub-
lic schools. These arguments against quotas apparently respect democratic
values, but in practice fail to get more black students into the universities
because the general social conditions (better schools for all) won’t be real-
ized any time soon. We see that many forms of antiracism are ideological
struggles. As Piketty (2020) shows in his new book on capital and ideology,
all forms of inequality are justified by underlying ideologies, and the same is
true for racist ideologies. The same is true for systems of equality and justice,
as advocated by antiracism and feminism.
Personal mental models

Antiracist movements are collectively and cognitively identified by their
antiracist knowledge, attitudes and ideologies. Their members may variably
share these forms of social cognition and presuppose them in their discourse,
everyday actions and interaction with other members.
20 Chapter Two
But individual members of the antiracist movement are not only character-
ized by their beliefs (or social characteristics) shared with other members,
but also have individual characteristics, such as personal experiences and
opinions. They participate in antiracist events and collective action also as in-
dividuals, with their own personal interests, autobiography and goals. Crucial
for the theory and history of antiracist discourse is that their discourse is not
only shaped by socially shared knowledge, attitudes and ideologies, but also
by these personal experiences and ideas.
One of the notions used in the cognitive psychology of discourse is that of
mental model (Johnson-Laird, 1983; Van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). A mental
model is a mental representation of an experience, stored in autobiographi-
cal memory. Someone who is experiencing a racist event construes a mental
model of such event, featuring standard categories such as time, place, par-
ticipants (and their identities, roles and relations), an event or action, as well
as goals, knowledge and opinions. When telling about such event later, we
activate the mental model, and—depending on context (see below)—express
it in a story, a conversation, an e-mail or an official complaint with the po-
lice. Such mental models may be multimodal, and feature for instance visual
or other sensory information about the event. If we accumulate such mental
models of racist experiences, we may of course generalize and abstract from
such personal, specific models, and compare them with the models as told
by other (antiracist) group members, and thus form or confirm antiracist at-
titudes, for instance on various forms of everyday discrimination.
These personal mental models are usually not completely personal, be-
cause we tend to construe our experiences also by activating and applying
socially shared cognitions such as attitudes and ideologies. Thus, in the same
way as a feminist may interpret sexist experiences as sexist, also experienced
antiracists have the cognitive resources to recognize racist conduct as such.
We not only construe models about racist situations, but also of the ongo-
ing communicative situation we participate in: context models (Van Dijk,
2008, 2009). These context models allow us to adapt our discourse to the
communicative situation. Thus, we may adapt a story about a racist experi-
ence in a conversation with a friend, but also in an interview, a written story
or poem, or an official report to the police. Hence stories of racism are con-
trolled by the subjective ‘semantic’ mental model of the racist event, as well
as by the ‘pragmatic’ context model of the communicative situation. Context
models define whether or not a discourse is appropriate. Indeed, a story about
a recent event may well be true, but it is not always appropriate to tell it.
Mental models of racist experiences are typically expressed in stories, and
such stories may by themselves be communicative events of the members
of antiracist movements and resistance (see, e.g., Polletta, 2006). In chapter
6 we’ll find examples of stories told by black parliamentarians about their

experiences with racist discrimination.
Antiracist Actors, Action and Interaction

Antiracist cognitions are literally embedded in antiracist actors, and antiracist
movements are defined first of all by their members, that is, by such actors
(Nelson, 2015). The cognitive aspects of these members have been discussed
above. But they also have social and political properties. They have social
identities, roles and relations. They may be leaders or followers, organizers
or mere participants of collective action. Their identities, roles and relations
define and are defined by their relationships with other members, or with
other persons or organizations, as is the case for teachers and student, for
media managers and the public, or by the type of action engaged in, such as
directing a meeting, teaching a lesson or giving an interview. These roles and
identities have been extensively studied in the sociology of social movements
(on leadership, see, e.g., Barker, Johnson & Lavalette, 2001; Stutje, 2012).
We’ll see in the next chapters that many of the antiracist discourses in Brazil
we discuss are formulated by charismatic leaders of the abolition and black
movements. Contemporary social movements, on the other hand, might pre-
fer a more horizontal organization, without the hierarchy of powerful leaders
(see, e.g., Sitrin, 2005; Uitermark, 2017).
Besides by antiracist personal and social cognition and their participants,
antiracism is defined by antiracist practices, that is, by personal or collective
antiracist action and interaction, such as participating in a march or an occu-
pation. The plan or memory of such an action is represented in the individual
mental models of the participants, possibly at least slightly different because
of the individual biography, earlier experiences (old models), goals, interests,
etc. of each participant—which may be told about in different personal sto-
ries about the event (for studies of antiracist agency, see, e.g., Castle, 2018;
Nelson, 2015, O’Brien, 2001; Scott, 2000; Slocum, 2006).
Because antiracist action is usually engaged in with other antiracist mem-
bers, participants need to adapt their activities to those of others, in complex
forms of interaction, negotiation, coordination, etc.—if only by their body
movements, like marching together, occupying places and so on (Crass,
2013). Hence also the relevance of personal multimodal mental models of
these forms of collective action. In chapter 6 we’ll pay special attention to
the (inter)actions of politicians in parliamentary debates, and to the actions of
professors and students engaged in affirmative action movements.
The structure of antiracist action and interaction as part of a social move-
ment in general, or of an antiracist social movement, may be assessed by a
22 Chapter Two
microsociological analysis. Thus, it may feature various forms of preparation,

organization, execution, control and evaluation. It may anticipate reactions of
the police or other agents and persons of the dominant group, such as racist
mobs. In other words, whether among other antiracist members, or in interac-
tion with various kinds of opponent, complex forms of interaction need to
be examined (see, e.g., Mitchell, Every & Ranzijn, 2011, Whitehead, 2015).
Finally, antiracist movements are not just defined by actors and action, but
also by their organization. That is, besides a typical microsociological ap-
proach, we may need elements of a classical macrosociological approach of
organizations and movements, e.g., in terms of their (non-)hierarchical, hori-
zontal structures of leadership or decision making, as well as their relationship
with other organizations or the state, with the police or the media, and so on.
Such an analysis may typically involve how the movement is reproduced by
acquiring new members, how it is started and abandoned or how it is covered in
the media (for antiracist organization, see, e.g., Dashtipour & Rumens, 2018).
Antiracist actors, actions and organizations collectively define the antira-
cist struggle, and hence usually face more or less tough opposition. This is
famously shown in the police oppression of the Civil Rights Movement or the
opposition against the Black Lives Matter movement in the U.S. In the next
chapters we’ll read about the reactions of slaveowners in Brazil against the ab-
olition movement, or of the media against quotas for black students in Brazil.
Within the broader, multidisciplinary framework briefly summarized above,
a theory of antiracist discourse first of all defines such discourse as a form of
antiracist practice in general, and as communicative and social action and in-
teraction in particular. Indeed, probably the most frequent and influential form
of social movement activity are text and talk. As we have seen above, stories
and other discourse genres are crucial in the expression and communication
of the cognitive aspects of the movements and its members, such as personal
mental models of racist experiences, shared antiracist knowledge, attitudes and
experiences, as well as group plans and goals (among other studies, see, e.g.,
Davis, 2002; Garcia Agustín, 2015; Polletta, 2006).
Thus, also antiracist movements are not just defined by their non-verbal
action, but largely also by the myriad of discourses defining the interaction
between members in preparations, organization of actions or meetings, their
interaction with politicians and the media, their programs, manifestos, slogans,
own media, participating in social media, publicity, websites, movies and so on.
Each of these genres of antiracist discourse needs analysis of its com-
municative contexts (who talks/writes what to whom, when and why etc.),
their overall organization (superstructures), their overall topics of themes

(semantic macrostructures), their local semantic strategies (e.g., describing
racist actors and actors, implications and presuppositions), their more or less
formal or colloquial style adapted to the communicative situation, their rheto-
ric of enhancing the description of racist events and actions and so on (for
some studies of antiracist discourse, see, e.g., Benwell, 2012; Blommaert &
Verschuren, 1994; Cheng, 2017; Every & Augoustinos, 2007; Fozdar, 2008;
House, 1997; Lloyd, 1998; Machin & Mayr, 2007; Nelson, 2015).
Contemporary discourse theory and analysis have become rather sophis-
ticated in providing detailed descriptions of such antiracist discourse—and
more generally may contribute significantly to the study of social move-
ments in general. Some of these structures will be examined in some detail
in the next chapters (for general discourse studies, see, among many other
books, e.g., Tannen, Hamilton & Schiffrin, 2015; Van Dijk, 2011; for criti-
cal discourse studies, see, e.g., Caldas-Coulthard & Coulthard, 1996; Fair-
clough, 1995; Flowerdew & Richardson, 2018; Hart & Cap, 2014; Machin &
Mayr, 2012; Van Dijk, 2008; Van Leeuwen, 2008; Wodak, 2013). The next
chapters will provide more specific references to discourse structures used
in antiracist discourse.
Elite vs. popular antiracist discourse

In one of our monographs on racist discourse (Van Dijk, 1993) we defended
the thesis that racist discourse is generally pre-formulated by the ‘symbolic
elites,’ that is, by professionals and organizations that have preferential access
to public discourse, typically leading politicians, professors and journalists.
The basic argument underlying this thesis is that racist attitudes and ideolo-
gies underlying racist practices are not innate but socially acquired, and that
such acquisition is largely discursive, that is, based on many different media
discourses, textbooks, children stories, political debates and propaganda,
legislation, policies, scholarly debates and so on. This thesis implies that the
development of racism is generally top-down, that is, preformulated by elites
and the discourses they control, and followed, reproduced and adapted in the
everyday discourses and practices among the population at large.
Based on the same arguments, also antiracism could be defined as largely
pre-formulated top-down, that is, initiated by antiracist writers who have ac-
cess to public discourse, such as political leaders, journalists, teachers as well
as religious leaders, and then partly accepted and adapted by fragments of the
population at large, and specifically by those who are the targets of racism.
Also the history of antiracist discourse as summarized in this book seems to
support such a thesis, because we obviously only have access to such public
24 Chapter Two
discourse as it was published by such elites, and not the everyday discourses
of slaves or even of black militants and their white supporters.
In the theoretical account of antiracism as a social movement, as formu-
lated above, we do emphasize that antiracist resistance, featuring antiracist
cognition and action, is both collective and individual. Indeed, collective an-
tiracist resistance presupposes the very participation of individual members,
whatever their access to public antiracist elite discourse—if only as based
on personal experiences with racism, as is the case for black slaves as well
as discriminated black people (see e.g., Kelley, 1994). Thus, the history of
slavery has shown the multiple ways individual slaves resisted racist oppres-
sion, e.g., by running away and joining maroon societies. In sum, antiracism
crucially also takes place “from below” (Aquino, 2016).
Today, the theory of antiracism, in general, and of antiracist discourse, in
particular, needs to be reformulated especially due to the influence of social
media such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and other forms of
access to public discourse for large portions of the public, including most
members of discriminated groups, on the one hand, and of members of rac-
ist groups and organizations on the other hand. Elite racist and antiracist
discourse by politicians, journalists and scholars no longer seems exclusive,
let alone dominant. Studies of racist and antisemitic discourse on for instance
Facebook and Twitter seem to confirm such changes in the formulation and
circulation of public discourse (see, e.g., Allington, 2018; Farkas, Schou &
Neumayer, 2018, Matamoros-Fernandez, 2017; Rauch & Schanz, 2013). In
other words, racist discourse no longer seems to be reproduced top-down,
based on elite discourse, but also has at least an important ‘popular’ source.
No doubt, the same must be true for antiracist discourse as formulated in
social media, if only as reactions to racist discourse on the same media, or
as online commentary on racist elite discourse of politicians of dominant
traditional media such as newspaper, television and radio (see, e.g., Mislan
& Dache-Gerbino, 2018). In sum, the development and spread of racist and
antiracist discourse has become much more complex, and not only or not
primarily (pre-)formulated by the symbolic elites.
And yet, even this correction on (our, and others’) earlier theory of the
discourse-based reproduction of racism needs to be qualified—making also
the theory of antiracist discourse and its influence more complex.
First of all, many comments on Facebook, Twitter and other social media
are—as before—premised on reading or seeing traditional mass media and
publications, and hence at least influenced (positively or negatively) by elite
racist or antiracist discourse. Indeed, the public of Facebook and Twitter us-
ers only has limited access to information about public events and opinion,
unless published in traditional media. That is, it is similar to everyday con-
versational comments in families, or among friends or colleagues on the job

about media discourse and the events reported in them. The difference is that
today many of these comments may appear in personal Facebook and Twitter
messages, and thus have secondary influence among their users.
Secondly, as before, individual racist and antiracist discourse today is in-
fluenced by the public discourses of racist or antiracist movements, today not
only in movement media and messages (pamphlets, etc.), but also in the web-
sites or social media accounts of such organizations. Since such discourses
are largely pre-formulated by the leaders of such movements, the reproduc-
tion of (anti)racist discourse is still at least partly top-down.
Thirdly, tendencies of very influential (anti)racist messages on social me-
dia may again be reproduced in the traditional media, and thus have second-
ary influence through their legitimation by elite discourse—as well as their
online comments—thus closing the circle of influence and reproduction.
In sum, although the (re)production of (anti)racist discourse today has
become much more complex than 20–30 years ago, we stress the continued
influence of various forms of elite discourse of both traditional media and
their own presence on social media, on the one hand, and the increased influ-
ence of (anti)racist organizations and their much more prominent access to
public discourse, e.g., in their websites, blogs, and social media accounts, on
the other hand.
For the study of antiracist discourse today, this probably means that most of
the more prominent antiracist opinions and attitudes shared among members
of antiracist movements have been formulated by antiracist elites in the mass
media, research and social movement organizations. Unfortunately, the pres-
ent study about antiracist discourse in Brazil as yet had no access to research
about antiracist discourse as reproduced through the social media (for racism,
see, e.g., Aldano Alves Rodrigues, 2019; Müller, 2019: for antiracism on
YouTube, see, e.g., the thesis by Cutrim Nunes, 2018). Research of antiracist
discourse on contemporary social media would require a separate monograph.
History
Especially relevant for this book is the historical dimension of antiracism and
its discourse (see the classical study of Aptheker about the history of antira-
cism in the U.S., 1992). Indeed, the many practices of antiracist resistance,
antiracist cognition as well as antiracist discourse, each have their own—but
related—historical dimension. They are historically developing and chang-
ing, e.g., as function of changing sociopolitical, epistemic and ideological
conditions. We’ll see that slave resistance in Brazil in the 16th through 18th
centuries, thus, is quite different from that of black intellectuals analyzing
26 Chapter Two
racism in the 20th centuries, and both fundamentally different from Jesuit
priests advocating less harsh forms of slavery in the 17th and 18th century,
or of (white) sociologists of the University of São Paulo analyzing prejudices
against blacks after World War 2.
But despite these historical differences, largely due to the changing forms
and evaluations of oppression and their targets, the shared main goal was to
alleviate, diminish or abolish slavery and to struggle against the many forms
of racism. And as long as racism has similar characteristics through the ages,
we may also find similarities of resistance. As we’ll see in the coming chap-
ters, semantic and rhetorical strategies of antislavery and antiracist discourse
through the centuries may be remarkably similar, such as detailed descrip-
tions of racist abuse or racial inequality, the numbers game and statistics,
reference to Christian and other norms and values, appealing to God and
other authorities, shaming by international comparisons, and so on. A classic
example is the argument of the Golden Rule, requiring racist actors to act as
they want themselves to be treated by others (for discourse-historical studies,
see, e.g., Martin & Wodak, 2003; Reisigl, 2017; Tarrow, 2013).
Although not all antiracist actors or writers are well informed about the
history of antislavery or antiracist events, practices and discourse, there is
evidence that at least leaders and ideologues of the movement have been
inspired by previous antiracist discourses—a crucial form of intertextuality
producing historical continuity (for the history of antislavery and antiracist
movements in Brazil, see the references in the next chapters).
We have already emphasized that as a social movement antiracism has
modest historical beginnings, after incidental criticism of slavery in Antiq-
uity, in the antislavery writings especially of Catholic priests in Latin Amer-
ica, such as Bartolomé de las Casas in Mexico, and Jesuit priests in Brazil,
on the one hand, and the sermons and writing of Quakers against slavery in
the UK and North America (van Dijk, 2021). We have also stressed that such
antislavery discourse is not explicitly antiracist, not only because the very
notions of race and racism did not exist as yet, but also because appeals to
alleviate slavery were not yet an appeal of abolition, nor a non-racist descrip-
tion of black slaves. For a study of the history of antiracism, it is again useful
to compare with feminism, whose history has been described in many books
(see, e.g., Bennett, 2006; Browne, 2014; Dascal, 2012; Freedman, 2002; Mor-
gan, 2006; see also Tilly, Castañeda & Wood, 2020).
For the historical analysis of antiracism, thus, it is important to stress that
there is a slow and hardly linear progression of antiracist criteria, values and
goals, and that antiracist action and discourse in the 17th century may not
qualify as such today. A good comparison is the historical development of
democracy. Thus, we may speak of the beginnings of democracy in Ancient
Greece, even when by contemporary standards, there was no question of

social equality two millennia ago. In other words, democracy needs to be
“reinvented” constantly (Sitrin & Azzelleni, 2014). Antiracism, feminism
and democracy are obviously relative notions, relative to the varying norms,
values, criteria and goals in each historical and social situation. To assess
such changes and continuities, therefore, also the sociocognitive dimension
of antiracist beliefs requires its own historical analysis.
So, what is the fundamental criterion to be able to identify the many forms
of antiracism through the centuries? Actual antiracist practices may be quite
different, antiracist discourse also may change, but whatever these differ-
ences, the basic idea that remains the same is sociocognitive and ideological:
the value of social equality of human beings, whatever their origin or appear-
ance. The resistance against any social or political practice that violates that
principle remains the continuous historical goal of antiracism through the
ages. It is not surprising that the discursive continuity of antiracism also is
defined by the many expressions, arguments, stories or proofs based on that
fundamental humanistic value—also defining human rights in general.
Concluding Remarks
From this brief summary of some of the main elements of a theory of antira-
cism as a social movement, we have a generic framework for an integrated,
social, political and cognitive analysis of the Brazilian history of antiracist
discourse in the coming chapters, as well as suggestions for the analysis of
the discourses of our case study of the parliamentary debates about university
quotas for black students.
It should be emphasized that the theoretical framework summarized here is
merely an overall sketch, and in need of further analysis, concept formation
as well as empirical support. Studies are necessary, and some have already
been provided, of antiracist marches or occupations, antiracist organizations,
media, websites, personal motivations, as well as of slogans or stories, among
many others. Each may need complete monographs of the cognitive, social,
political or discursive structures involved in the antiracist movement, as well
as in its historical developments, continuities and changes.
Chapter Three
Antislavery and Abolitionist Discourse
INTRODUCTION
This and the next chapters provide an overview of the history of (pre and
post) abolitionist and antiracist discourse in Brazil. This history is important
because most studies of racism and racist discourse, and especially of antira-
cism and antiracist discourse, are about “north-western” countries. Brazil not
only is a huge country, with the largest black population outside of Africa,
but also suffers from centuries of slavery until its (late) abolition in 1888, and
important forms of racial prejudice and discrimination until today.
Slavery and racist domination in Brazil have been resisted by the African-
Brazilian population from the beginning, first by runaway slaves and their
quilombos, then by black and white abolitionists in the 19th century, and fi-
nally in the 20th century by the Movimento Negro as well as black and white
scholars, politicians and activists. Although this movement has many local
and national characteristics, defined by the history and unique race relations
in Brazil, there are also interesting relationships with the Civil Rights Move-
ment in the U.S., extensively studied by both Brazilian and North American
scholars (De Azevedo, 1995; Degler, 1971; Toplin, 1981).
One of the reasons of this international interest in racism and race relations
in Brazil, especially in comparison with those in the U.S., was no doubt the
myth of the democracia racial in Brazil, largely due to the work of Gilberto
Freyre. According to this myth, widely believed by many until today, race
relations in Brazil, even under slavery, were less harsh and less polarized
compared with those in the U.S., also because of the unique racial mixture of
the population, if not by the ‘cordial’ nature of everyday social interaction in
Brazil, e.g., as alleged in the work of influential historian Sergio Buarque de
Holanda (1936/1995).
29
30 Chapter Three
Although African-Brazilian slaves and intellectuals had their own critical

view of these “benign” Brazilian race relations, the first official demystifica-
tion of the myth of the democracia racial had to wait until sociological schol-
arship in the 1970s, showing that prevalent inequality was not just a question
of class, but due to systematic forms of racist discrimination in all domains of
society. Of course, the black population did not need the research of (mostly
white) sociologists to know that their poverty and discrimination, also after
abolition, in all domains of social life, were due to racism. Yet their initial
lack of access to dominant political and scientific discourse, and late and
limited access to arts and culture, did not make their voices nationally heard.
Slavery and Abolition

The history of slavery in Brazil is as harsh as anywhere. Even before the
enslavement of Africans, indigenous people were already exploited as
slaves by Portuguese colonists, originally also by other indigenous tribes.
But slavery became systemic with the direct importation of African slaves,
especially since the mid-16th century, after earlier transport via Portugal in
the 15th century.
No country in the Americas imported as many slaves as Brazil, with Rio de
Janeiro as the main port of entry: 40% of all slaves were transported to Brazil
(only 10% to North America). Until 1866, Dutch, English and later also Bra-
zilian ships transported nearly five million African slaves to Brazil, despite
the prohibition of the slave trade in 1831. After the unspeakable horrors of the
Middle Passage, slaves in Brazil lived under the usual forms of callous ex-
ploitation and oppression, initially especially on the profitable sugar planta-
tions in the north-eastern provinces, but later also in gold and diamond mines
of Minas Gerais, and on cattle ranches and coffee plantations, especially in
the south-eastern (then) provinces (later states) of Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo
and Minas Gerais.
This book and this chapter are not about slavery and its gruesome charac-
teristics, about which there are libraries of other books, also about slavery in
Brazil, but about the discursive resistance against slavery and racism. Of the
many books on the slave trade and slavery in Brazil, see, e.g., Conrad, 1983,
1986; Klein & Vidal Luna, 2010; Queirós Mattoso, 1986. These monographs
and documentation offer very different views of Brazilian slavery. Klein &
Vidal Luna (2010) offer a typical, hardly empathic, sociopolitical treatise,
without detailing the everyday practices of abuse by slaveowners or the ex-
periences of the slaves.
On the other hand, the unique documentation by Conrad (1983), as well as
many other documents, provides chilling insights into the horrors of everyday
Antislavery and Abolitionist Discourse 31
oppression as experienced by the slaves, challenging the widespread views

that Brazilian slavery was relatively benign. Yet, influential Brazilian histo-
rian Vainfas (1986) suggests not to focus only on the most extreme forms of
the daily practices of slave labor, which also shows that even under slavery
there are degrees of oppression.
As we will see below, Jesuit priests of the 17th and 18th centuries had
no doubts about the cruel and harsh treatment of slaves by the slaveown-
ers: Workdays in the field of up to 18 hours, sometimes 7 days a week, also
for women, little rest, bad food, bad and few clothes, unhealthy housing,
separating families, sexual abuse and violation of both men and women, and
constant punishment, mostly by the eternally present whip, sometimes of
hundreds of lashes during several days, and even more cruel punishments,
sometimes followed by death, as well as assassination. Slaves were the prop-
erty of slaveowners, who could do what they wanted with the slaves.
As was the case in Europe and the Americas, the beginning of the 18th cen-
tury also saw the first reactions against the slave trade and slavery, although
the abolition movement in Brazil, depending on how it is defined, did not
become active until after 1860, and really widespread and successful only in
the 1880s until final abolition in 1888.
Also in Brazil a significant form of resistance against slavery was by the
slaves themselves, e.g., by defiance against cruel slave masters and overseers,
flight from captivity, rebellions and the organization of quilombos. Since this
study focuses on discursive resistance, we will not examine non-discursive
resistance by the slaves or the formation of quilombos, about which there are
many studies (see, e.g., Cypriano & Anjos, 2006; Lobão, 2014; Moura, 1959;
Reis & Gomes, 1996). Below we do examine however the discursive resis-
tance against slavery by black writers. Until the abolition movement, thus,
black resistance against slavery should not only be understood as rebellion
and escape, but in the quilombos also as alternative sociopolitical organiza-
tion. Official (mostly moral) antislavery discourse was the domain of the
elites and their growing independence of Portugal, and, until much later, not
a popular movement.
Different from Spain, England, France and the United States, as we have
shown in our other book on antiracist discourse, especially for early Quaker
discourse (Van Dijk, 2021), first writings against the slave trade and slavery
in Brazil were few before the mid-19th century. Among several other causes
of this difference was in the first place the lack of literacy among large parts
of the population, not only among slaves themselves, who were even for-
bidden to learn to read and write. Secondly, unlike members of the Quaker
communities in the UK and the U.S., the Catholic church in Brazil generally
condoned slavery—priests might have slaves themselves (Conrad, 1983).
32 Chapter Three
Thirdly, we had to wait until the 19th century before writers, philosophers,
politicians, journalists and other intellectuals began to critically focus on
slavery in Brazil, often challenged by shameful negative comparisons with
Europe and influenced by abolitionists in the UK and black activists in the
U.S. Indeed, except for a few abolitionist newspapers, until the 1880s most
of the press was initially hardly interested in a critical coverage of slavery.
The same is true for national and local politics, dominated or influenced by
the powerful slaveholders until abolition movements became popular and
widespread in the 1880s.
Although the end of slavery in Brazil was finally officially declared by
political discourse, namely the Lei Aurea (Golden Law) of 1888, signed by
Princess Isabel during the absence of Emperor Pedro II, after many aboli-
tionist writings and other protest activities throughout Brazil, as well as a
slow engagement of the press, the main causes of the demise of slavery were
hardly discursive, but social, political and especially economic. From the
north-east, slaves (were) moved illegally but massively to the coffee planta-
tion of the south-east, especially after the finally effectual prohibition of the
slave trade in 1850, e.g., due to policing by the English navy.
Most of the Brazilian and international studies of slavery and abolition
in Brazil focus on these social, political and economic causes of the end of
slavery. Our focus will be on antislavery and abolition writings and more gen-
erally on antiracist discourse in Brazil, including early writings in the 16th,
17th and 18th centuries by a few Jesuit priests criticizing slavery and slave
masters. Indeed, it was discourses, e.g., in the press and politics, that finally
swayed the ideologies and attitudes that characterized successful public opin-
ion and political decision making (for general studies of abolition in Brazil,
see, e.g., De Azevedo, 1995; Baronov, 2000; Conrad, 1972).
Antislavery Discourse in the 16th and 17th Centuries

As we shall see below, abolitionist writings in Brazil became widespread and
influential only from the 1860s, and especially after 1880. We have scant
evidence about the possible influence before the 19th century of English and
North American abolitionists, French philosophers or (other) writers against
slavery, as discussed in Van Dijk (2021). Thus, one would expect that even
among the small literate community in Brazil, there would at least be some
knowledge about the French Revolution and the principles of equality and
human rights, and pleas and policies for the abolition of slavery. We’ll see
below that some of the republican uprisings in the 18th century were inspired
by Enlightenment ideas, so their leaders must have had access to original
antislavery texts or translations.
Before abolitionist writings in the 19th century, there have been com-
mentaries about missionary activities among the indigenous population as
well as about the enslavement of black people, especially by Jesuits and their
scholastic teaching.
Prominent, revered and later sanctified was especially José de Anchieta
(1534–1597), born in the Canary Islands, educated in Coimbra, founder of
first missions in São Paulo and Rio, poet, playwright and author of the first
grammar of an indigenous language (tupi), and known as mediator with and
defender of the indigenous population. As rapporteur of indigenous customs,
he also became an early ethnographer.
Whatever their empathic understanding of the indigenous population
and rejection of enslavement, as was generally the case for the Jesuit and
other missionaries, until their expulsion in 1759, such as Manuel da Nó-
brega (1517–1570), their main aim was the conversion of the indigenous
population, violent “barbarians” or “savages” who should first be subjected
to the Portuguese colonists. While on the one hand defending the indigenous
population, Anchieta on the other hand legitimated the killing of many Am-
erindians by Governor Mem de Sá, of whom he wrote a biography in Latin,
considered to be the first epic poem of the Americas (McGinnes, 2014).
In the next century, other Catholic priests began to criticize the treatment
of African slaves by their owners. For obvious reasons, such as their control
by the Inquisition, the priests could as yet not condemn de very institution of
slavery, generally considered to be the economic basis of the colony, but they
showed empathy with the slaves and were especially critical of the terrible
abuses by the slave masters and overseers.
Their writings can hardly be qualified as abolitionist, let alone as antiracist,
but as was the case for Bartolomé de las Casas (1484–1566), whose writ-
ing they knew, many of their critical arguments against the slave trade and
slavery have later been used by abolitionists and antiracists. Hence, relevant
for our perspective are their attitudes and discourses, even when they were
unwilling or unable to condemn, let alone advocate the abolition of slavery as
an economic system. In that sense, as we will see, their criticism of the harsh-
est aspects of slavery may also be—and have been—qualified as reformist or
palliative at best, and hence as a form of legitimation of slavery. As was also
the case of other writings about slavery in the 17th and 18th century, e.g., by
French philosophers, we thus observe an ambiguity in their writings.
Antônio Vieira (1608–1697), a Portuguese Jesuit who as a child moved
with his parents to Brazil, was educated in Bahia, and became famous for his
sermons, so much so that he was appointed royal preacher and tutor of Infante
Dom Pedro, son of king João IV. As a diplomat he visited England, France,
Italy and Holland. He opposed the discrimination of the New Christians
34 Chapter Three
(converted Jews and Muslims). In Brazil his main task was the conversion of
African slaves, while also protecting the indigenous population against exploi-
tation and slavery by the local governors by placing them under the control of
the Jesuits, a policy hardly welcomed by the colonists as well as other clerics
(Vainfas, 2011). Sent back to Portugal he was accused of heresy for his ideas,
including criticism of the Inquisition, propagated in his influential sermons, as
well as his influence on the King. During a long stay in Rome he was vindi-
cated by Pope Clement X and rose to great power before returning to Brazil
and becoming the superior of the province. His many letters and 15 volumes of
sermons are considered to be among the most prominent of the history of early
Portuguese prose. Relevant for our discussion are especially his many sermons
in which he also addressed the situation of the indigenous population and the
African slaves. In his sermon of 1654 condemning Indian slavery, Vieira has
this to say to the people of the Brazilian province of Maranhão:
(3.1) At what a different price the devil today buys souls compared to what he of-
fered for them previously? There is no market in the world where the devil
can get them more cheaply than right here in our own land. In the Gospel,
he offered all the kingdoms of the world for one soul; in Maranhão the devil
does not need to offer one-tenth as much for all the souls. It is not necessary
to offer worlds, nor kingdoms; it is not necessary to offer cities, nor towns,
nor villages. All he has to do is offer a couple of Tapuya Indians and at once
he is adored on both knees. What a cheap market! An Indian for a soul! That
Indian will be your slave for the few days that he lives; and your soul will
be a slave for eternity, as long as God is God. This is the contract that the
devil makes with you. Not only do you accept it but you pay him money on
top of it.
Christians, nobles, and people of Maranhão, do you know what God wants
of you during this Lent? That you break the chains of injustice and let free
those whom you have captive and oppressed. These are the sins of Maranhão;
these are what God commanded me to denounce to you. Christians, God
commanded me to clarify these matters to you and so I do it. All of you are in
mortal sin; all of you live in a state of condemnation; and all of you are going
directly to Hell. Indeed, many are there now and you will soon join them if
you do not change your life.
Is it possible that an entire people live in sin, that an entire people will go
to hell? Who questions thus does not understand the evil of unjust captivity?
(cited in Rodríguez, 2007a: p. 602)
Although Antônio Vieira is not known for having advocated the general
abolition of slavery, this text quite clearly does so for the abolition of slavery
of at least some (peaceful) indigenous people, e.g., those in Maranhão, and
under the protection of the Jesuits (for details, see Vainfas, 2011). Speaking
in the name of God, the padre does so with an ironical introduction about
the offer of the devil, comparing it with the “cheap” offer of an Indian slave,
followed by a thunderous threat of hell to anyone enslaving Indians, with
the usual metaphors (“chains of injustice”) and a rhetoric of hyperbolic
evaluative expressions (“oppressed,” “unjust captivity”). As usual, a biblical
comparison with the story of the enslavement of Israelites by the Pharaohs
follows this threat to emphasize the argument. But the Jesuit knows his audi-
ence and argues as follows against a possible counterargument:
(3.2) I know what you are going to tell me . . . our people, our country, our govern-
ment cannot be sustained without Indians. Who will fetch a pail of water for
us or carry a load of wood? Who will grind our manioc? Will our wives have
to do it? Will our sons? In the first place, this is not the state into which I am
placing you as you soon will see. But when necessity and conscience require
such a thing, I answer yes and repeat again yes. You, your wives, your sons,
all of us are able to sustain ourselves with our own labor.
Relevant here is especially the speaker’s awareness of the prevalent attitudes

as well as the economic arguments used in defense of slavery, also in Brazil.
By replying affirmatively to his rhetorical questions, he asserts that people do
not need slaves for their daily life—as we also know of French philosophers
who opposed slavery with the argument that it would make their masters lazy.
Vieira’s rhetorical irony, which does not seem at all dated, even involves a
form of critical discourse analysis when he later cites the arguments of those
who go and buy Indians in order to “rescue” them—an action he only ap-
proves of for those Indians “who are prisoners to be eaten,” as is the case
for the captives of a just war—a classical argument later also used for the
enslavement of Africans—and only when cared for and paid (“less than a
penny a day”). He closes his arguments with an enumeration of the few dis-
advantages (“maybe losing a few Indians”) and the many advantages of his
proposal (no longer live in mortal sin, removing a curse from your home, res-
cuing many more Indians from cannibal practices, solving a labor problem).
We see that the attitude of the Catholic church and other institutions about
the enslavement of Indians was quite different from that about the enslave-
ment of Africans. In that respect also Vieira, himself a son of a mulatto father,
already in mid-17th century, appears to accept the profitable enslavement of
Africans on the sugar plantations. In his sermons he addresses the slaves in
empathic terms, with the usual comparison that also Israel was enslaved in
Babylon, and the religious argument that only their bodies were enslaved, but
not their souls. As other priests had done, and would do later, he especially
also criticized the slaveowners for their greed and cruel treatment of their
slaves. See the following rhetorically emphatic description of the arrival of
African slaves in Brazil in his famous 27th Sermon, preached in Bahia in the
36 Chapter Three
1680s and dedicated to Maria, Nossa Senhora do Rosario, venerated by the

Black Brotherhoods, and specifically addressed to black slaves:
(3.3) Now if we look at these miserable people after their arrival and at those who
call themselves their masters, what was observed in Job’s two conditions is
what fate presents here, happiness and misery meeting on the same stage.
The masters few, the slaves many; the masters decked out in courtly dress,
the slaves ragged and naked; the masters feasting, the slaves dying of hunger;
the masters swimming in gold and silver, the slaves weighted down with
irons; the masters treating them like brutes, the slaves adoring and fearing
them as gods; the masters standing erect, waving their whips, like statues of
pride and tyranny, the slaves prostrate with their hands tied behind them like
the vilest images of servitude, spectacles of extraordinary misery. Oh God!
What divine influence we owe to the Faith You gave us, for it alone captures
our understanding, so that, although in full view of such inequalities, we may
nevertheless recognize Your justice and providence! Are not these people the
children of Adam and Eve? Were not these souls redeemed by the blood of
Christ? Are not these bodies born and do they not die as ours do? Do they
not breathe the same air? Are they not covered by the same sky? Are they
not warmed by the same sun? What star is it, so sad, so hostile, so cruel, that
decides their fate? . . . (cited in Conrad, 1983, p. 163 ff)
Besides its rhetorical pathos of contrasting slaves and masters, as well as

the obvious empathy with the plight of the slaves, this passage also features
familiar Christian dilemmas, such as the contradiction between the misery
and inequality of the slaves, on the one hand, and divine justice, on the other
hand. Follows a string of rhetorical questions emphasizing the humanity of
the slaves, whom he calls the “children of God’s fire” (see also the collection
of texts with the same title, edited by the prominent historian of slavery in
Brazil, Conrad, 1983; for an analysis of the role of the Catholic church on
slavery in Brazil and specifically on padre Vieira, see, e.g., Van den Besse-
laar, 1981; Lopes Cardoso, 2001; Ribeiro Nunes, 2011; Vainfas, 1986, 2011).
Dominant in this passage are rhetorical variations of an antislavery topos
(a standard argument) we also have observed in many Quaker texts against
slavery as well as in later abolitionist writings: That indigenous and African
slaves are human beings, created in the image of God—and hence with a
soul and liable to be converted to Christians. The rhetorical questions at the
end of this passage reformulate the Christian themes in several lay, universal
questions to be interpreted as argumentative assertions: slaves are people like
us because they breath the same air, covered by the same sky and warmed by
the same sun—with the tacit conclusion of the syllogism: if they are like us,
they should be treated like us—a variant of the Golden Rule. Obviously, such
assertions presuppose that, according to these priests, many of their contem-
poraries, and not only the slave masters, saw and treated slaves as things, as
possessions, and at best as “brutes” and savages.
Whereas Antônio Vieira addresses the African slaves, Italian Jesuit Jorge
Benci (1650–1708), who had moved to Brazil in 1683, a few decades later
focused his critical rhetoric especially on the slave masters in his Economia
Cristã dos Senhores no Governo dos Escravos (Christian Economy of Mas-
ters in the Governing of Slaves, 1700). Again, we find the familiar dilemmas
and contradictions, between slavery in general, which from the start he quali-
fies as a mortal sin, especially condemning the cruel treatment of slaves by
their Portuguese masters, while on the other hand recognizing the economic
necessity of slavery for the economic survival of the colony. His criticism
of the slaveowners and his empathy with the slaves may be read as so many
arguments against the institution of slavery, but also as a legitimation of a
“moderate” form of the institution, thus clearing the bad conscience of the
church and its priests.
In his pamphlet we find several of the arguments against slavery we also
have observed in early European and North-American antislavery discourse,
e.g., human beings may dominate and possess animals, but not other human
beings (for this and later comparisons below with antislavery discourse in
Europe and the U.S., see Van Dijk, 2021). Then, he systematically shows,
often with quotes from the Bible and founding fathers of the Church, how the
masters should treat the slaves, e.g., summarizing this with the three Latin
keywords panis, disciplina, opus. Thus, first of all, slaves should be well fed,
clothed and receive anything that is important for their everyday “support,”
including medical treatment when they are ill. Secondly, slave masters and
local priests must also teach their slaves the Christian doctrine and administer
them the Holy Sacraments, such as baptism, matrimony, etc., and themselves
be a good example for their slaves. Thirdly, slaves who deserve it may be
punished, but reasonably so, without cruel abuse of force, and only when
there is no alternative—as fathers (used to) punish their children (a compari-
son often used in such legitimations of punishment).
Finally, and crucially, and this time rather addressing the slaves, Benci
details that the slaves should work for their masters, if only to deserve their
“bread,” and to avoid that they become “insolent.” Although the author gen-
erally does not express or exaggerate stereotypes and prejudices about Afri-
cans, in this last part of his writing we find the following passage, formulating
widespread prejudices about blacks, e.g., about their sexuality, even when
attributed to the climate—and hence not to their inherent character:
(3.4) Since Africans are so naturally inclined to the vice of sensuality, in the same
way that Salviano wrote that it was impossible to find a non-dishonest Af-
rican, as it is likewise immovable that an African be no other than African,
38 Chapter Three
there is no doubt that the Ethiopians exceed in lasciviousness to all other na-
tions of Africa, and they are equal to the most libidinous brutes. The reason
for this great propensity of Blacks’ impudicity comes not merely from the
warm climate in which they are born, but much more from the little fear of
God and manly scruples within them.
Besides the implicit or explicit condonement of slavery as a system of

domination, such and similar passages in these writings show that criticism
of slavery does not presuppose or imply criticism of widespread prejudices
and stereotypes, even when some of these were rejected. In this sense, it
is obviously problematic to see such writings as antiracist, unless we take
antiracism as a long and complex historical process, as we have done in the
theoretical chapter, first opposing harsh and then all forms of slavery and
power abuse, but later also any form of discrimination and prejudices against
black people—until today.
One important point in the critical writings about slavery by the Catholic
priests, also mentioned by Benci, is that slaves should not work on Sundays
and Christian holidays, on the one hand to be able to go to church, and on the
other hand to rest, as commanded by God, or to attend to their own garden
so as to be able to grow their own food. Moreover, the work of the slaves
should not be excessive, and they should be able to rest and get enough
sleep. In other words, despite the fact that slavery is explained by Benci as a
consequence of the original sin of humanity, since Adam and Eve, and slave
masters are severely criticized, the institution of slavery is condoned, but
only under specific conditions and a “human” treatment of the slaves. He
concludes his text with a summary of what it means to be a slave, and what
impact this should have on the masters. This summary deserves to be cited in
full, because it features the most important arguments for the treatment—and
even the liberation—of slaves:
(3.5) Such is, gentlemen, the state of a captive. He is a man, but unwilling and
without understanding; he always works and works, but without profit; he
lives, but as if he was not alive; being by nature the same as his lord, because
through captivity man is made very inferior and as though he were not man;
he is the most vile, the most beaten, and the most despised of all beheld men.
Ultimately, a captive. And who does not see that for all these reasons, he who
is a master must have compassion on he who is a slave?
If he eats, it is always the worst and most vile delicacy; if he dresses, the
cloth is the crudest and the garment the most despicable; if he sleeps, the bed
is often the cold earth and ordinarily a hard board. The work is continuous, the
toil without rest, the rest disturbed and frightened, the relief little and almost
none; when he blunders, he fears; when he falls short, he is afraid; when he
can no longer, he forces himself and draws from weak might. You take him
to one place, then to another, to this occupation, and then to that one, there
he is with the axe in the woods, there he is with the hoe in the fields, there he
is in the mills grinding, there he is scorching himself in the furnaces. There is
no Proteus who so often changes his figure as the slave varies and changes.
He must be a lynx to see his master’s nod; he must be a guru to penetrate his
thoughts; he must be a satyr to hear his voices. In the readiness to carry out
errands, he must be a deer; in the sturdiness to withstand work, he must be
an ox; in the patience to suffer the punishment, he must be a donkey. In two
words: he must be everything, since in everyone’s evaluation he is nothing.
Oh! bondservants! Oh! Gentlemen! Oh! unfortunate bondservants! Oh!
inhuman gentlemen! That such be the life and condition of the bondservants;
and that such be the hearts and cruelty of the masters! What chest of steel and
bronze must there be that in the sight of such disgrace one does not move to
compassion and does not seek, on their part, to make tolerable and to soften
the bitter swallow of captivity for the bondservants? Tell me, gentlemen
(with whom I will now speak), tell me: have you come to realize that the life
of a captive is so full of penalties and torments, that it is more death than life?
If after hearing me you still do not understand, I shall not hope for you, nor
shall I speak to you, but if you have understood, I can very well be persuaded
to believe that from now on you will be other men and more human to your
slaves than you have been thus far.
We have already said, and you have admitted to me, that the state of cap-
tivity is more death than life. And if, apart from this death, you add excessive
work and exorbitant punishment to the slave; if, apart from this death, you
deprive him of sustenance by not providing him with adequate portions; if
you deprive him of clothing, not covering his nakedness and leaving him ex-
posed to the inclemency of time; if you deprive him of medicine at the time
of illness, forsaking him and perhaps wickedly throwing him from home,
will not all of this be accumulating punishments upon punishments, torments
upon torments, and deaths upon deaths? Hardly! Well, ne addas, afflictionem
afflicto, again I say to you the Proverb: Do not add on a new affliction to he
who is already afflicted. For the captive, captivity suffices.
But if until now I’ve spoken to you as rational men, I want to end by talk-
ing to you as Christians. Do you believe that these bondservants so beaten
and forlorn are your neighbors and Christians like you? Yes, this you must
believe. And if you believe it, why do you not do what God commands
through St. Paul, to satisfy the Law of Christians which you profess? Alter
alterius onera portate, et sic adimplebitis legem Christi, says S. Paulo. Help
one another, those who are your neighbors, and by this you will satisfy the
law of Christ. You sir can help the bondservant to carry the burden by allevi-
ating him and freeing him from the yoke of captivity; thus, in order to satisfy
the laws of Christians, it is your duty as masters not to exacerbate the burden
of servitude of the slaves, but instead to seek in everything, and by all means,
to relieve it. You cannot deny that your bondservant helps you to spend your
life restfully, taking upon himself the weight that would be your own if he
40 Chapter Three
were not your captive. Why then will you not help him to carry this weight,
through good treatment, so that he will carry it more gently? If you want the
bondservant to do the work that you should, why will you not do what you
should for him? If you want him to do what a bondservant should do, why
will you not do what you should for the Lord and the Christian?
Long ago, as soon as the Christians of the early Church received baptism,
they gave their bondservants freedom, as it seemed to them that with the
freedom given by the law of Christ, captivity was not right. This was the way
of Hermes, Chromatius, and many others, of which the Ecclesiastical Stories
are full. With this, I do not want to persuade you gentlemen to do the same
to your slaves. Gentlemen, I do not intend for you to give freedom to your
bondservants, which in doing so, you would do what the true Christians did.
What I only want from you is for you to treat them as neighbors and as the
forlorn, give them sustenance for body and soul, give them only that one rea-
sonable punishment, and give them only the work that they are able to carry
and that does not oppress them. This I only ask of you, this I only hope, and
this I only want of you: Panis, et discipline, et opus servo.
A complete and detailed analysis of this example would be less relevant here,
so let us merely highlight some of the typical rhetorical and argumentative
properties of antislavery texts by Catholic priests of the period:
• Slaves are human beings

• Slaves are human beings, but they are not treated as such
• The life of slaves is more death than life
• The detailed description of the general situation of slaves: worst food,
clothes, bed
• The detailed description of the slaves’ heavy tasks
• The hard work without rest
• The constant attention to what the master wants
• The need for masters to have empathy with the slaves
• The cruelty of the masters
• Urging masters to change their ways
• Giving food, clothing etc to slaves
• Condemning harsh punishments
• The combination of lay arguments—addressed to ‘rational’ people—com-
bined with the address of Christians—enumerating what masters should
(not) do as Christians, namely to alleviate all the hard labor and harsh
treatment
• Comparisons with (liberating) slaves in Antiquity
• Not liberating slaves but treating them as human beings.
The global and local semantic structures of the conclusions, summarized by

the overall topic “Slaveowners treat slaves very badly and should treat them
better,” sustains the global speech acts of an accusation as well as a public de-
nunciation. The accusation is implemented by directly addressing the slave-
owners. As a priest, Benci probably also was trained in classical rhetoric, as
shown in his comparisons with figures in Antiquity, citations in Latin, and
especially also the rhetorical structures, such as parallelisms (He is a man, but
unwilling and without understanding; he always works and works, but with-
out profit; he lives, but as if he was not alive) as well as metaphors (chest of
steel and bronze) to describe lacking empathy of masters. Also, the emphasis
on the contrast between the humanity of the slaves and the inhumanity of the
slaveowners is a characteristic semantic feature of the rhetoric of antislavery
discourse. The complex arguments in favor of a more “human” slavery have
been used by several other writers in the next centuries, and many are anti-
slavery well-known topoi.
Interesting is especially that the masters are addressed explicitly as ratio-
nal—that is in lay terms—and not only as Christians. The implicit argument
of the text is clear: If you are rational and a Christian, you should refrain from
cruel punishments and alleviate the heavy tasks of the slaves, and provide
them with all a human being needs: decent food, clothes, etc. Benci reminds
the masters that Christians in Antiquity liberated their slaves after baptism,
but on the other hand he refrains from actually recommending that the mas-
ters should do the same—but repeating that those who have slaves should
treat them well.
We don’t know whether the information about the everyday lives of slaves
and the cruel behavior of the masters is based on Benci’s own observation at
the plantations, or whether he has this information from other texts, such as
José Vieira’s letters and sermons that might have circulated in the colony, or
from eyewitness reports from other priests. In later texts by Jesuits in the 18th
century we will cite below, we find very similar descriptions and evaluations
of the everyday lives of the slaves and the cruel behavior of their masters.
Antislavery Discourse in the 18th Century

Later ecclesiastic writings about slavery are probably partly inspired by some
of the texts of the 17th century, such as those by Vieira and Benci, as we
will see below. At the same time, the 18th century had given rise to wide-
spread international publications on the Americas in general, and on slavery
in particular, also by French philosophers. It is therefore interesting that in
Portugal and Brazil there seem to be few religious or philosophical texts that
explicitly refer to such sources, especially in England and France, probably
42 Chapter Three
also because of the censorship imposed by Portugal’s powerful Secretary of

State Sebastião José Carvalho de Melo, Marqués de Pombal (1699–1782).
His “enlightened” autocratic methods on the one hand involved censorship
of French philosophers (“corruptors of religion and morals”), the expulsion
of Jesuits, and political control of the Santo Oficio (the Inquisition), but on
the other hand he was initiator of many economic and architectural reforms,
the abolition of slavery in Portugal and in the Indian colonies in 1761 and the
prohibition of discrimination of “new Christians” (converted Jews), although
he was hardly a friend of the Jews.
The only explicit critical discussion of slavery in the later 18th century we
know was written by a Portuguese friar in Salvador, Manuel Ribeiro Rocha
(????–1779), in his book Etíope resgatado, empenhado, sustentado, corri-
gido, instruído e libertado (Ethiopian rescued, engaged, sustained, corrected,
instructed and released, 1758). As was the case with other early critics of
slavery, however, the padre was hardly an abolitionist avant la lettre, because
on the one hand he realized that only the end of slavery would bring relief
from the cruel treatment of slaves, but on the other hand that slavery was a
necessary economic condition of Brazil (Fragoso, 2012). In this respect he
shared the ambiguous attitudes not only of French philosophers in the 18th
century and of critics of slavery in Brazil, when slavery on the one hand was
morally condemned by an increasing part of the Brazilian population, but on
the other found to be “economically necessary.” Padre Manuel begins his
tract as follows:
(3.6) The greatest misfortune a rational creature can reach in this world is that of
slavery, for with it are attached all those miseries and all those troubles which
are contrary and repugnant to the nature and condition of man; because be-
ing little less than the angel, by the enslavement he so much descends, that
he becomes little more than a brute; being alive, by slavery he thinks himself
dead; being free, through slavery he becomes subordinate; and being born to
dominate and to possess, by the slavery is possessed and dominated. The slave
works without interruption, toils without rest and becomes tired without profit,
his sustenance being the vilest, his dress the coarsest and his resting on some
hard board, when it is not right on the cold earth.
The rhetorical and argumentative strategies of this and other passages of his
book not only show the sophistication of the author, but also his empathy for
the slaves. We find the usual argument, generally used since the first writ-
ings on slavery, that slavery is against the law of nature. Secondly, slavery
is portrayed as demeaning the humanity of human beings—religiously clas-
sified just below the level of angels—with a parallel series of oppositions:
angel-brute, alive-dead, free-subordinate (“subject”), possess-possessed and
dominate-dominated. Finally, the fragment summarizes in a more concrete

image the everyday reality of slaves in terms of the usual hyperboles, as
already found them in the writing of Bartolomé de las Casas, and others dis-
cussed in Van Dijk (2021), as well as Vieira and Benci in Brazil, as shown
above. Indeed, some descriptions are very similar to the ones we observed in
Benci’s text, such as slaves being more dead than alive.
But Rocha’s argument against slavery is not just empathic and humanitar-
ian, but especially also juridical. Much of his treatise shows that enslavement
is illegal, unless as a consequence of a “just war”—after which enslavement
may be preferable to killing enemies. And when slave merchants do not know
(and do not try to enquire) whether their merchandise was legally acquired, the
slave trade actually amounts to acts of piracy—a crime that should be severely
punished. Indeed, if Rocha could read French, some of his legal arguments
may have been influenced by ideas of Montesquieu and the Esprit des Lois
(Fragoso, 2012). In book XV of Esprit des Lois, published in 1748, ten years
before Ribeiro Roca’s book, Montesquieu writes the following about slaves,
with a content and rhetorical structure quite similar to the fragment of Rocha:
(3.7) (. . .) he feels that his master has a soul that can grow bigger, and that his
own is forced to abate constantly. Nothing brings us closer to the condition
of animals than to always see free men and not be so.
The humanitarian and legal passages in Ribeiro Rocha’s book might in iso-
lation indeed be read as representing an abolitionist attitude avant la lettre.
Yet, other authors commenting on Rocha, including Paulo Suess, in his very
presentation of the current edition of Rocha’s book, as well as Vainfas (1986)
and Carvalho França & Ferreira (2015), read his text more critically, not only
as a mere reformist proposal to “improve” slavery, but actually as a form of
legitimation. Thus, instead of the classical liberation of slaves after 5 or 6
years, Rocha admits 20 years of “service under pledge,” as if this were a form
of free labor. Citing professor and Jesuit Fernando Rebello (1546–1608), one
of his many sources, he pleads for a law that frees captive “infidels” when
they convert, addressing the Pope as well as the Catholic King, which stresses
the greediness of slave traders and slaveowners:
(3.8) It would be highly advantageous for not only the Supreme Pontiff but also
the Catholic King to introduce this law as soon as possible in all the Lusita-
nian territories in order to correct the wrongdoing, which because of greed,
unjustly makes slaves out of many infidels.
However, whether or not as a pragmatic strategy to get his book through the
strict censorship of the Santo Oficio, controlled by Pombal, as well as to obtain
44 Chapter Three
the positive prefaces of very prominent religious colleagues, his book did not
advocate the abolition of slavery if such would be a threat to the economy of
the colony. That is, although the dominant semantics of the book polarizes
between the terrible situation of the slaves, on the one hand, and a negative
portrayal (greediness, piracy, etc.) of the senhores, the book did not really
endanger the status quo, and hence should also be read as a text of its time. It
is therefore not surprising that some of its critics today see the book as a rhe-
torical legitimation of slavery, e.g., by the appeasement of the bad conscious-
ness of all those involved, down from the King, the Pope and the Church to
the slave traders and slaveowners themselves (for this debate, see Fragoso,
2012; Vainfas, 1986). In his book on ideology and slavery, analyzing the texts
of Vieira, Benci and Rocha, it is especially prominent Brazilian historian
Ronaldo Vainfas who interprets the criticism of slavery and slave masters, as
well as the defense of black slaves in these Jesuit writings as justifications of
slavery and expressions of “colonial slavery ideology” (Vainfas, 1986: 153).
Yet Vainfas also admits the ambiguity of these texts, which on the on hand
accept and legitimate the economic and political system of slavery, reproduce
stereotypes of blacks and permit (moderate) punishment, while on the other
hand being very critical of the system and especially of the power abuses of
the slaveowner—all embedded in detailed religious arguments. Relevant for
our own analysis is not only the dominant religious and economic ideology
of these texts, but also the detailed, critical descriptions of slavery, which are
later used as so many arguments in favor of abolition, first in the UK and the
U.S., mostly by Quakers, and much later in Brazil especially after 1860.
That intellectual influence of North America and Europe also reached Bra-
zil in the 18th century may be concluded from an uprising in Minas Gerais,
known as the Inconfidência Mineira, in 1789, the same year as the French
Revolution, inspired by the American Revolution in 1775 and the writing of
French philosophers. The conspirators, elites in the province of Minas Gerais
(many of whom had studied in Coimbra and who were indebted by the ris-
ing gold tax imposed by Portugal), including a lower ranking military, José
da Silva Xavier (national hero “Tiradentes”), wanted a more democratic re-
public. However, the influence of French liberal philosophers did not lead to
local abolition of slavery in the province—a topic that was discussed but was
hardly prominent in the aims of the conspirators (De Carvalho, 1985). Some
of them were poets who had studied in Coimbra, such as Claudio Manuel da
Costa, Tomás Antônio Gonzaga, Marilia de Dirceu, forming the Arcadismo
literary movement in Brazil (1768–1836) (see, e.g., Félix & Juall, 2016). In-
fluence of French philosophers and Enlightenment ideas was also limited by
censorship in Portugal and the fact that there was no printing press in Brazil
until the next century, so that all books had to come from abroad.
Although we have been unable to find 18th century Brazilian writings

explicitly inspired by Enlightenment philosophers, via Brazilian students and
other travelers in Europe, they did influence not only the uprising in Minas
Gerais in 1787, but also later ones, e.g., the popular Revolta dos Alfaietes,
also called the Conjuração Baiana, in 1798, led by Cipriano Barata, which
advocated the liberation of slaves and a democratic government. We don’t
know whether there were publications at the time about the aims and intel-
lectual sources of this movement. Thus, until the first antislavery writings in
the 19th century, it is possible that there were decades of silence on the topic
since Rocha’s book.
Early 19th Century: Preparing Abolition

Lacking explicit Brazilian writings on slavery at the end of the 18th and the
beginning of the 19th slavery does not mean that at least some of the elites
in Brazil (often educated in Coimbra) didn’t have information about what
happened abroad, such as French Enlightenment philosophy, the American
and French Revolutions, Quaker criticisms of slavery as well as international
abolitionist debates, e.g., in the UK.
In London, in 1821, appeared the Portuguese version of a detailed study on
the slave trade, whose English original was probably written by the Society
of Friends, the Quakers. This Portuguese version, of more than 100 pages and
23 chapters, with the usual complex title: “Breve resumo sobre a natureza do
commercio de escravatura e das atrocidades que d’elle resultam: seguido de
huma relação historica dos debates que terminaram a final aboliçaõ” (Brief
summary on the nature of the slave trade and its ensuing atrocities: followed
by a historical account of the debates that finally ended the abolition).
The book begins with an exposition about the formation of the Society of
Friends and their commitment against the slave trade “engaged in first by the
Portuguese,” and a brief history of the slave trade, including its condemna-
tion by Pope Leo X. Follows a history of the most important Quaker and
other authors in the UK and the U.S. opposing the trade and in favor of the
“Africans,” such as Clarkson and his report on the cruelties of the treatment
of slaves, and a summary of the parliamentary debates in the UK on the trade.
It also mentions the rejection of Wilberforce’s motion to abolish slavery and
the adoption in 1806 of a bill prohibiting British merchants to bring slaves to
the colonies (see, Van Dijk, 2021, for detail and many references).
No doubt many Brazilians who knew English were already informed about
the Quakers and the abolition debates in the UK, but this Portuguese transla-
tion brought the information to a larger public both in Portugal and Brazil,
as witnessed by references to the topic in later writings in Brazil. Interesting
46 Chapter Three
also was another brief Quaker text in Portuguese, published in London in

1822, Memorial aos habitantes da Europa sobre a iniquidade do comercio
de escravatura (Memorandum to the inhabitants of Europe about the inequity
of the slave trade).
The first well-known Brazilian text of the 19th century opposing slavery
was intended as a speech in 1823 for the new parliament (the Constituinte)
of the recently independent Brazilian empire, but actually published in Paris
only in 1825, the Representação sobre Escravatura (Report about Slavery). It
was written by the “patriarch” of Brazilian independence, José Bonifácio de
Andrada e Silva (1763–1838), deputy of São Paulo, minister of the Interior
and Foreign Affairs, who was also a naturalist, poet and professor (of geology
in Coimbra). After the dissolution of the parliament in 1823 he was banned to
Europe, where he lived many years. He presented his discourse as “free citi-
zen” and as deputado (Member of Parliament), interested in two major topics
for the future prosperity of the country, the “civilization” of the indigenous
population and a new law for the commerce of slavery, and the treatment of
“these miserable captives.” He proposes to abolish the slave trade and the
“progressive emancipation” of the slaves. Here are some fragments of this
relatively early abolitionist discourse in Brazil:
(3.9) When true Christians and Philanthropists raised their voices for the first time
in England against the trafficking of African slaves, there were many inter-
ested or concerned people who cried out that such abolition was impossible
or politically unrealistic because the British colonies would not dispense with
such trade without total destruction.
This first fragment of the discourse is relevant, first of all, because it shows
that Bonifácio was informed about the debate about abolition in the UK. Sec-
ondly, he mentions a standard argument of opponents of abolition in the UK
that also was and continued to be used against abolition in Brazil, namely that
abolition would mean the economic destruction of the colony. Despite such
arguments, he says, a law of the prohibition of the slave trade was adopted in
UK parliament. The second powerful argument, he mentioned, often repeated
by later abolitionists is formulated as a rhetorical question:
(3.10) And why will only Brazilians continue to be deaf to the cries of reason and
of the Christian religion, and I shall say, moreover, of national honor and
pride? For we are the only nation of European blood which still trades Af-
rican slaves clearly and publicly. (p. 6)
Two values are highlighted as criteria here, namely reason and Christian
religion—a typical Enlightenment argument. But more important is national
shame, because Brazil (and Cuba) were the only countries that still engaged in
the slave trade. Later the same argument is used in favor of abolition, namely
that in the 1880s Brazil was the only “Christian” country (of “European
blood”) in the world that still had slavery. Interesting also is that in this pas-
sage Bonifácio defines Brazil as white, but a few lines later he mentions that
“antique despotism” wanted the country to be a “mixed and heterogeneous
people, without nationality, in order to better enslave us.” Such a country can
only have a liberal constitution as long as it does not have an “immense num-
ber of primitive slaves and enemies.” Therefore, we first need to expiate our
centuries of sins against justice and religion. He then emphasizes (by using
italics) the Golden Rule: “Not to do unto others what we do not want them to
do against us,” which shows that he also knows one of the classical (religious
and humanitarian) topoi of the Quakers against slavery. So, he recommends,
we should once and for all stop robbing and burning Africa and foment wars
among the “savages of Africa,” as well as bringing them to our ports, where
many of them die amassed in the hull of ships:
(3.11) It is high time then that we end such barbaric and butcherly trafficking. It
is also time for us to gradually end the last vestiges of slavery among us
so that we may form, in a few generations, a homogeneous nation, without
which we will never be truly free, respectable and happy. It is of utmost
need to start eliminating such physical and civil heterogeneity. Let us now,
therefore, take care in wisely combining so many disagreeing and contrary
elements and in merging so many different goals so that a homogeneous and
compact Whole may emerge that will not crumble at the touch of any new
political upheaval. But what chemical science and what dexterity are not
needed by the operators of such great and difficult manipulation? Let us be
wise and prudent, yet always constant.
Interesting in this fragment are the various ways social “homogeneity” is em-
phasized, presupposing the heterogeneity and social inequality of a country
based on slavery. Note though that at that moment, early in the 19th century,
there still was no call for immediate abolition, but only of “prudent” gradual
abolition—focusing especially on the slave trade.
The prevalent topos of empathy, which we find in many antislavery texts,
also of previous centuries, emphasizes the humanity of slaves, who think and
feel as “people like us”:
(3.12) If blacks are men like us and do not form a species of brute animals, if they
feel and think like us, what image of pain and misery will they not bring to
the imagination of any sensitive and Christian man?
Besides “Christian” allegiance, note the characteristic of sensibility, prevalent

in romantic texts, and often observed in Quaker texts against slavery (see,
e.g., Carey, 2005, 2012). Opposed to this sensibility is the lack of compassion
48 Chapter Three
and reason of those who are greedy and pretend to bring slaves from Africa in
order to rescue them from African despots and to convert them to Christian-
ity in a fertile and mild country. The author denounces the fallacies of these
“vendors of human flesh” with the argument that these fake arguments might
only be credible if the slave merchants would then liberate the slaves once ar-
rived in Brazil, or if at least the (“lazy”) slave masters would treat them well.
Follow socioeconomic arguments against slavery in Brazil, such as com-
parisons with other countries, such as India, able to produce competitively
without slaves. Moreover, the importation of thousands of slaves does not
even make the population grow, because “nearly all of them die of misery and
desperation.” Nor does the economy grow, because the slaveowners are too
lazy and ignorant to work and improve agriculture, and the work and use of
slaves is extremely inefficient. Bonifácio sums up his arguments as follows:
(3.13) This trade of human flesh, a trade that nowadays no longer needed to augment
agriculture and settlement, is thus a cancer that will gnaw at the bowels of
Brazil, until, through wise regulations, the indolence of whites and of other
mixed citizens and those from the “forros” [liberated slave communities] is
no longer allowed, until the many slaves we already have, supported by a just
Government, can freely and naturally propagate with other classes, until they
can properly raise and support their children by treating this unfortunate Af-
rican race with greater Christianity, even if for self-interest, until the gradual
emancipation of slavery is finally cared for and immoral brutes are converted
into useful, active and law-abiding citizens.
We see that the economic arguments (we don’t need slaves anymore), moral
values (laziness) and social goals (transform slaves from “immoral brutes” to
active and useful citizens) are combined in this plea for abolition. The prudent
action, however, is that slaves should not all be liberated at the same time
(“which would bring only chaos”) but only gradually. As we have seen be-
fore, the frequent use, here as well as in other writings about African slaves,
of such expressions as “immoral brutes” shows that pleas for the abolition of
slavery do not imply a non-racist description of Africans. Interesting here is
the uncommon reference to the African “race.” Obviously, the author adds,
we not only should stop the slave trade, but begin to better treat the slaves
which are already there. As many of these arguments also this recommenda-
tion is framed in terms of the self-interest of the slaveowners:
(3.14) This is not only our duty but our greatest interest, because only by keeping
them in the hope of one day becoming our legal equals, and henceforth begin-
ning to enjoy the freedom and nobility of the soul which only vice is able to
rob from us, will they serve us with fidelity and love; instead of enemies they
will become friends and clients. Let us be righteous and beneficent, gentle-
men, and we shall feel within the soul, that there is no situation more delight-
ful than that of a tender and humane lord, who lives contentedly and without
fear in the midst of his slaves, as in the midst of his own family, who admires
and enjoys the fervor with which these wretches guess their desires and
obey their commands, who observes with heavenly rejoicing how husbands
and wives, children and grandchildren are sane and robust, are satisfied and
laugh—dreams; they will not only cultivate your lands to enrich you, but will
voluntarily come to offer you even the first fruits of their little family trees, of
their hunting and fishing, as unto a protecting God. It is time, therefore, that
these barbarian lords, of which unfortunately there still are plenty in Brazil,
hear the cries of their conscience and of mankind or at least of their own inter-
est, or else, sooner than they think, they will be punished for their injustices
and for their incorrigible barbarity.
Little critical analysis is necessary to unmask this idyllic fantasy of the white
Brazilian professor and politician about ideal race relations on the fazenda.
True, the current senhores are called barbarians, but in an ideal situation, the
slaves will still obey their masters and give them their love, as if in a large
family. This idyllic situation of the life on the plantation (when “tender and
humane” masters and slaves will be friends and not enemies) also presup-
poses that the opposite is true now. This fantasy is still very far from a dis-
course of abolition and the rights of slaves and black people in general.
After this general introduction, Bonifácio, always the statesman, formu-
lates articles of a new law, inspired by such laws in Spain and Denmark,
such as:
• Total abolition after 4 or 5 years, during which male slaves will be more
expensive
• All news slaves should be registered
• The price of non-registered slaves will be set by a commission consisting
of the slaveowners and an outside public officer and will depend on the
years already served
• Slaves should be liberated who pays the sum for which they were bought,
or partly liberated in proportion to the sum paid
• Slaveowners need to take care of old slaves who cannot take care of them-
selves when liberated
• Male married slaves cannot be sold without their wives or children
• Liberated “people of color” who have no means of living receive a plot of
land or credit
• Each slaveowner who “befriended” (andar amigado) with a woman slave
with whom he has children is obliged to free her and her children, and
be responsible for the education of the children until they reach 15 years
of age
50 Chapter Three
• Each slave is legally owner of his own savings and earnings (peculio)
• Slaveowners are not allowed to punish slaves brutally, and only publicly
with official permission depending on the nature of their misdeed. Those
slaves who are mistreated by their owners have the right to search for an-
other owner
• Slaves younger than 12 years should not be used for unhealthy work
• For each province, committees will decide what kind of work, clothing and
food the slaves will get
• Pregnant women slaves should not get heavy duties after three months,
after 6 months only for domestic service, will be convalescing for a month
after birth, and work close to her baby during a year after birth. When they
have more children they shall get increasing hours free, and when they
have children they must be liberated—but needs to live with her husband
if she is married
• Slaveowners cannot forbid slaves to marry with free or slave women who
want to live with their husband
• The government will promote that on the large plantations at least a third
of the slaves are married
• Slaves receive religious and moral education—which not only will provide
them eternal happiness but also will promote the subordination and fidelity
that slaves are due
• Religious men will liberate their slaves and not get new ones
• To avoid lacking workers laws will allow the police to arrest beggars and
loafers, “normally people of color”
• Slaveowners who liberate more than eight families will be decorated or get
other honors.
Many of these articles had been formulated already much earlier in other
documents, e.g., as formulated by the Jesuits of the 17th and 18th centuries.
Basically, they hardly are a threat to the system of slavery, only modestly
makes it less harsh and inhuman, with only minimal rights for slaves, such
as having control of their earnings and the right to buy their own freedom.
One important element is to guarantee that slave reproduction is guaranteed
by increased protection of mothers and families. Note also that moral and re-
ligious education of slaves is especially recommended in order to make them
more docile. Note also the euphemism of rape of women slaves in terms of
masters “befriending” them.
Bonifácio’s project is not interesting because it expresses “progressive”
ideas for the time about slavery, even where several of these ideas have been
formulated earlier, but rather what it presupposes about abhorrent current
practices and attitudes about the treatment of slaves in the early 19th century,
decades after the French revolution and increasing total abolition of slavery
in other Latin American countries.
Toward Abolition
In the years that followed these early ideas of the newly independent empire,
international pressure, especially by England, first led to the abolition of the
slave trade in 1831. This meant that any slave ship crossing the ocean in
principle could be impounded, but in actual practice many hundreds of thou-
sands of slaves could still be smuggled across the Atlantic. The trade actually
increased for another two decades until the English navy started to take its
role seriously, blocked Brazilian harbors and the Brazilian government was
finally forced to stop all traffic in 1850, a situation that until then guaranteed
a steady supply of slaves, and hence their low price and harsh abuse, changed
abruptly. At the same time various economic, social and environmental con-
ditions increasingly began to undermine the system of slavery, such as com-
petition from other slave countries, severe drought in the northern provinces,
increasing resistance of slaves and growing popularity of abolition attitudes
after 1880.
Despite fierce resistance and the political influence of rich and powerful
slaveowners, especially in the south eastern provinces of São Paulo and Rio
de Janeiro, where coffee was planted, slowly also the political tide began to
change, and marginal or cosmetic changes were made in the system. Thus,
the Free Womb Law of 1871 was intended to limit the future of slavery by
liberating all new-born children, although in actual practice, especially on the
plantations, they could still be used for labor between 8 and 20 years of age.
Similarly, in a law of 1885, all older slaves should be liberated, though with-
out any guarantee for their upkeep after manumission. Both laws, however,
were never actually put into practice.
These slow and partial reforms have a variety of political causes, but es-
pecially relevant for our perspective are the changes in the underlying socio-
cognitive systems of attitudes and ideologies, instigated and then expressed
and distributed by an increasing flood of public discourses after 1860 and
especially after 1880 (Alonso, 2015; Santos da Silva Pessanha, 2013). In
Brazil these changing ideas and discourses were not merely a local develop-
ment, but were also inspired by the international abolition debates, especially
in North America, the UK and France, as well as the abolition of slavery in
most of the other countries in the Americas, the self-liberation of black slaves
in Haiti, and the Civil War in the United States.
Especially the symbolic elites of Brazil (priests, politicians, journalists),
responsible for changes of public opinion, since the 17th century had their
52 Chapter Three
education in Coimbra and later in other European cities. They were able to
compare the prevalent ideas in Brazil with more liberal attitudes abroad, es-
pecially since the French revolution. Besides international political and eco-
nomic pressure, they also felt shame of being representatives of a “backward”
country where slavery still existed unabated.
In that sociocultural situation of externally influenced symbolic elites and
changing public opinion, abolition ideas of a few isolated persons finally
led to the emergence of a broad social movement in which large parts of the
population participated, e.g., in public spectacles, shows and parades (for
details, see the excellent monograph of Alonso, 2015).
With the widespread publication of posters, pamphlets, books and journal
articles, all these public events defined the abolition movement also as a
broad multimodal form of sometimes festive discursive resistance against the
increasingly debilitated system of servile oppression and inequality. Let us
therefore examine some of the basic texts of the leaders of this movement,
such as Luís Gama, André Rebouças, José Bonifácio o Moço and Joaquim
Nabuco, among others.
Abolitionist Discourse
José Bonifácio de Andrada e Silva, o Moço (1827–1886), a grandson and
nephew of the Patriarch of Brazilian independence of the same name (his fa-
ther was a brother and his mother a daughter), was born in Bordeaux when the
family was in exile in France. As so many other illustrious men of his time, he
was educated at the Law School of São Paulo. As professor he had students
who later became famous abolitionists such as Rui Barbosa, Castro Alves and
Joaquim Nabuco. As Minister and Senator he advocated the immediate aboli-
tion of slavery. In his reaction to the discourse (“of the Throne”) of Emperor
Pedro II he said on April 10, 1885, a year before his untimely death:
(3.15) How can we therefore reconcile the fundamental principles of the Brazilian
constitution with the supposed right of man to enslave man? How do we call
such a hideous trade a legitimate enterprise, which in 1827 earned the most
severe classifications from all speakers, with even those who had sought to
justify it not wanting to defend it? The assurance provided for labor by the
constitution of the empire could not be provided for this abominable, shame-
ful, inhuman trade, which is contrary to the inspirations of the century, unjust
and barbaric, antisocial and contradictory to the spirit of Christianity, and
only serves to slow the progress of human civilization.
Also in this compact fragment we find the familiar negative qualification

of the slave trade and slavery in long rhetorical sequence of strong terms
of negative appraisal (hideous, abominable, shameful, inhuman, unjust,

barbaric, antisocial), as well as more legal criticism (slavery is contradic-
tory to the constitution) and a religious condemnation (against the spirit of
Christianity). Interesting is also the sociopolitical argument that slavery is
against the principles of the Enlightenment, and an obstruction of progress of
human civilization. It presupposes and criticizes the alleged right of human
beings to enslave other human beings. Obviously, such a compact statement
of many of the arguments against slavery not only summarizes vast contem-
porary debates in the mid-1880s, but also years of abolitionist discourse since
the 1860s, if not decades of political debate, e.g., about abolitionist ideas
and policies in England. Actually, this passage precedes a historical review
of the constitution (which tacitly excluded captivity, though accepting as a
fact of the past in its “peculiar nature”—as slavery in the Southern United
States was also called), including the abolition of the slave trade as soon as
possible, and a gradual emancipation of slaves, for instance by limiting the
birth of new slaves—as prescribed by various laws and treatises (the law
of the Free Womb was already adopted in 1871). Follows a legal argument
against acquired rights based on illegitimate domination: Slavery is called no
less illegitimate than despotism, feudality, castes, favoring nobility and other
privileges. As was the case for the limitation of slavery of new-born children
in the law of 1871, a further limitation was now accepted for slaves older
than 65. When “o Moço” (Junior) died in 1886, the abolitionists organized
a demonstration, and the streets filled with thousands following the funeral
procession, and his student Joaquim Nabuco, now a famous abolitionist poli-
tician, held a speech (Alonso, 2015: 301).
Luís Gonzaga Pinto da Gama (1830–1882) was the son of a white father
and a free African woman, but sold into slavery and illiterate until he was
17. Luís Gama escaped slavery, and through his legal studies after many
jobs, including as journalist, became a famous popular lawyer despite the
racist opposition of the professors of the Law faculty in São Paulo. With
his persistent legal action he liberated hundreds of slaves and became one
of the most famous black leaders of the Brazilian abolition movement.
Also his funeral procession, followed by thousands (in a city of then only
40,000 inhabitants), was one of the most noteworthy events in the history of
São Paulo. Besides his work as a popular lawyer, he also was the author of
burlesque poetry, barely two years after learning to write, with ironical and
satirical verses about Brazilian society dominated by whites (Alonso, 2015;
Kennedy, 1974). Unfortunately, we have no access to his many discourses
successfully defending slaves, with only a few examples of ironical newspa-
per articles about such legal cases, with biting criticism of (white) judges and
priests (Fonseca Ferreira, 2011). Unlike Joaquim Nabuco, he did not publish
54 Chapter Three
theoretical or programmatic ideas about slavery and abolition. However,

we do have fragments of rhetorically persuasive discourses commenting on
slavery in general, and on specific cases of gruesome treatment of slaves by
their senhores. Here is a fragment of a letter addressed to Dr. José Ferreira
de Menezes, himself descendant of slaves and the owner of the Gazeta da
Tarde, and published in the same abolitionist journal on December 16, 1880:
(3.16) Millions of free men, born as beasts or angels, on the blazing sands of
Africa, stolen, enslaved, beaten, mutilated and dragged in this classic land
of sacred freedom, murdered with impunity, without rights, without fam-
ily, with no homeland, without religion, sold like beasts, plundered in their
work, turned into machines, condemned to the struggle of all times, for the
benefit of cynical speculators, impudent thieves and nameless brigands;
all of this they suffered and suffer in the face of an opulent society, of the
wisest of monarchs, in the divine light of the holy Roman Catholic and
Apostolic religion, before the most generous and most unselfish of peoples.
Those who received a rifle wrapped in a letter of manumission, with the
obligation to kill themselves through starvation, thirst and a bullet in the
Paraguayan marshes, and who, in the hospital beds, died turning their eyes
to the Brazilian territory, or who, on the battlefield, fell cheerfully saluting
the glorious pavilion of the land of their children, these victims, who with
their blood, their work, their loss and with their own misery have formed
the greatness of this nation, have never found anyone who leading a spon-
taneous, selfless, supreme movement would break their bonds of captivity.
This part of the letter deals with slavery in generic terms, describing in a long
enumeration of passives the many negative actions perpetrated by slave mer-
chants and owners and in a similar sequence of lacking rights and possessions
of the slaves themselves. The negative portrayal of the slaveowners is further
emphasized by the usual moral judgments (cynical, impudent), and ironically
contextualizing these first in the positive terms of an opulent, religious, gen-
erous society with a “wise” monarch. Then he further contextualizes his atti-
tude by reference to the manumission of slaves participating as soldiers in the
war against Paraguay (1864–1870), suffering and dying for a country where
no movement was interested in liberating them. Besides the pervasive evalu-
ative enumerations describing the wretched situation of the slaves or black
soldiers, as is the case in many antislavery texts, Gama’s forceful rhetoric
ironically contrasts this situation with the potentially positive characteristics
of Brazil. Beyond the persuasiveness of a rhetorical formulation of contrasts,
Gama’s text at the same time expresses the polarized conceptualization of
antislavery ideology and witnesses a realistic sociological description of the
Brazilian system of slavery, including a biting criticism of lacking organi-
zational opposition against slavery. Later in the same letter he summarizes
the gruesome torture and assassination of a slave who had run away several
times. In his legal discourse for the courts, he successfully defended slaves
who had killed their masters as a form of self-defense. We may assume he

used the same rhetoric, and with detailed legal arguments, especially about
criminal enslavement of those who were imported after the law of 1831
prohibiting the slave trade, and by which law they should be free (for details
about Gama’s discourse, see especially Fonseca Ferreira, 2011).
André Pinto Rebouças (1838–1898), son of a freed slave, not only became
Member of Parliament for Bahia and a leading abolitionist but also a famous
military engineer. He served in the war against Paraguay and was responsible
for many engineering works (a well-known tunnel in Rio is named after him).
During the abolition campaign he was very critical of the monarchy, but he
was a close friend of Emperor Pedro II, with whom he went into exile in
Europe after the proclamation of the republic in 1889. He traveled to Europe
and to New York, where he experienced racist treatment in a hotel. In 1868 he
started the abolitionist campaign and he was among the few abolitionists who
also formulated ideas about the black population after slavery, e.g., through
the possession of own land parcels, in what he called “Brazilian Agricultural
Democracy” in his book A Agricultura Nacional (1874), in which he wrote,
three years after the Free Womb Law:
(3.17) To this day, three years after the law, not a single measure [has been taken]
for the education of those who have youthful innocence and are emancipated.
As was the case for the other abolitionists, also Rebouças was aware of the
special role of discourse in general and of the press in particular for the ad-
vancement of abolition:
(3.18) There is no liberal reform, however great, that cannot be accomplished by

the word and the press. (. . .) The press cannot miss this holy mission, and
we hope that soon the press will raise the moral and intellectual bar of the
nation, becoming the principal agent of its instruction, its aggrandizement
and its prosperity.
Rebouças used an interesting metaphor, later used by Manoel Bomfim in his

antiracist writings (see below), comparing slavery with “parasitism”:
(3.19) Parasitism, in Socionomy, means living at the expense of the work of others.
(. . .) The parasite-aristocrat wants not only to benefit from the work of
others but to do so surrounded by honors and prestige. Working the land is
woeful, it is hard, it is painful; enjoying the fruits of the land is sweet and
smooth, it is pleasant. Thus, parasitism consists of one working the land
while another enjoys its fruits.
In the manifest of the Conferação Abolicionista of 1883, written by Rebouças

and Patrocínio, and signed by many abolitionist organizations, we find
56 Chapter Three
similar topics and metaphors. Besides the usual qualification of slavery as

barbarian, we find here topics that would later become more prominent, such
as racial evolution and the role of slaveowners as parasites, as elements in a
broader treatment of Brazilian society and economy.
With Joaquim Nabuco and others, Rebouças founded in 1880 the Socie-
dade Brasileira Contra a Escravidão, and in 1883 the Confederação Abolio-
cionista, of which he was the treasurer (Alonso, 2015; Rezende de Carvalho,
1998; Santos da Silva Pessanha, 2005, 2013).
João Clapp (1840–1902) was a republican businessman but he became
especially known as president of the Confederação Abolicionista, which he
founded in 1883 with José de Patrocínio and André Rebouças, and which
aimed to organize the increasing number of abolitionist societies in the coun-
try, including the Club dos Libertos de Nictherói for the education of freed
and runaway slaves, which Clapp founded in 1881 and presided himself, and
where he also acted as teacher.
Antônio Bento de Souza e Castro (1843–1898), like other abolitionists,
was a judge educated at the Law School of São Paulo who became the leader
of abolitionism in São Paulo after the death of Luís Gama in 1882. In 1887
he founded and edited the abolitionist paper A Redempção, where also many
of his abolitionist discourses were published (Ferro Otzuka, 2016). In 1882 he
founded the radical secret Caifazes Movement, whose members traveled to
the fazendas to persuade slaves to flee, and founded the famous Quilombo de
Jabaquara, near Santos, where more than 10,000 slaves sought refuge (Ferro
Otzuka, 2016; Pereira Toledo Machado, 2006). In the opening editorial of A
Redempçao, Bento wrote the following (quoted in Ferro Otzuka, 2016: 194):
(3.20) We want immediate liberation, without limit. In order to achieve this, we ac-
cept revolution itself because we cannot allow so many Brazilians to remain
under the whip and under slavery, who, when free, could advantageously
compete for the happiness of our homeland. We will also address the moral
and material progress of our province, energetically chastising all abuses
wherever they may appear and indicating the needed improvements. In
passing, we will say that for us all men are equal, whether he is a marquis,
count, ensign or soldier. If they commit abuse, they will find our newspaper
always ready to reveal it, writing their names so that the public knows the
hypocrites who want to govern it. We are tired of tolerating hypocrites; we
need to purify society. Nevertheless, we promise that our language, albeit
firm and forceful, will be polite and appropriate. We count on the people
and nothing more.
Abolitionists generally advocated peaceful action. So “accepting revolution

itself” is quite a radical stand for a new journal, although the term ‘revolution’
had been used before, and abolitionist discourse became more radical since
the escravista government of 1885. Also, at this point, in 1887, there was no
longer patience with moderate reforms of slavery, and immediate liberation

of slaves was demanded—with the argument that as free persons they could
make a useful contribution to the country. Where generally expressions such
as “under the whip” would be interpreted metaphorically, in Brazil this would
mostly also be meant literally. Values of social or economic progress and
social equality, presupposing the backwardness and inequality of slavery,
have been emphasized repeatedly in abolition discourse, as is also the case
here. Interesting also is the intention of explicitly denouncing the hypocrites
(tartufos) who are guilty of abuse against slaves. Finally, quite exceptional in
abolitionist texts, the fragment features a meta-discursive project, namely to
use polite but firm language—which presupposes that usually the criticism
of slavery in those times tended to be (too) polite and hence not firm enough.
Joaquim Nabuco (1849–1910) was undoubtedly the most famous of the
abolitionists because of his writings on abolition, his international contacts,
travels and his leading role within and outside of parliament in the abolitionist
movement. That he was white and the son of famous politician (José Tomás
Nabuco de Araújo Filho) of a prominent family in Pernambuco helped his
successful political career in ways unthinkable for his black abolitionist
friends. His international activity, also as a diplomat, was especially focused
on the UK, where he had frequent contacts and correspondence with (Quaker
and other) members of the British & Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, BFASS,
such as secretary Charles H. Allen (Penalves Rocha, 2008). Nabuco served
as an important source of information for the BFASS about Brazilian slav-
ery, and many of his texts were published in their organ, the Anti-Slavery
Reporter. In 1880 Nabuco and its friends founded the Sociedade Brasileira
contra a Escravidão, organized and participated in numerous antislavery
events and publications (Alonso, 2015; Dennison, 2006: Penalves Rocha,
2008). In his autobiography, Minha Formação (1900), besides memories of
his youth, he also briefly deals with his relations with his abolitionist friends,
which we cite in order to have an idea about cooperation in the abolitionist
movement in Brazil:
(3.21) The main figures amongst those who I dealt with most intimately in 1879
and 1880 and who formed with me a homogeneous group, our small church,
were André Rebouças, Gusmão Lobo and Joaquim Serra . . . The frontier
church was that of José do Patrocínio, Ferreira de Menezes, Vicente de
Souza, Nicolau Moreira, and afterwards João Clapp with the Abolition-
ist Confederation. If at this time I were writing an act for the 1879–1888
abolitionist movement, I would have already quoted Jerônimo Sodré, who
pronounced the fiat, and I would quote my Chamber members: Manoel
Pedro, Correa Rabello, S. de Barros Pimentel and others, because the move-
ment began in the Chamber in 1879, and not, as it has been said, in the 1880
Gazeta da Tarde of Ferreira de Menezes, nor in the Gazeta de Notícias,
58 Chapter Three
where at that time José do Patrocínio, writing the Semana Política (Political
Week), did nothing but support us and had not yet predicted his mission.
Certainly, Luís Gama and others had already been working in support of
the slaves, even before the law of 1871, as had all the contributors to this
law; but the abolitionist movement from 1879 to 1888 is a movement that
has its own axis, its distinct formation, and whose outset, pace and velocity
are easy to verify; it is a fluvial system of which the sources, the volume
of water and the value of each confluent, the falls, the rapids and the estu-
ary are all known, and this movement begins, beyond any doubt, with the
declaration of Jerônimo Sodré in 1879 in the Chamber.
In his autobiography he emphasizes that no other topic in his life interested

him so much as abolition:
(3.22) Abolition in Brazil has interested me more than all the other matters I have
witnessed in my time.
Although also other abolitionists wrote pamphlets and manifests, Nabuco

wrote a large treatise on abolition, O Abolicionismo (1883), when he was 34
years old. He begins his treatise with a definition and history of the abolition-
ist movement:
(3.23) There is not much that is said in Brazil on abolitionism and the abolitionist
party. The idea of suppressing slavery by freeing existing slaves followed
the idea of suppressing slavery by handing over the million and a half
individuals she was in possession of in 1871 and wiping her hands clean.
It was in the legislature of 1879–80 that for the first time, both within and
outside Parliament, a group of men were seen undertaking the emancipa-
tion of slaves, not limiting captivity to present generations, to their political
flag, or to the preliminary condition of their affiliation to any party. (. . .)
The first national opposition to slavery was promoted only against trade. It
intended to suppress slavery slowly by prohibiting the importation of new
slaves. In light of the frightening mortality of this class, it was said that once
slavery was extinct, Africa’s inexhaustible nursery would be progressively
diminished by death, regardless of new births.
Crucial in this fragment is the presupposition that earlier laws and policies
were limited to the official abolition of the slave trade in 1831 (but actually
only in 1850) and the (hardly applied) Free Womb Act of 1971 meaning abo-
lition of slavery in the future, implying that the abolitionist movement pleads
for immediate liberation of all existing slaves. However, different from other
abolitionists, probably aware of his elite class background, Nabuco was in
favor of compensating slaveowners. In the 17 chapters of his treatise Nabuco
systematically deals with all aspects of the abolition movement, such as the
abolitionist “party” (“an organized opinion to reach its ends”) and movement,
its history and foundations, aims and organization, the slave trade and many
other topics. For him abolition is the condition of democracy, and hence “In
that sense, abolition should be the primary school of all parties, the alphabet
of our politics.” He realizes that abolition is not enough—and that the real job
begins after that—in a passage that is reminiscent of André Rebouças’ ideas:
(3.24) Even if total emancipation were decreed tomorrow, the liquidation of this
regime would only give rise to an infinite series of issues, which could only
be resolved according to the vital interests of the country by the same spirit of
justice and humanity that gives life to abolitionism. After the last slaves have
been torn from the sinister power which represents the curse of color for the
black race, it will still be necessary to chip away, by means of a serious, virile
education, the slow stratification of three hundred years of captivity—that
is, of despotism, superstition and ignorance. Through the natural process by
which slavery has fossilized in its molds the exuberant vitality of our people
throughout the period of growth, and as long as the nation is unaware that it
is imperative to adapt every single apparatus of its organism appropriated by
slavery to liberty, its work will go on, even when there are no more slaves.
Nabuco’s formal, sociopolitical style and ideas are obvious in this passage,
in the sense that abolition itself cannot be the only aim of the movement, and
that doing politics is thinking about the future consequences of current ac-
tions. As in most abolitionist discourse, also here we find a systematic, very
negative portrayal of slavery (sinister power, despotism, etc.). Interesting is
the reference to “raça negra” (“black race,” used 26 times in the book) and
“maldição da cor” (the curse of color), which highlights the crucial criteria
of racist slavery. He dedicates a whole chapter to the “mandate of the black
race,” a chapter he opens with a fierce attack against the (Catholic) church and
its priests in Brazil, negatively compared with religion and the church abroad:
(3.25) In other countries, the propaganda of emancipation was a religious move-
ment, preached from the pulpit, with fervent support from the different
churches and religious communities. Amongst us, unfortunately, nothing
can be owed to the State Church for the abolitionist movement; on the con-
trary, the convents’ and all secular clergy’s possession of men and women
has completely demoralized the religious sentiment of masters and slaves.
In the priest, they would see nothing but a man who could buy them, and
in them, the priest would see the last person who would remember to ac-
cuse him. Our clergy’s desertion of the position that the Gospel marked for
them has been as shameful as possible: no one has seen him take the side
of the slaves and make use of religion to alleviate their captivity and to tell
the moral truth to their masters. No priest has ever tried to stop a slave auc-
tion nor condemn the religious regime of the slave quarters. The Catholic
60 Chapter Three
Church, despite its immense power in a country still fanaticized in large

part by it, has never raised its voice in favor of emancipation in Brazil. (. . .)
In Brazil, the issue is not, as it is in the European colonies, a movement of
generosity in favor of a class of men who are victims of unjust oppression
at a great distance from our shores. Nor is the black race an inferior race to
us, disconnected or isolated from communion, and its welfare affects us like
that of any indigenous tribe abused by the European invaders. For us, the
black race is an element of considerable national importance, closely linked
by infinite organic relations to our constitution and is an integral part of the
Brazilian people. (. . .) Modern slavery rests on a foundation different from
that of ancient slavery: the color black. No one thinks of reducing white men
to captivity; this was reserved only for blacks. We are not an exclusively
white nation, and therefore we must not accept this curse based on color;
quite the contrary, we must do everything to forget it.
The condemnation of the Catholic church in this chapter and passage is

complete, emphasized by enumerating all the situations of slavery where the
Church has done nothing to protect the slaves. The comparison with other
countries, and especially with the support of the abolition movement (no
doubt referring to the Quakers), is not only religious but also racial, in which
for other countries racism and colonialist exploitation go together. Important
here is that, at least in theory, black people in Brazil are seen as an important
part of the people—a principle which also after abolition is hardly respected
in politics and everyday life. By emphasizing that black people are not an
“inferior race,” Nabuco not only presupposes such a racist ideology as the
foundation of slavery, but also opposes explicitly racist ideas that are being
propagated in Europe. Comparing this passage with earlier antislavery texts,
from Jesuit writings in the 17th and 18th century, or with the “prudent” pro-
posals to alleviate slavery a few decades ago by José Bonifácio de Andrada
e Silva, we observe remarkable differences of ideology and argumentation,
especially in the treatment of the “black race” and the unambiguous position
in favor of complete and immediate abolition.
Nabuco also recalls that slavery is illegal, as in the following passage,
which again negatively compares Brazil with other countries and interna-
tional law, in a passage with presupposes Nabuco’s international knowledge,
and his preparation of his future role of a diplomat:
(3.26) It was not required of me to prove the illegality of a regime which is contrary
to the fundamental principles of modern law and which violates the very
notion of what man is under international law. No State should have the
freedom to situate itself in this way outside the civilized communion of the
world, and indeed it will not be long before the day when slavery is legally,
as it is already morally, considered an attack on all humanity.
As do other abolitionists, also Nabuco ironically criticizes the well-known

myth, shared by the press, about the “softness” of slavery in Brazil:
(3.27) Finally, there are repeated statements that among us the state of slavery
is very mild and soft for the slave, and in fact better for him than for his
master. So delighted by this description, one may even suppose that, if con-
sulted, slaves would prefer captivity to freedom. What all this proves is that
newspapers and articles are not written by slaves nor by people who have
been mentally placed for a second in their position.
We see that the criticism of implications of the “democracia racial” debated

in the next century was already formulated by abolitionists such as Nabuco—
in an ironical passage in which people prefer to be slaves rather than to be
free. Even more relevant for this book and this chapter is Nabuco’s critical
discussion of the role of the press and the journalists, most of whom had no
idea about the everyday reality of slavery. Only toward the end of the 1870s
there are critical journal articles about the maltreatment of slaves, but quite
common were publications about fugitive slaves and advertisements for buy-
ing and selling slaves.
Nabuco then proceeds to a detailed description of the power abuses of the
slaveowners and miserable daily lives of the slaves, who as citizens don’t
even count, with serious consequences for any national population policy.
With his book, his social and political analyses, Nabuco offered the abo-
litionist movement of the 1880s a document with the knowledge and argu-
ments for the resistance against slavery and racist ideologies and at the same
time an intellectual foundation for the abolitionist movement as well as later
antiracist movements. Yet the abolition movement at that point was already
quite strong and Nabuco’s book was hardly used in the campaign, but more
consulted later by the historians of the abolitionist movement,
José Carlos do Patrocínio (1853–1905), non-recognized son of a priest and
a 15 year old slave, became another major black leader of the abolition move-
ment. However, after completing his pharmacy studies in 1874, Patrocínio’s
main professional activity was journalism, e.g., first as editor of Gazeta de
Notícias, writing under the pseudonym Prudhomme. With other journalists,
such as Ferreira de Menezes of the abolitionist newspaper Gazeta da Tarde
(acquired by Patrocínio in 1881) (see Magalhães Pinto, 2015), he actively
participated in the Associação Central Emancipadora and the Sociedade
Brasileira contra a Escravidão, and later the Confederação Abolicionista in
1883, of which he wrote the Manifest with Rebouças. In 1887 he started to
edit the new journal A Cidade do Rio, in which he continued his abolitionist
writings, until the journal was prohibited in 1893. Known to have kneeled
and kissed the hand of Princess Isabel after her signature of the Lei Aurea, he
62 Chapter Three
engaged in anti-republican activity, e.g., as participant of the Guarda Negra,

a group of ex-slaves.
His many newspaper articles, of which a collection was later published
under the title A Campanha Abolicionista, are critical ironical pieces mainly
about the ongoing political process in favor of or against abolition, especially
in parliament, as well as addressing Emperor Pedro II, whom he held respon-
sible for the process. After earlier articles in the Gazeta de Notícias, among
which a lengthy calculation of how much money (more than a million contos
de reis) the slaveowners had failed to pay to the slaves during centuries, he
summarized the current situation of the abolition process as follows:
(3.28) Indeed, the most far-reaching issue that concerns national life today is the
conversion of slave labor into free labor. The problem of slavery has been
definitively placed in the face of the country and calls for a solution. The
thick veil with which the Empire has thus far managed to conceal from
the world the horrific monstrosity of its failure to fulfill its obligations, its
breach of the most solemn commitments, its corruption of the law, and the
Government’s connivance with cargo smugglers; this black veil upon which
the Empire applied the law of September 28th to better mask its crime has
just been torn to pieces. Civilized humanity is beginning to watch what hap-
pens in Brazil, and despite the wall of interests that tries to block its view, it
can see the horrors that up until this day have been masked.
Besides the usual negative moral appraisal of slavery (horrific monstrosity),

we first may observe the repeated topos of shame in terms of the “whole
world is watching,” one of the main arguments in abolitionist discourse,
while accusing the government of active concealment, e.g., in terms of bro-
ken promises, fraud and connivance with the slave traders. He qualifies the
Law of the Free Womb (of 28 September 1871) as a crime—which seemed
a positive development but in fact did not liberate the newly born children of
slaves. Thirdly, by qualifying the outside world as “civilized humanity,” he
presupposes that Brazil under slavery is uncivilized, another major topos of
abolitionist argumentation. Besides accusing the (usually conservative) gov-
ernments responsible for this fraud and crime, he frequently also addresses
the Emperor, not only with rhetorical questions expressing accusations, but
even with threats:
(3.29)
Does Your Majesty not sense anything extraordinary at this moment
that in the span of two years has been communicated to the whole coun-
try? Do you not think it is the product of an approaching earthquake?
When the cursed dry ground which has been drinking the sweat and mourning
of millions of men for three centuries splits, does not Your Majesty fear that
one of the ruins will be your throne? Loyalty requires us to warn His Majesty.
These more aggressive speech acts are conveyed by equally strong, embodied
metaphors, representing abolition as an earthquake, slavery metonymically in
terms of the sweat and tears of the slaves, and the threat metonymically as the
fall of the emperor. Here is another one of Patrocínio’s threats addressed to
the emperor and his reign, this time in terms of an ultimatum:
(3.30)
He knows that only the negligence of the Second Empire is respon-
sible for the blindness in which the country has lived, squandering its
forces in the conservation of a criminal and heinous institution. (. . .)
Either the emperor place himself candidly at the head of the movement,
taking advantage of its constitutional inertia, the work and sacrifice of those
who have undergone everything to bring the people’s soul to the conviction
that slavery must be condemned once and for all, or else the emperor will
have the displeasure of seeing his last days darkened by the most astounding
event in our history.
Again, slavery as an institution is negatively qualified by an enhanced nega-

tive appraisal as a “heinous crime,” and the country, if not the reign, meta-
phorically as living in blindness. Here, as elsewhere in his journal texts, Pa-
trocínio in principle hopes that the Emperor, exercising the function of “Poder
Moderador” (Moderating Power), will finally show leadership by heading
the abolitionist movement and thus persuading the people to once and for all
condemning slavery. The alternative is also metaphorically enhanced, by a
terrible event that may “darken” his last days. These doubts about the position
of the Emperor make Patrocínio later ask:
(3.31) Is the emperor really the head of abolitionism? If so, why does the ministry
not seek the means to intervene now and in this moment as an opinion in
the election campaigns?
The rhetoric of the abolitionists is often radical, but that doesn’t mean they
don’t have doubts themselves, formulated in terms of the well-known topos
of the competition between passion and reason, known from Hamlet:
(3.32) Knowing the complexity of the servile problem, having studied it in all its
bindings to the nation’s domestic and public life, from family organization
to the production of national wealth, the abolitionists themselves often had
hours of doubt, when they questioned their conscience, asked if they had
not allowed feeling to stifle reasoning and humanitarianism to obscure
homeland conveniences.
Obviously, the rational side of the question of abolition presupposes the stan-
dard argument against abolition used by the slaveowners and their representa-
tives until late in the 1880s, namely that it would be fatal for the economy of
64 Chapter Three
the state. It is in the same vein that Patrocínio a moment later specifies how
the abolitionists see the new economy without slavery. At the same time, his
biting criticism of his journal articles continues to be focused on the Conser-
vative party:
(3.33) All who have studied the parliamentary history of this country know that
the Conservative Party has called on itself to resolve the servile problem.
The history of this party is the history of slavery since 1831. It was the party
that scandalously and criminally protected the already forbidden traffick-
ing; it was the party that having failed to obtain amnesty de jure granted it
de facto to those accused of piracy, to the traffickers accused by the press
and complaints from England; it is the party which, ultimately, through the
voice of Mrs. Paulino de Sousa and João Alfredo still dares to come speak
of legal property even after the Senate Bill 133 in 1837, and the shameful
revelations of all the Brazilian governments and parliamentarians regarding
the flagrant abuses and the deliberate violation of the law that closed our
ports to the entry of Africans.
This passage features several argumentative moves emphasizing the writer’s

opinion. First of all, his own opinion as well as that of the abolitionists is
generalized (“all who . . .”) with a consensus move combined with one of
(scientific) authority as part of an evidential (“we know”) and a repeated
topos about the accumulated evidence of history. The emphatic focus on
the role of the Conservative party is expressed by an initial cleft sentence
structure (“It was the party that . . .”), introducing the strong appraisal terms
“scandalously” and “criminally,” which imply more than a negative opinion,
but locates the responsibility of the Conservatives in the legal domain of
criminal negligence and active collusion of the (prohibited) slave trade. We
see that Patrocínio’s rhetoric combines legal, moral and political arguments
in his attacks of his opponents, whom he locates rather in parliament than on
the plantations or at sea—because it is the lack of political action that allows
the continuity of the slave trade (between 1831 and 1850) and slavery (until
1888). Then Patrocínio reminds his readers of some of the main events of the
history of the struggle against the slave trade, such as the actions of England,
as well as those of the press and (other) MPs denouncing these crimes. He
refers to the Project of Felisberto Caldeira Brant Pontes, the Marquês de Bar-
bacena, in the Senate (March 30, 1837) which in its first article stipulates “É
proibida a importação de escravos e de pretos livres no território do Brasil”
(The importation of slaves and free blacks into the Brazilian territory is pro-
hibited). The same day Patrocínio adds that this knowledge about the role of
the Conservatives is part of “public memory” during the debates of the Free
Womb Law of 1871, because they continue to defend the “direito de proprie-
dade escrava” (the right of slave ownership), instead of defending the rights
of the slaves. Whereas much if not most of his critical discourse focuses on
the Conservatives, Patrocínio personalizes the debate by continued attacks on
the Emperor, of whom he impatiently expects intervention, again in terms of
a consensus move, and in again with a binary choice between Yes and No,
between Glory or Lethe, the river of forgetfulness in the underworld:
(3.34) Scholars and sages, all those who imagine and move, who discover and gen-
eralize, who await your monosyllabic criticism and your Majesty’s “yes”
or “no” are for them the Pantheon or Lethe, the perpetuity of glory or the
eternity of oblivion.
In his historical flashback, he reminds the readers of his newspaper of the

role of the Monarchy, and concludes with a different definition of freedom:
(3.35) It is a historical fact that the monarchy was founded in Brazil only because
it supported slavery. His Majesty is dealing with the abolitionist issue as he
has dealt with all the others, as if it were simply a matter of political rights
of which people allow postponements. This is a mistake. The slave does
not plead the case of political freedom, but the freedom to have possession
over himself.
Whereas Nabuco and other abolitionists struggled in parliament, Patrocínio

does so too, but from his powerful position as journal owner and editor, that
is, with privileged access to the minds of the public at large, which through its
influence on the politicians, finally became the major cause of the abolition.
At the same time, Patrocínio’s discourse shows the more general role and
power of much of the press during the 1880s—after its earlier lack of interest
in the issue of abolition.
Women Abolitionists
At least until quite recently in studies of his-tory, women are often “forgotten.”
In our study of abolitionist discourse in the UK and U.S. we have seen that
women played a prominent role in the struggle against slavery and racism
(van Dijk, 2021). This was also the case in Brazil, where however most stud-
ies of abolition focus primarily or exclusively on men (see however Alonso,
2015, and the generally brief, and sometimes marginally published, studies of
Barbosa Silva & Barreto, 2014; Carneiro da Silva, 2015; Do Couto Gontijo
Muniz & Macena, 2012; Fernandes Rocha, 2015; Garcia & Baldin Lippi Fer-
nandes, 2014; Gonçalves, 2017; Sant’Anna, 2008; Telles, 1989).
Unfortunately, for our project this means that there are hardly published
collections of women’s talk or text on abolition. Despite this lack of data,
let us nevertheless mention some of these women, as they participated
66 Chapter Three
in abolitionist discursive activities such as meetings, propaganda, theater

performances and poetry, as well as the organization of abolitionist clubs and
societies, such as Ave Libertas organized by the seamstress Leonor Porto and
other women in Recife in 1884 (see especially the studies of Alonso, 2011,
2015; Barbosa Silva & Barreto, 2014; Gonçalves Ferreira, 1999). In a leaflet
published in 1885, after a year of its foundation, the women of Ave Libertas
celebrated their activities as follows:
(3.36) The eternal pendulum of the times has marked a year of existence for the
Ave Libertas society. Despite such a short life span, this small but brave
group of ladies occupies a most advantageous place in the gallery of glories
of our Fatherland, commanding the admiration and public awareness of Per-
nambuco as a growing necessity and, we venture to say, a sine qua condition
for the abolitionist movement in Brazil.
(3.37) Without accepting the insults and names, the hydrophobic implications,
the qualifications which our admirable slavocrats undress themselves of in
order to lend to us, human blood suckers; without claiming the kind antono-
masias of pretoleiras [black supporters] and nihilists we have so far man-
aged to free some 200 enslaved people, waging this fierce battle in which
our unhappiness and shame seeks to regain what is most inalienable, most
indestructible, holiest, and most sublime: human freedom!
The critical ironical reference to slaveowners as blood suckers as their op-

ponents and detractors gives an idea about the women’s combativity and their
rhetorical competence, as well as showing their pride to have liberated more
than 200 slaves in so little time.
Of the large number of abolitionist clubs and associations in Brazil
(Alonso, 2011, 2015), many were founded or managed by women. In Rio de
Janeiro alone there were 5 abolitionist associations with female protagonists,
and in the whole of Brazil 18 (Alonso, 2011: 188; Barbosa Silva & Barreto,
2014: 56; Fernandes Rocha, 2015; see also Kittleson, 2005).
Not mentioned below are the countless women, especially also black women,
free(d) or slave, who resisted slavery and fought for abolition, such as Dandara
dos Palmares, Anastácia, Tereza de Benguela, Agualtune, Zeferina, Acotirene,
Adelina Charuteira, Rainha Tereza do Quariterê, Mariana Crioula, Esparança
Garcia, Eva Maria de Bonsucesso, Maria Aranha, Tia Simoa and Zacimba
Gaba (briefly presented by Gonçalves, 2017). Although we have no access to
most of their texts, we’ll finally mention some of these abolitionist women.
Maria Firmina dos Reis (1825–1917) was the black author of (one of)
the first Brazilian novel(s) written by a woman, a tragic love story, Ursula
(1859), and the short story A Escrava (1887), picturing the life of slaves. She
advocated abolition in local newspapers and her views of slavery are also
obvious in her novel, representing characters from a black perspective (De

Macedo Mendes, 2011; Telles, 1989):
(3.38) Lord God! When will your sublime maxim become silent in man’s breast—
love your neighbor as yourself—and stop oppressing your fellow man with
such reprehensible injustice! . . . to him who was also free in his country
. . . he who is your brother?! And the misery suffered, for he was a slave,
and slavery had not dulled his soul; because the generous feelings God im-
planted in his heart remained as intact and pure as his soul. He was unhappy,
but he was virtuous; and so, his heart softened in the presence of the painful
scene that sight offered to him.
Francisca Edwiges Neves Gonzaga (1847–1935), usually called Chiquinha,

was a free thinking (divorced) pianist, a famous composer of popular music
and conductor, daughter of a poor mestizo woman, and one of the women
who participated in abolitionist meetings combined with theater or concerts,
as well as in suffragist activities.
Maria Amélia de Queiroz (unknown years of birth and death) was a
teacher, member of the secret abolitionist Cupim club in Recife (founded by
João Ramos) and one of the founders in 1884 of the influential Ave Libertas
association, among whose activities was the liberation of 200 slaves and the
publication of a journal of the same name. In her lectures she emphasized
that civil rights and slavery were incompatible, denounced male chauvinism,
advocated the right of divorce. She also hid escaped slaves in her house and
alphabetized slaves after abolition.
Maria Tomásia Figueira Lima (1826–1902?), daughter of an aristocratic
family, was president and one of the founders in 1883 of one of the many abo-
litionist associations in the province of Ceará (Alonso, 2015), the Sociedade
das Senhoras Libertadoras (or Cearenses Libertadoras or Sociedade Aboli-
cionista Feminina), a very active group of 22 abolitionist women of promi-
nent families, who traveled the province of Ceará in order to make abolition-
ist propaganda. These women themselves signed 12 manumission letters and
persuaded 72 senhores de engenho (planters) to do the same. Maria Tomásia
was present on March 25, 1884, in the Assembleia Legislativa of Ceará
when the province, as first in the Empire, declared the official liberation of
all slaves, four years before this would happen for the whole empire. This
political event had tremendous influence in the rest of the country and was
used as an argument by many other abolitionists and organizations. Although
she had little education, Maria Tomásia was known to be excellent speaker
(Girão 1956), and as is the case for the other abolitionist women mentioned
here, it is regrettable that we have no (access to her) speeches or publications.
68 Chapter Three
Narcisa Amália de Campos (1856–1924) was a poet, novelist, feminist,

abolitionist and the first woman who was a professional journalist in Brazil,
and actively engaged in the struggle against slavery and for women’s rights.
She believed in the tremendously important role of the press for the forma-
tion of public opinion and emotion (Torres Montenegro, 1989). In her book
of poems Nebulosas (1872), admired by Machado de Assis and the Emperor,
she described the miserable situation of slaves, as in the following lines of the
poem “O africano e o poeta”:
(3.39) In the sad corner

Of the poor captive
Who I furtively uplift
Júlia Valentina de Silveira Lopes de Almeida (1862–1934), daughter of an

upper-class Portuguese family, started her career as a journalist and became
a successful and influential novelist, feminist and abolitionist. Among her
many other writings, influenced by, e.g., Émile Zola, her novel A Família
Medeiros (1892) is relevant here because it offers a detailed representation
of the horrors of slavery on the plantation, the autocratic and cruel character
of male slaveowners, as well as the abolitionist and feminist activities of a
modern young woman (Toledo Mendonça, 2003). She planned the Brazilian
Academy of Letters, but as a woman she was excluded from this all-male
club, which only admitted its first woman, Rachel de Queiroz, in 1977. Only
in 2017 the Academy organized a special honorary event for Julia Lopes de
Almeida (Ferreira, 2017).
Maria Augusta Generoso Estrela (1860–1946) was the first Brazilian
woman educated (in New York already when she was 16) in medicine in
1881, financially supported by the Emperor himself, because women were
not admitted to the university in Brazil until the Emperor’s decree of 1879.
She was member of the Clube Abolicionista do Recife (see Gonçalves Fer-
reira, 1999), where she opened a session with the following words (Torres
Montenegro, 1989):
(3.40) My Lords and my Ladies:

Invited by the distinguished members of the Abolitionist Club to attend
the party celebrating the freedom of some slaves, I am thrilled because this
symbolizes the fervent love for the cause of saving a part of the Brazilian
family which is still under the cruel law of captivity! Yes, ladies and gentle-
men, my heart trembles with infinite joy to see that soon the land where I
was born will not be stepped on by a single enslaved foot.
Today is an expression of two sublime manifestations: that of the govern-
ment and the House of Representatives which voted the law of emancipation
of the children of slaves, and that of the youth who feeling their heart beat
for the cause of the slaves have been working with unbeatable energy to
reduce the number of victims of an inhuman and antisocial law that reduces
the human being to a thing rather than a person! Oh! There is nothing more
abject and vile than to separate a part of a useful whole in order to vilify it!
It’s certainly a wonder how men who have studied human law, who claim to
believe in God, how these apostles of Christ own or have owned slaves (. . .).
This celebration is the forerunner of a conquest of light against darkness,
truth against lies, freedom against slavery.
This fragment shows the usual discursive properties of much abolitionist

rhetoric: the very negative appraisal of slavery (cruel, inhuman, antisocial),
the familiar topos of describing its consequence (slaves are treated as things,
not as human beings), the incompatibility of being Christian and have slaves,
and a series of binary metaphors freedom vs. slavery: light vs. darkness and
truth vs. lies. Interesting is also the metonymy describing slaves as part of the
Brazilian “family.”
Maria Inés Sabino Pinho Maia (1853–1911) was also a poet, feminist
and abolitionist and member of the Ave Libertas abolitionist association in
Pernambuco (she wrote a book of poems with the title Ave Libertas), author
of Mulheres Ilustres do Brasil (1899) and advocate of a divorce law (Teles
Silveira, 2014).
Although this brief review of women abolitionists is far from complete, it
gives an idea about the role of independent Brazilian women in the struggle
against slavery, especially in abolitionist clubs and a large variety of ac-
tivities, ranging from speeches, journal articles, propaganda, poetry, novels,
theater, and lectures. Some were famous first female novelists. Many were
white professional women of upper-class families, but there were also black,
lower-class women engaged in these activities. Not surprisingly, many were
at the same time abolitionist and feminist, and advocated more civil rights for
women, such as divorce and higher education. The history of Brazilian aboli-
tion, especially also because of their role in the many abolitionist associations
responsible for the change of attitudes in the 1880s, is unthinkable without
the prominent role of women. Indeed, although abolition discourse became
widespread only in the 1880s, the first abolition associations already were
founded since the 1850s (Alonso, 2015).
Conclusions
Slavery in Brazil, as elsewhere, has always been resisted, first of all by the
slaves themselves, who in many ways challenged their masters and overseers,
escaped and founded quilombos of runaway slaves. This resistance, also in
70 Chapter Three
Brazil, has been among the many causes of the abolition of slavery in the
19th century.
This book and this chapter, however, only deal with the many forms of dis-
cursive resistance against slavery and racism. Initially, such resistance could
hardly be engaged in by the slaves themselves, who were forbidden to learn to
write and read. As was the case in the history of slavery in Europe and North
America, initial criticism and opposition against (the harshest forms of) slav-
ery were engaged in by priests, e.g., by Bartolomé de las Casas in Mexico,
and Quaker preachers in the UK, the Caribbean and the U.S.
Jesuit antislavery writings

In Brazil, this opposition was first formulated by Jesuits such as Vieira, Benci
and Rocha in the 17th and 18th centuries, both in their sermons as well as
in more extensive writings, after earlier criticism of the—soon abolished—
slavery of indigenous people. Also due to the control and censorship by the
Inquisition, they as yet did not and could not write against the very system of
slavery, which was the economic basis of the colony.
They did, however, engage in detailed and systematic criticism of the
abuses of slaves by their masters. They described in detail the harsh everyday
exploitation, misery and cruel punishments of slaves. The topics, arguments
and rhetoric of these early writings against slavery, advocating a more “hu-
man” form of slavery, had widespread influence on religious, political and
journalistic discourse until abolition in the 19th century.
One of the first impressions of these early antislavery writings in Brazil
against slavery is their hardly dated nature. Their authors not only were very
well informed about classical rhetoric (and slavery), and not only experienced
preachers who could influence people from the pulpit. They also engaged in
irony, humor and many (other) rhetorical tricks to challenge the system of
slavery, and especially to accuse the brutality of slaveowners and to movingly
describe the misery of the slaves. They address the slaves and try to alleviate
their sufferings—but hardly incite to escape or to revolt. They especially ad-
dress the senhores and try to persuade them to avoid cruelty in punishments,
to assuage the gruesome everyday tasks of the slaves and to provide enough
food and clean clothes, and enough rest and health care. Parallelisms, repeti-
tions, metaphors and many other rhetorical moves emphasize the contrasts
between the opulence and the cruelty of the masters and the misery and suf-
fering of the slaves.
These writings are more than sociologies avant la lettre of everyday
slavery in Brazil. Their communicative contexts, including the identity of
the authors as Catholic (Jesuit) priests, also control religious concerns and
arguments in the texts, such as recommendations for rest on Sundays and
religious holidays, on the one hand, and unambiguous threats with Hell for
cruel masters. Slaves, thus, maybe described as the “children of Adam and
Eve,” and “redeemed by the blood of Christ.” On the other hand, these early
antislavery texts are hardly explicitly antiracist. They may describe black
slaves in humanitarian terms, but no less with stereotypes and prejudices,
such as their “libidinous” or “brute” nature.
At the same time, until the 19th century, (threatening) censorship and
control by the Inquisition and other powerholders in Portugal might accept
a criticism of “unchristian” abuse of slaves, but as yet not proposals for the
abolition of the very system—that is, the economic sustenance of the colony,
although they sometimes refer to Quaker arguments against the slave trade
and slavery. In that sense, their discourses may be, and have been, interpreted
as religious and humanitarian legitimations of slavery and as expressions
of colonialist ideologies. On the other hand, many of the properties of their
texts at the same time show genuine empathy with the slaves, and—at least
between the lines—a very critical view of slavery as a system, and not only
of the enslavement of indigenous people (soon in fact abolished), but also of
African slaves. Indeed, they may also address and persuade slaveowners as
Christians to free their slaves so as to receive divine compensation.
In the 18th century a writer such as Rocha, well informed about the debate
on slavery in France and England, goes beyond the more humanitarian ser-
mons of its Jesuit predecessors and focuses on the legal aspects of slavery.
The slave trade may thus be defined as a theft of people, and hence as a crime,
and to be judged by international standards.
These ‘sympathetic’ antislavery texts of the 17th and 18th century, how-
ever, do not mean that this critical attitude characterized the whole (Catholic)
church, as well as all priests. On the contrary, as the prominent abolitionist
Nabuco in the 19th century stresses in an elaborate attack: Not only many
priests had slaves, but the church as an institution had never forcefully op-
posed slavery.
Abolition discourse
The antislavery discourses of priests such as Vieira, Benci and Rocha in the
17th and 18th century may be quite explicit in their definition of the humanity
of indigenous and black slaves, and very critical especially of the cruelty of,
and abuses by the slaveowners, but compared to the plethora of antislavery
texts of their Christian brethren, the Quakers, in the UK and U.S., these are
only very few writings. Indeed, despite knowledge of the debate in Europe
and North America, we barely find extensive debate on slavery in Brazil in
the 18th century. The Catholic church connived with the powerful slavehold-
ers and the elites in Portugal, and the limited press would not become active
72 Chapter Three
until much later in the 19th century. We have no knowledge about philosophi-
cal writings on slavery in Brazil in the 18th century, although the elites, many
educated in Coimbra, no doubt knew the debate in France and England—and
no doubt about the more general political and philosophical debate about
the French Revolution. Some short-lived revolutionary movements in Brazil
were inspired by the French Revolution—but hardly aiming the abolition of
slavery.
We have to wait until after the independence of Brazil in 1822 before
the debate on the increasingly controversial slave trade was modestly and
prudently entering political discourse, as was the case for the writings of
José Bonifacio de Andrada, the “patriarch of independence.” Well-informed
about, and explicitly referring to, the debate in the UK, he advocated the
abolition of the slave trade, and the gradual abolition of the system of slavery
in Brazil. Different from religious authors of the 17th and 18th century, the
arguments in this and later abolitionist texts were not just Christian topics
and topoi, or humanitarian arguments about the humanity of black people, but
an expression of national shame, comparing Brazil to other countries. At the
same time, more sociopolitical arguments against slavery become formulated,
such as the (lacking) homogeneity of the Brazilian population, and the devel-
opment of black people as citizens of the nation—which as slaves they never
were. The influence of norms and values of the French Revolution—more
than 30 years earlier—finally also made itself known in Brazilian writings on
slavery. Slaves are now being discussed in terms of human rights, although
life on the fazendas was still being described in terms of an idyllic coopera-
tion between slaves and masters.
In the meantime, the opposition against slavery in Brazil was largely the
increasing non-discursive resistance of the slaves themselves as well as the
diminishing economic utility of slavery, on the one hand, and the debate in
England and the activities of the British navy to prohibit and prevent the slave
trade to Brazil, though hardly effective until around 1850 and massive illegal
imports of hundreds of thousands of slaves.
Only after the 1860s more radical Brazilian politicians, journalists, lawyers
and activists, including women, began to attack the very system of slavery
and to advocate complete abolition as well as improvement of the civil rights
of the (liberated) slaves. The nephew and grandson of José Bonifácio An-
drada e Silva, called O Moço, leaves no doubt when in 1885 he describes
the slave trade, decades after its prohibition, as inconsistent with the Brazil-
ian constitution, and condemning it as “this abominable, shameful, inhuman
trade, contrary to the lights of the century, unjust and barbaric, antisocial
and opposed to the spirit of Christianity, only to slow the progress of human
civilization.” The inconsistency with Christian values was hardly original, as
we have seen in the Jesuit texts, as is the case for its “inhuman” nature, but
now metaphorical notions of “lights” and human civilization become to be
formulated as parts of the resistance against slavery.
Black abolitionist lawyer Luís Gama not only resisted slavery by success-
fully defending slaves against their masters, but also by forceful discourses
describing slavery and the situation of “millions of free men” in the most
explicit terms, that need no further commentary and analysis, and can only
be repeated:
(3.41) Millions of free men, born as beasts or angels, on the blazing sands of
Africa, stolen, enslaved, beaten, mutilated and dragged in this classic land
of sacred freedom, murdered with impunity, without rights, without fam-
ily, with no homeland, without religion, sold like beasts, plundered in their
work, turned into machines, condemned to the struggle of all times, for the
benefit of cynical speculators, impudent thieves and nameless brigands;
all of this they suffered and suffer in the face of an opulent society, of the
wisest of monarchs, in the divine light of the holy Roman Catholic and
Apostolic religion, before the most generous and most unselfish of peoples.
To describe such passages in terms of rhetorical hyperbole, metaphors, or

contrasts implies that it exaggerates the actual situation of the slaves—when
it would be more appropriate to characterize it as precise semantic realism
about the vast social inequality between slaves and slaveowners.
The discourses of the other abolitionists were hardly less forceful. Rebouças,
the eminent black engineer, emphatically writes about what the black popula-
tion needs after abolition, while attacking slaveowners as parasites. At the
same time, he is the first to emphasize the “holy mission” of the press—a press
that until a few years earlier had cared very little about slaves and slavery.
Bento, as journalist, promises to reveal, using “polite language,” the abuses
of the tartufos (hypocrites) and demands the immediate freedom of all slaves
so that they can participate in the happiness of the country, thus adding a
nationalist argument and a meta-discursive dimension of style to the struggle
against slavery.
Nabuco, the elite (white) statesman from Recife, well informed about and in
contact with abolitionists in England, writes a whole monograph on abolition.
He becomes the most famous and most cited of the abolitionists—as well as
the source of the information about all those involved in the abolitionist move-
ment. Like Rebouças, he also thinks about what will come after abolition in
the following words: “After the last slaves have been torn from the sinister
power that represents the curse of color to the black race, it is still necessary
to thin out, by means of a manly and serious education, the slow stratification
of three hundred years of captivity, that is, of despotism, superstition and ig-
74 Chapter Three
norance.” The impressive rhetoric (“torn from sinister power”) here combines
with sociological and political analysis, in terms of “the curse of color” and
“race,” describing inequality in terms of “stratification,” as well as the socio-
cognitive consequences of slavery, in terms of “superstition and ignorance.”
With Nabuco and his abolitionists friends, both in parliament as well as
in the press, antislavery discourse has come a long way from the antislav-
ery writings of the Jesuits 200 years earlier. Indeed, more than anybody, he
fustigates the Catholic church for its connivance with slavery—asserting
that no priest had ever prevented a sale of slaves. His abolitionist discourse
becomes explicitly antiracist when he states that the black race for him and
the abolitionists is not an inferior race, isolated from the national community,
and when he speaks of the European invaders abusing indigenous tribes. As
a lawyer and diplomat, he warns that no legitimate state can withdraw from
the international civilized community by its attack on humanity itself. Such
discourse, obviously, is approaching notions, values and arguments of human
rights preparing the 20th century. And decades before others will do so after
1960, he ironically challenges the myth of Brazilian “racial democracy.”
Patrocínio, among many others not recalled here, also focuses on the mis-
erable international reputation of Brazil before “the eyes of the world . . . the
civilized community,” the last country abolishing slavery in 1888—just be-
fore the collapse of Empire and the birth of the Republic a year later. His rhet-
oric is primarily political, first trying to persuade his friend, Emperor Pedro
II, to take the lead of the abolition process, then openly attacking him for not
doing so. Like his friends, his metaphorical rhetoric emphasizes the meaning
of his discourses when describing the country for the Emperor as the “barren
ground, which has been drinking for three centuries the sweat and laments of
millions of men.” At the same time, his political analysis blames especially
the conservative party as the slavery party, and as the party that protected the
piracy of the slave traders and ignored the abuses of the slaveowners.
Abolition in Brazil, as also in other countries, was not just the forceful dis-
course and the critical political and moral analysis of a small group of black
and white politicians, journalists, lawyers and other activists. After 1880 it
had become a vast, even popular movement, with a large variety of events,
celebrations, shows, theater, demonstrations, public acts of manumission and
much more, as so well described in the monograph of Angela Alonso. As was
the case in many cities, there were many local manumission societies, such
as Ave Libertas in Recife, led by black and white women. In many roles, as
organizers as well as novelists and poets, also women played a prominent
role in the liberation of slaves and cooperated in popular as well as political
initiatives to obtain abolition and to care for black men, women and children
who needed it.
Chapter Four
Antiracist Discourse after Abolition
The last decades of the 19th century and the first of the 20th century are the
ideological heyday of official racism. Also in Brazil, Comte’s Positivism,
Spencer’s Social Darwinism and Galton’s eugenics and related racist ideolo-
gies were followed by scholars and politicians, such as influential literary
historian, folklorist, philosopher and politician Silvio Romero following
Spencer (Eakin, 1985).
The pseudo-scientific ideas had a devastating effect on race relations be-
tween the growing white majority and the liberated slaves and their descen-
dants. Immigration policies of “whitening” favored European immigrants
(see, e.g., Dávila, 2003; Skidmore, 1974). Also literary authors of the period
reflected on civilization, the “racial” nature of the tropical nation and Euro-
pean immigration, as is the case in Euclides da Cunha’s novel Os Sertões
(1902; see also Wood, 2019).
Despite the popularity of these Social Darwinist ideas, also in Brazil, there
were also opponents, only some of whom can briefly be discussed here.
Manoel Bomfim (1868–1932), a doctor, psychologist, pedagogue and so-
ciologist, with a psychology education in Paris, criticized the racist ideas of
Silvio Romero and others (see, e.g.. Bechelli, 2009). He advocated a more
sociohistorical and interpretive psychology. Given his unique antiracist posi-
tion and writings in a period when many of his academic colleagues, both
in Brazil as well as in Europe, were influenced by racist and eugenic ideas,
we’ll examine several of his discourses. In his book América Latina: males
de origem (1905) he uses the biological metaphor of parasites (as Rebouças
had done before him) to describe both the relation between slaveowners and
slaves, as well as that between metropolitan countries and their colonies, the
first living on the work of the latter:
75
76 Chapter Four
(4.1) Black slaves—coerced by whipping—adapted and became accustomed to

working as much as possible and living with minimal alimentation comforts;
those who did not do this perished. Thus died the millions of Africans im-
ported to serve the Spanish and Portuguese settlers. (. . .) To the moralist and
sociologist it must seem impossible when reading the chronicles of slavery
that human beings had reached the state of moral perversion characteristic
and common in slaveholders. This is not about transient things, such as
hatreds and cruelties that accompany armed struggle. No, it is the ultimate
moral abjection, permanent perversity and inhumanity: generations and gen-
erations of men who lived to martyr and devour generations of Indians and
black slaves—through starvation, the whip, and fatigue . . . There was nothing
human about the relationship between master and slave. Torn from his native
jungle, abandoned here to the relentless greed of the settler, the poor African
had only one way to free himself: death. Oh, the thousands who sought rest
there! On certain fazendas—and even still today—rare was the month when
two or three hanging black corpses were not lowered from the trees.
Beyond the metaphor of the parasites, Bomfim here continues, in a slightly

more modern style (referring to sociologists), the abolitionist tradition of de-
scribing slavery in terms of a profound moral and inhuman perversity. On the
other hand, as we also have seen before, he shows profound empathy with the
misery of the slaves. The numbers game (millions, thousands) in this case is
not merely a rhetorical device of emphasis but represents real numbers. His
opinions are not just that, but based on reading actual chronicles of slavery,
an evidential move (referring to the source of knowledge) that is quite unique
among other comments on slavery. Remarkable is also that his study not only
applies to Brazil, but to the whole of Latin America, and not only to African
slaves but also indigenous ones (see also Klein & Vinson, 2007). Relevant
is also his comparison with intergroup hatred due to war, which usually is
temporary. On the contrary, the way the “settlers” treated their slaves is mor-
ally evaluated as the lowest form of perversion and inhumanity, as motivated
by greed. Other discourses on slavery we have examined also hardly spoke
of suicide, as Bomfim does. In other words, this brief passage offers in a few
well-chosen words and with a sophisticated rhetorical structure, a complete,
sociological and moral description and evaluation of the system of slavery, its
motivation (greed), its interactions, the perverse character of the slaveowners
as well as the origin and daily experiences of the slaves. It is like a summary
of a sociological treatise.
We have seen before that empathy with slaves does not imply lacking ste-
reotypes about black and indigenous people:
(4.2) Firstly, the natives and blacks, being still very backward peoples, had neither
qualities, nor defects, nor virtues so as to influence others and provoke imita-
Antiracist Discourse after Abolition 77
tion. Rudimentary souls, almost virgin natures, they were the ones who in
this meeting and crossing of races were influenced by and imitated the most
erudite. These primitive peoples are distinguished precisely by a set of nega-
tive qualities—inconsistency of character, levity, recklessness, indifference
to the past, etc.; as they develop, civilization will fill these empty frames.
Explicitly defining the nature of “primitive” with a metaphorical descrip-

tion (they are like empty frames) at the same time seems like a traditional
Eurocentric ethnography—in which “primitive” peoples are “filled” (another
metaphor) with civilization. Notions such as “rudimentary,” “virgin” and
“backward” complete the description of these “primitive,” as yet ‘empty’
peoples. On the other hand, however, beyond the traditional ethnography
that recalls the “beau sauvage” of Rousseau and other philosophers of the
18th century, there is a list of admittedly “negative” characteristics that seem
rather based on local, popular stereotypes about black people in Brazil—and
not on systematic study. But on the other hand, Bomfim explains such char-
acteristics in terms of the situation:
(4.3) Along with these qualities, the classic defects of blacks are cited: uncondi-
tional submission, laxity of will, servile docility. . . . Such qualities are much
the effect of the situation in which they are placed. Think of the miserable
condition of these wretches, who, while still young ignorant men of embry-
onic intelligence, are torn from their natural surroundings and transported in
bulk within infected holds, transported between iron and whips to another
world, to inhuman and ruthless slavery!
In other words, the negative stereotypes are not inherent ‘racial’ characteris-
tics but attributed to the situation in which blacks were forced to live—again
defined by the much more negative description of slavers and slaveowners
(inhuman, ruthless). Again, this is not a conclusion of his own research, but
are characteristics he has read about (cited)—another epistemic move of evi-
dentiality. The notion of “ignorance” and the metaphor of their “embryonic”
intelligence complements the Eurocentric stereotypes of the “unfilled savage”
we observed in the previous example, also summarized by the metaphorical
notion of “backwardness,” which conceptually implies a road or voyage in
which “we” are more advanced. Instead of an explicitly negative description,
these stereotypical metaphors imply that these “primitive” people can de-
velop, grow, become complete and “filled” by civilization—as if describing
children. Instead of negatively racist, they rather seem forms of paternalism,
although the implied notion of white or western supremacy hardly can be
seen as antiracist, even when the Others are only temporarily “primitive”—as
was the case in much of the anthropology of the period.
78 Chapter Four
As if to correct and compensate the cited stereotypes of blacks and indig-

enous peoples (attributed to his readings), the author then changes the nega-
tive description into a positive one, and recalls the heroic resistance of slaves
and the quilombos, and adds an original counterfactual argument:
(4.4) If today after 300 years of captivity (of the captivity that existed here!) these
men are not true social and intellectual monsters, it is because they possess
remarkable virtues.
In other words, 300 years of slavery would normally have produced “mon-
sters,” and that this is not the case can only be explained by “remarkable
virtues.” In this case, these are not situational characteristics, but positive
inherent ones, that is, a contradiction of racist characterizations of “primi-
tive” peoples.
Especially relevant for our analysis is when Bomfim critically comments on
contemporary ideas about the alleged racial superiority of white Europeans,
(4.5) We might as well discuss then the whole famous theory of inferior races.
What is this theory? How was it born? The answer to these questions will tell
us that such a theory is but an abject sophism of human selfishness, hypocriti-
cally masked by cheap science and cowardly applied to the exploitation of
the weak by the strong.
This time, the focus is not on “primitive” people, but on “cheap” primitive
(western) science, characterized by (inherent) negative qualities (selfishness,
hypocrisy, cowardly), thus combining a social psychological description with
a sociological analysis in terms of power abuse and domination. The rejection
of the ideas of Gobineau and others could not be more explicit—and defines
Bomfim as the first explicitly antiracist scholar in Brazil in the 20th century,
comparable to the (mostly Jewish) antiracist scholars challenging racist sci-
ence in Europe in the 19th century (see Van Dijk, 2021).
And just like many abolitionists, Bomfim doesn’t spare Christian religion
and the church, in another biting condemnation:
(4.6) All this has been stifled by barbarism in the service of Christian politics,
degrading the egalitarian religion of the Judean into the most formidable
instrument of moral and political oppression that has ever existed. The world
was handed over to the ferocity of the wicked—counts or bishops—and in the
shadow of this religion, injustices continued and accumulated.
His evaluation of slavery is not mitigated, and characterized as the worst

ever of all forms of oppression, again hardly a hyperbole, but a conclusion
of social and political analysis, in which the church (bishops) is linked with
the political power elites (counts) that defined slavery in Brazil. Interesting
though is not his complete rejection of religion, when he emphasizes that the
(Catholic) church has degenerated ‘true’ religion, namely a religion based on
equality. Bomfim thus combines the sharp condemnation of the slavery of the
most radical abolitionists before him, with that of the critical and experienced
psychologist and sociologist of the dawn of the 20th century.
Bomfim’s critical aim is the perverse role of contemporary racist science,
which assumes that inequalities and historical differences in the development
of peoples is due to their inherent characteristics:
(4.7) And so the selfish and exploitive sociologists returned to contemporary his-
tory and they found that at this moment—as in all times—men are not in the
same state of social and economic development (. . .) they interpreted this
current inequality and the historical conditions of the moment as the expres-
sion of the absolute value of races and peoples—as evidence of their aptitude
or inaptitude for progress. The argument, the scientific proof, cannot be per-
fidious because it is foolish; but it was enough for them to give it this name
of the scientific theory of the value of races, so that the exploiters, those who
are strong at this moment, would to cling to it.
This fragment formulates more explicitly what others have done more im-
plicitly, namely making a clear distinction between a racist science about
inherent “racial” characteristics of “primitive” people (who can’t change),
on the one hand, and the description of temporary, historical characteristics
of “backward” peoples, on the other hand, that is peoples ‘in development,’
as would be the contemporary characterization. Again, Bomfim not only
disqualifies racist pseudo-science, but also adds a sociopolitical conclusion:
that this pseudo-science is used to dominate. He is not just a scholar, but a
critical scholar.
And worse, he argues, not only is this bad science, but also it is used as a
legitimation of colonialism. Decades before postcolonial and other theories
of “underdevelopment,” Bomfim in this early treatise provides a critical and
antiracist account of why Latin America in general, and Brazil in particular,
have been underdeveloped:
(4.8) Thus, it has been assumed that there are people who are better than others,
that there are noble and vile races, and that only the former have been able to
reach the culmination of development and culture, while the latter are con-
demned to vegetate in mediocrity and abjection—they will never reach the
highest spheres of science, art, philosophy and wealth. And hence the logical
conclusion that the most perfect and noble should govern the others. Arriving
at this discovery, the sociology of combined egotisms has not stopped; the
violence of appetites has obscured all notions of justice, and such sociologists
80 Chapter Four
have unabashedly proclaimed the use of brute force as supreme wisdom—

despotism and oppression as the natural condition of the human species.
Here is another critical paraphrase of the racist notion of white supremacy,

a polarization between “noble” and “vile” races, metaphorically and concep-
tually between high (culture, science, art, philosophy) and low (vegetative)
positions—again with the sociopolitical conclusion, namely that the superior
races should govern the inferior ones. The definition of colonialism could not
be more precise.
Even compared with the most critical discourses of slavery until the end of
the 19th century, these forms of critical antiracist science, combining social
psychology, sociology, anthropology and political science, open a paradigm
that would define critical scholarship of the later 20th century. At the same
time, it offers a detailed characterization of the ideology of racial supremacy
and colonialism.
Ironically, Bomfim then develops counterarguments against this pseudo-
science, showing how the “blonde” powerful people in northern Europe
today were preceded by powerful “dark” (moreno) Mediterranean peoples
who were at the origin of Western civilization, so that there is no question of
inherent superiority of peoples:
(4.9) Do we not see that today, almost unanimously accepted by the anthropolo-
gies and ethnologies, is the superiority of Europe’s famous “blond dolicho-
cephals”—the German, English, Swedish, etc., over all the peoples of the
Earth, including those of Europe itself?! . . . Because the nations which they
constitute are today stronger and richer, here they are proclaiming to be su-
perior to those “morenos” of the Mediterranean who themselves produced
Western civilization—all that is beautiful and effectively original in it.
More specifically he comments as follows about the Social Darwinism of

contemporary science:
(4.10) Poor Darwin! He never supposed that his brilliant work could serve as a jus-
tification for the crimes and villainy of the slavers of blacks and tormentors
of Indians! In reading such nonsense, one must even doubt the sincerity of
these writers; Darwin never claimed that the law of natural selection applied
to the human species, as the selfish, pillaging theorists say.
Content, analysis, argumentation, style and rhetoric of Bomfim’s critical dis-

course about slavery and racist pseudo-science make him the most eminent
Brazilian predecessor of antiracist scientists of the 20th century, although the
paternalist characterization of “primitive” peoples defines him at the same
time as the anthropologist of his age.
Resisting eugenics
Thus, with the early example of Bomfim, the new century in Brazil starts
with a debate between racist and antiracist science, a debate that continued
until after the Second World War, and the statements by UNESCO (United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) examined in Van
Dijk, 2021 (see also below, and Haghighat, 1988).
In Brazil the debate since the 1910s took place between physician Renato
Kehl and physical anthropologist Edgard Roquette-Pinto, both interested in
eugenics, as many of their contemporaries, but from different perspectives and
with different goals (V. S. De Souza, 2012, 2016; Rocha, 2014; Stepan, 1991).
Renato Kehl (1889–1974), influenced by Galton, was among the founders
of the Movimento Eugênico Brasileiro, edited the Boletim de Eugenia, and be-
came the main propagandist of radical “negative” eugenics in Brazil, in favor
of sterilization of “degenerates,” marriage control, and racial selection of im-
migrants. Not surprisingly, he also was an admirer of Hitler (De Souza, 2016).
Edgard Roquette-Pinto (1884–1954), as a physical anthropologist and later
director of the National Museum in Rio de Janeiro, was also interested in
the physical characteristics of race, and in extensive field work provided a
“scientific” physical portrait of different types of Brazilians, whom he called
Brasilianos and not Brasileiros, e.g., by measuring many of their bodily
and psychological characteristics. Different from Kehl and others, however,
Roquette-Pinto adhered to a “positive” eugenics, ridiculed racial hierarchies
defended by many of his contemporaries and emphasized the role of popular
education and social policies for the betterment of the population. In 1911
he traveled to Europe and participated in the huge international congress on
race in London, where many scholars, such as DuBois and Spiller, defended
liberal and humanist views on the moral and intellectual equality of races and
that racist prejudices were due to ignorance (De Souza, 2017).
Against many of his racist colleagues, e.g., sociologists Raymundo Nina
Rodrigues and Francisco José de Oliveira Vianna, Roquette-Pinto’s research
showed that there was no question of a degeneration due to miscegenation.
Discourses like these suggest a critical perspective on racist conceptions of
miscegenation and racial hierarchies:
(4.11) (. . .) since their way of acting in the struggle for the conquest of the land does not
permit the consideration of the mestizos of Brazil as morally degenerate peo-
ple, let us see if their anthropological characteristics show signs of anatomical
or physiological decay; let us see if they are physically degenerate people (. . .)
(. . .) in light of all the data condensed in this monograph, it can be con-
cluded that none of the varieties of the Brazilian population exhibits any
stigma of anthropological degeneration.
82 Chapter Four
(4.12) The concept of racial hierarchy, one of scientific dilettantism’s favorite

themes, is merely a fable that the imperialist countries had created to justify
dominance over the “black and yellow peoples.”
Interestingly, Roquette-Pinto does not reject racist science a priori, but inves-
tigates its claims by detailed anatomical research, concluding that one of the
major racist thesis of the time, namely degeneration due racial miscegenation,
is not only empirically false, but the product of scientific dilettantism, as is
the notion of racial hierarchies. Just like Manoel Bomfim, he adds a critical
sociopolitical conclusion to his study of such racist science, namely that its le-
gitimation is to dominate non-white people. Important in this case is not only
that he talks about the dominant abuses of the white race, but more politically
about “imperialist countries”—a notion thus far hardly used by antislavery
and antiracist scholars.
Despite its antiracist position, Roquette-Pinto was influenced by the
biometric methods of eugenicist Charles Davenport in the U.S. (De Souza,
2016, 2017), who propagated racist ideas of miscegenation and had contact
with the Nazis. Roquette-Pinto was also an admirer of the work of notorious
German anthropologist Eugen Fischer, who not only did a study of mesti-
zos in south-west Africa (now Namibia), but also became one of the major
referents of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, Nazi eugenics, the Nuremberg Laws, the
prohibition of interracial marriages and the sterilization of 600 children of
French-African soldiers. Roquette-Pinto makes selective use of his admired
German colleague and doesn’t cite the most explicitly racist ideas of Fischer,
his antisemitism, Arianism and his involvement in the eugenic Nazi tribunals
(De Souza, 2017).
We don’t know whether Roquette-Pinto later disowned his admiration
for the work of Fischer. Whether his work may be qualified as antiracist
because he explicitly combated some of the more radical racist ideas and
policies of his Brazilian contemporaries such as Kehl, Vianna and others
again shows that antiracism is contextual, that is, defined as opposition to
dominant contemporary racist ideas and practices. Today, the very measur-
ing of skulls and other biometrical procedures practiced by Roquette-Pinto
to assess racial differences would no doubt be associated with racist science.
Similarly problematic are his ideas about psychological differences (such
as temperament) between races: É inegável que há raças mais inteligentes;
outras mais sentimentais e terceiras mais pertinazes (It is undeniable that
there are smarter races; others more sentimental and third more pertinent).
Different from his colleagues, however, the conclusions from this “science”
did not lead to racist population and immigration policies. On the contrary,
the political function of his “science” was to combat such racist policies (for
detail, see De Souza, 2017).
This was also the case for the physical anthropological studies on racial
classification of his colleague at the National Museum, Álvaro Fróes da Fon-
seca (1890–1988) (Tavares do Amaral Martins Keuller, 2012), who wrote
the following:
(4.13) Among my disciples this year, the best by far is a black man of pure African
blood; he understands easily and has an eagerness to learn that is unlike any
I have encountered here, and which is even rare in your cool climate. For
me, this black man represents yet another reinforcement of my old opinion
which is contrary to the dominant perspective that sees the black man as part
of an inferior branch of humanity and incapable of rational development on
his own; when supporting this, it is argued that since he has not attained
any high degree of civilization within his humble home, he must therefore
be held incapable of it. (. . .) I know, among blacks, a number of noble and
impressive physiognomies that one would hardly find among Caucasians
living in equally deprived social situations; and supposing this situation gen-
erally conditions a great moral imperfection, I have nevertheless frequently
observed quite a few undeniable remnants of deep, delicate feeling. (. . .) It
is well known that the children of whites and mulatos are most often char-
acterized by their intellectual aptitudes while their frequent moral failings
are usually explained by their social situation.
The antiracist argument of this kind of passage is by counterexample (as racist

arguments are often based on examples of personal experiences of authors).
But the counterexample is also backed up by systematic physical anthropo-
logical research. The author not only tells about his positive experience with
a “pure” African, but focuses on the pseudo-science of his contemporaries,
claiming that blacks cannot develop their rationality, and generalizes from
his positive observations of smart and morally remarkable blacks. The main
point of his argument is that both white and black may suffer from living in
a degraded situation. Thus, against the inherent racial qualities assumed by
racist science, the author emphasizes the fundamental role of context and the
unity of humanity.
Another early critic of ideologies of racial supremacy was Alberto de
Seixas Martins Torres (1865–1917), lawyer, politician and journalist, founder
of the journal O Povo when the new republic was proclaimed in 1889. His ar-
ticles in the Gazeta de Noticias were later published as a book A Organização
Nacional (1914), in which he writes:
(4.14) It would be a simple pretense of vain ethnic nobility to claim that black or
Indian Brazilians are inferior to whites. More than one illustrious memory
protests against the sentencing of the incapability of our blacks; and among
our renowned politicians and writers, it would be easy to point out dozens
84 Chapter Four
of figures in which the mixture of African or Indian blood was exposed in

their physiognomic features.
His opposition to the racist thesis of white supremacy and the degeneration of
mestizos is not formulated in scientific terms, but also by the counterexample
of prominent black and mestizo writers in Brazil. His articles in Jornal do
Comércio were published in his book, O Problema Nacional Brasileiro, in
1912. In the latter book he states from the start:
(4.15) The development of these works contains the best lessons of optimism,
which, having delivered and proved the truth, shape these other encourag-
ing conclusions; that our state is neither the result of ethnic inferiority nor
of a degeneration of our people; and by pointing to the physical, social and
historical causes that explain not only our crises but also the reasons for the
apparent superiority of other peoples, it proposes, after critical study, the
means for restoring our evolutionary march.
This conclusion of his book, formulated in the beginning, not only rejects
widely accepted racist theses on white supremacy and the alleged degen-
eration of mestizos in Brazil, but also explains any differences between
apparently ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ countries in terms of context. Such a
counterargument of course also has nationalist presuppositions and implica-
tions, because international racist science especially focused on Brazil as a
typically miscegenated country, very different from for instance the U.S. or
South Africa, where segregation and Apartheid were dominant. At the same
time, his attack should be understood as an opposition against whitening im-
migration policies. Thus, as is the case for his antiracist contemporaries, his
resistance against racist science and policies also has important practical and
political implications.
Also these statements by Alberto Torres show that from the start of the
20th century also in Brazil there were scholars and politicians who explicitly
rejected the dominant views about racial superiority, degeneration and mis-
cegenation. They do so not as mere opinions, but on the basis of extensive
anthropological research, as is the case for Roquette-Pinto, or on the basis of
solid counterarguments, as is the case in the work of Torres.
Focusing especially on the political aspects of racism, Roquette-Pinto, with
Gilberto Freyre, Arthur Ramos, in 1935 signed the “Manifesto dos intelectuais
brasileiros contra o preconceito racial” (Manifest of Brazilian Intellectuals
against Racial Prejudice) which also rejected notions of racial hierarchies.
A few years earlier, in 1929, during the First Brazilian Congress of Eu-
genics, the different views on these topics clashed, e.g., between Kehl and
Roquette-Pinto. The same happened during the debate on race and immigra-
tion, in which journalist Antônio José de Azevedo Amaral (1881–1942), who

would later defend the authoritarian Estado Novo of Giulio Vargas, proposed
to limit black immigration, a proposal barely rejected by a small majority (see
Hochman, Trindade Lima & Chor Maio, 2010).
Arthur Ramos de Araújo Pereira (1903–1949), one of the most prestigious
psychiatrists and social scientists of his time, not only organized the manifest
of intellectuals against racial prejudice in 1935, but in his practice showed
that various kinds of abnormal behavior were socially conditioned and not
genetically, as stated by his colleague doctor Raymundo Nina Rodrigues.
After the war Arthur Ramos became the director of the Department of Social
Science of UNESCO in Paris, where he also contributed to the international
peace project of Bertrand Russell, Jean Piaget and others, just before his
untimely death in 1949. Especially relevant for the history of antiracist dis-
course in Brazil, not only his contribution to the antiracist manifest of 1935
has been crucial, but also his ethnographic and psychoanalytical study O Ne-
gro Brasileiro (1934, and a new version in 1940) (see Omena Tamano, 2013).
As some of his colleagues, he on the one hand recognized the ethnographic
studies of Nina Rodrigues, but already in the introduction of his book takes
distance from the racist ideas of his colleague:
(4.16)
Without dwelling, at this time, on the contestable points in his other
works—for instance, on the proposition of the anthropological inferiority
of certain ethnic groups and of the degeneracy in miscegenation . . . which
are undergoing radical revision against the influence of Boas, Fischer, Lenz
etc.—Those devoted to black religions present scientific posits that are
frankly at odds with the current science.
(. . .)
Studying in this essay “the collective representations” of the backward
classes of the Brazilian population in the religious sector, I absolutely do not
endorse, as I have repeated many times, the postulates of black inferiority
and its incapacity for civilization. These collective representations exist in
any culturally lagging social group. It is a consequence of magical and pre-
logical thinking, independent of the anthropological-racial issue, because
it can arise in other conditions and in any ethnic group—in the culturally
underdeveloped masses, in the poor classes of society, in children, in neu-
rotic adults, in dreams, in art, under certain conditions of psychological
regression. . . . These concepts of “primitive” and “archaic,” are purely psy-
chological and have nothing to do with the issue of racial inferiority. Thus,
for the work of education and culture, it is necessary to know the forms of
“primitive” thinking in order to correct them and elevate them to higher
stages, which will only be achieved by an in-depth educational revolution,
a “vertical” and “interstitial” revolution that descends to the remote steps of
the collective unconscious and releases the pre-logical chains that lock it.
86 Chapter Four
As is the case for all antiracist discourses in this chapter, also this fragment in
Arthur Ramos’ book shows the influence of the ideological and sociopoliti-
cal context. On the one hand it is an explicit rejection of the conception of
racial inferiority, e.g., as defended by Nina Rodrigues, on the other hand it is
formulated with terms such as “primitive” (even when used between quotes)
to refer to psychological aspects of development of “classes atrasadas” (back-
ward classes), and the “pre-logical” and “magical” nature of their thoughts,
as we also find with Lévy-Bruhl. Later Lévi-Strauss (1966) would stress that
the magical thinking of the “primitive mind” does not imply inferiority, but
only a different way to understand the world.
Crucial for the antiracist nature of the argument is not only the rejection
of racist science, especially about the racial inferiority of blacks, but also the
‘universalist’ claim that in specific circumstances any ethnic group may have
“backward” social classes, and that their characteristics can always improve
under other circumstances. In other words, there is no inherent (intellectual,
moral, etc.) difference between white, black or mestizos.
Compared with abolitionist discourse, we see that antiracist discourse of
the first decades of the 20th century, the ideological and theoretical argument
are more explicitly scientific, if only to reject the pseudo-scientific racist
discourse of the period. Interesting is also one of the first uses in Brazil of
the notion of “collective representations,” which influenced French social
psychology since Durkheim until Moscovici decades later.
Gilberto Freyre
It could be seen to be problematical to include a detailed analysis of the
discourse of Gilberto de Mello Freyre (1900–1987) in our brief history of
antiracist discourse in Brazil, since it is precisely the concept of “democracia
racial,” attributed to him, that gave rise to the many forms of racism denial in
Brazil of the following decades, especially that by the military dictatorship.
Yet, as we have seen throughout this book, antiracist discourse is contextual,
and always relative to the dominant discourses of the time. These dominant
discourses of the 1920 and 1930s were explicitly racist and eugenic, and
influenced by racist discourse in Europe and the U.S. It is in that social and
intellectual context that Freyre also signed the manifest against racial preju-
dice organized by Arthur Ramos in 1935. Born in Recife, that is in the land
of the ingenhos (sugar mills) where the first black slaves were exploited since
the 17th century,
Freyre as a sociologist and anthropologist also studied in the U.S. (Baylor
College, Columbia University). He was a student of Franz Boas, whose ideas
should have conditioned an antiracist ideology (for the formative years of
Freyre in the U.S., see Skidmore, 2003). In this case this meant that he op-
posed the ideas of racial inferiority of blacks as well as the policies of whiten-
ing. Whereas many of his racist colleagues assumed that miscegenation leads
to degeneration, Freyre celebrated mestiçagem as the dominant characteristic
of the Brazilian population, for instance in his influential Casa Grande e
Senzala (1933). Increasingly this “lusotropical” focus also implied a posi-
tive view of race relations in Brazil, and a denial of the harsh kind of racism
and segregation as he had observed in the U.S.—a widespread view that
dominated the social sciences in Brazil and internationally for decades, seen
by some as an ideal, and more critically by others as a myth, as we shall see
below (among many studies, see, e.g., Andrews, 1996; Chacon, 2001; Falcão
& Barbosa de Araújo, 2001; Garcia Pallares-Burke, 2005; Htun, 2004; Lund
& McNee, 2006; see the discussion on the variable reception of the work and
ideas of Freyre in e.g., Lehmann, 2008; for other comments and influences,
see also below).
Antiracist Discourse of African-Brazilian Authors

Whereas African-Brazilian writers played a fundamental role in the public
discourse and attitude formation that led to abolition in 1888, the debates on
racist science in the following decades, summarized above, were monopo-
lized by white scholars. This did not mean, however, that black writers and
other intellectuals were silent during this period. We shall briefly mention
some of them, unfortunately without many texts to cite because most of these
are newspaper texts only accessible in Brazilian archives, and not in newly
edited books.
After abolition an increasing number of clubs and associations catered
to the cultural and leisure needs of black Brazilians. Also the black press
flourished in these decades. Whether focused on literature, the arts or Af-
rican or African-Brazilian identities and religion, the history of slavery as
well as continuing racism, discrimination and other forms of exclusion were
a constant explicit or implicit topic in these writings and other activities of
protest and resistance (of the vast literature, see, e.g., Afolabi, 2009; Alberto,
2011; Bastide, 1972; Butler, 1998; Ferrara, 1986; Pinto, 2010; Pires, 2006;
Andrews, 1991).
Although we have to wait decades before an increasingly strong and influ-
ential black movement was able to challenge the myth of a racial democracy,
writings of some African-Brazilian intellectuals of the period paved the way
for more explicit theoretical and political analysis of, and resistance against
racism by, the Movimento Negro after the Second World War. Alberto (2011)
shows that since the 1910s black authors promoted ‘racial fraternity,’ e.g., to
oppose prevalent scientific racism and to avoid exacerbating racial antagonism,
88 Chapter Four
but they hardly understood such a political strategy to imply that they were
living in ‘racial democracy’ as claimed by later authors.
As we shall see below, unlike in earlier abolitionist struggles in Brazil,
the Americas and Europe, in which women played a prominent role, these
black intellectuals active against racism and propagating black identity and
advancement in the coming decades were nearly all men, as is also clear from
their writings, nearly always about and addressed to black men.
It should also be recalled at this point that the struggle against slavery and
later against racist discrimination was more successful, already in the 19th
century, both in Brazil as well as in Europe and the U.S., than the feminist
struggle against sexism, male supremacy and gender discrimination. Indeed,
black men got the vote long before (all) women did, for instance.
At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, black people,
especially in São Paulo, had to compete with massive immigration of white
people from European countries. For the small class of black writers and
other ‘nativist’ intellectuals this process of whitening meant they needed to
stress and defend primarily their identity as Brazilians, instead of their links
with Africa. As new members of the lower middle class, they especially also
had to adopt dominant bourgeois values. Because they were among the few
literate and well-educated blacks, their exclusion from white elite circles and
professions was especially felt the higher they rose in the political, social and
cultural hierarchy, as is typically the case for racist societies more generally.
Despite their nationalist and social adaptation, many forms of everyday
discrimination characterized their lives (for detail, see Alberto, 2011: 24ff).
Instead of militant analyses and resistance against these forms of racism,
their small newspapers, such as O Baluarte de Campinas, initially merely
complemented the major newspapers, e.g., with information about the activi-
ties of clubs and associations as well as individual members: dances, beauty
contests, birthdays and marriages (Alberto, 2011: 33). So the emphasis in
these writings was less on discrimination, but rather on social activities of
the black community.
One of these black writers and speakers was Frederico Baptista de Souza
(1870–1940), a clerk in São Paulo’s law school. He was especially concerned
about the respectability and the social impression of black Brazilians, whom
he urged to focus on the foundation of institutions such as libraries, as a
means of progress, e.g., in his club newspaper significantly called O Elite.
The debate in the black press in the 1920s on the one hand celebrated one
of the values of the French Revolution, fraternity, as a means to emphasize
the integration of the black community in Brazil, sometimes also criticizing
white (especially Italian) immigration and “racist” immigrants. In this vein,
emancipation was to be based on the progress of blacks and on their material
and cultural contribution to the nation, and not on open, antiracist confron-
tation with whites. Also comparing Brazil with Jim Crow in the U.S., this
fraternity with white Brazil often implied a mitigation of racism (Alberto,
2011: 36 ff).
On the other hand, within a few years in the 1920s, several black newspa-
pers and authors increasingly started to analyze and denounce racism, e.g.,
ridiculing the ideas of Gobineau and eugenic authors, and emphasizing the
obvious healthy form of racial mixture in Brazil and the intellectual capacities
of black men (as observed above, black women hardly ever participated in
these debates). One of the targets of this criticism was also a bill prohibiting
black immigration, e.g., from the U.S., a bill that was seen to be incompatible
with the Golden Law that marked the abolition in 1888 as well as the laws
of the land (Alberto, 2011: 43). This and other antiracist opposition based on
racial fraternity finally defeated the bill in Congress. These views appeared
especially in a new newspaper, O Getulino, independent from clubs and as-
sociations, founded by poets and journalists Lino Guedes and Gervásio de
Moraes. The latter would later (in 1931) also be one of the founders of the
Frente Negra Brasileira (FNB). Different from earlier publications, hardly
interested in Africans anywhere, O Getulino explicitly addressed the topics
and concerns of black (preto, negro) people internationally. But blacks in
Brazil were defined first of all as Brazilians and not as a separatist movement,
while also rejecting the accusation of white discrimination as the cause of the
absence of black doctors and lawyers.
One of the authors in O Getulino and a vocal opponent of the anti-black
immigration bill was lawyer and writer Antônio Evaristo de Moraes (1871–
1939), one of the founders of the first socialist parties in Brazil, the Partido
Operário, and later the Partido Socialista, as well as of the Associação
Brasileira da Imprensa. His opposition included an explicit rejection of the
ideas of scientific racism and whitening, widespread in the period, one of
the first critical analyses of these ideas in the black press (in 1923) (Alberto,
2011: 51). And because he believed in racial fusion, he wrote the following
in a paper “Brancos, Negros e Mulatos” (O Getulino, 1923), celebrating mes-
tizos against the ideas of Gobineau and De Lapouge:
(4.17) The “mass of mestizos,” which in his [Gobineau’s] thinking formed the en-
tire population of Brazil, has progressed in an astonishing way, and despite
the errors and abuses of an unskilled and irresponsible administration, was
able to present to the world, in the celebration of Independence, many things
worthy of sincere admiration. In the sciences, in the humanities, in the arts
and in the industries, there are thousands of declared mestizos of all shades
who distinguish themselves and command respect, refuting Gobineau’s thesis
[of degeneracy] and Lapouge’s prognosis [that Brazil would still be a huge
backward, black state].
90 Chapter Four
The very healthy existence of largely miscegenated Brazil, as well as the

presence of thousands of prominent mestizos in all domains of society, thus
was used as the best counterexample of the ideas of Gobineau. Relevant in
this passage is also that De Morães blamed the “errors” of the government,
responsible indeed of whitening immigration policies based on such racist
pseudo-science.
We see that black journalistic resistance against scientific racism took
place in parallel with scientific antiracism of their white colleagues, who
might have had access to O Getulino. But they did have influence in other
black journals, such as O Elite, now directed by Theophilo Camargo, who
also attacked the immigration bill of Fidelis Reis, a cause célèbre for in-
creasing antiracist discourse among black intellectuals (Alberto, 2011: 52f).
But antiracist discourse also turned to the reality of everyday racism, such
as Benedito Florencio’s attack (in mainstream journal A Gazeta) on labor
discrimination of black men, being treated as foreigners in their own country
(Alberto, 2011: 53ff).
Prominent among these black antiracists of the 20th century was especially
José Correia Leite (1900–1989). Born in a poor family, growing up with a
black mother in the Italian community of São Paulo, and after many odd
jobs, he became the founder of O Clarim, later called O Clarim d’Alvorada
(1924–1932). He was the founder of various black organizations, member of
the founding Council of the Frente Negra Brasileira in 1931, and collabora-
tor in various scholarly projects on Brazilian blacks, e.g., by Roger Bastide
and Florestan Fernandes (see below). In his articles in O Clarim he empha-
sizes the necessity to establish various types of institutions to assist the black
population in general, and poor black women in particular. The main value he
advocates is that of the union of the “class” of black people, the main condi-
tion to advance toward “outras tantas glorias” (many more glories):
(4.18) The black man’s verb

The grammar says—the verb is the soul of the clause and such is also the
situation of our class and of our day.
We lack nothing; we have youths who are full of life, but we need to
instruct them very well; excellent arms for various labors; we have freedom
of thought; the only thing we need to complete what we have done thus far
is true union.
Once united, we can march without restraint in order to conquer many
more glories for the best fulfilment of our ideas! Then our future will be
great; through this, we will form not only a clause, but various clauses,
and finally a complete sentence; many subordinate clauses will emerge and
stand beside the main clause and together they will represent all that we have
so far been preaching so intently!
This example, as well as several others in O Clarim, show that in these early
texts (Leite was 24 years old) his main concern was not white racism, but the
advancement of black people whom he blames for their own “atraso” (see
also Alberto, 2011; Ferrara, 1986). Yet, in later issues such as the special is-
sue of May 1927, we find not only celebrations of black abolitionists, such as
José de Patrocínio, Luís Gama and the Lei Aurea, abolition (with an article by
Rui Barbosa), and the ongoing debate about a monument for the Mãe Preta,
but also a call to black parents (“Palavras as Paes Negros”), which starts with
a definition of what the paper understands by “negro”:
(4.19) Before we begin, we must explain what we mean by “black”: BLACK are
all people of color: black, mulato, moreno, etc., descendants of Africans or
Indigenous peoples.
We see that already in the black São Paulo press of the 1920s it was the politi-
cal use of “negro,” including even indigenous people, as a concept to refer to
non-white people, as it was also used later by the Movimento Negro, instead
of the more common everyday as well as official word for black people in
Brazil: preto, or the official word pardo to refer to “brown” people. The ar-
ticle addresses black parents to educate (and discipline) their children for the
future of the Black Race:
(4.20) A strong race, which thank God we are, the misery of the social and physical
condition in which we Brazilian Blacks live has not yet been able to break
our physical integrity. It is thus the crusade of the education of the body that
is less attractive, or rather, less urgent than the uplifting of our intellectual
and moral level.
Interesting here is that, quite different from today, the author does not give
priority to physical education of the youth but emphasizes the role of intel-
lectual and moral education. The conceptual spatial metaphor uplifting (le-
vantamento), often used in such discourses of black journalists, presupposes
that blacks are at a low level now, and that going up—morally and intellectu-
ally—and hence growing, is good (see Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).
As observed by Alberto (2011: 91ff), the later issues of O Clarim, espe-
cially since 1928, already show a growing concern with a more activist role
of black people, beyond their self-advancement, including the promotion of a
congress of black youth. As observed above, however, there is not yet a sus-
tained journalistic campaign against contemporary discrimination and racism.
Moreover, the editors are ambiguous about racial matters: On the one hand,
as we have seen, there is an explicit celebration of the Raça Negra—as dis-
tinct from white people, but on the other hand also of racial fusion, especially
92 Chapter Four
in the form of the “mestiço” race, later celebrated by Gilberto Freyre. Since
the 1930s Leite and O Clarim also began to stress the role of pan-Africanism
and the writings of Marcus Garvey’s about “Back to Africa,” and more gener-
ally a more explicit form of antiracist resistance (Alberto, 2011: 140).
One of the most radical critics of racism at the end of the 1920 was lit-
erature professor Arlindo Veiga (1902–1978), an authoritarian, conservative
Catholic and monarchist who would later sympathize with the anti-communist
Estado Novo (1937–1945) of Getúlio Vargas. On the one hand he criticized
prejudice and attacked the racist immigration policy of whitening:
(4.21) [Brazil suffered from] the worst sort of illness, which is racial prejudice; in
other words, the sick mentality of our leaders, who allow an entire People
to perish, because they must be replaced, because they are mixed, because
they are black and should be white, at all costs, even at the expense of the
destruction of Brazil by the wave of international immigrant Aryanism.
(“Congresso da Mocidade Negra Brasileira,” Clarim 8 junho, 1929; transla-
tion cited in Alberto, 2011: 100)
But at the same time Arlindo Veiga supported the fascist integralist move-
ment of Plínio Salgado (Ação Integralista Brasileira, AIB) and the fascist
regime in Italy. As we have often seen in this chapter, antiracism is contextual
and full of contradictions. Celebrating the black race, thus, can be consistent
with some aspects of the nationalist ideology of fascism, celebrating the
power of race and ethnicity and the admiration of the authoritarian leader.
Very relevant in the black struggle against racism in the 1930s was the
foundation of the Frente Negra Brasileira (The Black Front; FNB, 1931–
1937), founded by Arlindo Veiga, the first political organization (and later
political party) of black Brazilians after the 1930 Revolution, which besides
many social services also promoted black political candidates (Alberto, 2011;
Butler, 1998; Fernandes, 1969; Hanchard, 1994). Arlindo Veiga defended an
authoritarian statute of the FNB, with himself as omnipotent leader, a posi-
tion that brought him and his group in conflict with Correia Leite and other
Clarim authors, who were rather leftist republicans, and hence soon repressed
by Getúlio’s New State (Alberto, 2011).
Relevant for our history of antiracist discourse in Brazil is especially the
organ of the FNB, A Voz da Raça (1933–1937), more politically active than
the earlier black newspapers, until it had to close down, as well as the FNB
and other black organizations, with the oppression by the Estado Novo in
1937. As is the case in the work of Arlindo Veiga, also the FNB not only
defended the identity and interests of black Brazilians, but also organic, na-
tionalist ideas that were popular at the time, also in Brazil, including various
nationalist and anti-communist texts of Plínio Salgado (Pereira Gonçalves,
2018). Arlindo Veiga wrote the following:
(4.22) The black Brazilian must not be deceived with regards to the future of
National Black People; he must take a virile stance in the face of Brazil-
ian political and social life. He must not be deceived! The black man must
violently and tenaciously enter into the history of Brazil’s present, violently
conquering HIS PLACE in the national community, why despair!—no one
will hand this to him. At the end of all our work, they will always want to
cheat us, delude us, steal from us . . . and yet we remain happy, when what
should be ours remains in the hands of white patricians and will not stop in
the hands of foreigners!
(4.23) We are intolerant nationalists and we have rejected, and we will always
reject, anyone who comes to corrupt with exotic doctrines, with the spirit of
class struggle and an attack on property—the mentality of the Frentenegrinos.
It is within this contradictory ideological framework, combining black racial

pride, violent struggle and conservative nationalism and anti-communism
(“doutrinas exóticas”), that one also must understand the motto of the journal:
DEUS, PATRIA, RAÇA E FAMILIA (God, Fatherland, Race and Family).
It also explains the association of the FNB, or at least of its leaders, with the
nativist (brasilidade) ideas underlying the foundation of the Estado Novo
and admiration of “strong leaders” such as Hitler in Germany, defending the
“German race,” despite his racist ideology against black people, and at the
same time the opposition against (“Aryan”) immigration, seen as a menace of
the mestiço race (Alberto, 2011: 129ff; Domingues, 2003).
The repression of the Estado Novo, especially also of progressive black
writers and organizations, Nazism and its racist ideas, laws and practices,
the Second World War and the Holocaust thoroughly discredited official
racism after 1945, also in Brazil. The new democracy thus facilitated the re-
emergence of the old idea of ‘racial fraternity’ in the form of the new, am-
biguous concept of ‘racial democracy,’ with which Brazil could lead in the
world. Whereas such ‘democracy’ was initially understood as being liberat-
ing, it was the abuse of the concept by the military dictatorship that delegiti-
matized it, and increasingly combated also by black intellectuals.
Democracy also favored the foundation of new black organizations, such
as the Associação do Negro Brasileiro (ANB) in 1955, founded by José de
Assis Barbosa (“Borba”) and José Correia de Leite. As other organizations
before, its first aim was to offer social assistance, promote culture and the
arts, but also to promote freedom of speech and the struggle against all
forms of racism, both in Brazil and internationally (e.g., in Apartheid South
Africa). In cooperation with the NAACP (National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People) in the U.S. it also opposed various forms
of discrimination of black sports people (Alberto, 2011: 156ff; Domingues,
2018).
94 Chapter Four
The UNESCO Project

Alberto Guerreiro Ramos (1915–1982) was an influential black sociologist,
specialized in organizational theory, a socialist politician, advisor in Getúlio’s
second government, director of the Instituto Nacional do Negro (INN) and
member of the Brazilian delegation to the UN and finally a professor in the
U.S. During the First Congresso do Negro Brasileiro in 1950, organized by
the Teatro Experimental Negro (TEN, see below), Guerreiro Ramos pre-
sented a paper about UNESCO and race relations, in which he advocated an
international meeting to discuss ways to combat racism, especially the role of
black Brazilian intellectuals.
In the same year UNESCO had decided to carry out research on Brazil-
ian race relations, supposedly more “harmonious” than those in the U.S. and
South Africa (see below). In an interview of 1946 in Diario Trabalhista, ed-
ited by Abdias do Nascimento, Guerreiro Ramos, citing several international
specialists, asserts that racism has no scientific basis and only is one of the
means of social and political white domination.
At the same time, he attributes many of the problems of black people to
their poverty, rather than to white prejudice—thus defending one of the tra-
ditional views explaining racism by class rather than race. Just like journal-
ist, writer and anthropologist Thales de Azevedo (1904–1995), author of As
Elites de Cor (1953), a UNESCO study of black elites in Bahia, Guerreiro
Ramos was critical of separate black political organizations: blacks should
focus on cultural and philanthropic activities.
Alberto Ramos agreed with the growing criticism of traditional Afro-
Brazilian studies, e.g., by “afrologists” such as Arthur Ramos, that limit their
focus to “exotic” cultural and religious aspects of the African-Brazilian popu-
lation, instead of their everyday life of poverty and discrimination. Rather,
he recommends that besides sociological analysis, practical policies need to
focus on the solution of the everyday problems of the black population (Chor
Maio, 1999). In his sociological work and activism in the TEN, he combines
ideas about black identity and negritude on the one hand, and democracia ra-
cial and mestiçagem, on the other hand, two approaches later seen as mutually
incompatible (Campos, 2015).
Arguably the most influential Afro-Brazilian antiracist discourse and other
activities after the Second World War were those of Abdias do Nacimento
(1914–2011), poet, dramatist, activist, professor and founder of the TEN in
Rio in 1944, itself one of the most prominent and influential black organiza-
tions, responsible for the organization of several congresses of black people.
Among the vast number of his national and international activities are not
only his multiple lectures all over the world, the organization and participa-
tion in congresses, also of the Pan-African Movement. In 1983 he also for-
mulated first proposals for affirmative action—a topic we shall deal with in
more detail in the next chapter. Imprisoned and excluded from the army for
antiracist resistance in his youth (also as member of the Frente Negra, includ-
ing briefly associated with the integralism of Plínio Salgado, whose racist
ideas he later criticized), and exiled in 1968 by the dictatorship, after his
return to Brazil in 1978 he became Member of Parliament for the Democratic
Liberal Party in 1983.
Among his many publications, e.g., on race, ethnicity, Pan-Africanism,
art, theater, he also has written much on racism, antiracism and the topic of
“racial democracy.” Important in his early writings after the war was his in-
sistence on the active implementation of civil rights for black people, a type
of discourse that was not yet characteristic of prewar struggles against racism,
instead of “begging for philanthropy” (Alberto, 2011: 171).
In a “Manifest to the Brazilian Nation” of 1945, he and Guerreiro Ramos
formulated demands about racial equality and a legal response to racial
prejudice and discrimination defined as a crime against the fatherland. Their
demands found support in parliament, even among conservative politicians
such as Senator Hamilton Nogueira, whose antiracist attitude affirmed such
demands in terms of “crimes against humanity,” and Gilberto Freyre as
Member of Parliament for the same party (UDN), given their ideas about the
values of mestiço Brazil (Alberto, 2011: 174).
This focus on racist discrimination as a crime, as well as various incidents
of discrimination against famous international visitors, led to the first law
against discrimination in Brazil, the Afonso Arinos law of 1951—which
however was barely enforced in the following decades. Thus, the concept of
‘racial democracy’ could be strategically used to criticize and oppose overt
form of racism.
The emergence of many black organizations, activities and publications
after the war also created a white backlash, e.g., in the press, and accusations
of “reverse racism,” a familiar reaction to increasing minority rights. Journal-
ist, sociologist, lawyer and poet Raul Joviano do Amaral (1914–1988), one
of the founders of A Voz da Raça and Alvorada, demasked these accusations
as so many forms of the denial of racism and as another form of prejudice
against blacks portrayed as “aggressive.” In 1947, Amaral already criticized
in Alvorada the broadly held “misguided thesis” among sociologists that ra-
cial inequality in Brazil is rather caused by class than by racist prejudice and
discrimination (Alberto, 2011: 201ff; see also below).
Of Nascimento’s many publications, we only cite fragments of his essay O
Genocídio do Negro Brasileiro. Processo de um Racismo Mascarado (1977),
with forewords by Florestan Fernandes and Wole Soyinka. The contribution
of the TEN and Nascimento’s essay on which the book is based, “Racial
96 Chapter Four
Democracy in Brazil: Myth or Reality?” were boycotted at the huge (Second)

International FECTAC conference in Lagos, Nigeria (dedicated to African
art, negritude and pan-Africanism) by the Nigerian authorities under pressure
of the military regime in Brazil, as explained in great detail in a Prologue by
Nascimento. Actually, already before FECTAC and Nascimento’s contribu-
tion to pan-Africanism, it was Correia Leite who in the 1950s and 1960s
had paid attention to African topics, also political ones, such as Apartheid
in South Africa and decolonization, and founded the Associação Cultural do
Negro (AVN, 1958) (Alberto, 2011: 234ff).
Among its many contributions Nascimento’s book features one of the
first, after postwar UNESCO studies of sociologists in São Paulo (see next
chapter), and most explicit critiques of the official Brazilian ideology of de-
mocracia racial, propagated also by the military in power, after his earlier
attacks on the military coup and its ideology on the occasion of FESTAC I
in Dakar in 1966. According to this ideology, especially associated with the
lusotropicalismo of Gilberto Freyre, race relations in a mestiço Brazil are
harmonious. Among his many comments on the ideas of Freyre and others,
Nascimento writes the following:
(4.24) In fact, the paternalism as well as neocolonialism and racism that permeate
Gilberto Freyre’s work are more detrimental than his entire list of euphe-
misms. Baptized as morenidade [brownness], meta-race or any other name
that his imagination may fantasize, Gilberto Freyre’s farce dismantles on
the condition of his own reasoning and words; because this paladin of eth-
nocultural miscegenation states that this occurs among Brazilians “without
repudiating the predominance of European cultural values in the Brazilian
formation”
(. . .)
I should note from the outset that this issue of “racial democracy” is en-
dowed, according to Brazilian officialism, with the untouchable character-
istics of genuine taboo.
(. . .)
Whites control the means of disseminating information; the educational
apparatus; they formulate the concepts, weapons and values of the country.
Is it not obvious that rooted in this exclusivism is the almost absolute do-
minion enjoyed by something as false as this kind of “racial democracy?”
Obviously, both content, style and argument here are very different from the
earlier journalistic texts of black writers primarily focusing on the advance-
ment of the ‘black race,’ interested in peaceful “fraternity” with the white
elites, and thus part of the ideology, if not the illusion of racial democracy.
Besides the critical vocabulary (paternalism, neocolonialism, euphemism,
pernicious, paladin, etc.), the ironical evaluation of Freyre’s concepts, the
political assessment of the racist ideology of the current dictatorship as well
as the discursive control of the white media, Nascimento’s essay especially

also refers to international debates and publications on racism.
After the more combative texts of black abolitionists in the 19th century,
and the limited journalistic focus on black identity and advancement of the
1920s and 1930s, Nascimento offers a radical and systematic political and
sociological analysis of racism. Such an analysis features, historically and
systematically, a new reading of slavery and the myth of the “senhor benevo-
lente,” the sexual exploration (or rather violation) of black women (a topic
seldom discussed before), the myth of the free blacks after abolition and the
genocide of the ideas, policies and practices of the branqueamento (whiten-
ing) of the early 20th century, and the current political prohibition of ‘race’
and ‘racism’ in Brazil, all topics critically examined as a refutation of the
ideology of democracia racial. Such a critical use of the notion of democracia
racial was possible in the current political context, but Nascimento may well
use it differently in other political contexts. As we’ll see below, there is no
contradiction here, but rather strategically different uses of the concept.
In such a critical survey, Nascimento in passing also provides damning
appraisals of the “scientific” ideas, imported from Europe, of scholars such
as psychiatrist Nina Rodrigues about allegedly primitive African civiliza-
tion, or those of Oliveira Viana about whitening immigration policies, also
studied by Skidmore to which he refers. As conclusion of these analyses,
as well as detailed demographic statistics, the subtitle of the book, referring
to the genocide of the black population, hardly is a hyperbole. But whereas
most of these topics still could be ignored because they define the past, most
relevant for the challenge of the myth of racial democracy are Nascimento’s
data and arguments about the many forms of contemporary inequality and
discrimination, including the minimal (0.6% in the 1950 census) represen-
tation of blacks in the university, to which we’ll turn in chapter 6. Finally,
after chapters about black arts and culture, and referring to an Open Letter to
the population about racism, here is another formulation about the author’s
definition of racism:
(4.25) This movement must have as its fundamental principle the work of perma-
nent denunciation of every act of racial discrimination with the constant
organization of the community to face any and all forms of racism. We all
know the social damage that racism causes. When a person does not like a
black person, it is unfortunate, but when an entire society takes on racist atti-
tudes towards an entire people, or refuses to face this racism, then the result is
tragic for us blacks: unemployed parents, helpless children without medical
care, without conditions of family protection, no schools and no future. And
it is this collective racism, this institutionalized racism, that gives rise to all
kinds of violence against an entire people. It is this institutionalized racism
that supports the practice of racist acts.
98 Chapter Four
This passage is crucial because it makes a clear distinction between the preju-
dice and discrimination of individual bigoted people, on the one hand, and
systematic, collective racism and its social consequences. Nascimento is also
one of the first in Brazil, if not the first, to speak of “institutional racism,”
and its broad influences in all domains of society. At the same time, he makes
the important statement that institutional, official racism legitimizes everyday
racism against black people, an important contribution to the political theory
of antiracism defining racist beliefs and practices as controlled top down by
the symbolic elites (see also Van Dijk, 1993). Again, compared to earlier
journalistic essays, even radical ones, since the abolition movement, we are
here witnessing the development of conceptual distinctions and explicit anti-
racist theories of racism.
A few years later, in 1982, Nascimento published a new edition of his O
Negro Revoltado (1968), a collection of earlier texts and statements of the
First Congresso do Negro Brasileiro (1950), but also important corrections on
earlier “conciliatory” positions, such as the “impertinent” celebration of Nina
Rodrigues during the Congress. Again, his position in the early 1980s about
democracia racial has not become less critical, e.g., as formulated in a lecture
(held, in English, in Washington, DC) added as an Appendix in the 1982 edi-
tion, “Uma mensagem do Quilombismo,” in which he also emphasizes the
eminent resistance of black people (see also Guimarães, 2006):
(4.26) White supremacy in Brazil has created very subtle and sophisticated in-
struments of racial domination to mask this genocidal process. The most
effective of these is the myth of “racial democracy.” Here we have perhaps
the most important difference between the Anglo-American and Luso- (or
Hispanic) American systems of domination. The myth of ‘racial democracy’
maintains a misleading facade that conceals and disguises the reality of a
racism as violent and destructive as that of the United States or South Africa.
We see that Nascimento already in the 1980s uses analytical terms such as
“white supremacy” to critically analyze racism in Brazil, probably also the
first to use that notion in Brazil. In this context, he does so to attack the no-
tion of democracia racial, which for decades had prevented critical analysis
of racist reality in Brazil, also in an international perspective.
It is worth recalling that a few decades earlier Nascimento helped create
the dominant ideology of racial democracy, not only among white sociolo-
gists and anthropologists, first of all Freyre himself, but also among black
writers. In Quilombo, the journal of the TEN, of which he was editor, he
wrote the following on the occasion of the Congresso do Negro, a congress
whose organization explicitly took distance from the prewar congresses in
Recife organized by Freyre and influenced by the folkloristic approaches
to Afro-Brazilian religions and culture such as Arthur Ramos and other

“afrologists”:
(4.27) We observe that the extensive miscegenation practiced as an imperative

of our historical formation since the beginning of Brazil’s colonization is
transforming, through the inspiration and imposition of the latest achieve-
ments of biology, anthropology and sociology, into a well-devised doctrine
of democracy, to serve as a lesson and model for other populations with
complex ethnic constitutions, as is our case.
In other words, Nascimento does not just voice his own opinion, but argues
in terms of scientific authority (of white scholars) and referring to historical
facts. At the same time, he repeats the standard comparative argument of the
ideology of racial democracy in Brazil, defended by Freyre, Arthur Ramos
and many others, including U.S. sociologists such as Donald Pierson: that
race relations in Brazil supposedly are relatively benign compared to the
more violent and institutional ones in the U.S. of Jim Crow and segregation
and apartheid South Africa, an argument that also motivated UNESCO’s
postwar policy to study these allegedly special race relations in Brazil.
These studies, e.g., by Florestan Fernandes (see next chapter), did find
serious forms of discrimination and racial inequality in Brazil but tended to
attribute them rather to class than to race. (Alberto, 2011: 181ff).
Compared to the text and style of his explicitly antiracist rejection of the
ideology of racial democracy in his genocide book written in Nigeria in 1976
(in which he criticized his earlier position) we conclude that in the interven-
ing years, including his exile during a military dictatorship celebrating the
ideology of racial democracy, Nascimento not only fundamentally radical-
ized his opinion, but obviously had learned also from developments in the
social sciences of the 1960s and 1970s.
Yet, even then, Nascimento should be considered a forerunner given the
fact that the same ideology remained dominant until the end of the 1970s
and influential, e.g., in politics, the media and some social sciences, until
the 2000s. Indeed, we’ll see that even antiracist scholars such as Florestan
Fernandes, later influenced by a Marxist ideology of class struggle, tended
to explain racial inequality predominantly in terms of class, and not of race.
We had to wait to the end of the 1970s before other sociologists statistically
proved that racial inequality in Brazil is based on racist prejudice and dis-
crimination, as Nascimento just before had argued in his essay.
And we had to wait even longer before also black women, such as sociology
professor Lélia González (1935–1994), were heard and read, especially when
protesting against their double discrimination (Alberto, 2011: 278ff), or Lu-
iza Bairros (1953–2016), sociologist, national coordinator of the Movimento
100 Chapter Four
Negro Unificado (MNU, see below) and Minister of the Secretaria de Politi-
cas de Promoção da Igualdade Racial do Brasil (Seppir, 2011–2104) under
President Dilma Rousseff (see chapter 6).
In the mid-1970s, and influenced by writers such as Nascimento, the
Centro de Estudos Afro-Asiaticos (CEAA), and its Cuadernos, united young
black and white scholars interested in studies of Africa as well racism in Bra-
zil. Its director, Argentinian Carlos Hasenbalg, with Nelson do Valle Silva,
was one of the authors of the seminal sociological studies proving the racist
and not the classist basis of racial inequality. But this was still during military
dictatorship, during which such scholarly activities of black scholars were
seen as suspicious “black racism” (Alberto, 2011: 256ff, see next chapter).
It was also at the end of the 1970s, when during the abertura military
repression became less severe, that various black journals and organiza-
tions were founded, such as Sinba, IPCN (International Programme Content
Network) and CECAN (Centre for the Evaluation of Complexity Across the
Nexus), and finally in 1978 also the Movimento Negro Unificado (MNU)
contra a Discriminação Racial, which was to play a crucial role in the struggle
against racism in the coming decades, initially also in a Marxist perspective
of class struggle (Alberto, 2011: 291ff; Covin, 2006; Hanchard, 1994). It was
the MNU that urged policies for blacks, including various forms of affirma-
tive action (see chapter 6). As an organization of black intellectuals, debates,
meetings and publications on the position of blacks in Brazilian society and
on race relations were an important part of their multiple activities. It continu-
ally denounced racial democracy as a sham (Covin, 2006).
CONCLUSIONS
As was the case in the U.S., also in Brazil abolition did not end the discrimi-
nation, marginalization and oppression of the black population. On the con-
trary, liberated slaves had to fend for themselves, without resources, and had
to compete with Italian immigrants on the labor market. Labor discrimination
and other forms of marginalization were rife, and contributed to the continued
partition of the country between white and black in all domains of society.
At the same time, racist pseudo-science of the 19th century influenced
“whitening” immigration policies favoring Europeans, and eugenic ideas
about the alleged negative consequences of prevalent miscegenation in Brazil.
As was the case in Europe as well as the U.S., thus, also in Brazil during
the first decades of the 20th century the ideologies of eugenic and other rac-
ist pseudo-science dominated academia, public opinion and official policies
legitimating discrimination and exclusion of black people.
In that context, antiracist discourse was brave and exceptional. One of

these lonely voices clamoring in the racist desert was psychologist and soci-
ologist Manuel Bomfim, who already in 1905 wrote an explicitly antiracist
pamphlet about Latin America and Brazil, thus making him the long-time
ignored precursor of both prewar and postwar antiracists in Brazil. His
very critical comments of slavery—both of blacks and indigenous peoples
in Latin America—offer a precise psychological and sociological analysis.
Though still formulated in terms of “primitive” and “backward,” as was the
case of much anthropology of the time, his description of the miserable situ-
ation of black people was attributed to social context, such as 300 years of
slavery, and not, as racist science would have it, to the inherent and perma-
nent racial characteristics of blacks. He believed that education and social
policies could “improve” the black population. Crucial of his contribution to
antiracist discourse was his political analysis that pseudo-science of white
superiority was used to dominate blacks, and hence as a legitimation of ra-
cial inequality. At the same time, he blames the Catholic church for its lack
of resistance against slavery.
Also other scholars opposed racist science and eugenic ideas and policies,
as was the case for Edgard Roquette Pinto. Though also involved in measur-
ing the anatomy of black people, as did also many of his contemporary col-
leagues, both in Brazil and abroad, his conclusions are rather positive, namely
that there was no evidence of degeneration of black or mestizo people.
Race hierarchies for him were merely the product of scientific dilettantism.
However, at the same time he admired scientists in the U.S. and Germany
involved in racist anatomical measurements, failing to oppose the application
of their ideas in later Nazi genocide. Indeed, as was the case for Boas in the
U.S., physical anthropology was a prominent science, and not all sustained
that such science was not a legitimation of racial hierarchies, let alone racist
policies of discrimination, exclusion and genocide. Álvaro Fróes da Fonseca
and Alberto de Seixas Martins Torres opposed such ideologies by simple
counterexamples from Brazil, namely the existence of eminent black people
in all domains of society.
After more individual opposition in the first decades of the 20th century,
antiracist resistance against eugenics, whitening immigration policies and
pseudo-scientific racism in the 1930 became more organized. Eminent psy-
chiatrist Arthur Ramos in 1935 organized a manifest against racial prejudice,
signed by Gilberto Freyre and Roquette Pinto, and later became director of
social science of UNESCO. He was responsible for the well-known UNESCO
project on the supposed “benign” nature of racism in Brazil—as compared
to Jim Crow segregation and lynchings in the U.S. Though partly formulated
in widely used terms such as “primitive” peoples and their “magical” ways
102 Chapter Four
of thinking. Ramos critically rejects the notion of racial hierarchy: all racial
groups may remain backward in specific situations of oppression.
The debate between racist pseudo-science and antiracist critical analysis
during the first decades of the 20th century was largely a debate among white
men. Different from the participation of black writers in the abolition strug-
gle, black intellectual men in the beginning of the 20th century were mostly
engaged in the organization of black clubs, organizations and publications.
Rather than to antagonize the white elites by a critical analysis of racism and
pervasive everyday prejudice and discrimination, they first focused on leisure
activities, parties and services for the black population, although occasionally
ridiculing racial hierarchies as well criticizing racist labor discrimination in
such publications as O Getulino and O Elite. Uplifting the black population,
thus, was one of the main aims of the writings of black intellectuals before the
war. Antônio Evaristo de Moraes, one of the contributors to O Getulino, not
only criticized pseudo-racist science and whitening policies of the govern-
ment, but also founded the Partido Operario. Prominent was also José Cor-
reio Leite, founder of O Clarim and co-founder of Frente Negra Brasileira,
and participant in several academic studies on blacks. As was the case for
many of his black contemporaries, among his main aims was morally and
intellectually “uplifting” black people.
In these prewar years, antiracist discourse often was ambiguous in its ideo-
logical orientation. On the one hand, the celebration of a strong “black race,”
e.g., by people such as Arlindo Veiga dos Santos, could be combined with
associations with the authoritarian Estado Novo de Getúlio Vargas, and the
integralist fascist movement of Plinio Salgado, admiring Italian fascism, and
opposing communism. At the same time, Arlindo Veiga founded the Frente
Negra Brasileira, rejected whitening immigration policies, but abused his posi-
tion at the FNB as the strong leader and celebrating the FNB slogan of DEUS,
PATRIA, RAÇA E FAMILIA. Never was antiracist ideology and practice as
contextually shaped and contradictory as those years before the war.
The war, Nazism, fascism and the Holocaust delegitimated racist ideolo-
gies, also in Brazil. Black sociologist Alberto Guerreiro Ramos presented
a paper on UNESCO’s Race Relations Project at a congress organized by
the TEN, one of the most important antiracist organizations in the history
of Brazil. He criticized the exotic “afrologist” studies of Arthur Ramos on
the influence of African religions in Brazil and recommended more atten-
tion to the study of practical problems of the black population, such as labor
discrimination.
The most prominent black scholar, poet, politician and activist after the
war was undoubtedly Abdias do Nascimento, founder of the TEN, exiled by
the military dictatorship and a prolific international lecturer and contributor
to pan-Africanism. After his early association with integralist ideas, he later

developed his detailed antiracist ideas, and advocated civil rights for black
people. Relevant for this chapter is especially his essay on the genocide of
black people—and his critical analysis of the myth of democracia racial. His
sociological and political analysis of slavery and racism in Brazil introduced
such important notions as ‘institutional racism.’
Finally, toward the end of the military dictatorship at the end of the 1970s,
antiracist discourse in Brazil could be developed both in black organizations
such as the MNU, as well as in sociological studies proving that racism could
not be reduced to class discrimination.
In this chapter we have seen that it took nearly an entire century after
abolition before antiracist ideas slowly became accepted officially. The
first antiracist authors of the 20th century, such as Manoel Bomfim, had to
struggle against dominant pseudo-scientific ideologies of racial hierarchies,
the alleged negative effects of miscegenation and whitening immigration
policies. Next, when scholars such as Gilberto Freyre did accept and even
celebrated the mixed identity of large parts of the Brazilian population, e.g.,
by comparison to Jim Crow in the U.S., black antiracists such as Nascimento
after the war showed that the allegedly benign nature of racism in Brazil,
as described by the notion of ‘racial democracy’ was not only a myth, but a
widespread official denial of the reality of racism in Brazil.
Initial antiracist discourse in Brazil was formulated by a few white schol-
ars, challenging pseudo-science and eugenics in a context of broadly accepted
ideologies of racial hierarchies in academia as well as in politics. At the same
time, black intellectuals focused on the creation of black organizations and
newspapers, rather than on white racism until the postwar critical publica-
tions of prominent scholars and activists such as Nascimento. More than in
the 19th century, thus, antiracist discourse in Brazil in the 20th century was
especially inspired by antiracist science, delegitimizing the pseudoscience
inherited of the 19th century and its consequences on immigration policies.
Chapter Five
Contemporary Antiracist Discourse
When black intellectuals, and especially Abdias do Nascimento, after the war
formulated their increasingly sophisticated analysis of and resistance against
racism in academia, media and politics, and the Movimento Negro organized
congresses and other social events on related topics, also (predominantly
white) academia contributed to the national debate on race relations.
THE UNESCO PROJECT
We have seen in the previous chapter that UNESCO (United Nations Edu-
cational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), challenged by the horrors of
the Holocaust, as well as continuing Jim Crow segregation in the U.S. and
Apartheid in South Africa, became interested in alternative approaches to
interethnic and race relations.
Under the influence of the then widespread idea of racial democracy
in Brazil, UNESCO’s Division of Racial Studies, led by Swiss-American
anthropologist Alfred Métraux (who had himself done ethnological studies
of religions in Brazil), specifically began to promote studies about these al-
legedly more harmonious race relations in Brazil. First in rural Brazil, e.g.,
in Bahia and Amazonas, by Thales de Azevedo (see previous chapter) and
anthropologist Charles Wagley (1913–1991), also a student of Boas, but later,
by way of comparison, also in São Paulo.
One of the first Brazilian sociologist who already in the 1940s had done
research on race relations, and who already since the 1950s had contributed
to one UNESCO study on this topic was Luiz de Aguiar Costa Pinto (1920–
2002) from Bahia, who later moved to Rio, where he became the first presi-
dent of the Facultad Latino-Americana de Ciencias Sociais (CLAPSC). He
105
106 Chapter Five
was also one of the first who contributed in 1950 to the first of the UNESCO
declarations on race, obviously influenced by North American scholars of the
Chicago School, e.g., in a study with Herbert Blumer (then of Columbia Uni-
versity) about the Recôncavo (Bahia), with special interest for a situation of
“structural marginality,” inspired by the notion of Chicago sociologist Park’s
“marginal man.” Already in his 1953 he had discussed the “marginality” of
the mulato in Rio. Among his many studies, relevant here is especially his
1953 UNESCO study O Negro no Rio de Janeiro (of all people dedicated
to Nina Rodrigues and Arthur Ramos!), in which he focused on social, edu-
cational and ecological aspects of race relations, including stereotypes and
prejudices. After elaborate hedging in his last chapter, Costa Pinto finally
concludes as follows:
(5.1) Thus, the lesson of these national experiences clearly indicates—and that
of Brazil confirms—that prejudice and discrimination fundamentally act to
keep the black man in his place, that place which he has historically left, the
place where he has traditionally occupied in the system of social relations, a
place that the socially ruling and ethnically differentiated group’s ideology
considers to be proper, natural, and biologically justified—just as proper,
natural and biologically justified as the place of the dominating group.
As paradoxical as this may seem, the social rise of blacks and their distancing
from the traditional position they have occupied in Brazilian society—where
there is a traditional white ideology regarding the position blacks should oc-
cupy in the system of social positions—is currently the main factor of the
discrimination that they have been suffering in increasing scale in recent
times within this country. Today, blacks find obstacles and obstructions at
the gateways of careers, institutions, social environments and so many other
spheres of coexistence with whites (. . .)
Despite its dedication to racist scholars such as Nina Rodrigues, the conclu-
sions of Costa Pinto are clear. Sociological analysis shows that black men
are kept in their place, that this place is the inferior one they occupied dur-
ing slavery, as well as after abolition, and that everyday discrimination in
all domains of society is based on the dominant ideology of white people.
Important in this analysis is that such is not just a question of the lower class
position of blacks, but that the ideology is based on biological notions of what
is “proper.” Though not using the notion of ‘racism,’ he thus explains race
relations in Brazil, and especially white domination in terms of racist ideolo-
gies—as had done several others before the war.
Though not in radical terms, as conclusion of a UNESCO study, it is clear
that the rosy picture of the dominant ideology of racial democracy was hardly
confirmed by the extensive sociological study of Costa Pinto. At the same
Contemporary Antiracist Discourse 107
time, we’ll see below that the sociological analysis about the continuous
relevance of white ideologies under slavery also comes back in the work of
Florestan Fernandes and others. Interesting is especially his notion of crip-
toracismo, and his analysis of the usual denial of racism:
(5.2) Generally, what follows is that whites do not feel racist because of this, since
they accept having cordial relations with people of color; these people, how-
ever, hardly allow themselves to feel stigmatized in any way by the knowl-
edge of their color as a limitation influencing their capacity to participate in
certain social spheres. There is a deep resentment on the part of the people in
question, and the more they deliberately conceal it, so as not to vulgarize it
by externalization and appearing very concerned about that which is denied
to them, the greater it becomes. And there is a relative tranquility and peace
of mind amongst whites, who with their crypto racism avoid being considered
racist tout court in a country where “racial prejudice does not exist.” The
outcome of this, in practice, is a precarious form of accommodation obtained
through obedience to these rules of racial etiquette, proceeding in accordance
with good tone, good manners and courtesy, as is fitting “among gentlemen.”
This passage perfectly summarizes race relations in Brazil until today and
is formulated in a combined microsociological and social psychological
analysis of the denial of racism by white people, because they feel they usu-
ally have friendly, cordial relations with black people, typically their maids
or the doormen, that is with black people in subordinate positions. On the
other hand, the author examines the impressions of black people confronted
with this kind of ‘companionship’ of white superiors: They know very well
that they do not have access to many social contexts. The psychological
analysis gets even more sophisticated when Costa Pinto explains the resent-
ment among black people especially if they must conceal it in order to avoid
the crude impression that they want what is denied them. Such conclusions
either show very sophisticated empathy or refined discourse analysis of his
interviews with black people. No wonder that such systematic denial of rac-
ism kept in place by both white and black may be called ‘criptoracism.’ It is
not a question of individual denial of racism, but a system of hidden racism.
For a book written just a few years after the influential studies implying a
situation of racial democracy, and with a preface of Arthur Ramos himself,
UNESCO director of social science responsible for the Brazilian UNESCO
project after Métraux, as well as his thesis supervisor, this conclusion of care-
ful empirical research, including tests among adolescents, both conclusions
and ironical style represent a marked rupture with earlier studies, as well as
a sophisticated theoretical preparation of the following sociological studies
about race relations in Brazil.
108 Chapter Five
The São Paulo School and the Sociology of Racism

In the postwar years, Brazilian racism (as well as its denial or mitigation) was
especially studied in the emerging sociological school of the University of
São Paulo (USP), initially led by foreigners such as
• Roger Bastide (1898–1974), specialized in Afro-Brazilian religions,

• Donald Pierson (1900–1995), of the Chicago school, and author of Negroes
in Brazil (1942), denying racism in Brazil when compared to the U.S.,
• German anthropologist Emilio Willems (1905–1997), who had studied
the (lack of) integration of Germans in Brazil (a study later reviewed by
Florestan Fernandes).
Whereas Gilberto Freyre, as a young student at Columbia University, was in-

fluenced by the cultural approach to ethnic relations by Franz Boas, Donald
Pierson—and indirectly his students—was influenced by the functionalist
sociology of the Chicago School, e.g., by the studies of Robert Park, Herbert
Blumer and Franklin Frazier, on the one hand, and on the other hand by the
African and African-American studies of anthropologist Melville Herskov-
its, who also had studied with Boas, and who later also had done fieldwork
in Brazil.
Park in his foreword of Pierson’s book already mentioned the impression
that race relations in Brazil were more harmonious than in the U.S., because
Pierson in Brazil had encountered mainly the optimistic ideas of Freyre
about the progress of mestizos, and hence the denial of the role of color
prejudice, as well as flexible class and race relations and the disappearance
of blacks as a race and Africanisms as a culture. Arthur Ramos, who earlier
had been one of the main divulgators of the ideology of racial democracy,
in his foreword of the Brazilian translation of Pierson’s book, emphasized
the novelty of the sociological study of race relations of the Chicago School
(Guimarães, 2004). More generally, also in later studies about race relations
in Brazil, and despite the original contributions of Brazilian scholars, these
were always very well informed about the studies of their North American
colleagues about this topic.
It was especially Bastide’s student Florestan Fernandes (1920–1995) who
became the leading figure of this school, with his extensive publications and
international lectures on sociological theory, class relations and underdevel-
opment, and hence often considered the father of modern sociology in Brazil.
Initially in a functionalist-structuralist perspective, he studied specially the
position of blacks in “class society,” after earlier studies on an indigenous
people (Tupinambá) in which he unmasked many of the dominant stereo-
types about them. In his extensive 2 volume study A integração do negro na
sociedade de classes (1964), Florestan examined the causes of the initially

lacking (and later, since the 1930s, very slow) integration of blacks in São
Paulo society, thus challenging the widespread ideology of racial democracy
in Brazil. Although his sociological approach theoretically was mostly for-
mulated in terms of classes and castes, part of his explanation of black exclu-
sion was formulated in terms of dominant white prejudice and discrimination
(he does not use the term ‘racism’), which had hardly changed after abolition,
as well as unequal competition with white immigrants from Europe, usually
preferred over their black competitors.
Because the social and racial structures and ideologies during slavery re-
mained intact during the first decades of abolition, a racial (‘caste’) stratifica-
tion accompanied a social (‘class’) stratification, at least until the 1930s when
a small black middle class emerged and began to publish its own analyses of
people of color and their advancement, as we have seen for the publications
of black intellectuals in the previous chapter. That is, for Florestan it is as
if Brazil is living in two sociohistorical periods at the same time, a major
“racial dilemma,” in which a white world changed profoundly, socially and
economically, and a marginal “black world” hardly changed:
(5.3) The black world has remained practically on the fringes of these socioeco-
nomic processes, as if they were within the city walls but did not collectively
participate in its economic, social and political life. Therefore, the disintegra-
tion and extinction of the servile regime did not entail the modification of
the relative positions of racial stock in the social structure of the community.
The caste system has been legally abolished. In practice, however, the black
and mulato [mixed-race] population has remained reduced to a social condi-
tion analogous to that which was pre-existing. Instead of being reconfigured,
as a mass, into the social classes developing and diversifying, it saw itself
incorporated as “plebs,” as if it were to become a dependent social stratum
and had to share a disguised “caste situation.” As a result, racial inequal-
ity has remained unalterable, in terms of the racial order inherent in social
organization which has legally disappeared, and the asymmetrical pattern of
traditionalist racial relations (which granted “whites” almost total supremacy
and forced “blacks” into obedience and submission) found the material and
moral conditions to wholly preserve itself.
This fragment illustrates quite well the kind of sociological discourse of the
São Paulo School. It describes and explains the inferior social ‘caste’ posi-
tion of blacks as “plebs”—and in that sense it needs to be studied as part
of the history of antiracism in Brazil—but the analysis is limited to social
relations—and hardly focused on the dominant racist ideologies of the white
elites as Costa Pinto had done before him. Contemporary race relations con-
tinue to be those of slavery, but there is no explanation why these did not
110 Chapter Five
change—and why whites changed (but how?) and blacks did not. Fernandes
does speak of racial “supremacy,” as well as black “submission,” but offers
no explanation of black immobility. Maybe the white elites had not changed
that much, at least not their ideologies of racial supremacy, in which blacks
were kept in their place, as Costa Pinto explained.
The limitations of this prevalent sociology of racism of the time also are
theoretically relevant here, because they have implications for a theory of
antiracism as well as a method for antiracist discourse analysis. If we need at
least a more sociocognitive and sociocultural approach to the description and
explanation of racism, the same is true for a theory of antiracist resistance:
We need to know the details of how, in Brazil, most white people of differ-
ent social positions actually think and feel about black people (in general,
and those they know personally) to understand the many forms of everyday
discrimination and exclusion as well as more general everyday interaction
with black people.
In his analysis of the details, causes and consequences of this situation of
racial inequality, Fernandes focuses especially on the many ways the recently
freed blacks after 1888 were psychologically and socially ill-prepared to
compete with white immigrants, and more generally to act as independent
workers and citizens in the new class society (of São Paulo).
Although Fernandes, as we have seen, mentions the role of white prejudice
and discrimination as one of the causes of this exclusion, his focus is primar-
ily on social, historical and economic factors, attributing many limitations to
the black population, rather than detailing the many forms of racist prejudice
and discrimination as the main cause of lacking black integration and ad-
vancement, as his black colleagues had done and were doing at the same time.
In this respect his sociological analysis unwittingly partly reproduces some of
the dominant stereotypes blaming the black victims for their own situation, as
mentioned a few pages later in Florestan’s own analysis.
Yet, his detailed social, historical and economic analysis of race relations
in Brazil not only contributed a fundamental criticism of the myth of racial
democracy, the dominant ideology of the military regime as well as of much
of the conservative media and political elites until today, but also provided
arguments for resistance for black intellectuals and organizations after the
1960s. Indeed, as we have seen, he was one of the two prominent people who
wrote the foreword of Nascimento’s book O Genocidio do Negro Brasileiro.
Florestan’s early ideas about race relations in Brazil already had appeared
before in one of the first sociological UNESCO studies, edited by Bastide
& Fernandes (1955) with contributions of the editors themselves, as well as
Oracy Nogueira (see below), Virginia Bicudo and Aniela Ginsberg, contribu-
tions that were omitted in later editions, despite the fact that these authors,
with different theories and methods, already had demonstrated the prominent
role of racial prejudice in their earlier studies. That Virginia and Aniela are
women, and Virginia afro-Brazilian, thus confirmed the impression that the
early sociological work of the São Paulo School was monopolized by specific
sociological theories of white men (for a critical review of the editions of the
edited book by Bastide and Fernandes, see Campos, 2016b).
Indeed, Virginia Leone Bicudo (1915–2003), as a social psychologist and
psychoanalyst, already in her thesis of 1945 had shown the role of racial prej-
udice among children in well-known doll tests (Bicudo, 1945). She was the
first black woman in Brazil who got a graduate degree, one of the first black
professors, founder of the first psychoanalytical center in Latin America and
the first non-medical psychoanalyst of Brazil and Latin America (see, e.g.,
Ferreira Abraão, 2010; Chor Maio, 2010).
Whereas Florestan thus focused on blacks in changing class relations,
and may view diminishing racism if blacks are able to compete socially and
economically with whites, Oracy Nogueira (1917–1996), a student of Donald
Pierson and Emilio Willems in São Paulo, as well as of Radcliffe-Brown,
took a more sociocultural and social-psychological view of prejudice and
discrimination, e.g., in his study of wanted ads in the press. Challenging the
widespread assumption that the social position of blacks is mostly due to
their poverty, that is to class, he argued that also blacks in high positions are
discriminated against, and that hence race or racism are independent vari-
ables. Instead of mere color prejudice, he reformulates the theory in terms
of “race prejudice markers” including physical traits, gestures and accents
(Nogueira, 1985). In his PhD project at the University of Chicago he also
challenged the view of Pierson (and Freyre) about the alleged “softer” form
of racial inequality in Brazil, due to the Portuguese experiences and famil-
iarity with the Moors. In a UNESCO study, he showed that on the contrary,
despite the broad recognition of Brazilian miscegenation, darker people are
more discriminated against than lighter people in all social situations (labor,
clubs, marriage, etc.) of society (see the analysis of Chor Maio, 2011). That
is, different from the U.S. (and its one-drop rule of race identity) in Brazil
appearance (especially color) plays a fundamental role in discrimination and
vertical social mobility (Nogueira, 1955, 1985).
We conclude this brief section on the postwar São Paulo sociologists and
their writings on race relations, first of all, by saying that their foreign masters
(Bastide, Pierson, Willems), despite the contributions of their studies on mi-
nority groups, hardly were examples of antiracist science. On the other hand,
their prominent students, who later become the Brazilian founders of contem-
porary sociology, especially Florestan Fernandes and Oracy Nogueira, paid
extensive attention to race relations, and especially also to patterns of preju-
dice and discrimination as major causes of the subordinate position of blacks
112 Chapter Five
in Brazilian society. Also as part of the UNESCO project, their research,

already since the 1940s, concluded negatively about alleged racial equality
in Brazil. Their work inspired later scholars to analyze and declare the thesis
about the relatively ‘soft’ race relations in Brazil to be a myth—which espe-
cially after 2000 is the dominant scholarly position.
Yet, besides a few empirical studies, their research was not primarily
focused on detailed analyses of prejudice and discrimination as part of a
larger pattern of racist domination, nor a main contribution to the academic
and political struggle against such racism, as was the case especially for the
studies and other activities of Abdias do Nascimento and the members of the
Movimento Negro Unido, with which they were of course solidary. Indeed,
interestingly, the very term ‘racism’ hardly appears in their writings.
Toward a Sociological Proof of Racism Due to ‘Race’

More specifically focused on the question of whether racial inequality in
Brazil was mostly a question of race or class, we had to wait until the end
of the 1970s, when Argentinian sociologist Carlos Hasenbalg (1942–2014),
founding director of the Centro de Estudos Afro-Asiaticos (CEAA) in Rio,
and Nelson do Valle Silva were able to prove statistically in their doctoral
theses and later articles that race (or rather racism) was an independent cause
of black subordination in all domains of society (income, housing, etc.).
Unlike Florestan Fernandes, Hasenbalg also showed that industrialization
would not eliminate racial inequality and domination (Hasenbalg, 1978;
Do Valle Silva, 1978; Hasenbalg & Do Valle Silva, 1988; Hasenbalg, Do
Valle Silva & Lima, 1999; for a discussion of Hasenbalg’s work, see Lima,
2014; Guimarães, 2016b). In an interview with sociologist Antônio Sérgio
Guimarães (Guimarães, 2006) Hasenbalg summarized as follows one of the
main conclusions of his work:
(5.4) The differences in white and non-white performance are always observed
using the relevant control variables, namely, the equality of other conditions
such as social background, household income, and educational level. These
controls allow conclusions to be drawn about differences in the appropriation
of social opportunities by colored or racial groups. In all the areas analyzed
for over twenty years, non-whites ended up at a disadvantage.
Different from earlier, non-quantitative sociological analyses these authors

showed that discrimination of blacks is not a question of unanalyzed class
or caste position, but especially due to ‘race,’ and hence part of a system of
racist inequality.
It was especially the combined writings and activities of Florestan Fer-

nandes, Oracy Nogueira, Carlos Hasenbalg and Nelson do Valle Silva, and
their students in São Paulo and Rio, in close cooperation with the Movimento
Negro and especially Abdias do Nascimento, that became the foundation of
most studies of and activities against racism in Brazil since the 1980s. Their
work also contributed to the definite refutation of various forms of the denial
of racism in Brazil, e.g., as implied by the myth of racial democracy, or the
explanation of racial inequality exclusively in terms of class relations.
In his study of the history of the study of race relations in Brazil (and es-
pecially in São Paulo), presented in his inaugural lecture as full professor at
USP, Antônio Sergio Guimarães (2004) concludes that one may distinguish
three developments, associated with three generations, in the study of Brazil-
ian race relations. First the studies of Pierson and his colleagues, then those
of their students, especially Florestan Fernandes, and finally the generation of
Carlos Hasenbalg and Nelson do Valle Silva, as well as Guimarães himself.
For the first generation, social inequality and race relations in the U.S. are
conditioned by prejudice, discrimination and segregation. Since these rela-
tions were seen as being less extreme and less violent in Brazil, they assumed
they would finally disappear. For the next generation, color prejudice and
discrimination were seen as impediments of complete democracy and social
mobility of blacks, whereas for the last generation, now also using the no-
tion of racism, prejudice and discrimination in Brazil were defined as crucial
functional in the development of Brazilian capitalism.
No doubt, we should add a fourth generation, namely the Brazilian and
foreign students of Hasenbalg, Guimarães and others, influenced by the
political and social situation in Brazil under President Lula and his PT, the
access of black intellectuals and activists to some key positions in Brasilia,
the foundation of several official institutions and organizations (such as SEP-
PIR) for the struggle against racism, and the preparation of and participation,
especially also of the Movimento Negro, in the World Congress against rac-
ism in Durban, in 2001. These advances were largely frustrated by the major
political crisis of 2016 with the impeachment of PT president Dilma Rousseff
and the conservative “golpe” by the conservative right and its figurehead
vice-president, then president Temer, the heavy prison sentence of Lula in
2017 and finally the election of extremist right-wing and explicitly racist
president Bolsonaro. Though much of this election can be explained in terms
of the widespread hatred among the middle and upper classes for Lula and
the PT, manipulated by the media, especially O Globo newspaper (see Van
Dijk, 2017) and Jornal Nacional, the support of the white elites also requires
analysis in racial terms. They were also a vote against increasing racial equal-
ity promoted by Lula and the PT.
114 Chapter Five
We should repeat that most of the academic studies of racism in Brazil

mentioned above are influenced by sociological, and sometimes anthropo-
logical, perspectives and theories, and therefore by definition limited. Indeed,
many focus on relations between race and class, race relations, social mobil-
ity, occupation and social variables, and occasionally on everyday interaction
between blacks and whites in communities or cultural aspects of African-
Brazilians. Most of the debates were and are about political, historical, mac-
rosociological and economic aspects of race and class relations, not on the
subtle details of interaction in everyday life, e.g., as studied in microsociol-
ogy and ethnomethodology—fundamentally critical of the functionalism of
the Chicago School. Though interested in racial prejudice, the sociocognitive
details of such prejudice were hardly studied, whether in laboratory or in the
field. As elsewhere, also in Brazil sociologists hardly read or talk to psy-
chologists, let alone to linguists.
And finally, although much of the empirical data of racial inequality are
discursive, as is the case for the media, political discourse, education (text-
books, etc.) or everyday conversation, very few studies as yet use the theo-
retical and methodological advances of 50 years of discourse studies. Indeed,
this chapter is about the history of antiracist discourse in Brazil, but there
are few studies that have systematically studied contemporary or historical
racist discourse, and none antiracist discourse—despite the fundamental role
of discourse in the acquisition and reproduction and racist prejudice and ide-
ologies and hence of the very system of racist domination. In other words,
as elsewhere, also in Brazil the limits of monodisciplinary approaches, espe-
cially also in sociology, imply limits of our understanding of race relations in
general, and of racism in particular.
Contemporary Resistance against Racism in Brazil (1980–2020)

A more or less complete review of studies of and other activities against rac-
ism in Brazil since the 1980s would require a separate monograph, and part
of such a review will follow in the next chapter, when we deal with policies
and discourses on affirmative action. Yet, let us briefly mention some of the
more prominent Brazilian (and foreign) scholars and activists of the last 40
years who have specifically contributed, with extended monographs, to our
understanding and of and resistance against racism in Brazil. In this section,
however, we only provide a very brief review, and no systematic study of the
discourses of these scholars, whose influence on debate and race relations in
Brazil needs to be studied separately.
In this brief review, we do not refer to the large number of studies on
blacks, black history, the history of slavery, black culture, etc. but only on
contemporary white racism and especially academic and other discursive

resistance against it (for detailed studies and reviews of research on racism in
this period, see, e.g., Guimarães, 2004).
First of all, most of the social scientists mentioned above were and re-
mained active in the 1980s and 1990s, as is obvious from their publications
mentioned above. Besides these studies, hundreds of books and thousands
of articles of the last decades, both in Brazil as well as internationally, have
documented the many forms of racial inequality, prejudice and discrimination
in Brazil.
In the 1980s, historian, writer and lawyer Martiniano José da Silva, mem-
ber of the MNU, published one of the first, if not the first monograph in Brazil
with ‘racismo’ in its title and offered a historical analysis of the many ways
racism was denied and tolerated in Brazilian history (Da Silva, 1985).
Already in the 1970s, the sociologists mentioned above, as well as the
Movimento Negro were also interested in black consciousness raising, mul-
tiracial pedagogy and antiracist education. Thus, Manuel de Almeida Cruz
(1950–2004) in his monograph not only deals with the study of racism in sev-
eral disciplines but also with strategies to combat it (De Almeida Cruz, 1989).
In the 1990s, we should first mention the Seminário Internacional sobre
Desigualdade Racial no Brasil Contemporâneo, held in Rio in 1990, one
of the first (if not the first) international conferences on racism in Brazil
(Lovell, 1991), with an introductory lecture by Octávio Ianni (1926–2004),
author of numerous books on populism and imperialism and one of the fa-
mous São Paulo sociologists. Prominent scholars such as Carlos Hasenbalg,
Edward Telles, Fúlvia Rosemberg, Luiza Bairros, Nelson do Valle Silva
and Thomas Skidmore, among others, participated in this conference. An
interesting result of this conference and its publication is the continued use
of the notion of “racial inequality” that also characterized the studies of the
São Paulo sociologists mentioned above. None of the papers use the term
“racism.” Also, the topics and methods are often quantitative, with many
statistics about differences between whites and blacks, e.g., in their access to
schooling, or studies of racial classifications, the position of black women,
or racial contact. No doubt these studies contributed to the continuing socio-
logical research on race relations, and the focus on inequality also implied a
system of racist domination, but there was not a specific focus on the system
or theory of racism, and even less a concerned antiracist struggle, not even
an academic version of such resistance, as we have found in the writings of
Nascimento examined above.
In the rest of the decade book publications on racism in Brazil quickly mul-
tiplied, thus witnessing an increased academic interest in a topic that earlier
only interested a few (Brazilian and foreign) sociologists, as mentioned above.
116 Chapter Five
Historian George Reid Andrews (1991), in his influential monograph on

blacks and whites in São Paulo between 1888 and 1988, offers not only a
history of (slow) black emancipation and advancement—as also his Brazil-
ian colleagues had done in the 1970s—but also documents the many forms
of discrimination and exclusion of blacks, especially in the first decades of
the 20th century, as well as their organized resistance, as also summarized
above, against racism, especially since the 1960s. Interestingly, he observes
that in general racial discrimination is caused by prejudice, but variably so,
at different times, in different parts of Brazil and within different classes. For
instance, as has been found elsewhere (Essed, 1991), contrary to prediction,
the better blacks are educated, the more they encounter discrimination, e.g.,
in white color jobs.
In 1995 elite newspaper Folha de São Paulo (DataFolha) published its
well-known report on “racismo cordial” in Brazil, based on interview data
gathered during 6 months by 700 professionals. Among many other data, the
report concluded that 87% of white people show “intolerance” about blacks.
It concludes that Brazilians are ‘racist,’ but that such racism is “cordial,” and
hence partly confirms the myth of racial democracy. We thus see that, at least
until the mid-1990s, the elite press still believed in the widespread attitude
that racism in Brazil is “cordial” (Turra & Venturi, 1995).
Congo-Brazilian anthropologist Kabengele Munanga (1940), since 1980 in
Brazil, and (among many other functions) director of the Museu de Antropo-
logia e Etnologia (USP), contributed with many publications on blacks and
racism in Brazil, affirmative action in education and other topics. In 1996 he
published one of the first edited books, which explicitly deals with combat-
ing racism, Estratégias e políticas de combate à discriminação racial, with
papers of the “Seminário internacional ‘Estratégias e Políticas de Combate às
Práticas Discriminatórias’” (São Paulo, 21–24 November 1995).
Also in the 1990s, another prominent U.S. scholar, feminist African-Amer-
ican sociologist France Winddance Twine (1998), in her first monograph
among many other books, focused specifically on the maintenance of “white
supremacy” in Brazil, that is in terms that enhance the aspect of domination
in terms of color, with the ironical emphasis on the internal contradiction
that Brazilian racism takes place in what was often seen as a racial democ-
racy. In her extensive ethnographical fieldwork and study of life histories on
discursive and material practices, she wonders whether (upwardly mobile)
Afro-Brazilians can still have faith in this “racial democracy.” Interesting
for our discussion is especially her interest in the difficulties black activists
have in generating grassroot support among working class blacks—a frequent
observation during the last decades of race relations in Brazil—including, as
we have seen, for the Movimento Negro.
Toward the end of the last decade of the millennium, also São Paulo sociol-
ogist Antônio Sergio Guimarães, already mentioned above, published his first
book on racial prejudice and discrimination in Brazil (Guimarães, 1998). This
original study is based on a systematic analysis of the complaints about dis-
crimination as published in the press and registered at police precincts after
the new Brazilian constitution of 1988, which declared racist discrimination
a crime, and which influenced antiracist sensitivity and complaints afterward.
A year later, Guimarães (1999) published the first book that not only dealt
with racism in Brazil, but also with antiracism—sociological studies that also
begin to debate the topic of “positive discrimination” to which we will turn
in the next chapter (see Guimarães, 1996). The book followed an earlier ar-
ticle with the same title, (one of) the first in Brazil with “anti-racismo” in the
title, written when the author was doing his post-doc at the Afro-American
Studies Program at Brown University (Guimarães, 1995). Also, dealing with
the myth of “racial democracy,” he critically writes the following about the
paulista sociologists (he was still teaching in Bahia at the time) interested in
racial inequality:
(5.5) Marxism, which greatly influenced the thinking and actions of an emerging
fraction of the Brazilian middle classes in the postwar decades, in no way
altered this picture. On the contrary, the Marxist insistence on the ideological
character of “races”—and its characterization of racism as an epiphenom-
enon—only lent a socialist tone to the ideal of “racial democracy.” To be
more precise, it has made racial democracy an ideal to be conquered by class
struggles.
On the other hand, he concludes, it was the Movimento Negro that took an-
tiracism seriously:
(5.6)For Afro-Brazilians, for those who call themselves “blacks,” anti-racism must
mean first and foremost, however, the admission of their “race,” that is, the
racialized perception of oneself and of others.
In the last year of the millennium, U.S. political scientist and African Studies
specialist Michael Hanchard (1999) published an influential (edited) book,
on racial politics in Brazil, with contributions by Brazilian and U.S. special-
ists Edward Telles, Howard Winant, Michael Mitchell, Peggy Lovell, Carlos
Hasenbalg, Benedita da Silva, Thereza Santos, Ivanir dos Santos and Nelson
do Valle Santos. Beyond earlier quantitative studies, this collection also of-
fers more qualitative studies from several disciplines, on such varied topics
as the history of slavery and abolition, residential segregation, race related
violence and the role of Afro-Brazilian activists, and comparison of discrimi-
nation with the U.S.
118 Chapter Five
Again in the same year, educationalist and later UN Program Director in

Brazil Rebecca Reichmann (1999) edited another international book on race
relations in Brazil, featuring studies of many forms of racial inequality, color
classifications, access to education, employment and health, the status of
black women. In this book Guimarães (1999) contributes a short chapter on
measures to combat discrimination and racial inequality in Brazil, and more
than rhetorically asks “Why Does Racial Discrimination Still Go Unpun-
ished?” (despite the provisions in the 1988 Constitution), and lists arguments
used in favor and against affirmative action, to which we turn in the next
chapter.
Even from this very incomplete review, we see that in the 1990s not only
the study of racism and antiracism in Brazil became a prominent topic both in
Brazil itself as well as among brazilianists in the U.S. who had done extensive
fieldwork in Brazil. Also because these studies were nearly all written in Eng-
lish (including English translations of studies of Brazilian scholars) this work
soon became internationally known and part of the international debate on the
contemporary forms of racism, policies against prejudice and discrimination,
and more proofs again the still influential myth of ‘racial democracy.’
Not only in academia, but also in politics and the administration, until then
hardly interested in racism, the (often joint) activities of black social move-
ments and scholars finally started to have first responses.
Former President (1995–2002) Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1931), usually
called FHC or FH, member of the conservative PMDB and later PSDB parties
as well as a prominent sociologist from the São Paulo School and assistant of
Florestan Fernandes, is often credited with being a “pioneer” in Brazilian race
relations because of his policies. He is a specialist on development in Latin
America, after an early (1960) study on color and mobility in Florianopolis,
and another one on slavery and capitalism in 1962, among many other publica-
tions and gave many lectures in the U.S., France and other countries.
Although there have been critical comments from the left on his neoliberal
policies as well as on his antiracist credentials and initial work on race rela-
tions, he was not only the first Brazilian president who was an intellectual
and a sociologist, but at least knew about race relations, knew about the black
movements, and facilitated the access of black intellectuals and administra-
tors to the ministries and agencies in Brasilia. In his first year in office he
formed an interministerial workgroup which should propose actions and
policies for the advancement of Afro-Brazilians, which would lead in 2003 to
the creation of the Secretaria de Políticas de Promoção da Igualdade Racial
(Seppir) under his successor Lula. In 1996 he started the Programa Nacional
de Direitos Humanos (PNDH), again specifically focused on the black popu-
lation, as well as first policies of affirmative action—although for FHC as
well as for Lula these did not really have priority (see the next chapter; for an
evaluation of his early work see, e.g., Ribeiro Nunes, 2011).
In the history of contemporary antiracism in Brazil, it is usually the prepa-
ration and participation of the gigantic World Conference against Racism,
Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which took
place in Durban, South Africa, days before 9/11, that is seen as an influential
intellectual and political stimulus of more explicit and systematic debates and
policies against racism. Whereas the official Brazilian delegation of earlier
international meetings, such as the one in Nigeria during the military dictator-
ship in the 1970s, critically analyzed by Abdias do Nascimento (see previous
chapter), still advocated the ideology of racial democracy, the official delega-
tion in Durban recognized the prevalence of racism in Brazil and announced
policies of affirmative action. A vast number of groups and organizations in
Brazil, including the Movimento Negro, participated in the preparation of the
conference, where Brazil had the largest delegation (for critical discussion,
see, e.g., the commentary of Ambassador and member of the Committee for
the Elimination of Racism in Geneva, Lindgren Alves, 2002; for the role of
the conference for the agenda of the MNU, see Petry Trapp, 2013).
It is also since the beginning of the new millennium that book publications
about racism in Brazil multiplied, this time also focusing on antiracism and
policies to combat racial inequality, prejudice and discrimination in all areas
of society. Only some of which can only be mentioned here, whereas those
on affirmative action and racial quotes will be reviewed in the next chapter.
Relevant for this chapter is that since 2000 we also witness the emergence
of studies of racism in public discourse, the media and telenovelas (Araújo,
2000a, 2000b), after earlier studies of ads in the press about fugitive black
slaves, or comparisons between Brazil and the U.S. (Conceição, 2006).
After the domination of sociology in studies of race relations in general
and racism in particular, we now also encounter studies in social psychology,
such as the papers in Carone, Bento & Piza (2002)—which however only
marginally deal with typical social psychological approaches, e.g., of racial
attitudes and prejudice.
Many books now deal with racism in education, schools and textbooks (e.g.,
Castro & Abramovay, 2006; Cavalleiro, 2000; Crestani, 2003; Gomes, 2007).
Whereas most studies on racism and antiracism in Brazil deal with white
prejudice and discrimination against black people, Jonathan Warren dedicates
a detailed monograph to racism against the indigenous population and its
political resurgence (Warren, 2001). In his chapter “Contesting White Su-
premacy,” Warren writes,
(5.7) Although the level of racism in startling, what is most noteworthy about
Brazilian race relations is not the degree of why supremacy but rather the
120 Chapter Five
paucity of antiracist critique and political mobilization. Race has generally

not been politicized, nor has it turned into a site of popular mobilization and
national debate. (p. 234)
Despite this critical assessment, it is precisely in the same year, in 2001, and
since the Durham conference also the Brazilian state, first under the adminis-
tration of FH and then under Lula and Dilma, started to take responsibilities
in combating racial inequality, also through studies of important institutions
such as the Institute of Applied Economics (IPEA) (De Jaccoud, 2009; see
also Reiter & Mitchell, 2010).
Also after 2000, Antônio Guimarães continues his sociological studies of
racism. Now himself a professor at USP, Guimarães published his monograph
Classes, Raças e Democracia (Guimarães, 2002), a collection of studies on
social class, race and poverty in Brazil, integration and identity politics, the
myth of racial democracy, and an interesting empirical study of racial insults.
With Lynn Walker Huntley he published a prominent collection of studies
by the most prominent scholars of racism in Brazil (Guimarães & Huntley,
2000), with special sections on social inequality, the Movimento Negro as
well as on combating racism.
In the following years both in Brazil as well as in the U.S. several other
monographs and edited books deal with racism and antiracism in Brazil. For
instance Reiter & Mitchell (2010) examine the new racial politics of Brazil,
with studies on black empowerment, affirmative action and the reaction
against it. Black feminist writer and activist Sueli Carneiro (1950), founder
and director of Geledés (Instituto da Mulher Negra), published a collection
of her articles on racism and sexism in Brazil (Carneiro, 2011). Many of the
studies after 2010 deal with the policies and debates about affirmative action,
to be reviewed in the next chapter (for papers on racism, antiracism and civil
rights, see also the papers Da Silva Lima, 2019).
We saw above that first under FHC and then under Lula national policies
combating racial inequality finally took shape, e.g., with the creation of SEP-
PIR in 2003. In the same year Lula announced the Política Nacional de Pro-
moção da Igualdade Racial and a national congress on the same topic in 2005,
organized by Matilde Ribeiro, Special Secretary of Politicas de Promoção
de Igualdade Racial, for which Paixão (2006) wrote an antiracist manifesto.
Finally, we should mention an important debate, to be discussed in the next
chapter, namely the parliamentary meeting in 2007 with representatives of
NGOs and black organizations to discuss the Statute of Racial Equality. The
discourse of this debate provides interesting insights into antiracist discursive
strategies we examine in more detail in the next chapter.
CONCLUSIONS
After the war, stimulated by the international reaction against Nazism, the
Holocaust and Jim Crow segregation in the U.S. and the interest of UNESCO
in alternative race relations, sociologists, especially in São Paulo, started to
study the allegedly “cordial” race relations in Brazil. They at first especially
focused on social mobility and relations of caste and class, as was the case
for the studies by Florestan Fernandes—influenced by the functionalism of
the Chicago School and other foreign scholars. Yet, earlier field work for
a UNESCO project by Luiz de Aguiar Costa Pinto went beyond such a so-
ciological analysis, and focused on everyday racial interaction, ideologies of
white supremacy, the denial of racism and the sociocognitive aspects of black
conduct in everyday life.
Only toward the end of the 1970s, statistical evidence provided by Carlos
Hasenbalg and Nelson do Valle Silva began to convince the sociologists that
racial equality was really a question of ‘race’ and not of class. At the same
time, the notion of ‘racial democracy’ began to be challenged and declared a
myth and an elite form of the denial of racism—an opinion obviously already
widely shared by the Black Movement and other black intellectuals. Indeed,
so far the (mostly white) sociologists had explained discrimination partly by
racial prejudice, but not yet in terms of a system of racism.
It is only in the 1990s and especially since 2000 that articles and books
began to appear that explicit deal with the many forms of racism in Brazilian
society, as well as the first academic and political studies and policies for
combating racism, also—though still modestly, outside of sociology, espe-
cially in political science and education, for instance about affirmative action,
to be studied in the next chapter.
As we have seen also in the previous chapter, antiracism in the 20th century
has been largely defined by academic debates, e.g., on racist pseudo-science
inherited from the 19th century, eugenics and ideologies of whitening, as well
as their applications in immigration policies. Also after the war, the struggle
against racism (especially as incarnated by Nazism) required academic stud-
ies of race relations, initiated by UNESCO, and focusing on alternative race
relations in Brazil, allegedly more benign than in the U.S. Thus, it was due to
systematic fieldwork among black people in Brazil that the prevalent thesis
of “democracia racial” could slowly be declared what it was: a myth, and a
strategy of racism denial.
This predominance of postwar academic studies of racism in Brazil, to
which are due most of our citations, should not disparage the role of black
antiracist organizations, such as the TEN and MNU. These were crucial in
the organization of congresses, including the international one in Durban, as
122 Chapter Five
well as antiracist consciousness raising among blacks. Also their antiracist

discourses, though less publicly accessible, require separate treatment.
Also outside of academia, and for the first time since the military regime,
both the academic studies, as well as the Movimento Negro, finally had some
influence on politics at the end of the 1990s. Presidents FHC and especially
Lula contributed to the integration of black representatives in their ministries
and special agencies, and thus for the first time gave official voice to anti-
racist policies and initiatives, such as the massive Brazilian participation to
the World Congress against racism in Durban, and the activities of SEPPIR.
On the other hand, such progressive developments also had a backlash after
2016, as was the case for the impeachment of Dilma, the betrayal of her vice-
president Temer, and especially the election of Bolsonaro in 2018, largely
due to the hatred against Lula and the PT manipulated by the Globo media,
as well as white elite reactions against the growing equality and resistance
of blacks.
This reactionary and racist backlash also explains why the investigation
of the assassination of Rio councilor and black activist Marielle Franco on
March 14, 2018, received little help from the authorities, profoundly associ-
ated with criminal organizations—an investigation that was finally shelved
by the Supreme Court in 2019 during the writing of these conclusions. We
see, again, that the political struggle against racism does not have priority,
neither among politicians, nor among the more influential white elites and the
majority of the voters. The assassination of Marielle and its aftermath, also in
many forms of public discourse in the official and social media, may be seen
as a crucial event defining racism and antiracist resistance in the contempo-
rary sociopolitical context, especially since the election of Bolsonaro, facili-
tated by the anti-PT hysteria of the official media and the economic elites.
Marielle thus became the symbol of the multiple movements of contemporary
resistance and discourse of poor people in the favelas, blacks, women, gay
and young people (see also Danin, Carvalho & Reis, 2018; Gentili, 2018).
In is in that broader sociopolitical context that also academic studies of rac-
ism began to focus on antiracism, e.g., in the work of Antonio Guimarães, and
many Brazilian and foreign scholars (mostly from the U.S.), while extending
analyses beyond traditional functional sociology to law, politics, history,
psychology, linguistics and discourse studies. Systematic studies of antiracist
discourse, unfortunately, remain on the agenda, and their absence is the main
motivation for this very book.
Chapter Six
Parliamentary Discourse on
Affirmative Action
Dedicated to Paulo Paim
INTRODUCTION
On August 29, 2012, President Dilma Rousseff signed the “Lei de Cotas” (the
Quotas Law), which stipulates that 50% of admission spots in federal universi-
ties must be reserved for students from public schools. Since most students of
public schools in Brazil are from poor families, and most black and indigenous
families are poor, the law in fact was also a quota law for black and indigenous
students. Because few black students in the 1990s entered the university such
a law had been advocated for decades by the Black Movement and had been
debated in both houses of parliament since 1999.
Since before 2000 universities did not register the color of students, there
were no precise statistics, but the MPs in the quota debate often mention as
few as 2% black students in the universities in the 1990s. Statistics of 2000
showed that black students were much less represented than black percent-
ages of the population in various states, e.g., some 20% black students at the
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) in a state that has a 44% black
population (Guimarães, 2003).
Despite fierce opposition, both in parliament as well as in the media and
the universities themselves, it is striking that the law was finally adopted with
only one negative vote. Actually, the law came rather late, because already
since the early 2000s several universities had developed different forms of
affirmative action for black or poor students.
This chapter analyzes some of the discursive properties of the debate about
affirmative action, in general, and about this law, in particular, in the Câmara
123
124 Chapter Six
dos Deputados between 1999 and 2008 (the debate on the law in the Senate
between 2008–2012 will not be analyzed here). It contributes to the study of
the vast debate on affirmative action in Brazil by focusing on the way official
political discourse may express antiracist attitudes and ideologies.
Affirmative action and university quotas for black students in Brazil have
been studied in many thousands of articles, books and theses, especially since
2000. Hence, a single chapter cannot possibly review all this literature, let
alone study all public discourse about these controversial topics. Most earlier
studies on affirmative action in Brazil have been carried out within the social,
political and legal sciences. Therefore, a more detailed and explicit study of
the discourses of this vast debate is in order. Earlier discourse studies have fo-
cused mostly on the conservative media, especially because of their concerted
efforts to oppose quotas. Few studies have been dedicated to an analysis of
official political discourse, although it was in parliament where the decisive
official debate about quotas took place.
Already five years before the Quotas Law, in 2007, parliament was the
scene of an official debate about a related topic, namely the Statute of Racial
Equality, in which not only parliamentarians but also representatives of many
communities, groups and organizations participated. Before we analyze the
parliamentary discourses about the Quotas Law, we also briefly pay attention
to the discourses of the debate on the Statute, because it offers insight into
various types of discourse by non-political representatives about affirmative
action and related topics. Another reason to pay attention to the Statute is that
it is one of the major topics in the debates on quotas. Also in the debate on
the Quota Law various social groups participated, for instance in the hearings
in the Senate in 2008, 2009 and 2011.
The Debate on the Statute of Racial Equality

On the memorable date of September 9, 2009 (09–09–09) the special Com-
mittee for the Statute of Racial Equality of the Câmara dos Deputados, the
Brazilian Parliament, unanimously voted for a law that would finally guarantee
extensive rights for black Brazilians. Members of Parliament of all major par-
ties, as well as invited representatives of many Afro-Brazilian organizations,
had repeatedly regretted in their declarations during the sessions of the Com-
mittee that it had taken more than a decade of debates before this law was
finally approved. Especially the black participants emphasized that the Afro-
Brazilian community had not waited for a decade, but for 121 years—that is,
since slavery was abolished in Brazil 1888, the last country to do so —an event
celebrated hundred years later in the new constitution of 1988, which defined
racism to be a crime that could not prescribe and for which no bail could be set.
Parliamentary Discourse on Affirmative Action 125
The official focus of the plenary and committee debates was Bill nº 6.264,
of 2005, of the Federal Senate, instituting the Statute of Racial Equality. The
Bill was presented to the Senate on November 11, 2005, by famous Afro-
Brazilian Senator (for the state of Rio Grande do Sul) Paulo Paim (1950),
author of many political initiatives in favor of the Afro-Brazilian community,
member of the governing Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT), and just as the
(then) president Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva, originally a union leader and
worker in the metallurgical industry. Because of his prominent role in debates
on the Statute and on affirmative action, this chapter is dedicated to him.
Although the debates of the Committee are not the main topic of this chap-
ter, let us cite a few of the interventions during the special session, on No-
vember 26, 2007, during which the entire parliament was declared a “General
Committee.” Besides MPs also two dozen other experts took the floor, each
for 5 minutes, about the Statute.
Since the Bill itself may also be seen as a form of antiracist discourse,
despite the fact that the final amendments toned down some of its original
intentions and formulations, let us briefly summarize its contents, because
these are what many of the speakers in the plenary and committee debates
refer to, or presuppose.
The final version of the Statute was formulated in Law 12.288 of July 20,
2010, substituting various other laws, and signed by President Lula. Article 1
(of Title I) reads as follows:
(6.1) This law establishes the Statute of Racial Equality, which aims to guarantee
the realization of equal opportunities for the black population, the defense of
individual, collective, and diffuse ethnic rights, and the fight against ethnic
discrimination and other forms of ethnic intolerance.
Interesting in this first article is the reference to the black (negra) population,
and not—for instance—to the Afro-Brazilian population or the population
of African descent, an issue that has been crucial in many of the debates—
because the question then is who counts as black. The next paragraph defines
“black population” as
(6.2) the set of people who declare themselves black or brown according to the
terms for color or race used by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Sta-
tistics (IBGE), or who adopt a similar self-definition.
This definition led to serious controversy, especially its latter part, since self-
definition was thought by many to be too arbitrary—and hardly reliable as
a criterion because all students who declare themselves ‘black’ could then
benefit from quotas. Also interesting is that the first article does not explicitly
126 Chapter Six
refer to racism, but uses the more euphemistic phrase “ethnic discrimina-
tion and intolerance”—specified in the next article as “racial or ethnic-racial
discrimination” and defined in terms of any form of “distinction, exclusion,
restriction or preference based on race, color, descent or national or ethnic
origin (. . .).” The rest of the Statute only refers to racism marginally in two mi-
nor points, but not, as such, as the main aim of its antiracist aims. Although the
Statute provides for much more explicit rights and protection for minorities or
immigrants than any law in Europe, or indeed in many other countries in Latin
America, it shares the general reluctance of nation-states to actually name rac-
ism by its name. Both for theoretical and political reasons this may also be be-
cause for many the use of the term ‘racism’ implies that there are races—hence
the use of “ethnic discrimination” also in this Statute—a point we shall come
back to below, because it also comes up in the debates on quotas.
The Statute then goes on to declare, in Article 2 of Title I, that it is the
obligation of the state to guarantee equal opportunities and full participation
rights for all Brazilian citizens, including using policies of affirmative action
—another point of later debate.
The Chapters of Title II of the Statute deal with Fundamental Rights, such
as those of Health, Education and Culture, Freedom of Belief and Religion,
Access to Land and Adequate Housing, Work, and Mass Communication.
The Third Title finally deals with the National System for the Advancement
of Racial Equality (SINAPIR). As we shall see below, the parts of the Statute
that caused most controversy, at least among white elites, were the intention
to adopt affirmative action—although quotas for university students are not
explicitly mentioned—they already are provided in another law—on the one
hand, and the land rights of the quilombos, on the other hand. The Article on
Education also mentions that teaching should also include the general history
of Africa and of the black population of Brazil (which was already an obliga-
tion in an education law of 2003 signed by Lula).
The speeches in the public debate during the 2007 session typically open
with context-controlled (Van Dijk, 2008b, 2009) moves of self-presentation,
in which the speakers not only engage in the usual politeness moves address-
ing the Chair of the committee (MP Arlindo Chinaglia), and not only men-
tion relevant aspects of their social and ‘racial’ identity, but at the same time
legitimate their role as experts and hence as entitled speakers in the debate:
(6.3) I am very pleased to be here representing the federal government in my role

of Minister of the Special Secretariat of Policies to Promote Racial Equality.
(Matilde Ribeira)
(6.4) I am a 27-year old black rail worker, a militant of the labor movement, and
I could start my presentation by saying that I am extremely happy today be-
cause I’ve come here from Curitiba . . . (Roque José Ferreira)
(6.5) As General Rapporteur of the 3rd World Conference against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Forms of Intolerance, I would like
to reiterate . . . (Edna Maria Santos Roland)
Matilde Ribeira in (6.3) presents herself as the minister of SEPPIR, the im-
portant special Secretariat created by the leftist PT government of Lula in
2003, focusing especially on human rights for black people, but later margin-
alized under the right-wing PSL government of Bolsonaro. Edna Maria San-
tos Roland (example [6.5]) as the rapporteur of the World Congress against
Racism in Durban in 2001, similarly is a very prominent representative of
the black community—showing that the debate on the Statute in 2009 was a
crucial encounter.
At the same time, black speakers in this session (of mostly white men)
obviously stress their black identity, and hence as representatives of a com-
munity, and often as survivors of racism:
(6.6) My great-grandfather was a slave, my grandfather was nearly born a slave, my
mother, who is also black, had little knowledge of her history, and I fear that my
children and grandchildren will end their days without knowing the history of
the African people who came here against their will. (Evandro Milhomen, PT)
Personal and family histories of experiences of racism (as in example [6.6])

are an important discursive strategy of antiracist discourse.
As may be expected, a major topic of black speakers is their description
of (the history of) racism in Brazil, one of the primary topoi of all antiracist
discourse, as we have seen in previous chapters, and also will see below for
the parliamentary debates on affirmative action:
(6.7) (. . .) racism was not created by us, but by whites. When they said we had to
be slaves, they created racism. (Luiz Oscar Mendes)
(6.8) Yes, we are incomplete citizens because we are still suffering the effects of
an unsettled abolition. For during the Post-Abolition period, the State did
not bother to discuss and adopt an agenda of reparations for the millions of
former slaves. Instead, they were left abandoned: landless, homeless, without
education or health care, effects which we still feel today distinctively among
the current generation of blacks. (Antônio Leandro da Silva)
128 Chapter Six
The speaker of example (6.8) focuses on an important aspect of the history

of racism in Brazil discussed in the previous chapters: Abolition in 1888
officially liberated black slaves, but then did nothing to assist black people
afterward—one of the reasons the Lei Aurea was not always celebrated by
black people in Brazil, and widely considered as pseudo-liberation.
Also white invited participants of the debate, such as the Rector of the
University of Brasilia (Timothy Mulholland), make reference to the history
of racism:
(6.9) Data clearly show that black Brazilians, descendants of African slaves, have
historically been those most marked by exclusion, with this being even more
pronounced for black women. Almost 120 years ago the Lei Aurea [abolish-
ing slavery] was adopted, but we still have much to do to ensure the effective
enjoyment of equality guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.
Mulholland, a prominent American professor of psychology who became rec-

tor of the University of Brasilia (UnB), explicitly refers to the Lei Aurea, and
also emphasizes that more than a century later there is still much to be done
for the rights of black people. Interesting in his speech is also the specific
focus on black women, a reference that is less common in such historical
summaries. As we’ll see below, the UnB became an important topic in the
debate on quotas, because the Supreme Court ruled that its system of quotas
was legal, thus opening the way for the quota law signed by President Dilma
Rousseff in 2012.
Relevant for our discussion about the parliamentary debates below is the
following intervention, presupposing and replying to the argument that af-
firmative action for black students introduces ‘race’ in Brazilian society and
thus may lead to racial division in the country. The counterargument of the
black speakers reminds the audience of the horrors of slavery:
(6.10) We were torn from Africa, women were raped, we were stolen, mutilated,
and today they say we should not talk about race or else we will divide
Brazil. What a fallacy! What a fallacy! Brazil was divided long ago, ever
since they tore us from Africa and brought here. This is the division, and
now they do not want to pay the centuries-old debt they have with us. (Luis
Osmar Mendes)
The horrors of the slave trade and the system of slavery is emphasized by a list,
beginning with the well-known metaphor that black people were arrancados
(torn) from Africa, already implying the violence of the slave trade, as do the
other verbs (stolen, mutilated) and especially the rape of black women. The
speaker refers to one of the conservative arguments (by some professors) in
the public debate about quotas, namely that quotas for black students introduce
‘race’ in official policies, and that such would divide the country (see Mag-
gie & Fry, 2002). Hence his reference to a fallacy, because such an argument
presupposes that there is no racial division in Brazil now. Another relevant
topic in this intervention is the question of ‘repair’—as one of the arguments
of quotas for black students (see below)—a topic that has been relevant also
in the U.S. (see, e.g., Salzberger & Turck, 2004). Another speaker also pre-
supposes the fallacy of the alleged “division” in society, emphasizing that the
state is responsible for that (as we have seen in the previous chapters), and at
the same time introduced an epistemic argument (“How do we know?”): the
division between white and black in Brazil is for everyone to see.
(6.11) In no way were we the ones who created racism; it was not we who created
a division—Brazilian society is divided. Anyone who walks through any
city in the country would observe the separation and would see where blacks
are and where whites are. And this was promoted by the State. (Paulo César
Pereira de Oliveira)
As is the case in parliamentary debates, many of the experts identify the

conservative media as the main elite forces against both the Statute as well
as affirmative action:
(6.12) Our conservative elite, full of hate, was very clever. I am not referring to
everyone, but to certain sectors that always use us. If we are against the
movement, we appear in Veja magazine and on the Rede Globo [TV chan-
nel] the next day. If we are in favor, it is immediately a form of radicalism.
The reference to hatred in this fragment is hardly hyperbolic, because the

(white) Brazilian elite in 2009 was already accumulating very strong emo-
tional resistance against President Lula and the PT, largely manipulated by
the Globo media and the magazine Veja, and hence also against the Statute
and the Quotas Law largely defended by the PT. Massive anti-PT demonstra-
tions, the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff in 2016 and the juridical
conspiracy (proven in publications by the Intercept) that led to the incarcera-
tion of Lula in 2018 were the consequences of such hatred. We’ll see below
that also in the debate on quotas in parliament frequent reference is made to
the media, and especially the Globo media and Veja—on which there also
have been several studies (see below).
Many of the arguments in the debate are well-known topoi of antiracist
discourse in general and in Brazilian parliament in particular, such as the
Numbers Game citing statistics of racial inequality, comparisons with other
countries (such as India) that have implemented racial quota or the alleged
threat of “dire consequences” of quotas (racial polarization of the country).
We’ll examine these discursive strategies in more detail below.
130 Chapter Six
Early Advocates of Affirmative Action in Brazil

We have seen in the previous chapter that already before 2000 the topic of
affirmative action was debated in Brazil, sometimes influenced by the debate
on affirmative action in the U.S. (see, e.g., Hamilton et al., 2001). Although
it is not the aim of this chapter to summarize the history of the debate of af-
firmative action in Brazil, let us mention at least some of the early advocates.
Lei Dois Terços

Several authors writing on Affirmative Action (AA) for black students in Bra-
zil emphasize that some kind of AA already took place decades earlier, during
the Vargas regime, by means of the “Lei Dois Terços” (the Two-Thirds Law)
of 1943, which stipulated in its Article 352 that two-thirds of the personnel of
companies that provide public services must be Brazilians. In fact, this law fol-
lowed old demands, already since 1848, to limit the immigration and employ-
ment of foreigners (see, e.g., Geraldo, 2007; Teles dos Santos, 2012). During
the military dictatorship, as a response to complaints about discrimination,
officials of the Ministry of Labor in 1968 already proposed varying percent-
ages of workers “of color” in different companies (Teles dos Santos, 2012).
Abdias do Nascimento
Not surprisingly, the first advocates of affirmative action in Brazil were mem-
bers of the Afro-Brazilian community, in general, and of the Black Move-
ment, in particular: Discrimination, also in university admissions, especially
targeted black students and blocked the formation of a black social elite.
Abdias do Nascimento in 1983, when he became a Member of Parliament
for the Partido Democrático Trabalhista (PDT) for Rio de Janeiro, still dur-
ing the military dictatorship, was among the first to advocate affirmative
action for black people. In his Projeto de Lei (Bill) PL 1332 of 1983, he
proposed (see Santana, 2015):
(6.13) Compensatory action aimed at implementing the principle of social equal-

ity of blacks in relation to the other ethnic segments of the Brazilian
population, in accordance with the rights guaranteed by Article 153 of the
Constitution of the Republic.
In Bill 3196 of 1984 he proposes that the Instituto Rio Branco of the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs reserve 20% of candidates for black men, and 20% for black
women with the following arguments—historical, political and moral argu-
ments we’ll encounter more often in this chapter, and hence we’ll cite at length:
(6.14) The Africans who, forced into slave labor, came to Brazil, as well as their
descendants, worked for nearly five centuries building this country to which
they have given themselves completely, without hatred, without resentment,
seeking only national greatness.
The Constitution of the Republic, in art. 153 § 1, ensures the equality of
citizenship and opportunity for all Brazilians, in the following terms:
“§ 1 All are equal before the law, without discrimination of sex, race,
work, religious creed, and political beliefs. Racial prejudice will be pun-
ished by law.”
This principle has not been attended to, notably in the formation of our
diplomats, where, from what is observed, African descendants have been
discriminated against; that is, they have no access. Such an anomaly re-
quires the necessary concrete measures to implement the aforementioned
constitutional right of racial equality guaranteed to blacks men and women
to work as diplomats for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ headquarters.
It is inadmissible that, in present times, Brazil holds diplomatic relations
with about fifty countries in the Black Contingent yet does not have a single
black diplomat in its headquarters; this cannot be explained by any other
reason other than centuries of institutionalized racism in this sector of our
institutional activities.
This article therefore aims to correct this targeted discrimination by re-
serving forty percent of the placements available in the Rio Branco Institute
admissions process for approved candidates of black ethnicity.
Obviously, especially for the military dictatorship he had been criticizing

since his exile, e.g., in Nigeria, Abdias’ argument that Brazil did not have a
single black diplomat in Africa was a very sensitive accusation. That such a
lack was explained in terms of racism, in a period when official politics and
policies were still dominated by the myth of racial democracy, was a chal-
lenge to the international reputation of Brazil. In the same year, 1983, Abdias
edited a book with discourses and projects of affirmative action when he was
a Member of Parliament (Do Nascimento, 1983; see also Johnson, 2000).
Many years later, in 2006, Abdias was also one of the signatories of the
Manifesto em favor da Lei de Cotas e do Estatuto da Igualdade Racial (see
below). Affirmative action proposals were not always supported by all lead-
ers of the Movimento Negro, e.g., because they were supposed to be relevant
only for black elites (Contins & Sant’Anna, 1996).
A Brief Review of the Literature on Racial Quotas in Brazil

We already mentioned above that the literature on Affirmative Action (AA)
or ‘racial quotas’ in Brazil is vast. Few social topics in Brazil have been
discussed in so many books, articles and MA and PhD theses. The bibliog-
raphy on the topic by Gaspar & Barbosa (2013) already lists 464 titles for
132 Chapter Six
1999–2012. In March 2020, Google Scholar lists nearly 1,410 articles and
theses with the Portuguese keywords “ações afirmativas” or “cotas raciais”
in their title. There are even more studies (15,400) without these words in the
title but only in the abstract of articles or theses that may be on other topics.
Even in English there are over 100 articles with “affirmative action” and
Brazil in their titles. At the same time (March 2020) the catalogue of MA
and PhD thesis of CAPES lists 989 MA theses and 276 PhD theses. Many of
these theses provide extensive literature reviews on the topic (see, e.g., Alves
da Silva, 2012; Cruz de Anhaia, 2019; De Matos Oliveira, 2010; see also the
review articles by Pae Kim & Carneiro Tommasiello, 2018; Vieira Guarnieri
& Leal Melo-Silva, 2017). For reviews in English, see, e.g., Bailey & Peria,
2010; Bailey, Fialho & Peria, 2015; Childs & Stromquist, 2015; Davis, 2014;
Lloyd, 2015; Telles & Paixão, 2013).
Finally, besides articles and theses, there are now also many books about
affirmative action in Brazil, e.g., since 2015: Amaro, 2015; Artes, Unbehaum
& Silvério, 2016; Dos Santos Vieira, 2016; Martins, 2018; Monteiro de Brito
Filho, 2013; and in English: Cicalo, 2012; Johnson, 2015).
These many studies may be about AA in general, or more specifically
about public policies, higher education, racism or legal aspects and applied to
AA in specific states or universities. Interesting for our analysis are especially
those studies that focus on discursive aspects of AA policies. For instance,
Batista de Lemos (2017), Camino et al. (2014) and Dall’Igna Ecker & Torres
(2015) examine stories of black students telling about their experience with
racial quotas in the university. Chaves Batista (2014) examines the arguments
in the university debates on AA. The thesis of Da Silva Muniz (2009) studies
linguistic aspects of the identification of beneficiaries of racial quotas in the
debates of four universities. Among the studies of legal discourse, such as De
Matos Oliveira (2008), De França Neto & Fernandes de Souza (2012) analyze
legal discourse about AA at the Supreme Court.
Studies of the media

Especially relevant for our analysis of parliamentary debates on racial quotas
are the many studies of media debates on the topic because most Members
of Parliament know about affirmative action especially through the fierce
debate in the media, rather than through academic studies. As is the case for
the general and theoretical debates on AA, it has been the research group GE-
MAA, led by João Feres Júnior, at the Institute of Social and Political Studies
(IESP) at the State University of Rio de Janeiro (UERJ) that has systemati-
cally analyzed the coverage in the press, e.g., in the methodological article
about framing in the media by Campos (2014), the coverage of O Globo by
Campos, Feres Júnior & Toste Daflon (2013) and Feres Júnior, Campos &
Toste Daflon (2011), and the analysis of widely read magazine Veja by Toste
Daflon & Feres (2012). Much of this work is finally summarized and elabo-
rated in the book by Feres Júnior et al. (2018).
Other relevant media studies have been published by, e.g., Apdo Felipe
(2014) and Nesio Suttana & Pereira Lutz (2017) about Veja; Lima Viana & De
Vasconcelos Bentes (2011) about Veja and Epoca; Guimarães (2016) about
the leading elite newspaper in Brazil Folha de São Paulo, Medina Pereira
(2008) about Folha and O Globo on line, and Silva Santos (2016a, 2016b)
about a university newspaper at the Federal University of Minas Gerais.
More specifically discourse analytical is the media study by Nunes de
Araújo Nascimento & Leal Rodrigues (2011) about referencing in Veja. Nunes
Martins (2012) summarizes his 2004 PhD thesis in an article based on a large
corpus of 1,533 media texts, of which 352 are analyzed for such discourse
strategies as lexical variation, negation, modality, argumentation, metaphor
and irony. Finally, also within a discourse analytical framework, Santos Moya
& Silvério (2010) analyze the magazines Veja, Época and Istoé, as well as the
paulista newspapers Folha de São Paulo and Estado de São Paulo.
The general conclusions of these studies are that although initially the
coverage was more balanced, e.g., in O Globo, the public media increasingly
report negatively about affirmative action, especially in large circulation
magazine Veja.
The discourse of affirmative action in Brazil

We have seen above that several of the media studies on the AA debate are
formulated in discourse analytical terms. In Brazil, this often means an ap-
proach influenced by discourse analytic approaches in France, also because
many scholars obtained their PhD in France. Other discourse studies of AA
in Brazil take a more international critical approach, e.g., as influenced by the
work of Fairclough and other CDS scholars (see, e.g., Nunes Martins, 2012).
Although most discourse-oriented studies are of the media, we have seen
above that also other genres have been examined, such as stories of student
experiences (Batista de Lemos, 2017; Camino et al. 2014; Dall’Igna Ecker &
Torres, 2015); debates in universities (Chaves Batista, 2014; Da Silva Muniz,
2009; Ferreira Pinheiro, 2010; Morais de Cuadros & Da Silva Jovino, 2016)
and legal discourse (De França Neto & Fernandes de Souza, 2012; Riella
Benites & Arruda de Moura, 2012).
Relevant for this chapter are not only these media and other discourse
studies of the public debate about AA, but especially the very few studies on
political and parliamentary discourse, such as the study of Alves dos Santos
(2014) about the ethos of MP Luiz Alberto’s discourse in parliament, studied
in the framework of French discourse analysis. The few other studies on AA
134 Chapter Six
in parliament take a more general, political and ideological approach, such as

the analyses of the bills between 1988 and 2010 by Fernandes do Nascimento
(2012). The rest of this chapter, therefore, will focus on this crucial genre of
parliamentary discourse, but presupposes the vast research on the debate on
AA in Brazil, especially in the media. Especially relevant are the studies on
the arguments pro and contra affirmative action used in the media and the
universities (see, e.g., Campos, 2014; Chaves Batista, 2014; Feres Júnior,
2004; Fry, 2007; Fry & Maggie, 2004; Maggie & Fry, 2002; Silva, 2017).
The Parliamentary Procedure Toward a Quotas Law

The Quotas Law of 2012 took a long time to be approved. Already in 1999,
Nice Libão (1936), representative of the Partido do Frente Liberal (PFL,
later called Partido Social Democrático, PSD) for the state of Maranhão,
presented bill (Projeto de Lei) PL73/99, stipulating that 50% of university
places should be reserved for students from secondary schools, depending on
their performance. A few months later, the Senate, in its bill PL1643/1999
formulated its proposal as follows, adding the important point that the quotas
would be for students from (poor) public schools:
(6.15) Public universities are required to annually reserve fifty percent of their
placements for students whose elementary through high school education
has been fully completed in public schools.
After five years of slow motion of PL73/99 through the parliamentary com-
mission of Education and Culture (CEC) and its to and fro to the Câmara,
Nice Libão proposes to disconnect her proposal from the one of the Sen-
ate and instead to connect it with office bill PL 3627/2004. This bill also
stipulates that 50% of university places must be reserved and also stipulated
that they should be reserved for students from public schools, but that these
50% be distributed over the percentages of self-declared black, brown and
indigenous students in the respective states of the universities, according to
the national office of statistics (IBGE). As we shall see below, the formula-
tion “self-declared” in that bill already had become quite controversial when
the first universities had started some form of AA in the early 2000s. In that
sense, official parliamentary proposals seem to follow the broader debate in
society at large, and the universities in particular.
Follow years of very slow further debates, reviews and amendments, e.g.,
in the commissions of Education and Culture (CEC), Human Rights and Mi-
norities (CDHM) and Constitution, Justice and Citizenship (CCJC), as well
as links with similar bills, and several plenary debates in 2006, 2007 and a
long special debate on November 20 (Black Conscious Day) 2008, in which
the quotas bill is finally approved and sent to the Senate. For details about
the procedure, and the many related bills presented (and joined) during this
period, see Cruz de Anhaia, 2019.
The Senate
The Senate itself, whose debates will not be analyzed here, had been the
scene of various proposals of equal rights and quotas for black people, e.g.,
by well-known black Senator Benadita Souza da Silva Sampaio (better
known as Benedita da Silva) (1943), from Rio de Janeiro, who would later
become minister in the government of Lula. For instance, in 1998 she pleads
for quotas for black people (20% men and 20% women) in the public sector,
as already proposed by Abdias do Nascimento years earlier. Since 2001 the
Senate often debated on quotas for black students, beginning with a bill by
senator and former president José Sarney of the PMDB reserving at least 20%
for black students both in public as well as private universities, a proposal
often defended by PDT Senator Rebastião Rocha and especially Paulo Paim
(1950) (PT), no doubt the principal voice in Brazilian parliament in favor of
quotas and antiracist policies, and author of the Statute of Racial Equality,
discussed above.
After several appeals by Paim, Senate commissions in 2008 begin the de-
bates about bill nº 180 about quotas in federal universities. On June 16, 2010,
the plenary of the Senate finally approved Paim’s Statute of Racial Equality,
and after the positive decision in 2012 of the Supreme Court about the legal-
ity of quotas, the Senate on August 7, 2012, finally adopted bill 180/2008
that guarantees 50% of places available in federal universities for students of
public schools.
Two weeks later, on August 29, 2012, President Dilma Rousseff signed the
quotas bill into law. In the meantime, already more than 10 years had seen
that most universities already had implemented the provisions of the law.
Formal political assent followed years of debate and practice in society at
large, also after vigorous debate both in the House as well as in the Senate.
The Debate in the Câmara dos Deputados: The Corpus

Although the debate on the Quotas Law in fact already started when Nice
Lobão presented her bill nº73 in 1999, we will start our analysis on the day of
Black Consciousness, November 20, 2000, with a memorable speech of MP
Paulo Paim, announcing also the Third International Conference against Rac-
ism in Durban the next year, as well as summarizing the vast historical and
present inequality at all levels of the black population, while also presenting
136 Chapter Six
his Statute of Racial Equality. At the same time, Paim defends quotas for
black students. Although also after 2012 the Câmara debates about various
aspects of quotas, our corpus ends on August 8, 2012, the day after the bill
was approved in the Senate, with a speech by Jeanette Rocha Pietá of the PT
celebrating the new law. Although the law was approved in the Câmara in
2008, when it was sent to the Senate, we include in our corpus the debates
between 2008 and 2012, because also in that period there are interventions
on quotas in the Câmara, interventions that might have influenced the debate
in the Senate.
Included in the corpus is any intervention in which the words cota(s) or
ação/ações afirmativa(s) are mentioned. Of course, this does not mean that
the whole speech or the whole session was dedicated to the topic of quotas.
Numbers of speeches
Between 2000 and 2012 there are 1,279 speeches in the plenary sessions
of the Câmara (the lower House of the Congresso Nacional) that had been
categorized (by the administration of the Câmara) on racism and affirma-
tive action. Of these speeches 1,248 actually mention the word “racismo”
or “racista(s),” whereas 323 speeches specifically mention “cota(s)” and/
or “ação afirmativa” or “ações afirmativas.” It is the latter subcorpus of
323 speeches that will be analyzed here. Of this subcorpus a bit less than
half, 146, only refer just once to quotas, and hence may be only marginally
about the topic—as we need to see in more detail below. On the other hand,
74 speeches mention quotas five or more times, and hence are likely about
quotes more than in passing—and hence deserve special attention below.
Sessions
The 323 recorded speeches on quotas take place in 320 sessions on 311 dif-
ferent dates. In other words, the topic of AA during these 12 years was a
rather frequent topic.
Speakers and parties

In these 323 debates 142 different male speakers take the floor. The following
MPs take the floor five or more times: Luiz Alberto (PT-BA)(19), Reginaldo
Germano (PFL/PP-BA)(16), Daniel Almeida (Bloc/PCdoB, BA)(13), Carlos
Santana (PT-RJ)(12), João Grandão (PT-MS)(12), Paulo Paim (PT-RS)(9),
Gilmar Machado (PT-MG)(9), Pedro Wilson (PT-GO)(8), Amauri Teixeira
(PT-BA) (8), Alceu Collares (PDT-RS) (5), Amauri Teixeira (8), Ivan Valente
(PSOL-SP)(7), Dr. Rosinha (PT,PR)(7), Eduardo Valverde (PT, RO)(6), Eudes
Xavier (PT-CE)(5), João Mendes De Jesus (5), Márcio Marinho (PRB-BA) (5).
There are 30 female speakers who take the floor (not surprisingly since
women are a stark parliamentary minority in Brazilian parliament), of whom
the following five or more times: Benedita Da Silva (PT-RJ)(5), Janete Rocha
Pietá (PT-SP)14)(5), Manuela d’Avila (Bloco/PCdoB)(5), Zelinda Novães
(PFL-BA)(5).
We see that that frequent speakers about quotas are nearly all of the left,
and especially of the (government party) the PT.
Words
Although this study is neither content analytical nor a detailed application of
(quantitative) corpus linguistics, let us briefly summarize some of the quan-
titative aspects of the debates. The 323 speeches are expressed with 479,930
words (of which 25,344 different words), and thus each speech had about an
average of 1,485 words, including brief interventions of other MPs. For in-
stance, Paulo Paim’s crucial speech on Black Consciousness Day (November
22, 2000), extensively dealing with AA, featured 2,825 words, and probably
lasted for about 20 minutes. Two years later, on March 26, 2002, Paim gives
another, even longer speech of 3,334 words.
On other topics, much longer speeches have been given in these 12 years,
as was the case for Eudes Xavier (PT-CE) on April 10, 2008, whose speech
on public policies for youth—by the way hardly mentioning quotas—of
13,689 words.
More relevant for this chapter is a 10,000 word debate initiated by black
MP Janete Roche Pietá (PT-SP), on May 5, 2011, on gender, in which she ex-
tensively shows the decade-long, scandalous underrepresentation of women
in Brazilian parliament (8.7%)—a percentage that merely reaches 15% in the
newly elected parliament in 2019. Even more directly relevant was her 6,836
word speech on August 5, 2008, on the history of slavery in Brazil, and on
the current Statute of Racial Equality, as well as on quotas for black students.
Again, the left and especially the few black women and men in the Câmara
keep the topic on rights for black people alive.
For the 323 speeches the following content (non-grammatical) words ap-
pear most frequently (see table 6.1):
Table 6.1. Word frequencies in quota debates (N >400).

black(s) 2,671 Brazil 1,598 country 1,360
deputies 1,644 social 1,138 equality 1,117
Brazilian(s) 2,677 university 918 racism 915
racial 1,349 government 888 society 878
national 992 state 807 women 787
years 906 work 783 house 787
(continued)
138 Chapter Six
Table 6.1. (continued)

population 854 Law 705 education 699
quotas 785 project 636 discrimination 630
federal 673 fight 598 public 578
rights 608 people/folk 536 actions 519
Statute 508 Lula 458 people 444
whites 438 afro 430 life 427
culture 426 schooling 424 history 418
President 1,908 politics (policies) 1,697
Some of the high word frequencies in table 6.1 are largely contextual, e.g.,
when MPs refer to themselves as deputados, to the President of the Câmara,
the government, or the Câmara (Casa) itself. Others are typical of any debate
in Brazilian parliament, as is the case for words such as Brazil, country, na-
tional, population, state, Law, public, people, federal, Brazilians. Many other
frequent words denote, as expected, crucial aspects of the very topic of quotas,
such as black(s), racial, equality, university (ies), quotas, education, discrimi-
nation, rights, struggle, actions, statute, whites, afro and education. Similarly,
some word combinations may be expected in general, as well as on quotas, as
is the case for public policies (307) or affirmative action(s) (218).
Besides these single word frequencies, it is of course more interesting to
investigate the most frequent collocations, as we already did for such pairs as
public policies or affirmative action(s). Thus, if the MPs talk about quotas,
in which immediate co-text they do so? Instead of the practical but arbitrary
context of (say) 10 words before and after the word, as used in many corpus
studies, it is more relevant to take whole sentences or even paragraphs as
co-text, for obvious semantic reasons of meaningfulness. Again, there are
few surprises here, because the word quotas appears 129 times as part of the
expression system of quotas. It often collocates with a verb or nominalization
that refers to the institution or uses of cotas, e.g., as in:
non-implementation of quota system

establishment of quotas.
the quota system established
quota policy
quota proposal
The word cotas is typically followed by phrases denoting where (e.g., which
university) and for whom the quotas were or should be established:
quotas in universities and the workplace

quotas for blacks in public universities
quotas for blacks’ access to universities

quotas for the black population
quotas designated for Afro-descendants
More interesting are those collocations that assert the success or problems of
quotas, as significant contributions to the debate:
Quotas will not resolve the problems of our black folk.

The plan for the quota system is broad and has good points but unacceptable
ones as well.
The quota system is not really the only solution for black students.
What advocates of quotas do is add the number of brown (pardo) people to
that of black (preto) people.
It is at this point that a quantitative analysis does not yield more interesting
data, also because very similar meanings may be formulated in slightly differ-
ent expressions—which do not provide much quantitative insight, other than
trivial ones, such as the frequency of expressions such as quota system(s). For
the analysis of the positive and critical opinions or arguments about the quota,
we need a more qualitative approach.
Toward a Qualitative Analysis

A detailed, systematic and explicit analysis of 323 parliamentary speeches
as a contribution to this book on antiracist discourse only makes sense if we
focus on relevant discourse strategies that function and can be interpreted as
antiracist. Despite the previous historical chapters, there is no established list
of such antiracist strategies. Moreover, they depend on the sociopolitical and
historical context, the (pragmatic) communicative context and the local and
global co-text. The context of a parliamentary speech, part of a parliamentary
debate, is obviously different from that of an article in the press as part of a
media debate, or a discussion on AA at a university meeting, or an informal
conversation among students about the topic (for the theory of context ap-
plied to parliamentary debates).
A parliamentary speech is not only more strictly controlled by the of-
ficial business (topic, etc.) at hand, but also by the actual president of the
Câmara. Contextually, also in parliament, antiracist discourse strategies may
be intertextually related to text and talk about AA outside of parliament, and
especially in the mass media. And co-textually and interactionally an anti-
racist discourse strategy may have such a function as a reaction to previous
(racist or antiracist) discourse fragments of the same debate, or intertextually
140 Chapter Six
to the ongoing parliamentary debates on AA in general (for parliamentary

discourse, see, e.g., Ilie, 2010; for parliamentary debates on immigration,
racism, etc., see Wodak & Van Dijk, 2000); for the role of pragmatic context
in parliamentary debates, see Van Dijk, 2008a).
This means that not only antiracism in general is very much socio-
contextually and historically variable, as we have seen in the previous
chapters, but also contextually and co-textually: It depends (also) on who is
speaking, when, where, addressing whom, with what aims and responding to
whom—among other contextual conditions, such as the knowledge, attitudes
and ideologies of the speaker. Thus, we have seen that most interventions in
the AA debate were by leftist members, e.g., of the PT, with a special voice
of the (few) black women and men in parliament—whose antiracist stance
would generally be expected and presupposed by other MPs.
Since there is no established list of preferred antiracist discourse strategies,
our analysis, though partly informed by the previous chapters, will largely be
exploratory. Some first suggestions have been formulated in our brief analysis
of some of the properties of the debate about the Statute of Racial Equality.
Thus, typically, speakers may remind of the horrors of slavery, or the many
forms of subsequent forms of racist discrimination and oppression, as one of
the arguments of AA as a form of historical repair. At the same time, they
may stress the many remaining contemporary forms of racist discrimination
in Brazilian society. As a typical expression of bipolar antiracist ideology,
speakers may not only emphasize the “good” aspects of black people, but
especially also the “bad” aspects of their opponents in the AA debate, both
in parliament, as well as typically in the press (for such polarized ideological
discourse structures, see Van Dijk, 1998).
And finally, among the many other moves we have observed, we may find
such arguments in favor of AA as comparisons with other countries, such as
the U.S., India and South Africa. Indeed, most relevant and more generally
are the many arguments in favor of AA, as well as the counterarguments
challenging the arguments against AA—many of which have already been
discussed in the literature on the media debate on AA.
Our qualitative analysis will proceed as follows. As usual we start with a
global analysis of main topics, defined in terms of semantic macrostructures
(van Dijk, 1980). Such an analysis gives us a first idea of what MP talk about,
whether about quotas or related topics, such as racism and antiracism. Some
of these topics are so fundamental and frequent that they need more detailed
analysis, as is the case for the history of slavery and racism in Brazil.
Secondly, also at this more global level, we attend to more schematic struc-
tures, namely those of argumentation, especially those in favor of quotas, or
counterarguments against those against quotas, whether in parliament itself,

or in the media or the universities.
Thirdly, various more local analyses will focus on the representation of the
black ingroup, mostly by black MPs, on the one hand, and on their social op-
ponents, such as the media. Since debates in parliament are virtually always
ideological, and feature a polarization between Us and Them, such a more
detailed analysis of the discursive representation of ingroup and outgroup and
their actors aims to contribute to an ideological analysis of the debates.
Fourthly, other forms of local semantic analysis are the study of implica-
tions and presuppositions, and metaphors.
Main Topics
Linguistics traditionally focused on the grammatical and other structures of
clauses and sentences and tends to ignore specific structures of text or talk
beyond the sentence, such as coherence, the structures of paragraphs, turns
and strategies of conversation, as well as structures of narrative and argumen-
tation, among many others (for detail, among many books also for further
references, see, e.g., Tannen, Hamilton & Schiffrin, 2015; Van Dijk, 2011).
Macrostructures
One of these typical structures of whole discourses are semantic macrostruc-
tures, informally known as topics, themes, gist or upshot: what the discourse
‘is about’ globally speaking. We briefly define them here, because not all
approaches to discourse make such important structures explicit. Macrostruc-
tures are crucial for many reasons. First of all, they allow language users to
cognitively plan, execute, control and comprehend complex sequences of
sentences or turns. Generally speaking, macrostructures are best recalled,
and hence have major influence on the recipients. A macroproposition allows
language users to make sure that a sequence of sentences is not only locally or
sequentially coherent, but also globally coherent. Although macrostructures
define the global meaning(s) of a discourse, and hence cannot be observed
directly, they are sometimes expressed in discourse, for instance in titles,
headlines and summaries, typically at the beginning or end of a discourse, a
paragraph, a section or chapter.
This general theory of semantic macrostructures (Van Dijk, 1980) obvi-
ously also applies to the analysis of parliamentary debates. Indeed, most
speeches in the Brazilian parliament are preceded by a brief summary, ex-
pressing the main topics of a speech. And when planning and executing their
sometimes long speeches, MPs only are able to do so when they globally plan
142 Chapter Six
what they will talk about: the main topics of their speech—whatever the local
details of the actual speech. They mostly show such global planning in the
speech itself, usually at the beginning of their intervention, and after the usual
politeness moves of greeting the President of the Parliament (PP), the other
MPs or variable guests: They often initially express meta-discursively what
they will talk about globally speaking, that is, expressing in the text itself the
semantic macrostructure or global meaning of the ongoing speech. It is also
this macrostructure, which may consist of one or more macropropositions,
that is best recalled by the other MPs, and hence serves as the basis of their
own interventions, interruptions or next speeches.
Global analysis
Also, for our own qualitative analysis of 323 speeches, of around one thou-
sand printed pages, a first step of global analysis is necessary to be able to
control the vast amount of information in such a debate of more than 10 years.
Hence, as also occurs in parliament itself, we may summarize the debates by
sentences expressing their semantic macrostructures, much like a lead may
summarize a news article, or an abstract a scholarly article. Both in written
and oral discourse, the typical unit expressing the sentences ‘summarized’ by
one macroproposition, or one topic, is the paragraph. A change of topic, e.g.,
signaled by a change of time, place, participants or action, usually coincides
with a change of paragraph—as happens in the transcript of the debates (for
detail of such ‘episodes’ in discourse, see Van Dijk, 1982). The 323 debates
feature some 10,000 paragraphs. Each of these paragraphs, or sometimes sev-
eral paragraphs, may be summarized by one macroproposition or topic, e.g.,
‘Slavery still has influence today,’ or ‘Blacks are discriminated in all domains
of society,’ or ‘Most black students are unable to go to university.’ Although
strictly speaking macropropositions are unique for each speech, some are so
similar that we may speak of the ‘same topics’ across different speeches. For
instance, many (especially black) MPs speak about how blacks were brutally
torn from Africa, savagely mistreated by slaverowners, and continue to suf-
fer prejudice and discrimination today, as we have seen in an example above.
On this theoretical and methodological basis, we may globally summarize the
speeches in terms of the following main topics and subtopics (besides initial
and final greetings, thanks and other context-dependent parts of the speeches).
Note that such global summaries in terms of topics is not a formal proce-
dure—that could be done by a computer—but relatively subjective: Crucial
is that the meaning of (sequences of) sentences or paragraphs can be semanti-
cally subsumed by the macroproposition. It should also be stressed that the
macropropositions listed below, and formulated in English, represent global
meanings as reconstructed by us, not (translations) of actual clauses or sen-

tences of the debates. In other words, they are like summaries of (fragments
of) the debate. We order them by hierarchically related main themes (Racism,
Racism in Brazil, etc.).
RACISM
T0. There is widespread racism against blacks in the world
T0.1. There is racism in the U.S., South Africa, etc.
T0.2. There is international action against racism
T0.3. In Durban there is/was an international congress against racism
T0.4. Blacks in Brazil are solidary with international resistance against
racism
RACISM IN BRAZIL
T1. There is racism in Brazil
T1.1. Racism in Brazil is often disguised
T1.2. There is prejudice against blacks in Brazil
T1.3. Blacks are discriminated against in all social domains in Brazil
T1.3.1. Blacks are discriminated against in jobs, education, the media, etc.
T.1.4. All statistics show that blacks are discriminated against in Brazil
HISTORY OF RACISM IN BRAZIL

T2. Contemporary racism against blacks has its roots in slavery
T.2.1. Blacks slaves were forcefully brought from Africa
T.2.2. Black slaves were horribly mistreated by slaveowners
T.2.3. Blacks heroically resisted oppression
T.2.3.1. The major black hero is Zumbi dos Palmares
T3. After abolition blacks were discriminated against until today
T4. Racial democracy is a myth
T4.1. Some people and groups still believe in this myth
T4.1.1. Some media still believe in the myth (and deny racism)
RESISTANCE AGAINST RACISM IN BRAZIL

T5. We (must) resist against all forms of racism and racial inequality
T5.1. Blacks resist all forms of racism and racial inequality
T5.1.1. Black and other MPs celebrate special days for black people
T5.1.1.1 Black and other MPs celebrate Black Conscious Day (20
November)
T5.1.1.2. Black and other MPs celebrate the National Day for the
Combat Against Racism (May 10)
144 Chapter Six
T5.1.1.3. Black and other MPs celebrate the International Day for the
Elimination of Racism (March 23)
T5.2. Parliament (must) take(s) action against racism and racial inequality
T5.2.1. Parliament is debating on several antiracist laws
T5.2.1.1. Parliament is debating on the Statute of Racial Equality
T5.3. The government (must) take(s) action against racism and racial in-
equality
T5.3.1. President Lula has favored the struggle against racism
T5.3.2. Many of the antiracist initiatives are due to the Black Movement
T5.4. Affirmative Action (AA) is an important form of combating racial
inequality
T5.4.1. Quotas for black students are an important form of AA
T5.4.2. More black students in the universities offer them a better future
T5.4.3. More black students in the universities is good for the country
T5.4.4. Most of the media are against quotas
T5.4.5. Also some professors are against quotas
T5.4.6. Quotas in other countries are a success
T5.4.7. Quotas already implemented in Brazil are a success
T5.4.8. The Supreme Court (STF) declared quotas constitutional
T5.4.9. There is a big social debate on quotas
T5.4.10. Quotas are one of the ways Brazil can repair its racist past of
slavery
T5.4.11. Before the quotas there were very few black students in the
universities
T5.5. We/Parliament (must) (is) legislate/ing on AA
T5.6. The (Lula) government initially opposed racial quotas
This list of topics gives a first impression of what the MPs talk about in their
speeches. Although not necessarily in this order, there is some semantic and
conceptual logic of the topics. Even when the focus is on a more specific
topic, such as quotas, the speakers see and present it as part of the resistance
against racism and racial inequality, first in education and more generally in
society, which are explained in a historical perspective. Each of these topics
may be developed in great detail, such as the history of the slave trade and
the system of slavery, the resistance of slaves, as well as the many statistical
facts of racial inequality in many domains of society today.
Given the detail of some of these speeches, it is unlikely they are spontane-
ous, except when they are interruptions of other (prepared, well documented)
speeches. Although there are speeches that only mention quotas or AA, most
of the speeches of the corpus deal with at least some of the topics mentioned
above, especially on the various days of antiracist celebration.
Although the list of topics offers a general idea of what the MPs talk about
in their speeches, the macro-analysis does not offer much insight in how ex-
actly they do so locally in each sentence or paragraph. So, let’s examine some
of these topics in more local detail before we start with a more systematic
analysis of local strategies of antiracist discourse.
The history of racism

As is the case for many types of resistant discourse, e.g., also in feminism,
one of the first antiracist discursive strategies are references to the history
of the antiracist and abolitionist movement, and the struggle against rac-
ism and slavery in the past. Such moves not only remind other MPs of the
past, and not only thus make the past relevant for the debate today, but also
have several other functions, such as the historical continuity of the struggle
against racism, as well as a justification of historical “reparation” in terms of
contemporary AA for black students. Here are some of the many references
to the past of slavery, e.g., by critically referring to (white) historians—one
of the standard arguments (topoi) in antiracist discourse:
(6.16) According to historians, at the time of Brazil’s independence, slaves ac-

counted for more than half of its population. Of the country’s 500 years, at
least 350 were historically during slavery. “[Slave] Trafficking was the larg-
est business of Brazilian imports until 1850. Buying people to establish dis-
parities was the principle undertaking of this country.” (Cited by historian
Manolo Florentino. In Veja: The Past that Brazil Forgot. Year 29, Number
20, 1996, p. 65.) (Dr. Rosinha, PT-PR, 20–11–2002)
(6.17) We note that Brazilian historians are white. They don’t have a gusset that
reminds them of the history of blacks in Brazil. The history of Brazil was
written by whites. There is no record, there is absolutely nothing in this
country. And we carry this cross with faith and much hope, but always with
rebellion and nonconformity in our soul, as was the case with Zumbi him-
self. (Alceu Collares, Bloco PDT-RS, 28–11–2002)
Usually, black MPs present their own history of racism and slavery in Brazil,
so at first sight it is strange that Dr. Rosinha in (6.16) refers to a historian and
precisely in the (much hated) anti-quota magazine Veja. However, historian
Manolo Florentino is black and a prominent professor at the Federal Univer-
sity of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) and a specialist on the topic of the history of
slavery—and the Veja article argues that precisely such history is usually for-
gotten. In this case, it is especially the economic aspect of slavery is focused
on—a subtopic hardly debated in parliament.
146 Chapter Six
It is not surprising that the very word history is among the most frequent
(N=418) keywords of the debate. Relevant are for instance the following
fragments, the first not surprisingly by Paulo Paim himself, frequently re-
minding the MPs of the history of Brazilian racism, typically on November
20, the Day of Black Consciousness. We cite them at length, so as to get a
better impression of the way various speakers remind the other MPs of the
history of slavery and racism—a crucial strategy of antiracist discourse, as
well as a very relevant argument in favor of quotas:
(6.18) I watch the way in which the world searches for compensations for those
discriminated against during the war. We agree that these indemnities
should happen. But the question remains: what about the 500 years of slav-
ery, kidnapping, rape, torture, and mass murder of the black people? What
are the reparations?
Criminal exploitation is not just a story of the past, it is the past and pres-
ent. If nothing is done, it will continue in the future. (. . .) There are books
that talk about the open veins of Latin America.
Oh, how good it would be if history and songs spoke of the severed veins
of black Latin Americans. (. . .) They say the culprit is our low self-esteem,
but of course, where are our references in science, the arts, politics, econom-
ics, or even the history of the Brazilian people? It was all erased! Where is
the inheritance, the fruit of our ancestors’ work? It was all denied! (. . .)
The history of Afro-Brazilian participation in the formation of the Brazilian
people has been distorted and, therefore, must be rewritten. (Paulo Paim,
PT-RS, 20–11–2000)
(6.19) During our five hundred years of Brazil, heroes have emerged from all parts
of the country. Blacks were also excluded from this process. Our true story
is not the one we learned in school.
The martyrs, saviors, great writers, and renowned artists who have always
been imposed on us are white. Our heroes, who were not few, were thrown
into the silence of history, the story of the excluded. Not because they didn’t
exist, but because we were also denied the right to shout out to the world that
our heroes did and do exist. It is essential to raise the names and moments
of our participation in the history of Brazil to show active black men, with
personalities, with history, with life. To record this history is to contribute to
providing ethnic references for the Afro-Brazilian population. (Paulo Paim,
PT-RS, 26–03–2002)
(6.20) The history of blacks in Brazil began, approximately, in 1530. Ruthlessly

hunted on their native lands in Africa, brought on ships, on voyages that
were epics of horror of which the great poet Castro Alves declaimed his
indignation, half of these poor martyred men found death on the way, buried
by the sea, victims of disease, asphyxiated, and suffocated by the waste and
putrid fumes in the hold of the slave ship.
When they arrived in Brazil, they were put up for sale like any commod-
ity. Husbands were often separated from their wives and their own children.
Brazil was the country with the largest numbers of slaves imported: about 4
million Africans. (Aldo Arantes, Bloco/PCdoBGO, 20–11–2002)
(6.21) In Brazil, the history of black people is also replete with records of mas-
sacres and discrimination. In the struggle for freedom, thousands of blacks
were decimated by the Police of the Imperial Government until 1888,
when the farce of the Abolition of Slavery took place. The resistance of the
Quilombo dos Palmares, until the death of Zumbi on November 20th, 1695,
is the major milestone of the struggle documented on the National Day of
Black Consciousness. (Maria Do Carmo Lara, PTMG, 26–3–2003)
(6.22) For more than a century, the story has been told to us as though there was a
redeeming elite embodied by Princess Isabel, and that Brazilians, and particu-
larly we Blacks, should be eternally grateful for the benevolence we received.
We were not told about the popular struggles, the uprising of blacks against
the whip, of the victorious quilombos, of the discontent expressed by the many
black heroes whose figures were eradicated from the memory of the people.
This is why throughout history, while bravely resisting, Brazil’s black popula-
tion has been plundered of its elementary rights, thrust to the fringes of a soci-
ety that, ironically, the more it develops, the more it dehumanizes, insofar as it
fails to build its pillars in a way that is ethical, citizen-based, and solidary. As
we see, combating racism is an urgent and indispensable task, Mr. President.
It is ethical duty. (Daniel Almeida, PCdoBBA, 13–5–2004, Dia Nacional de
Combate ao Racismo)
These examples of fragments about the history of slavery, racism or discrimi-

nation have several discursive strategies in common. First of all, the transpor-
tation of slaves from Africa is described in the stark terms corresponding to
the horrors of the middle passage—no rhetorical mitigation applies her (epics
of horror in example [6.20]). The same is true for the description of the daily
abuses of slavery itself, as is the case for the lexical sequence kidnapping,
rape, torture and mass murder of black people in example (6.18). In our his-
torical chapters we have found many examples of such sequences of strong
descriptions of racist abuse against indigenous peoples or blacks.
Secondly, the history of slavery is referred to as the cause of contemporary
racism, racial inequality and the lack of a prominent black elite in many do-
mains of society, as is the case with the use of the metaphor erased (apagado)
in example (6.18).
Thirdly, nearly all references to the past are prefaced by numbers referring
to years or centuries, often in terms of “500 years,” as in (6.18) and (6.19),
a well-known numbers game rhetorically emphasizing that slavery was not
only gruesome but also lasted for centuries.
148 Chapter Six
Fourthly, as part of the ideological polarization between US and THEM,

next to the horrors committed by whites in the past, the heroic resistance
against abuse is highlighted, typically by reference to black hero Zumbi dos
Palmares. Or, as in examples (6.19) and (6.22), white national heroes may be
referred to, but blacks are excluded from such history—thus contributing to
the history of cultural exclusion as part of the system of racism. This is also
one of the arguments of the black struggle against racism, besides the use of
quotas: the obligation of black history in education and textbooks, one of the
laws of the Lula period.
Finally, among many other subtopics and local discourse strategies, there
is critical or ironical reference to abolition as fake liberation, with Princesa
Isabel as fake heroine: Abolition did not mean that blacks could become part
of society as equals. On the contrary, many forms of discrimination continued
until today, as spelled out in example (6.22)—and as discussed by sociolo-
gists in the previous chapter. In other words, as in example (6.22), it is ironi-
cally recalled that blacks hardly had to be satisfied with this kind of abolition:
we Blacks, should be eternally grateful for the benevolence we received.
Indeed, the hundreds of references made to the past of slavery and discrim-
ination not only function to recall and emphasize black history, but also serve
as a main argument for contemporary resistance against still prevalent racism,
as also emphasized by Daniel Almeida in example (6.22). We see that both
in parliamentary debates as well as in the academic, political and journalistic
texts studied in the previous chapters, remembering the past, with its suffer-
ing as well as its heroic resistance, is a major topos of antiracist discourse.
Experiences of racism
Whereas the frequent and extensive references to the history of racism in
Brazil provide the broader background for the current debate on AA, empha-
sizing the role of black people both as survivors of oppression and as heroes
of resistance is immediately relevant for the current debate as contemporary
experiences of prejudice and discrimination. No proof more relevant than
personal experience of domination, as is well known in the study of social
movements in general, and of racism in particular (Polletta, 2006). Though
generally talking (impersonally) as members of the black community, some
black MPs may illustrate contemporary racism with their own stories—as
part of a longer social history:
(6.23) With difficulties, I graduated in Medical Science. While specializing in

cardiac surgery at the Instituto do Coração do Hospital das Clínicas in São
Paulo, I was able to observe that among more than 150 doctors only my
twin brother, Cosme, and I were black. This is where the difficulty lies,
principally with the issue of education. (Damião Feliciano, PMDB-PR,

20–11–2000)
(6.24) But do not say that there is no racism in Brazil, as did those who passed
through here and were capable of this barbaric statement. There is racism.
There is discrimination. And I have suffered them throughout my life. I came
to be Governor of an eminently racist state, but I was an exception, and I
don’t want to be an exception. I want to be the rule. I want black people to
have the same opportunities as whites. (Alceu Collares, PDTRS, 25–3–2003)
(6.25) Ladies and gentlemen, much more than being partisan, much more than
being political, you have to be black, you have to have black blood run-
ning through your veins to know what black people suffer in this country.
I myself was discriminated against within the Ministry of Justice of this
government. Even now—I will speak publicly—I suffered discrimination
in BRADESCO bank and canceled my account. (Reginaldo Germano,
PFLBA, 20–11–2003—Dia da Consciência Negra)
Undoubtedly, the black MPs in the Câmara could tell many more than these
few stories, but they generally focus on general and generic aspects of dis-
crimination in Brazil. The relatively few personal stories, however, suffice
emblematically for the ways these politicians reached high office, or before
they became doctors or lawyers, often being the only black students in their
class, among hundreds of white students, as Feliciano emphasizes in his
speech (6.23). In a characteristic form of affirmation by the negation of the
opposite, Collares in example (6.24) first denies the denial of racism, that is,
the presupposition that there is no racism in Brazil, and exemplifies the argu-
ment with his own experience, further emphasizing that his experience with
racism has been lifelong. This hyperbole is rhetorically further developed by
the interesting converse of the common expression that he was the exception
of the rule, by stating that he and all blacks become the rule instead of the
exception. Finally, Germano in example (6.25) highlights that his identity
as a black man, rather than that of politician, is crucial for his knowledge
of everyday racism. He crucially adds that his experiences have been in the
institutions of banks, and even in high places such as ministries, thus recall-
ing that it is precisely the elites that are part of the system of racism (Essed,
1991; Van Dijk, 1993).
Contemporary discrimination
For any debate on racism, especially in parliament, the most important argu-
ment is not only the collective or personal history of discrimination, but the
account of contemporary discrimination in the country. Not surprisingly, the
150 Chapter Six
verb and nominalization discrim (N=821) are a frequent keyword. Indeed, the
nominalization discrimination (N=630) is more frequent than the verb—sug-
gesting that it need not be made explicit who is discriminating against whom.
Indeed, the frequent (N=272) adjective racial in racial discrimination does
not leave any doubt about the participants of the action—even when often
also women (N=1192) and indigenous people (N=207) are mentioned as
objects of discrimination—or as beneficiaries of affirmative action. Again
Paulo Paim provides the first reference, explicitly relating contemporary dis-
crimination to a past of centuries, as well as internationally:
(6.26)
Mr. President, while some distort the truth, discrimination, especially
against black people, is an age-old and real fact not only in Latin America
but in most countries of the world. (. . .) Racial discrimination is so strong
in this country that it creates in most black people a feeling of rejection of
their identity. (Paulo Paim, PT-RS, 20–11–2000; Dia da Consciência Negra)
The frequency of the reference to past and present (racial) discrimination,

also suggests a considerable variation as to the (sub-) topics associated. Thus,
whereas the large majority of references to discrimination refer to past and
current discrimination of black people in Brazil, the example of Paim’s text
shows that there is consciousness of an international struggle against rac-
ism, especially also in Latin America (N=40). Not surprisingly there are 45
references alone to the world congress against racism and discrimination in
Durban. The frequent use of the nominalization discrimination suggests that
the responsible (white) actor of discrimination may be presupposed and need
not be made explicit. Sometimes, however, the agents of discrimination are
mentioned explicitly, again in the same speech of Paulo Paim, referring to
the discrimination by business people, also as proof of the fact that ‘racial
democracy’ in Brazil is indeed a myth:
(6.27) I would like to see artists and the press helping to demystify the farce of ra-
cial democracy. I would like business people—we know that many of them
discriminate when it comes to hiring and paying salaries to the black com-
munity—to show that this practice is not legitimate, that it is reprehensible
and that it will end. (Paulo Paim, PT-RS, 20–11–2000)
The main aim of antiracist discourse in general, as is also the case in this ex-
ample, is to assess and condemn all forms of racism, and especially the racist
practices of discrimination: in this case against the many forms of labor dis-
crimination black intellectuals have been protesting against since abolition, as
we have seen in the previous chapters. This basic fact should be recalled here
because also in the debate on quotas, contemporary forms of discrimination
are routinely mentioned as one of the many forms of racism in Brazil.
Though focused on black Brazilians, indigenous people are mentioned

frequently (N=160), generally as beneficiaries of quotas, but also in relation
to discrimination:
(6.28) The State has to implement measures, with regard to indigenous and dis-
criminated populations, to strongly combat racism and social exclusion.
(Eduardo Valverde, PTRO, 26–4–2006)
Different from antislavery and antiracist discourse examined in the previous

chapters, contemporary antiracist discourse focuses on (i) the responsibility
of the state, (ii) concrete policies to prevent and oppose discrimination and
(iii) defining discrimination explicitly as a form of racism—a notion barely
used before the war. Especially relevant today is also the conceptualization of
‘social exclusion’—also a notion hardly used in earlier decades.
Similarly, many references to discrimination deal with gender. As we have
seen, the keyword woman/en is one of the most frequent (N=1162), as in:
(6.29) A study of the racial profile of employment in the year 2000, carried out by
the SEADE Foundation, shows women and blacks to be the most discrimi-
nated against within the job market in São Paulo. (Aldo Arantes, Bloco/
PCdoBGO, 20–11–2002—Dia da Consciência Negra)
We have seen before, and will see in more detail below, that one of the basic
properties of antiracist discourse is the description of contemporary racism,
a description that today is rhetorically framed in terms of the numbers game
(see below) and more generally the use of statistics. As part of the argumen-
tation structure, such discourse in parliament refers to research results and
the authority of renowned institutions, such as the IBGE in Brazil, or the
well-known statistics organization SEADE (Fundação Sistema Estadual de
Análise de Dados) in São Paulo, as in this example.
Some speakers emphasize the double discrimination of black women:
(6.30) If discrimination against women is bad, imagine when they are poor and
black. We cannot desist from analyzing the issue of race. (Zelinda Novaes,
PFLBA, 12–3–2003)
Actually, Zelinda could have stressed that discrimination is triple—of race,

gender and class. She does not elaborate, but appeals to common sense as a
topos, referring to the imagination of the recipients. Relevant here, and in this
brief fragment, however, is the question of race, the main topic of the debate.
(6.31) In commemoration of the National Day of Black Consciousness, the Intersin-
dical Department of Social and Economic Studies—DIEESE has published
152 Chapter Six
a special bulletin on the situation of the black female population, and the
numbers are also daunting. The title is emblematic: Black Woman: Double
Discrimination. The table shows that black women are poorer, in more
precarious employment situations, and have lower incomes and higher
unemployment rates. (Jackson Barreto, PTBSE, 20–11–2003—Dia da Con-
sciência Negra)
Here the speaker combines various antiracist strategies: (i) the relevant
current context (National Day of Black Consciousness), (ii) evidence of a
well-known organization, (iii) the numbers game, (iv) hyperboles (daunting),
(v) categorization and conclusion (double discrimination) and (vi) a list of
negative consequences for black women (poverty, worse work, lower salaries
and higher unemployment). In other words, a brief summary of contemporary
discrimination of black women.
In the co-text of the debate on university quotas for black students, it is of
course relevant to refer to discrimination in the universities, one of the causes
of the very quota project:
(6.32) In the case of the University of Brasilia, for instance, of the institution’s
1,400 professors, only 12 are black and they teach in the least competitive
programs. In the medical, dental, law, and international relations programs
all the teachers are white. But this lamentable situation is not limited to the
UnB. According to the census, other higher education institutions maintain
the same discriminatory behavior. In fact, the research clearly reveals that
the more competitive the higher education program, the more “white” it
presents itself. (Paulo Mourão, PSDBTO, 14–5–2002)
We have seen above that the University of Brasilia (UnB) is not just any uni-
versity, and any data about it therefore are especially relevant. Besides being
an elite public university, and being closest to the very parliament where the
speaker is speaking, it was also the university whose quota practice was le-
gitimated by the Supreme Court, a decision that finally led to the adoption of
the Quotas Law. The Numbers Game is stark here—if of 1,400 professors in
2002 only 12 are black in a country where 50% of people are black, there is
concrete proof of lack of access of black people to the prestigious position of
university professor, and a confirmation of the thesis that the elites in Brazil
are largely white. The argument is further strengthened by the statement that
in the most prestigious university departments there are no black professors
as all, a well-known rhetorical figure of amplification. Finally, against a pos-
sible counterargument that the UnB might be an exception, the discursive
strategy ends with a generalization: that the observed form of discrimination
is true for all universities.
In the quota debate in parliament, those in favor of quotas repeatedly
(N=72) refer to the media as their main opponent, as the source of prejudice,
and as involved in many forms of discrimination, as we also will see in more

detail below:
(6.33) Racism is also recreated and fed daily in our country through commercial
media, which reinforces the stereotypical and discriminatory image of black
people. (Gilmar Machado, PTMG, 20–11–2002—Dia da Consciência Negra)
This brief fragment is relevant because it summarizes the role of the media
in the discursive reproduction (here described as recreated) of racism, as it
is also formulated in our theories of racism and antiracism: media discourse
construes stereotypes and racist prejudices (image) among the (white) popu-
lation at large, prejudices that in turn control discriminatory practices (Van
Dijk, 1991, 1993).
Interesting are also the references to the denial of discrimination—a well-
known form of the more general denial of racism (Van Dijk, 1992):
(6.34) I tell fellow members who hold an opposite stance from ours that we blacks
are already victorious for having managed to bring this matter up for debate
in this plenary. In our country, we are used to saying that here there is no
discrimination, but people are afraid to say they are black, to recognize their
race and their origins. Fellow members, this cannot go on! (. . .) How hypo-
critical to say that there is no racial discrimination in Brazil. (Carlos Santana,
PTRJ, 25–3–2003)
This passage aptly summarizes one of the well-known aspects of elite rac-
ism in general, and in Brazil in particular: the denial of racism, as typically
practiced in the ideology of ‘democracia racial.’ In this case the argument is
especially interesting because it formulates a counterargument against one of
the typical arguments of the ideology: If there are blacks in parliament and
if we can talk about discrimination here, how can we speak of (institutional)
racism? Interesting in this fragment is also the quite rare pragmatic move of
explicitly addressing the speaker’s opponents in the Câmara and especially
calling them “comrades” (companheiros), usually reserved for members of
his own party (the PT) and accusing them of hypocrisy. Finally, also rather
exceptional is an account about the assumed states of mind (fear) of black
people, or rather the denial of their identity—one of the negative conse-
quences of racism. We see again that even brief antiracist discourse frag-
ments deal with many aspects of racism. This fragment was pronounced on
March 25, in a period when Brazilian parliament extensively celebrates the
Día Nacional da Consciência Negra, as well as the International Day for the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination, on March 23, giving rise to extensive
speeches on the struggle against discrimination.
One of the frequent collocations of the concept of ‘discrimination’ are vari-
ous metaphorical concepts of struggle: struggle (N=948), combat (N=477),
154 Chapter Six
resistance (N=111), as in the following quotes of speeches at the Day of

Black consciousness in 2000 and 2002, with remarkably the same formula-
tion of different speakers:
(6.35) I’d like to take this opportunity to commend the entire black community, the
organized movements fighting to end prejudice and racial discrimination,
and all those who, in one way or another, contribute to the struggle. (Paulo
Paim, PT-RS, 20–11–2000)
(6.36) Mr. President, Chamber Deputies, I come to this podium on this occasion
commemorating the National Day of Black Consciousness to pay tribute
to the whole black community, to the social movements that fight against
racial discrimination, and to all those who, in one way or another, contribute
to the struggle. (Aldo Arantes, Bloco/PCdoBGO, 20–11–2002)
The text of Paim is multiply indexical in the sense that it refers to his own
speech (I’d like to take the opportunity), pronounced by a black politician,
congratulating the black community (of which he is a member) and on the
Day of Black Consciousness, thus engaging in a form of antiracist dis-
course—which itself is part of the struggle against racism to which he refers.
Specific is his reference not to the struggle of black people in general but
especially to black social movements. Note also that here Paim does not refer
to racism, but more traditionally, and more specifically, to prejudice and dis-
crimination—the two main dimension of racism. Two years later, on the same
occasion of the Day of Black Consciousness, a veteran (white) communist,
Aldo Arantes, who had been an MP for 20 years, says nearly the same, thus
showing that the struggle of the black community is also the struggle of com-
munists. In this case, thus, the fragment of antiracist discourse is enacting the
social practice and value of solidarity.
In the quota debate in the media, a frequent argument against quotas is
that they imply a form of reverse discrimination, and hence accusing those
who favor quotas of discrimination—the well-known fallacy of tu quoque
(you too!), that is, of accusing people of hypocrisy by counter-accusing
them precisely of what they accuse people of. Some speakers refer to such
accusations, but not by denying the charge, but rather emphasizing that such
“reverse discrimination” is necessary:
(6.37) Affirmative policies are, deliberately, reverse discrimination. And they must
be so, because this is the only way to allow blacks who have been study-
ing in public schools for decades to gain admission to university, and from
there, start the search for equality among Brazilian citizens, both black and
white. (João Mendes De Jesus, PSBRJ, 15–8–2006)
This is one of the summaries of the quota debate, formulating the main reason
why black students must be given an extra chance, because most of them have
been in public schools (implying that these are bad—as everybody knows),
and would be unable to enter the (good) public universities. Notice that such
a negative starting point is enhanced by a temporal move (decades) and mak-
ing explicit the fundamental value of the main goal of quotas and antiracist
practice (equality).
As we have seen, the notion of ‘discrimination’ seldom appears alone. It
often is part of a series of related notions, all dimensions of the system of rac-
ism, such as preconceito (prejudice, N=347) and of course racismo (N=919)
itself, two other crucial notions that appear frequently in the debate, together
as in the following fragments:
(6.38) Mr. President, the politics for combating prejudice are that of whites and
blacks. It is not only blacks who have to worry about combating prejudice.
For us, white and black people have to be integrated in the fight against dis-
crimination. Fortunately, this is happening. (Paulo Paim, PTRS, 3–5–2002
(6.39) In work relations, then, equal opportunity does not exist. What is revealed
is racial prejudice imposed through discriminatory remuneration and black
people’s occupation of lower job positions throughout Brazil. (Narcio Ro-
drigues, PSDBMG, 9–12–2002)
Paim’s intervention is relevant because he emphasizes that antiracist re-

sistance (in this case against prejudice) is not limited to those who are
discriminated against but requires a joint struggle of white and black. The
relevant value here is that of the unity of struggle. Narcio, one of the leaders
of the (then) mainstream party PMDB (Partido do Movimento Democrático
Brasileiro; Brazilian Democratic Movement Party) in Minas Gerais (a party
that participated little in the quota debate) on the other hand focuses on labor
discrimination due to prejudice, and especially the hierarchical dimensions of
racism, namely that blacks have the worst jobs.
Racism
Besides discrimination and prejudice as its best-known manifestations, it
is the broader underlying system of racism (N=919) that is frequently dis-
cussed by the MPs, and also accompanied by notions of struggle against it
(the collocation combat . . . racism appears 199 times in the debates and thus
becomes a key notion by itself). For the same conceptual reasons, the word
racism is often preceded by against (N=156), and struggle (N=60). Besides
the frequent (N=42) reference to the International Congress against Racism
in Durban, we have seen that it is often mentioned together with discrimina-
156 Chapter Six
tion and prejudice, xenophobia and intolerance, as various aspects of racism.

The frequent (N=93) reference to Brazil in the co-text of racism bears witness
not only of Brazil’s participation in the Durham conference, but often also to
specify racism in or of Brazil. The same is true for the frequent (N=74) oc-
currence of racial in its co-text, e.g., to specify discrimination. Interesting is
the collocation with the notion of crime, especially when reference is made to
the 1988 Constitution, where racism is defined as a “crime inafiançável e im-
prescritível” (a crime for which no bail can be set and that cannot prescribe).
Whereas the concepts just mentioned are normal parts of the semantic
frame of the concept of racism, the notion of racism is also associated in a
more interesting way with other notions, such as the following:
(6.40) • deny the problem of racism

• The phenomenon of structural and systematic racism masked by
state agency practices
• invisibilization and denial of the consequences of racism
• racial inequality promoted by racism
• racism is embedded in the subconscious
• Racism against Indians is not denied.
• It is admitted that there is still racism even against women.
• Racism and discrimination have oppressed and marginalized our
population for over 500 years in our country.
• I would remind you that racism is historically rooted within the core
of society and is a consequence of slavery.
These phrases show that besides the obligatory references to combating rac-
ism, some of the MPs provide a more systematic sociological or psychologi-
cal analysis of the forms, causes and consequences of racism. The examples
show that also in Brazil racism has often been denied or mitigated. Some
of the MPs extensively deal with racism in their speeches, as is the case for
black MP from Bahia Reginaldo Germano (PFL,BA) in his speech of May
13, 2003, the Dia Nacional Contra el Racismo, referring 23 times to the no-
tion of racism, e.g., in the following co-texts:
(6.41) Today, May 13th, we have not come to celebrate, because for us blacks
who suffer the action of racism in the flesh, this day is not a festive holiday,
but an occasion to regret all the policies that have been left unproposed and
unimplemented in the country. (. . .)
Mr. President, TV Câmara [the Chamber’s public television network],
which broadcasts all of the House’s solemn sessions regardless of impor-
tance, broadcasted today is the seminar The Government of Change and the
New Model of Social Development, understanding this to be more important
than the discussion about racism that we wish to propose to society. (. . .)
What does racism mean in Brazil? Is it simply to like or dislike certain

skin types? Is it just a matter of color preference? I think not. Racism in
Brazil is synonymous with exploitation, submission, degradation, and hu-
miliation—exclusion. (. . .)
Racism, as we have said, is discriminatory politics, a form of economic
and social oppression. A certain dominant group, who took advantage
of favorable historical circumstances, created a series of stereotypes
to justify the use of other peoples’ slave or semi-slave labor. (. . .)
There is, therefore, no justification for racism. On the contrary, it is racism
that tries to be a justification. And you do you know why, Mr. President?
Because racism starts at school, exactly where it shouldn’t exist.
As do other speakers in the debate, also Reginaldo focuses on some general

and specific aspects of racism, in this case for its social and economic as-
pects. He does not celebrate the special day, May 13, which is the date when
in 1888 the Lei Aurea was adopted, because for black people this is the
date slaves were liberated but left to fend for themselves, without resources,
and systematic discrimination of black people and racist (whitening, etc.)
policies became dominant. Hence, as is crucial for antiracist discourse, he
implicitly criticizes the government (for what was not done for blacks) and
refers to a seminar on social development. He also reminds the MPs (and the
public at large) that racism is not personal bigotry or (color) preference—
a widespread popular attitude—but a form of structural domination, here
defined by such notions as exploitation, submission, degradation, humilia-
tion—exclusion. Indeed, antiracist discourse generally needs to pay attention
to the (lacking) knowledge of the people about racism—hence the frequent
definitions. In the second fragment, the speaker explains another aspect of
racism, namely the sociocognitive reproduction of stereotypes legitimating
slavery and pseudo-slavery after abolition. Relevant for the quota debate,
finally, is his focus on racism beginning at school—not only because black
people mostly go to (bad) public schools, and because prejudices are partly
learned at school.
In the same way, Paulo Paim, in his seminal speech of 2000 also explains
contemporary racism in terms of the history of slavery:
(6.42) The contemporary causes, forms, and manifestations of racism, racial dis-
crimination, xenophobia and related dispositions against Afro-descendants
have their antecedents in the slave trade processes implemented by some
European countries against Afro-Saharan populations during the times
of the conquest, colonization, and the emergence of the republics on our
continent. The colonizers developed a set of pseudoscientific ideas with
the aim of sustaining the supremacy of the Central European population at
the expense of those Afro-Saharan and Afro-Latin American people, based
on religious, cultural, economic and biological aspects, thus creating the
158 Chapter Six
foundation for the development of racism, discriminatory practices, and

violations of human rights.
Paim’s academic style and argument show detailed and analytical knowledge
of the history of slavery and the causes of racism—a historical explanation
of contemporary racism also offered by other (mostly but not only) black
MPs. The series racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms
. . . echoes the name of the international congress against racism in Durban,
which was being prepared in 2000. Relevant here is especially the focus on
European ideologies legitimating white supremacy—also defined by a list
(religious, etc.).
Luiz Alberto, black MP from Bahia for the PT and a frequent speaker in the
debate, uses the well-known sickness metaphor to explain racism:
(6.43) It is not, as some insist on claiming, a mere figure of speech. This disease, which
is racism, persists in the bowels of society, despite having been cornered by the
relentless denunciation of black social movements, more recently by the me-
dia, researchers, academics, the action of a few politicians, and nowadays, to
our astonishment, even by prominent figures of the current government (. . .)
The overt and disguised forms of racism that have pervaded our society
for centuries under general complacency and the indifference of al-
most everyone are part of this unfinished, inconclusive work, for whose
effects we are responsible. (“The ethnic question in Brazil”) (. . .).
Racism is thus the result of structural construction and can only be elimi-
nated when the underpinning factors of social and racial inequality are also
eliminated. (Luiz Alberto, PT-BA, 19–2–2001)
With the rejected metaphor of sickness Luiz Alberto offers a different per-
spective on racism, which perhaps might explain the epidemic nature of
prejudices or racist ideologies, but hardly the structural aspects he focuses on
later: Sickness and disease happen to people, involuntarily, which is not the
same as racist ideas and practices. Ideological polarization thus pitches black
social movements—mentioned frequently by black MPs, on the one hand,
and all the (white) elites reproducing racism in society, on the other hand.
Another well-known topos and metaphor of antiracist discourse in Brazil is
the argument that racism is often “disguised”—one of the implicit references
to the “democracia racial” and the denial of racism.
The Debate about Quotas

It is within this broader framework of extensive critical commentary on the
history of slavery and on contemporary prejudice, discrimination and racism
that the Brazilian Câmara dos Deputados engages in the crucial debate on
Affirmative Action, in general, and quotas for black students, in particular.
We already have seen that quantitatively the MPs talk about quotas in
323 speeches, mentioning the very word quota(s) 855 times, and affirmative
action(s) 364 times. Words co-occurring with these notions are typically
preceding nouns such as system, project and policies, or verbs such as estab-
lishing, instituting or implementing, and following nouns such as universities,
black(s), etc.
Arguments about Quotas

A more interesting qualitative analysis first of all needs to focus on the fre-
quent arguments formulated in favor, and the less frequent arguments against
the establishment of quotas, as has been done already in several studies of the
Brazilian media, generally opposed to quotas.
Contexts
Reviewing the many statements and arguments about AA, we first of all
need to emphasize their various sociopolitical and discursive cotexts and
contexts. They often are being discussed, as may be expected, and as was
the case for the first speech of Paim in our corpus, on the Day of Black
Consciousness (November 20). The same is true for the International Day
for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (March, 23), the National Day
of Reflection of the Black Race, also called National Day for the Struggle
against Racism (May 13), or the anniversary of the abolition of slavery (May
10, 1888). On these days, many different topics related to racism, discrimi-
nation, prejudice or exclusion are being discussed, among which affirmative
action is a frequent theme.
Secondly, the topic also comes up in the frequent reference (N=458) to
the Statute of Racial Equality, already discussed above, and which also deals
with forms of affirmative action.
Thirdly, as may also be expected, the topic is often, though not exclusively,
discussed positively by black MPs of various parties, as well as (other, white)
members of the PT, the party in power during most of the debate, and Lula
as president between 2003 and 2010, and then Dilma from 2010—who also
signed the Quotas Law in 2012.
Fourthly, arguments in favor of quotas may consist of counterarguments
against explicitly formulated or presupposed arguments critical of quotas—
both in parliament itself, characterizing a debate, as well against other oppo-
nents, especially in newspapers (mentioned 30 times) or the media in general
(mentioned 70 times).
160 Chapter Six
Fifthly, more generally the arguments of the MPs in favor of quotas should be
intertextually understood in relation to the many arguments in the broad social
debate on quotas, not only in the media. Most studies of quotas mention such ar-
guments, as is the case in the theses by Silva Santos (2016a, 2016b), and Alves
da Silva (on other theses), and especially the studies by João Feres Júnior and
his associates, e.g., Feres Júnior & Toste Daflon (2015) and Campos (2014).
Finally, the debate and hence the arguments are spread out over all 13
years, but diminishing in the last years, featuring less speeches on the topic,
as we can see in table 6.2. More speeches by definition means more refer-
ences to AA (the 323 speeches were selected from the larger corpus by the
presence of references to AA or quotas), but in many speeches, as we have
seen, such a reference may be brief and not topical. Sometimes references to
AA are without further argument. As we will see below, sometimes an argu-
ment is minimal, e.g., mentioning only that they serve the struggle against
racism or discrimination or being in favor of the black community. In few
cases the argument may extend to a large portion of a speech, or even to the
whole speech or several speeches on the same day and the same topic. We
also see that despite the fact that the law was adopted in 2008 in the Câmara,
also between 2008 and 2012 there are references to AA:
Table 6.2. Frequencies of

speeches mentioning AA by year
Year Number of speeches
2000 73
2001 81
2002 88
2003 182
2004 88
2005 110
2006 99
2007 109
2008 116
2009 81
2010 67
2011 50
2012 22
Let us now summarize and give some examples of typical arguments formu-
lated in relation to quotas and AA in general.
Argument 1: quotas contribute positively to the black community

Without further argument, AA may be mentioned as positive for the black
community. Since this is a very general argument, there are many semantic
variants with the same implication, e.g., that quotas contribute to end racism,
discrimination and prejudice, as in:
(6.44) (. . .) affirmative actions (that) contribute to overcoming the Brazilian racial
reality and ending many prejudices. (Machado, PT-MG, 21–2–2001)
(6.45) (. . .) fight for affirmative actions to overcome social inequalities arising
from racial discrimination in Brazil. (. . .) affirmative action to correct the
social injustices that have been victimizing Afro-descendant populations.
(Grandão, PT-MS, 5–3–2002)
(6.46) Affirmative actions are strategic. Quotas reduce injustices. (Arruda, PT-PB,
20–11, 2002)
(6.47) The quota system has been included as an important resource for correcting
social inequalities. (Paim, PT-RS, 4–12–2002)
These and many similar arguments presuppose the many facets of social
inequality and racism against blacks in Brazil, often extensively commented
upon, especially by black MPs. Relevant as co-text for these references to AA
are vague notions such as “overcoming the racial reality of Brazil” or more
specific ones such as prejudices (6.43)—both with verbs of the conceptual
frame of change (overcome, change) also used in (6.44). Example (6.44)
summarizes the positive aims of AA in the general terms of social inequality
(also in 6.46), itself caused by discrimination, as well as social injustice of
the black community (also in 6.45). How exactly AA and quotas will solve
these very general forms of prejudice, discrimination and social inequality is
not detailed in such passages.
Argument 2: quotas are a reparation of past injustice and racism

As we have seen above, in the debate on quotas, especially on special occasions
such as Black Consciousness Day, MP may extensively refer to the racist past
of Brazilian society, in general, and to slavery in particular. In that context,
quotas may be seen as one of the ways Brazil may repair past injustice, and as
a payment of debt to the black population, a frequent metaphor of the debates:
(6.48) (. . .) affirmative action measures that repair and correct, at the regional and
national levels, the racial and colonial structure upon which our states were
founded.
(6.49) (. . .) a realidade inversa da naturalização da desigualdade social, com a

implementação de políticas de ação afirmativa e de caráter reparatório.
(Grandão, PT-MS, 20–11–2002)
162 Chapter Six
(6.50) (. . .) the inverse reality of the naturalization of social inequality, with the
implementation of affirmative and reparatory action policies. (Paim, PT-RS,
22–11–2000)
Argument 3: black students are underrepresented in the universities

Within the general topic of racism and discrimination, the very underrep-
resentation of black students in Brazilian universities is of course the main
reason why many forms of AA have been considered and debated, also in
parliament. This very notion of underrepresentation implies a quantitative
argument, often formulated in terms of the stark statistics proving such in-
equality, repeated in many speeches with the persuasive rhetorical strategy of
the Numbers Game:
(6.51) (. . .) free promotion, which is so boasted, does not work in a country that
is far from having equal opportunities for all. The proof of this is that we
represent over 48% of the population and only 2% of us attend university.
(Paim, PT-RS, 26–3–2002)
(6.52) (. . .) the representation of blacks in universities, in the judiciary, in the

executive branch, and even here in the legislature is less than 2%. (Paim,
PT-RS, 20–11–2000)
Argument 4: quotas create opportunities for black students

Trivially, but not less crucially, quotas should, by definition, create opportu-
nities for black students, no doubt the central argument of the very policy of
this kind of affirmative action. This argument has been formulated in many
forms, as in:
(6.53) (. . .) affirmative action, generating real opportunities for social integration
for the Nation’s black sons. (Portela, Bloco/PSLMG, 7–5–2001)
Argument 5: quotas are a non-essential and temporal political instrument

The argument about quotas is not limited to the many ways they contribute
to social equality and the opportunities of black students. MPs also engage in
a broader debate, in which AA are challenged with many arguments (see be-
low). In such a debate, sometimes concessions are made, e.g., by emphasizing
that AA are merely a temporary and non-essential political measure to correct
current inequality in the education of black students:
(6.54) This action [AA] is, by nature, temporary and should additionally be ac-
companied by other public policies aimed at the distribution of income, the
mitigation of prejudice, the improvement of public education at all levels,

the fight against unemployment etc. (Marinho, PR-BA, 31–3–2010)
Argument 6: quotas are legitimate

Within the framework of the same debate with opponents of AA, a powerful
argument in favor of quotas is their legitimacy, e.g., as shown by research and
finally by the momentous decision of the Supreme Court on 16 May 2012:
(6.55) Mr. President, Chamber Deputies, Brazil commemorates the decision of

the Federal Supreme Court, which has unanimously dismissed the Claim of
Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept ADPF/186 against the Uni-
versity of Brasilia’s (UnB) quota program. (Marinho, PR-BA, 16–5–2012)
(6.56) The United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All

Forms of Racial Discrimination, of which Brazil has been a signatory since
1967, establishes the need for affirmative action as a means of promoting
equality for the inclusion of ethnic groups historically excluded in the pro-
cess of social development. (D’Avila, Bloco/PCdoBRS, 20–5–2008)
The last example shows that the legitimation is not only by national but also
by international institutions—an argumentative move with a long history in
Brazil, e.g., in the struggle against slavery in the 19th century (see the previ-
ous chapters).
Argument 7: quotas not enough, but . . .

Several speakers recall that as such quotas may not be effective if black
students cannot stay in the university, as also many empirical studies, and
interviews with black students have shown (see the references above):
(6.57) Surely quotas alone will not produce positive results for black students. It
is not enough to provide access through quotas without ensuring measures
to guarantee the continuance of black students in university in addition to
measures that increase the number of blacks who can compete for university
placements. (Trindade, PT-PI, 19–3–2003)
Such an argument may be seen as an argument against quotas, but also as a

strategic concession in the debate by emphasizing that quotas are necessary
but not enough, and that further financial aid or scholarships for quota stu-
dents will be necessary—as the speaker, militant black MP Francisca Trin-
dade elaborates in her speech dedicated to the topic of quotas.
A similar argument is when MPs in favor of AA at the same time stress that
quotas alone won’t solve de problems of the black community. Luiz Alberto,
164 Chapter Six
in several of his thirty speeches, repeats the metaphor that quotas are just one
way, or one step forward on a long path:
(6.58) Chamber Deputy Alceu Collares is right, quotas will not solve the problems
of our black folk, but it is a path towards this. (Alberto, PT-BA, 25–3–2003)
(6.59) (. . .) pressure Congress to pass the federal university quota bill. This will be
yet another step to stopping Brazilian public universities from being sanctu-
aries of and for an elite. It is not enough, as there should be a wide range of
public policies promoting racial equality in Brazil. But it is undoubtedly an
important step. (Aberto, PT-BA, 22–3–2006)
We’ll see in more detail below that the step and path metaphors are a frequent
discursive strategy in these debates on AA.
Related with this type of ‘concessions’—that ‘AA is not enough’ or ‘not
the only way’—is the argument that if secondary schools do not improve,
quotas won’t help much:
(6.60) I also want to say that there is no point in adopting the university quota sys-
tem if the elementary, middle, and high schools continue to be in the state of
destitution in which they currently find themselves. The declining quality of
education at these school levels is also one of the principle engines of social
injustice in Brazil. (Mendes de Jesus, PDT, RJ. 11–6–2003)
Although the argument is no doubt correct, it has also its problems, because
many of the opponents of AA precisely hold that the main cause of the low
participation of blacks in the university is the bad quality of public secondary
education. Proponents of AA of course agree with the explanation, but not
with the solution, because a fundamental reform of public secondary educa-
tion would require decades—and hence a delay of decades for (poor) blacks
enter the university. Indeed, as we see at the end of De Jesus’ speech, his
argument concludes with an opposition to AA:
(6.61) I believe that change in the educational structure is what will bring us the
most positive outcome for the integration of blacks in higher education.
Only then will we no longer need the adoption of quotas allowing blacks to
access universities. (De Jesus, PDT-RJ, 11–6–2003)
Out of co-text, arguments may appear to be in favor of black people but actu-
ally should be seen as concessions in an anti-AA argument. Indeed, a year
later the same speaker asserts to be in favor of AA, adding the further coun-
terargument that they are not a form of black privilege (as anti-AA arguments
hold) but a condition of integration of blacks in society:
(6.62) Therefore, Mr. President, noble guests, I hereby defend, in this plenary of
the most important Legislative House of the country, the adoption of quotas
for the entry of low-income black citizens in public educational institutions,
not as a means of privileging them, but to integrate them into society by
allowing these citizens to access higher education since they are disadvan-
taged due to their unprivileged socioeconomic status making it impossible
to compete with people who have received a more complete education, and
who thus have facility in passing selection processes such as the entrance
exam. (Mendes de Jesus, PDT-RJ, 13–5–2004)
Argument 8: personal experiences

We have seen that few arguments in a debate are as persuasive as stories of
personal experiences, as we also know more general from the role of story-
telling in social movement discourse (Polletta, 2006), and as we have seen
above in the debate about the Statute of Racial Equality. Black MP Carlos
Santana from Rio tells his colleagues in parliament that his son does not need
to take advantage of quotas:
(6.63) Mr. President, Chamber Deputies, I have a thirteen-year old son. He will not
need quotas, because he studies at a good school, which will provide him
the necessary conditions to compete for admissions to a university, whether
it be UERJ or at any other university in Rio de Janeiro. But this is not the
case with my nephew, who lives on the hillside in Bangu. He won’t be able
to compete for admissions anywhere. (Santana, PT-RJ, 26–3–2003)
Also this passage is ambiguous in relation to the AA debate. If Santana ad-

mits his son doesn’t need quotas because he has had an excellent (expensive)
schooling, this may be interpreted against a law that favors all black students,
and that the point is really that one needs a law that favors poor students to go
to university. He therefore must add the story about a poor nephew—whose
poverty must be inferred from the place where he lives, a poor neighborhood
in Rio. This and many other interventions show that the arguments can get
quite complex and discuss (and also admit) advantages or disadvantages of
quotas, seen from both sides of the debate.
Argument 9: international comparisons

A frequent argument in social movement discourse in general, and in anti-
racist discourse in particular, is international comparisons. During the quota
debates, comparisons with quotas systems in the U.S. or India have been quite
common, even with mixed results, because the opponents of quotas don’t
hesitate to mention that they were finally prohibited by the Supreme Court in
the U.S. Yet, it is recalled that before their prohibition they were successful
166 Chapter Six
for the advancement of the black population, a powerful argument, besides

the argument that the situation in Brazil and the U.S. is very different. Of the
many examples of international comparison, we only mention the following:
(6.64) The quota policy was doctrinally applied for the first time by a country that
still today has one of the worst income distributions in the world, India, with
1 billion inhabitants, in order to try to integrate a portion of that society, the
Dalits, untouchables or outcasts, which under the Indian caste system did
not have the conditions necessary for social mobility.
(6.65) A country such as Brazil, which knows how to discriminate, must also know
how to recognize its discriminated people. In the United States, the quota
system has existed since 1960. Over the course of over 40 years, an im-
provement in opportunities has been perceived. The American quota system
has favored the narrowing of the black-white gap and has increased Afro-
descents’ access to higher education. State interference through the creation
of public policies is important for encouraging access to universities. The
United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, England, and recently
France have adopted university quota policies. (Santana, PT-RJ, 6–5–2008)
Argument 10: the Numbers Game

Both in and outside of parliament, quantitative arguments often have more
weight than mere opinions, and throughout the quota debate statistical argu-
ments are frequent. Indeed, also in these debates, many different statistics
are mentioned 983 times, especially to document the social and economic
situation of the black population. First of all, whatever the other numbers,
many speakers stress that in Brazil the black population constitutes (nearly)
half of the population. And specifically for the quota debate it is then stressed
that such is not the case in the universities, where students until 2000 barely
constituted 2%, as Paim recalled at the very beginning of the debates (see
also above):
(6.66) It would be pointless to bring up the statistics again. It would be pushing
against an open door to show data that points out that, on average, blacks
earn 50% of what is paid to whites, that blacks represent less than 2% in
universities, the judiciary, the executive branch, and even here in the legis-
lature. (. . .) According to the National Household Sampling Survey of 1999,
black Brazil, composed of blacks and browns according to the classification
used, represents 45.2% of the population. Blacks themselves are 5.7% of
the population, but represent only 2.2% of graduates from higher education
degrees appraised by the MEC last year, while whites reached 80%. (Paim,
PT-RS, 20–11–2000)
Precisely for the same reason, it has been crucial to emphasize, also with
numbers, the success of quotas as soon as they were introduced by an increas-
ing number of universities in the first decade of the 2000s—as also the litera-
ture of quotas has amply demonstrated, of course with the further authority
of the national statistics office, the IBGE:
(6.67) A recent IBGE survey from 1995 to 2005 reveals that the percentage of
blacks and browns in higher education increased from 18% to 30%, with
the largest growth since 2001. In the last 5 years, more blacks than whites
entered the public system; equity will be reached in 2015. And growth has
taken place in both public and private systems, even though it has been
higher in the latter. Significant data were verified regarding the public sys-
tem: from 2001 to 2005, there were more blacks and browns (125 thousand
new students) than whites (72 thousand) who entered the system. (Santana,
PT-RJ, 23–11–2006)
Of course, in general MPs are well informed, and use official data as those
of the IBGE for their arguments. This does not mean, on the other hand, that
from both sides of the debate the numbers cannot be manipulated, incomplete
or presented in a biased way. The point of our analysis here is not to exam-
ine whether the numbers are correct or biased, but that important part of the
debate on quotas is taking place in terms of various forms of Numbers Game
strategies—often statistics of authoritative sources such as the IBGE.
Argument 11: quotas are not reverse discrimination,

but positive discrimination
We have seen that the argumentation in the Câmara obviously is intertextu-
ally related to the broader debate about AA in society, in general, and in the
media, in particular. For instance, one of the many arguments leveled against
quotas in the media holds that they are a form of (reverse) discrimination,
and hence are unconstitutional, an argument often challenged in parliament:
(6.68) The media has shown the impact in terms of public reactions to quotas re-
served for blacks in universities, as often being against the measure on the
grounds that it is, indeed, discrimination. There is almost no awareness of
the need to carry out what is, in fact, discrimination, but positive discrimi-
nation, giving those who have never had a place in the sun a first chance at
equality. (Reis, PMDB-RJ, 10–4–2004)
Related is the counterargument against the argument that AA violate the

fundamental principle of equality (isonomy) of all citizens for the law. This
(counter) argumentation is part of a complex debate, also held in the U.S.,
in which such equality is said to hold only in initial situation of equality—a
168 Chapter Six
situation in which blacks have an unequal starting position. MP De Roure

formulates this as follows, and concludes that the equality argument in fact
perpetuates inequality, as is the case for many of the formal, juridical argu-
ments against AA:
(6.69) The controversy that the quota system brings to the surface portrays the sad
reality that continues to exist. Regrettably, portions of society who still think
as in the days of Colonial Brazil justify such discriminatory arguments in
the name of the principle of equality, that is, in the name of pseudo-equality
through which inequality perpetuates (. . .) But equal rights is not enough
to make the opportunities enjoyed by socially privileged individuals acces-
sible to those who are socially disadvantaged. There is a need for unequal
distributions to place the latter at the same starting level; legal privileges and
material benefits are required for those who are not economically privileged.
Only affirmative action programs lead to a leveling of educational opportu-
nities. (De Roure, PT-DF, 24–5–2004)
As is the case for other arguments examined here, also this challenge of the
fallacy of Tu Quoque (“Those who accuse us of discrimination, discriminate
themselves”) feature various embedded and implicit arguments. In this case,
for instance the accusation that the ideas of those who are against quotas are
still those of the colony—that is, with prejudices about black people, and op-
posed to equality. We have seen in the previous chapter that sociologists of
the São Paulo School also explain the social and economic situation of blacks
in terms of remaining ideologies of white supremacy of the age of slavery.
At the same time, De Roure in this fragment engages in a complex socio-
economic argument that only through the apparent “inequality” of quotas,
existing inequalities of blacks can be remedied—a well-known discursive
strategy of paradox. Notice also that such an argument uses the spatial meta-
phor of unequal levels.
In a long speech on the situation of the black community, João Grandão
(PT-MS) also deals with quotas, and also discusses the anti-AA argument of
equality:
(6.70) The production of public policies aimed at the black population cannot be
seen as a treat for black social movements, a gift we receive for the martyr-
dom of slavery. The need to develop public policies that are preferentially
directed towards blacks means that the notion of legal equality must be one
that unequally treats those who are unequal. These are not privileges but a
historic reclaim that puts the ideal of justice and equity in its place.
The function of the paradoxical counterargument (the need to need to treat

unequally those who are unequal) in this and other speeches in parliament is
marked by the repeated negations (cannot be seen; these are not privileges),
presupposing that opponents have used these arguments. In this fragment
there is another interesting argument, namely how quotas should not be
viewed—in the metaphorical terms of a gift—that is, not as some kind of
compensation for the suffering of slavery—a point sometimes formulated
by other MPs. However, the socioeconomic argument that quotas are not
privileges but necessary policies to produce justice and equity presupposes a
history in which such values did not exist in Brazil for the black population.
Argument 12: there are many forms of quotas in society

Generally, comparisons are an efficient discursive strategy of (counter) ar-
gumentation. Thus, against those who hold that quotas are unconstitutional,
MPs in favor of quotas refer to the many forms of quotas against which there
is no opposition or indeed in favor of which there is consensus, as is the case
for the many provisions specifically in favor of women or the physically dis-
abled. MP Gilmar Machado challenges the opponents of quotas as follows:
(6.71) When quotas were established for women in political parties and for people
with special needs, no one questioned the constitutionality of this act. Now,
however, when discussing the setting of quotas for Afro-Brazilians in uni-
versities, this debate arises, the issue of racism and slavery reappears in so-
ciety, problems that Brazil has not been able to correctly solve. (Machado,
PT-MG, 16–6–2004)
MP Paulo Delgado in a speech of 22–9–2005 cites his intervention in a semi-

nar on affirmative action, in which he provides a long argument about all the
forms of affirmative action in the history of Brazil, such as the Lei de Dois
Terços (see above), and special measures for women and disabled people,
followed by various definitions of AA.
Argument 13: AA did not cause predicted problems—on the contrary

We have seen above that the debate in the Câmara frequently presupposes or
explicitly refers to the broader debate on AA in Brazilian society. On the oc-
casion of an anti-AA manifest subscribed by 300 personalities (among which
university professors) and offered to the Supreme Court, MP Luiz Alberto
summarizes several of the counterarguments against the anti-AA arguments.
He especially focuses on all the alleged problems quotas would cause, such as
diminishing the level of the university or causing conflicts on campus. Such a
counterargument takes the form of repeated denials that presuppose such omi-
nous predictions. Actually, not only does he deny the existence of problems, but
he adds a strong positive argument: the quota students appear to do very well:
170 Chapter Six
(6.72) There are now more than 30 universities that adopt some form of inclusion
mechanism in their selection processes. None of the predictions about possi-
ble negative consequences once quotas were adopted have been confirmed.
There are no conflicts on university campuses in Brazil due to quotas, quota
students do not feel inferior in relation to their peers, and, principally, there
has not been the much feared deterioration of academic quality. There is a
very concrete reason for this: the performance of quota students is, by and
large, similar to that of other students. (Alberto, PT-BA, 4–7–2006)
MP Eduardo Valverde, a few months later, offers a critical conclusion of

the resistance among professors, by emphasizing that their resistance is not
academic or scientific, but political, and in fact a form of veiled prejudice:
(6.73) We should not fear the controversy. We know that there will be resistance,
as there has been from the academic and social world, in the discussion
in this House about the Law of Racial Quotas. There has been resistance
that is even inconceivable within the academic sector. The ideological
view against quotas is not scientific but political. This resistance would not
substantiate itself through the nation’s scientific research, unless there was
veiled prejudice. (Valverde, PT-RO, 23–11–2006)
The speakers refer to an anti-AA letter addressed to parliament, “Carta

Pública ao Congresso Nacional—Todos têm direitos iguais na República
Democrática” (Public Letter to the National Congress—Everyone has equal
rights in the Democratic Republic), May 30, 2006, followed by a pro-AA
reply: “Manifesto em favor da lei de cotas e do estatuto da igualdade racial”
(Manifest in favor of the quota law and the racial equality statute) on July 3,
2006 (both published in Folha on July 4, 2006). On April 21, 2008, another
anti-AA letter was presented to the President of the STF: “Cento e Treze
Cidadãos Anti-racistas Contra as Leis Raciais” (One hundred and thirteen
anti-racist citizens against racial laws).
Argument 14: summarizing counterarguments of a media article

Intertextually, as we have seen before, the debate in parliament also features
counterarguments against anti-AA arguments. This is most explicitly the case
when an MP, Carlos Santana, on 5–6–2007, examines in detail an anti-quota
article published in Veja, an influential conservative magazine, which also
has been studied in various academic publications (see, e.g., Toste Daflon
& Feres Júnior, 2012; Nesio Suttana & Pereira Lutz, 2017). Santana starts
his speech with a critical political argument, namely that the anti-AA elite
merely wants to protect the privileges of their children. He also criticizes the
comparison with Nazi Germany and Apartheid made in the article. When the
elites attack AA, e.g., by alleging that they unconstitutionally treat blacks and
whites differently, he shows that such opposition is merely a form of class
resistance against racial equality. He sees two basic arguments against quotas,
the first of which is that improvement of public education makes quotas for
black students superfluous, as we have seen above. He deals with this argu-
ment ironically as follows:
(6.74) The first argument that “an improvement in education in Brazil is needed”
is a decades-long discourse. That is to say, improvement has been awaited
for decades, while exclusion remains. We defend such an argument. What
is presented as a proposal for this improvement to happen? Practically
nothing! Do not ask movements for black inclusion to abandon their active
politics in exchange for waiting; do not expect accommodation in the hope
of matching the educational background of pupils from public schools to
those from private schools. (Santana, PT-BA, 5–7–2006)
Against the second anti-AA argument, namely that the problem of restricted
access to the university is rather a question of money and class, he recalls
that among the poor, blacks are overrepresented, and earn less—implying
that discrimination cannot be explained in terms of class. Santana then takes
all well-known anti-AA arguments individually, and summarizes some of the
counterarguments:
• We are all equal for the law

◦ Not true, e.g., the rich pay more taxes
• Quotas augment racial hatred
◦ Not true, there is no conflict in the universities
• Quotas imply a racial categorization of citizens
◦ Such categorization already exists in the many forms of discrimination
• Quotas create racism
◦ Such racism already exists, and quota precisely offer opportunities
• It is better to invest in secondary education
◦ Improving secondary education is also necessary, just like quotas
• Quotas harm democracy by lowering academic quality
◦ Research has shown that quota students are doing just as well or even
better
• Quotas harm the autonomy of the university
◦ We defend the autonomy of the universities, except when they exclude
blacks
172 Chapter Six
Argument 15: many universities already introduced quotas

Often social developments “on the ground” go quicker than political decision
making and legislation, as also was the case for the abolition of slavery in Brazil
in 1888 as we have seen in the previous chapters. When both the Câmara and
the Senate were barely starting to discuss quotas, the State University of Rio de
Janeiro (UERJ) already had its first quotas in 2002 (see also Ferreira Barcellos,
2012), and soon many other universities introduced quotas or other forms of
AA (Guimarães, 2016a, 2016b; Toste Daflon, Feres Júnior & Campos, 2013).
As an argument against opponents of AA, the reality of the facts—that AA
actually works—may be more persuasive than many other arguments—even
when the actual Quotas Law after many years of parliamentary debate was
only signed by President Dilma Rousseff in 2012. Actually, since many uni-
versities already use quotas for some of the participants in the parliamentary
debate, there is hardly any debate anymore:
(6.75) Mr. President, the PSDB and the PFL know that 23 Brazilian public univer-
sities have already adopted the policy of placement reservations along with
other affirmative actions. The subject no longer requires extensive debate,
because this has already been done. Even the proposal of the Racial Equality
Statute, which has been going on here for over 10 years, deals with the mat-
ter. Several deputies of the Parliamentary Front in Defense of Racial Equality
and the Black Parliamentarians Nucleus of the PT accompany these discus-
sions. Many fellow MPs, mainly from the PT, PCdoB, PSB and PDT, have
already positioned themselves in favor of the project. If there is still some-
thing to debate, let it be debated in the Senate. (Alberto, PT-BA, 22–3–2006)
Argument 16: the racism of anti-AA activities and discourse

The debate between pro- and anti-AA in Brazil is not just one between white
and black, but also between left and right, between progressive and conserva-
tive and reactionary forces. Although most speakers in favor of AA are mem-
bers of the PT and other leftists, also the PMDB party proposed four (social
rather than racial) quota bills, thus continuing the early policies of PMDB
president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, under whose government the topic of
AA entered official discourse and policies in 1996, as well as participation in
the World Congress against racism in Durban in 2001.
The difference between the parties in the debate is also obvious in the fre-
quencies of the interventions: 195 by PT members and 28 by PMDB members
(the PT government of Lula was in power between 2003 and 2010, and of
Dilma between 2010 and 2012 when the Quotas Law was signed by Dilma).
In the parliamentary debates, the anti-AA media are represented as mouth-
pieces of the (conservative) elites, if not as reactionary and racist. Not surpris-
ingly, MPs may cite examples of explicit racism perpetrated by anti-quota

groups, e.g., in the universities themselves, although academic opposition
is especially vocal due to the participation of prominent professors. Here is
how (at least some) students in the (white, richer) south of Brazil express
themselves on the walls:
(6.76) But I also present them because, today, the Federal University of Rio
Grande do Sul, in virtue of promoting debate on being for or against the
new quota policy—which is not what I have not come to this podium to
discuss—though the university defends the quota policy, it awoke with the
following phrases graffitied on its walls: “Blacks in URGS only if they are
working in the university restaurant”; “Black people, go back to the slave
quarters.” (D’Avila, Bloco/PCdoBRS, 26–6–2007)
Not surprisingly, this case was further debated by various MPs. The same
year, on Black Consciousness Day, November 20, Luciana Genro of the (pro-
gressive) PSOL (Partido Socialismo e Liberdade; The Socialism and Liberty
Party) recalls the incident and draws the political conclusion: the very racist
action makes quotas, and hence more black students in the university, more
than necessary:
(6.77) At the UFRGS, for instance, we are seeing the dispute by the DCE [Central
Student Organization] intersected by the racism of those who reject quotas.
These are moments when the masks of many fall. The very fact that quotas
are necessary for us to see blacks in universities is proof of that racism, dis-
crimination, the heritage of slavery which still haunts black people. (Genro,
PSOL-RS, 20–11–2007)
Besides the accusation of racism leveled against (some) students at the Fed-
eral University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) in Porto Alegre, interesting
here is the use of the metaphor of the falling masks, also used in the title of
a well-known book on racism in Brazil (Guimarães & Huntley, 2000). The
metaphor is part of a more general series of conceptual criticism of racism in
Brazil, saying that it is not open and explicit, but “disfarçado” (disguised) and
denied. Although these denials and their hidden nature characterize racism
in Brazil, the current ideological context of the election of Bolsonaro on the
other hand also seem to favor falling masks in the form of another metaphor
(to get out of the closet) in increasingly explicit racist talk and text and hate
speech, often part of the hate campaign of the media and the elites and their
demonization of the PT, Lula, Dilma and their social and antiracist policies
(of many recent publications, see, e.g., Angyalossi Alonso, 2020; Ansell,
2017; Bacelar da Silva & Larkins, 2019; Hunter & Power, 2019; Klein, 2018;
Müller, 2019; Van Dijk, 2017).
174 Chapter Six
Earlier the same year, Carlos Santana, representing Rio de Janeiro for the
PT, engaged in a long debate with other MPs, in which he analyzed in some
detail the social debate on quotas, and especially also how reactionary resis-
tance against AA is ideological and a question of self-interest:
(6.78) The quota policy arises. Due to the way Brazilian society was assembled, blacks
can hardly reach the spaces that whites—the inheritors of our labor—have.
Thus, the struggle is for there to be affirmative action policies with quotas in
certain sectors, especially when it comes to access to work and education. (. . .)
a great controversy has arisen, which has been very good for us, because it
has brought out people who until then had been hiding with their prejudices,
their racisms, who always thought something of blacks but did not have
the courage to say anything. When people became offended because they
thought that blacks would take away their rights or those of their children,
they exposed all their racism; as we always say: blacks do not disturb be-
cause they know their place. But when they decide to fight for space and,
even worse, gain space, then they start wanting privileges—things they
shouldn’t want. (Santana, PT-RJ, 27–8–2007)
The metaphor of the closet to describe ‘hidden’ or unacknowledged racism in

Brazil, and when it becomes explicit when interests are threatened is a power-
ful strategy of antiracist discourse. In his analysis, Santana continues with a
summary of what he sees as Brazilian racism:
(6.79) In Brazil, racism is a natural thing. It is natural to go to malls and not see
black people working; it’s natural to get on the plane and not find any
blacks in the crew. It’s common; that is to say, it’s natural. What ruptures
this normality is when blacks decide to say something, and that’s when they
begin to say, “You come with reverse racism.” So if there are no blacks on
television, if there are few blacks, people think it’s normal. But if you have
a black-only family, people will complain, “Racism.”
Especially his ironical criticism of the anti-quota argument, namely that

quotas are inverse racism, is specifically addressed to the anti-AA elite in the
media and universities. Also in the intervention of Santana we see antiracist
discourse and resistance at work, namely by an ironical analysis of some fun-
damental properties of “natural” racism in Brazil, the racism of everyday life
(shopping malls, airplanes), that is, the absence of black people in prominent
positions in the sites of the elites. Especially relevant is Santana’s analysis of
the racist discursive practice when these elites cry “Racism” when occasion-
ally (more) blacks are given priority.
Argument 17: on the categorization and identification of blacks

One of the many anti-quota arguments and the practice of selecting black stu-
dents was that it is impossible in racially mixed Brazil to distinguish between
black and white, as illustrated by a famous case at the UnB where of two
brothers one was defined as black and the other as white. In everyday debate,
such an argument is ridiculed by saying: If you want to know who is black or
who is white, ask a policeman, or the doorman of an elegant building. Also
in parliament, it is ironically challenged, e.g., in the following analysis by
Carlos Alberto Medeiros:
(6.80) I have presented in some other debates, including last year in the Federal
Senate, the fact that our opponents often present a series of incongruities
and inconsistencies in their arguments, to which it is interesting to draw at-
tention. They say, for instance, that they recognize the existence of a racial
problem in Brazil, they recognize the existence of racism and discrimination
against the black population, which implies that it is possible to identify
blacks and negatively discriminate against them, but when we present pro-
posals for affirmative action, they say that it is impossible to identify blacks.
That is: it is both possible and impossible to identify blacks. It is possible to
harm them, and it is impossible to favor them or to compensate them. They
have to come to a conclusion about this. (Medeiros, PT-MG, 26–11–2007)
His ironical commentary even concedes a positive, seemingly antiracist posi-

tion to his opponents (that they admit that there is racism and discrimination)
but only to ridicule that they are against AA on the basis of a practicality
that does not seem to be problem in daily discrimination. In other words, he
challenges them explicitly by showing their contradiction and incoherence.
Argument 18: the existence of ‘race’

Another argument of the anti-quota lobby was that since, according to sci-
ence, races do not exist, introducing ‘race’ as a criterion for the selection of
quota students is either unscientific or racist—that is, using a typical argument
of their opponents. In the media and the broader social debate this argument
has often been challenged in many ways. Thus, whereas biologically races do
not exist, racism obviously does, precisely because in everyday Brazilian life
people routinely make ‘race’ related distinctions of color and other aspects
of appearance. Thus, if people are discriminated because of their color, for
the same reason they should be advantaged on the basis of the same criterion.
Medeiros also critically comments on this anti-quota argument—typical of
the academic elite, using ‘scientific’ arguments against quotas:
176 Chapter Six
(6.81) Likewise, they declare themselves radical opponents of the idea of race. For
them, the idea of race has to be opposed because it is the cause of racism.
However, they defend and praise—even as a fundamental aspect in Brazil-
ian society—miscegenation, which is exactly the mixture of races. That is,
race does not exist but the mixture of races does. They also need to come to
a conclusion regarding this. (Medeiros, PT-MG, 26–11–2007)
Medeiros continues his critical assessment of elite arguments against quotas

by citing many countries that have some kind of successful affirmative action
for social or ethnic minorities, as we have seen above. Not surprisingly after
his long speech he gets an applause from his colleagues.
Argument 19: prominent examples

Part of the legitimation of quotas is to refer to prominent examples of quotas
in other countries such as the reference to Obama in the U.S. in a long debate
at the occasion of Luis Alberto’s speech:
(6.82) I also take this moment to note the importance of Barack Obama’s victory
in the presidential election of the United States of America. To those who
still have some doubt about the effective contribution that affirmative action
can bring to this country, I undoubtedly underscore the fact that the elec-
tion of President Obama is the direct result of the civil rights struggle and
the implementation of affirmative action in various areas in that country.
(Alberto, PT-BA, 13–11–2008)
For Brazil, reference is often made to the appointment by president Lula of

the first black member of the Supreme Court, Joaquim Barbosa Gomes and
Minister Benedita da Silva:
(6.83) I am also glad to see a simple president come to power, who has brought
respect and dignity to the black race by inviting Minister Benedita da Silva
of the Secretariat of Assistance and Social Promotion and Dr. Joaquim,
Minister of the Federal Supreme Court, to occupy these important positions
in the Republic.
Concluding remarks on argumentation

We have seen that many of the arguments leveled in the media and universi-
ties are met with powerful counterarguments in parliament—intertextually
showing that MP of course read the press and watch television. But besides
these counterarguments, however, they also formulate their own positive ar-
guments, e.g., by focusing on the history of slavery and discrimination, and
hence on paying a historical debt, or extensive speeches on the many con-
temporary forms of prejudice and discrimination, often supported by detailed
statistics. We have seen that also personal testimony of black MPs play a role
in such arguments.
Our analysis of the arguments in parliament in favor of quotas has focused
on their contents. However, they also require further analysis in terms of their
‘form,’ that is by the very powerful rhetoric and other discursive strategies of
the MPs, to which we turn in the rest of this final chapter.
Metaphors
In the examples mentioned above we already have found several examples
of metaphor, such as the forceful activities against racism conceptualized
as a struggle. Traditionally accounted for in rhetoric as semantic tropes of
political or legal discourse, contemporary theories of metaphor have explored
their more fundamental role as pervasive ways of thinking, and as the basic
system of conceptualization (of the vast literature in cognitive linguistics on
metaphor, see, e.g., Charteris-Black, 2014; Chilton, 1995; Lakoff & Johnson,
1980; Lakoff, 1996).
One of the functions of metaphor is to reconceptualize abstract notions
as more concrete or “embodied” ones, as is the case for such expressions as
“paying a debt,” as we also often find in the debates when quotas are justified
as form of ‘payment’ for past oppression and inequality:
(6.84) We know that there is no way to compensate for slavery, the pain, the
humiliation, the misery to which millions of our companions have been
conditioned. (Paim, PT-RS, 26–3–2002)
(6.85) Politically, I am convinced that by voting on the Racial Equality Statute this
House takes a decisive step towards consolidating actions that will enable
the rescue and repayment of the social debt towards the black race. (Ro-
drigues, PSDB-MG, 9–12–2002)
We already mentioned that the ubiquitous metaphor for resistance is concep-

tualized in various WAR metaphors, such as struggle and combat, which are
also standard in the debates when the MPs talk about the resistance against
racism and its many aspects. Indeed, the very term luta (struggle) is also a
keyword in the debate, used 948 times, beginning with the first speech by
Paulo Paim in 2000 and in the following fragment which also uses the well-
known WAR related metaphors of trenches, fight and battle together:
(6.86) I am sure, however, that your excellency will always be in the trenches of
the fight to win the battle against prejudice and racism and thereby build an
egalitarian and supportive society where the rights of citizens are respected
and no one is discriminated against on the basis of skin color. (Paim, PT-RS,
28–11–2002)
178 Chapter Six
Similarly, also combat is used very frequently (N=477), and as with luta it
typically co-occurs with racism and prejudice, as also in Paim’s speech:
(6.87) I am certain that it will not only be this project to combat racism and preju-
dice in the media that will solve the problem. Someone has already said we
have to fight racism in the school benches. Of course we do! (Paim, PT-RS,
20–11–2000)
Equally conventional is the use of the road or path metaphors to conceptu-

alize a long and difficult process, as is the case for AA, as we already had
observed above for the step metaphor to conceptualize the graduality of the
progress on such a road or path. Not surprisingly, the path metaphor appears
a hundred times, as in:
(6.88) I am aware that we are still far away from the long-awaited fraternal and
humanitarian homeland that all of us in this Parliament certainly defend,
fight for, and want. And the road to this, noble colleagues, is education.
(Grandão, 5–3–2002)
Similarly, the construction conceptual metaphor is frequently used to make

complex actions more concrete, as is the case for a non-racist society, together
with other metaphors several times since the early speech of Paulo Paim:
(6.89) (. . .) fight for human rights, justice, freedom and for building a society we
all dream of (. . .) We now present a series of reflections that we believe are
important for the construction of racial equality. (. . .) Out of this debate,
other moments will arise, and we will walk together until one day we can
say that we have built racial equality.
Related is the use of the personalization of forward movement of a city or

country with the verb walking:
(6.90) But Brazil is walking [making strides]. (Germano, 13–5–2003)
(6.91) Today, the quota policy is already adopted by the Ministries of Justice,
Culture, Agrarian Development and the Federal Supreme Court. Rio de
Janeiro and other states are walking [moving] along the same lines. (Paim,
PT-RS, 3–5–2002)
The frequent (N=500) construction metaphor is especially also used to con-

ceptualize the political and social actions that define the development of a
country or society:
(6.92) (. . .) to develop our activities, prioritizing political activity as fundamental in

order to build a different country, with greater social justice and, above all, one
that guarantees inclusion and not exclusion. (Machado, PT-MG, 7–3–2001)
The same speaker uses spatial metaphors such as those of inclusion and ex-
clusion to conceptualize who belongs in this country, as is the case for much
antiracist discourse in general, also in academic discourse (there are hundreds
of book titles with the word exclusion).
The construction metaphor is also relevant for our theory of antiracism. It
shows that antiracism is not just critically negative of racism, but also has a
positive, constructive aspect, namely, to build a new, non-racist, democratic
society of equal rights.
The metaphors just discussed are conventional conceptualizations of politi-
cal discourse, and some, such as luta and combat, appear hundreds of times.
Others are conventional but used just once or twice in 12 years of debate.
Thus, whereas the wave metaphor, negatively conceptualizing large numbers
of people (in which one can drown), is characteristic to negatively describe
immigration in media and political discourse in contemporary Europe (Van
Dijk, 1991), here it is used just once to recall (European) immigration to Bra-
zil in the 19th century, seen as a threat to the black population:
(6.93) The elites of the new regime, established in 1889, engaged in the process
of “whitening” the Brazilian population through the wave of immigration.
(Valente, PT-SP, 12–5–2009)
But it is also used once in a positive sense, to emphasize many ant-racist

activities:
(6.94) (. . .) in this truly positive wave of anti-racism. (Mendes de Jesus, PDT-RJ,
13–5–2003)
To characterize racism in Brazil, many speakers emphasize that, for instance

in comparison to violent and blatant racism in the U.S., it is hidden, masked
or veiled in many ways, as we have seen above, and in the following example:
(6.95) We cannot accept that the second black nation in the world suffers from
one of the worst types of racism on the planet; a multifaceted, camouflaged
racism. (Dr. Rosinha, 20–11–2002)
(6.96) We know that, despite all that is said, there is, disgracefully, a lot of racial
discrimination, which is unfortunately masked and hidden. (Faria de Sá,
PTB-SP, 20–11–2003)
As in all discourse, whether political or antiracist, there are of course other

common metaphors that are used a few times in the speeches, such as close
your eyes, call, shelve, get on your knees, and others. Dr. Rosinha ironically
comments on the racist action of a young man, by describing it as a true pearl
180 Chapter Six
of racist thought (30–10–2003), and Reginaldo Germano, refers to the words

of President Lula as palavras que brotaram na boca (words that welled up
in the mouth, 10–11–2003). Interesting is the metaphor used by Walter Feld-
man when he says that racism has been undermined by important measures
(20–11–2003).
Actors
In parliamentary discourse on AA the speakers obviously talk about many
different social actors, first of all black women and men as well as quota stu-
dents, among many others. Theories of the discourse representation of actors
have proposed various ways such actors can be described or referred to (Van
Leeuwen, 1996). Thus, we can refer to actors with first and/or last name, as
individuals, members of group or category, and much more. Relevant for this
book and this chapter, obviously, is whether such representations are charac-
teristic of antiracist discourse.
Frequencies
Above in table 6.1 we already summarized the uses of some words in quan-
titative terms, e.g., black(s) (2,671), President (1,908), politics/policies
(1,697), deputies/MPs (1,644), women (1,162), population (854), Brazilian(s)
(585), people (536), Lula (458), people (444), whites (438). These frequen-
cies are hardly surprising. Of course, there is routine politeness in reference
to the President of the parliamentary session as well as the other MPs. And in
debates on racism and AA, obviously black(s) is the most frequent category,
both as a substantive as well as an adjective. That the debates take place dur-
ing the presidency of Lula contextually implies reference to him, also because
many speakers are PT members. Collective references to the population or the
people in talks about racism and its history also are as may be expected. A bit
more interesting is that whereas as women are mentioned 1,162 times, men
are only mentioned 323 times. Similarly, whereas blacks are the actors most
frequently referred to, whites are only referred to 438 times. Given the topic
of quotas, we may also expect that students are mentioned hundreds of times
(N=313), whereas speeches about the history of racism typically feature black
hero Zumbi (N=350) or Mandela in South Africa (N=23).
Blacks
Blacks in the speeches can be described in many ways, whether individually,
generically or a group as black(s) (o negro or os negros), but also collec-
tively as povo (people) (N=655), or community (N=411) or a few times as
Brasil negro (black Brazil) or as não-brancos (no-whites). Some references

are more metaphorical, for instance as camadas negras da população (black
sections of the population). The traditional terms of the official statistics,
pretos (N=54, blacks) and pardos (N=131, browns) are much less used in
this political context except when reporting statistical data, especially since
the black MPs prefer the collective political term negros—much less used
in everyday conversation, where there is a large variety of descriptive terms
besides negros, such as morenos, and many others. More official, also in aca-
demic discourse, is the use of afro-descendentes (N=148) or afro-brasileiros
(N=54), usually in the plural form, and hence to denote a group, and never as
description of individuals.
Black Movement
One of the groups of influential actors often positively referred to is the
Movimento Negro (N=150), attributed to their actions and discourse in favor
of the Statute of Racial Equality and of affirmative action. Their typical at-
tributes are militancy, mobilization and their historic struggle for black civil
rights. The movement was paid tribute to in a session of parliament on May
13, 2008, on the 120th anniversary of the abolition of slavery:
(6.97) For over more than 100 years, Brazilian society has evolved in many ways
in the fight against racial inequality, primarily thanks to the effort and
struggle of the black movement. (Maia, PT-RS, 13–5–2008)
Comrades
Parliamentarians of the left, e.g., of the PT, PSOL or PDT, most of whom
advocate quotas, also may address colleagues or speak about those who resist
racism, in terms of the classical socialist and communist term of companhei-
ros/as (comrades, N=169). These may be members of the Movimento Negro,
other party members or politically close MPs, as is the case for the reference
to Paulo Paim by Luiz Alberto, and then to the whole Câmara:
(6.98) This project, called the Racial Equality Statute, was first presented by the
noble fellow Senator and former Federal Deputy Paulo Paim. (Alberto, PT-
BA, 23–3–2003)
(6.99) I have seen such discussions shine in the National Constituent Assembly.
But I call the attention of the comrades of this House of all colors—both
physical and ideological—to pay close attention to what they are voting for.
(Nonô, PFL-AL, 25–3–2003)
182 Chapter Six
Whites
Whites are similarly described individually, generically or collectively as o
branco or os brancos, and much less as white population, and never as white
community, and only twice as Brasil branco (white Brazil), pessoas brancas
(white people) or eurobrasileiro. Européia as an adjective is sometimes used
to refer to immigrants, peoples or nations.
Interesting is one speaker, Gilmar Machado, who consistently uses White
Power (in English) to refer to the white elites—thus converting the common
reference to Black Power. Here are some of his characterizations of White
Power:
(6.100) The opulence of the White Power group’s scoundrels is the result of the
theft, exploitation, and slavery practiced by their ancestors, who even had
the full support of the Democratic Rule of Law. In the recent past, all insti-
tutional and legal forms of maintaining the privileges of the White Power
slavery regime were promoted. The slavery promoted by the ancestors of
the White Power group was fully state-funded, which provided all sorts
of legal, moral, and ethical protection for the plantation owners to enjoy
total impunity for their delinquent acts. The law protected the theft of the
bandeirantes [fortune hunters who also captured indigenous people] and
gave full support to the “ethnocides.” (. . .) Interestingly enough, when it
comes to quotas for blacks and the poor, there is outcry from all segments.
The White Power group and part of the media often fiercely attack this
compensatory policy. (Machado, PT-MG, 25–10–2006)
The passage is explicit in its attribution of various forms of crime to the

dominant white group, whose riches are historically based on theft, slavery
and the exploitation of black people. Important is the further political analysis
that such crimes were legitimated by the state and the laws, and not com-
mitted by the white slaveowners. We see antiracist discourse as resistance
as its most explicit, namely when it critically analyzes the power structure,
the many forms of power abuse, the complicity of the state, and hence the
systemic nature of racism, in the past as well as today. Interesting that among
the contemporary power elites opposing AA, also this speaker refers to the
media. Gilmar’s discourse also uses the discursive strategy of what we may
call the “conversion”; he reverts the characterizations of this powerful white
group. Whereas Black Power is self-described in positive terms, the other
description of White Power is systematically and rhetorically negative, ac-
cusing them of theft, slavery, delinquency, privilege and as protected by the
state. Such a negative characterization is the first step of a characterization of
contemporary elites who oppose quotas. He thus also emphasizes that white
opposition against quotas is mostly a question of self-interest, and not, as
pretended, a preoccupation about racial strife or a diminished quality of the

universities.
We see that the (mostly white) opposition against quotas is associated with
the dominant white elites (N=61), especially in the conservative media, and
among professors, often against a historical background as the oligarchy op-
posing abolition, and as those who according to MP Valverde (12–7–2006)
possess 90% of the wealth of the country.
Racists
Antiracist discourse obviously talks about racists and does so in many differ-
ent ways. Ideologically, they are the opponents, if not the enemy. Yet, also
in other (e.g., European) contexts, the term is often found to be too strong
to apply to those who oppose quotas. Indeed, there are black opponents of
quotas. Not surprisingly, it is often resented or declared inappropriate—also
by advocates of quotas, admitting that not all opponents are racists.
In my own earlier work on racist discourse, I have often argued that it is
more appropriate to speak of racist discourse or racist practices, such as dis-
crimination, rather than of racist people, as a fixed characteristic—with the
argument that people are not always engaging in racist practices, that they
may change and that racist practices may unwillingly be engaged in by non-
racist people. Yet, informally, people may be called racist if they are system-
atically racist in many or most racial situations (see, e.g., Van Dijk, 1993).
Also in Brazilian parliament the term racista is often used (N=165), but
not as much one may expect in antiracist discourse. Manoel Vitório (PT-MS)
emphasizes that nobody is born racist (17–5–2001). In the other speeches, it
is used to refer to racist countries, to racist mechanisms in the past, to current
racist practices, racist logics, a racist state, racist jokes, racist theories and
so on. Explicit references to ‘a racist’ (N=25) or ‘the racists’ (N=11) is less
frequent, as in:
(6.101) I am sad to find that there are truly countless racists who do not want to see
the ascension of blacks. (Germano, PFL-BA, 25–3–2003)
(6.102) In this sense, the Statute indeed has the advantage of making racists come
out of the closet and publicly expose their poor arguments. (Hedio Silva
Júnior, during the debate on the Statute, 26–11–2007)
Interestingly, the term anti-racista (or antirracista) is used even less (N=10),
and only as adjective to characterize struggle, public policies, social move-
ments and citizens.
184 Chapter Six
The media
We have seen that especially the conservative media are criticized by many
MPs for their increasing opposition to quotas. This was the case for the elite
newspaper Folha de São Paulo, publishing various opinion articles of pro-
fessors and other prominent people, O Globo, the Rio newspaper of the huge
Globo media concern, and especially weekly magazine Veja (for studies of
the media campaign against quotas, see, e.g., Lima Viana & Vasconcelos
Bentes, 2011; Toste Daflon & Feres Júnior, 2012; Campos, 2014; Santos
Moya & Silvério, 2010; Feres Júnior & Toste Daflon, 2015).
Black and other antiracist MPs see and describe the media as the mouth-
piece of the economic and professional elites, whose interests are allegedly
threatened by the increased influx of black students in the universities, and
hence comparatively less place for their own (generally white) sons and
daughters. At the same time these elites are generally virulently anti-PT, anti-
Lula, and hence against their AA policies.
These elites and their media were also crucially involved in the manipula-
tion of public and political opinion that led to the impeachment of PT presi-
dent Dilma Rousseff in 2016 (Van Dijk, 2017), the juridical conspiracy that
led to the incarceration of Lula (so that he could not compete in the next
elections) and the election of extremist right-wing president Bolsonaro in
2018 (among other publications, see also Bähre & Gomes, 2018; Proner et
al., 2018; Souza, 2016, 2017. As recalled by various MPs, these are also the
elites that are seen as the social contemporaries of the slaveowners, and as
opposed to social policies for black people.
Referred by the MPs as mídia (media, N=72) or imprensa (press, N=72),
or directly by their names (Folha de São Paulo, N=32, Veja, N=12, or Globo
newspaper or TV News, N=18), the media play an important role as the
THEM actor in the polarized ideological discourse between US and THEM.
The print version of this collective institutional actor is daily available on the
news stand, or digitally on computers, tablets and phones, and at the same
time serves as the representative of all the authors critically attacking quota
policies, as well as PT and other MPs in favor of such policies.
Moreover, already in 1997 Paul Paim had proposed quotas for the media,
both for the employment of black journalists, as well as for black actors in
the pervasive telenovelas, a project aggressively attacked by the same media.
Indeed, also the Brazilian media should be seen as one of the major sources of
widespread stereotypes about black people (see, e.g., Adesky, 2001; Araújo,
2000a, 2000b). The MPs comment as follows:
(6.103) The attributed stereotypes, in alliance with the culture propagated by the
media, which does not spare blacks from all the negative images, instils in
whites this devaluing gaze. With their self-esteem harassed and assaulted,
blacks, who are situated in the cellars of society, on top of being victims
of marginalization, become victims of self-marginalization. (Bittencourt,
PMDB-GO, 12–6–2002)
(6.104) Racism is also recreated and fed daily in our country through commercial
media, which reinforces the stereotypical and discriminatory image of
black people. (Machado, PT-MG, 20–11–2002)
(6.105) The media has shown the impact in terms of public reactions to quotas
reserved for blacks in universities, as often being against the measure on
the grounds that it is, indeed, discrimination. (Vieira Reis, PMDB-RJ,
10–5–2004)
(6.106) Interestingly enough, when it comes to quotas for blacks and the poor, there
is outcry from all sectors. The White Power group and part of the media often
fiercely attack this compensatory policy. (Machado, PT-MG, 25–10–2006)
Luiz Bittencourt in example (6.103) aptly summarizes the theory of the in-
fluence of the media on the formation of racist stereotypes among the white
public, as well as on the self-esteem of blacks (see, e.g., Crook & Johnson,
1999; Hutchinson, 1997). Among many others, Vieira Reis emphasizes the
negative role of the media in the public debate, and hence the general opinion,
on quotas. As we have seen above for the reference to White Power, Gilmar
Machado in example (6.106) identifies the media as the mouthpiece of White
Power, emphasizing such influence in terms of feroz (fierce) and the media
coverage as gritaría (outcry).
Given this prominent role of the media and the daily access of the MPs
to these media, it may also be expected that there is frequent reference to a
general debate (N=459), not only in parliament but also in society at large —
a debate that (in the early 200os) only could be known through the official
media—also with other words, such as discussão (N=168) and especially
polêmica (N=46):
(6.107) When the board of Rio de Janeiro State University set a quota of 40% of
its placements for black students, there was a lot of criticism and their ac-
tion was the subject of great debate. The controversy even generated some
lawsuits, as some candidates considered the percentage used by UERJ to
be too high. (Mendes de Jesus, PDT-RJ, 11–6–2003)
(6.108) Racism is still a subject that generates controversy and disputes in our
society. (Biffi, PT-MS, 17–3–2004)
(6.109) The controversy that the quota system brings to the surface portrays the sad
reality that continues to exist. (De Roure, PT-DF, 24–5–2004)
186 Chapter Six
The word polêmica can thus be used both by proponents and opponents of
quotas, the first by referring (critically) to the general social debate, and by
the second to emphasize that the quotas are controversial.
The Supreme Court

Another important actor in the quota debate in parliament is the Supremo
Tribunal Federal (STF), the Supreme Court, referred to 125 times by the
MPs, and whose decisions also have been studied in the literature (see, e.g.,
Davis, 2014; Féres Júnior, 2010; Riella Benites & Arruda de Moura, 2012;
Silvério, 2012).
Just before the quota bill was signed into law by President Dilma Rousseff
in August 2012, the STF in April 2012 unanimously declared the constitu-
tionality of the quota arrangement of the University of Brasilia (UnB) and
hence for all institutions with affirmative action programs. Before, in 2008,
the STF had been the addressee of various manifestos of opponents and pro-
ponents of quotas.
(6.110) As a result of this debate in society, I would like to emphasize here that a
group of Brazilian artists and intellectuals should deliver a declaration in
favor of racial quotas to the Federal Supreme Court this week. The docu-
ment is a reaction to another letter against quotas that was signed by some
intellectuals and delivered to the Supreme Court two weeks ago. (Maia,
PT-RS, 13–5–2008)
The STF is also frequently mentioned because of the appointment by Lula

of its first black member, Joaquim Benedito Barbosa Gomes, in 2003 (and
its president between 2012–2014). Also earlier the STF had declared vari-
ous forms of AA constitutional. Of course, the proponents of quotas, against
arguments against the quotas, often cite the STF as an argument of the con-
stitutionality of the quotas:
(6.111) Those who speak of the unconstitutionality of the proposal are not follow-
ing the debate. The Federal Supreme Court has already instituted quotas,
and the Ministry of Agrarian Development has also already done so. How-
ever, it is very poor to limit the discussion of the project to the debate on
quotas. (Alberto, PT-BA, 25–3–2003)
The role of the STF in the question of affirmative action does not imply that
the courts in Brazil in general are known to be active in the struggle against
racism. Despite the antiracist aims of the 1988 Constitution, research has
shown that the judiciary often ignores or downplays racial insults (Rodriguez
de Assis Machado, Lima & Neris da Silva Santos, 2019).
Actions
The actors mentioned above engage in a large number of actions. The MPs
themselves of course first of all in discursive or communicative actions in the
parliamentary sessions, and hence in various political acts and interactions,
such as taking the floor, saluting the President of the session and their col-
leagues or guests present, opening and closing turns, interrupting other speak-
ers, celebrating special days, and much more—all part of the macro-acts of
debating and legislation. Especially their own and other antiracist actions are
first of all expressed metaphorically as luta (N= 598, struggle) and combat, as
discussed above. Other frequent actions engaged in or referred to, with verbs
or nominalizations, are resist, promote, build, discuss, decide, vote, propose,
advance, recognize, etc. Let us examine some of these actions more closely
and see when they are used, and who is engaged in them.
Resist
Resistance as a form of political opposition has been treated in thousands
of books (e.g., Hoy, 2004), especially on feminism (Allen, 1999; Butler,
Gambetti & Sabsay, 2016) and pacifism (Holmes & Gan, 2012). We have
earlier defined antiracism as a form of resistance (see chapter 2). Such is also
the case for the MPs who see antiracism, first of all, as struggle and combat,
but more generally as an act of resistance (N=148). So, in their discourses
relevant is who is resisting, and against whom or what—thus expressing the
cognitive frame of the resistance concept, involving a form of counterforce.
As may be expected, the first who are said to have resisted was the black
hero, such as Zumbi and others in the history of Afro-Brazilians, first against
slaveowners or against slavery, and later against discrimination and racism, in
general. This resistance is recalled by many speakers, especially on the Day
of Black Consciousness, November 20:
(6.112) Zumbi is the memory of Africa the motherland. Zumbi is peace, he is life,
he is resistance. (Paim, PT-RS, 20–11–2000)
(6.113) Under subhuman conditions, the black hero resisted, rebelled, and fled,
which demystifies the idea of passivity and conformation amidst the objec-
tives of race. (Bittencourt, PMDB-GO, 12–6–2002)
(6.114) One of them [quilombos] stood out for its organization and resistance,
maintaining a prolonged war against the plantation owners: the Palmares.
(Arantes, Bloco/PCdoBGO, 20–11–2002)
188 Chapter Six
(6.115) In this statement, I would also like to remember the anonymous leaders of
history who have left the legacy of resistance against all forms of racial
violence, discrimination, and exclusion. (Machado, PT-MG, 20–11–2002)
Luiz Bittencourt in (6.113) crucially comments that the resistance of black

slaves must be recalled and emphasized also as a contradiction against ste-
reotypes that they were passive. More generally, resistance is associated, in
passages on international solidarity, with international resistance against rac-
ism or colonialism:
(6.116) Based on the principles of active nonviolence and the ideals of pacifist
resistance, following the example of the Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi,
Martin Luther King fought for civil rights, mainly by organizing the black
population in boycotts, such as that against the use of public transportation.
(Medeiros, 15–4–2004)
Although the historical resistance of blacks against slavery and racism is most
prominent in the debates, the notion may also be used when referring to the
current opposition against quotas, for instance by MPs in the Câmara itself:
(6.117) Today, when we try to promote the discussion to raise that 2% to 20%, we
encounter resistance within this House. Society exerts pressure from the
outside, but here we also find resistance. (Germano, PFL-BA, 13–5–2003)
(6.118) We should not fear the controversy. We know that there will be resistance,
as there has been from the academic and social world, in the discussion in
this House about the Law of Racial Quotas. There has been resistance that
is even inconceivable within the academic sector. The ideological view
against quotas is not scientific but political. This resistance would not
substantiate itself through the nation’s scientific research, unless there was
veiled prejudice. (Valverde, PT-RO, 23–11–2006)
Eduardo Valverde in his speech recalls the broad social controversy about
quotas, in this case in the universities, resistance he qualifies as political and
prejudiced, and not as scientific, as we have seen before. This was undoubt-
edly true for many, especially conservative professors and some student
groups, but already in 2006 several universities had already introduced quo-
tas, so that at least there was a pro-quota majority in those universities.
Black agency
Whereas the history of black resistance is amply recalled and celebrated in
the speeches of (especially black but also other) MPs, what about the actions
of blacks today? To be able to assess such references, we selected all sen-
tences (N=1,557, a corpus of 58,880 words) in the speeches with the word
negros, which may of course refer to specific blacks, to blacks generically or
to the plural of the masculine adjective negro. Then we examined the verbs
and nominalizations referring to actions of blacks. In this case, we are less
interested in the precise numbers, but rather in the nature of the actions at-
tributed to black women and men.
First of all, many of the words negros are not about actions of blacks, but
of actions or situations of/with/for blacks, or use negros as an adjective of
non-agents. For instance, blacks often (N=598, more than a third of all men-
tions) are referred to with a prepositional phrase, and hence not as agent, e.g.,
(6.119) • to blacks (4)

• to the blacks (47)
• against blacks (8)
• of the blacks (186)
• of blacks (166)
• with the blacks (8)
• among/between the blacks (17)
• for the blacks (57)
• for blacks (91)
• of which quotas for blacks (63)
What about the use of negros as adjective? As may be expected in speeches

about quotas, there are 31 phrases estudantes negros, often as parts of prepo-
sitional phrases and hence not as agents. The same for jovens negros (black
youth) mentioned 24 times, or homens negros (black men) referred to 20
times. Similarly, there are 13 references to brasileiros negros, but again never
as agents of action. Blacks appear 20 times together with brancos (whites),
for instance in the phrase entre brancos e negros (between whites and blacks)
or 30 times as entre negros e brancos, and hence not as agents. In many other
sentences, they are targets of the action of others, e.g., as victims of prejudice
or discrimination, as may be expected in these speeches. In sum, blacks are
talked about very frequently, but seldom as agents.
So, when do they appear as agents? First of all, hardly—in just about 20 of
more than 1,500 sentences. Here are a few examples:
(6.120) For years, black scholars and activists have been denouncing the gap that
separates blacks and whites in the country. (Alberto, PT-BA, 22–3–2006)
(6.121) Because they are not raising awareness in blacks to vote for blacks. (Ger-
mano, PP-BA, 23–11–2006)
190 Chapter Six
(6.122) With quotas, which should be implemented by the first semester of 2004,
the doors will open for 597 black students to enter university each year.
(Alberto, PT-BA, 12–6–2003)
But even here these are actions in the past and only of activists, as in (117),
or negatively—what blacks don’t do—as in (118), or in a dependent phrase
as beneficiaries as in (119). The few other sentences where blacks appear as
agents, it is about past heroes or about the black movement, or in dependent
clauses in which they are obliged or wished to engage in some action:
(6.123) Blacks resist with unprecedented courage, staining the soil of Palmares
with blood. (Collares, Bloco/PDTRS, 28–11–2002)
(6.124) There were numerous revolts and various forms of resistance developed by
enslaved blacks. (Santana, PT-RJ, 4–7–2007)
(6.125) The black movements have conquered the public recognition of racism as
present in social relations and as a fundamental factor of inequality.
(6.126) This is especially due to the great effort of raising awareness carried out by
the black movements over the years through denunciation and proposals.
(Nogueira, PT-AP, 18–6–2003)
(6.127) Following this lesson, we blacks have to enjoy and discuss the rights that
are emerging, albeit overdue, but they are emerging. (Collares, PDT-RS,
20–3–2003)
Of course, blacks may be referred to in many other ways than with the ex-
pression negros, for instance as (nosso) povo (our people) by black MPs
(N=536). Again, as with the expression negros the vast majority of uses are
in prepositional phrases, and hence not as agents, or refer to the people as
targets of the actions of others (mostly whites). In dependent clauses, povo
may refer to agents obliged or wished to do something. Sometimes (N=8),
povo appears as part of a (metaphorical) nominalization, as in luta do povo
(struggle of the people).
The same is true for other expressions, such as communidade negra
(N=83), with very few exceptions, e.g., in dependent clauses with phrases
referring to agency, as in
(6.128) Congratulations to the black community, which through its struggle has
won the respect and recognition of democrats around the world. (Arantes,
Bloco/PCdoBGO, 20–11–2002)
In sum, also when referred to with other expressions, blacks are hardly repre-
sented in active roles. We may conclude that the representation of the black
population in these parliamentary speeches is generally as heroes in the past,
and as victims or survivors of racial inequality, discrimination and prejudice,
as beneficiaries of the policies or actions of the state or institutions, and sel-
dom as an active community, as is the case for the Black Movement(s).
Black parliamentarians
Virtually the only active blacks represented here are, by definition, the black
MP themselves. As we have seen they are agents of many institutional speech
acts and other activities, often expressed in the beginning of their speeches,
e.g., the following in Paulo Paim’s speeches of November 20 and 22, 2000:
speak, demonstrate, greet, show, demystify, illuminate, affirm, transform, ob-
server, perform, mention, record, gather, progress, do, see. Similarly, other
speakers start their speeches with such phrases as:
• gostaria de convidar • I would like to invite

• gostaríamos fazer uma reflexão • we would like to reflect
• queremos, antes de mais nada, • we want, first of all, to commend
cumprimentar
• venho à tribuna para elogiar • I come to the podium to praise
• repudiar • repudiate
• dirigimo-nos a esta tribuna, hoje, • we turn to this podium today to
para nos pronunciarmos express
• queremos registrar a aprovação • we want to register the approval
• gostaria de saudar os companhei- • I would like to greet our
ros e companheiras colleagues
In the rest of their speeches the MPs may refer to the many other actions they
engage in, explicitly with the pronoun nós, or in combination with other noun
phrases, such as we blacks, we afro-descendants, we Brazilians, we Parlia-
mentarians, we Party, or we women, or we (have) to: present, approve, show,
need, celebrate, consider, denounce, discuss, support, forward, introduce, we
need to build, defend, choose, fight, etc.
In sum, as observed, these are in general the kind of activities all MPs in
Brazil engage in, whether as black or other MPs, as is also the case when
presenting themselves as Parlamentares negros (black parliamentarians), or
as members of the bancada parlamentar negra (the black caucus), Núcleo
de Parlamentares Negros do Partido dos Trabalhadores (Nucleus of Black
Parliamentarians of the Workers’ Party), or Frente Parlamentar em Defesa
da Igualdade Racial (Parliamentary Front in Defense of Racial Equality).
192 Chapter Six
Whites
White people (N=436) generally are referred in comparisons with blacks, and
in statistical passages and seldom as agents.
Media
As we have seen above, the media (N=72) are generally represented negatively
in the parliamentary debates. As agents of actions, these actions are attacking,
spreading prejudice, not employing or representing blacks, opposing quotas,
censuring the success of quotas, and generally as racist and hegemonic.
Other Relevant Semantic Structures

Besides the representation of actors, actions and metaphors, what other se-
mantic structures and strategies are interesting in the antiracist debates?
Implications and implicatures

One of the most powerful aspects of the semantics and pragmatics of dis-
course is the use of implications and implicatures, expressions that leave to
the recipients drawing intended contextual meanings or inferences. This may
be the case in trivial cases—because no discourse is completely explicit—but
also when speakers want to avoid expressing or asserting such implications
themselves, a strategy in situations where political deniability is crucial. Here
are some (of numerous) examples about the media (see also Liu & Mills,
2006; Van Dijk, 1993).
(6.129) In an unprejudiced Brazilian media almost half of the artists, extras, report-
ers, presenters and speakers would be afro-descendants. (Paim, PT-RS,
17–5–2001)
(6.130) The media has shown the impact in terms of public reactions to quotas
reserved for blacks in universities, as often being against the measure on
the grounds that it is, indeed, discrimination. (Vieira Reis, PMDB-RJ,
10–5–2004)
This statement by Paulo Paim in (6.129) implies but does not explicitly affirm
that the media are prejudiced, and further implies that they are racist. In this
political context, the (pragmatic) implicature might be that if the media do
not want to be prejudiced or racist, they better hire more blacks. In example
(6.130) the speaker implicates the media as being negative about quotas be-
cause they give too much attention to the negative opinions in society. In the
second sentence of (6.130), the use of the short ironical phrase aí sim (here
translated as indeed), implies that whereas the media pretend that quotas are
discriminatory, they do not usually pay so much attention to discrimination,
implying that they are racist because of biased reporting.
Presuppositions
Presuppositions assume previous knowledge of recipients (among many
books on presupposition, see, e.g. Petöfi, & Franck, 1973; Van der Auwera,
1975; see also Van Dijk 2014). In these debates in Brazilian parliament, this
is first of all the case for presuppositions of past slavery and discrimination,
or previous struggle against them, for instance with definite descriptions, very
frequent and relevant adverbs such as ainda (still, even, N=773), verbs such
as continuar (N=105) or parar (stop, N=9), or factive verbs, as in:
(6.131) I roam the fields, the plantations, the factories, and see, even today, blacks
only as servants. (Paim, PT-RS, 20–11–2000)
(6.132) Thus, we still see widespread diffusion of stereotypes through mass media.
(Paim, PT-RS, 22–11–2000)
(6.133) It is admitted that there is still racism even against women. (Pedrosa,
Bloco/PSDBBA, 17–5–2001)
(6.134) According to the IBGE, this proves that Brazilian society still discriminates
against blacks and browns. (Mourão, PSDB-TO, 14–5–2002)
(6.135) This is why we will continue to fight in this area. (Collares, (Bloco/
PDTRS, 20–3–2003)
(6.136) h ave to stop the hypocrisy of saying that there is no racism in Brazil.
(Santana, PT-RJ, 25–3–2003)
Obviously, in 323 debates there are a vast number of interesting implications,

implicatures and presuppositions—for which separate and detailed study
would be necessary, based on an explicit theory of discourse semantics—a
study that is beyond the scope (and size) of this chapter and this book. The
same is true for the other semantic structures briefly mentioned in this section.
Vagueness and precision

There are many ways to talk about actions and events, for instance more or
less precisely or vaguely (Bhatia, 2005; Shapiro, 2008; Van Deemter, 2010).
For instance, within a strategy of negative Other-presentation, typical of
ideological discourse such as in parliamentary debates, speakers are precise
194 Chapter Six
about the negative actions of opponents or enemies, and silent or vague about
their own negative actions, a strategy we have termed the ‘ideological square’
(Van Dijk, 1998).
When MPs have no clear idea of efficient policies, or when they want to
criticize the government or the opposition without precise data, they also have
recourse to vague expression such as uma coisa (something), as in:
(6.137) It is evident that the proposal should be further examined. But something
needs to be done, including by the Government or the National Congress,
so that this situation does not persist or fall into oblivion, as is common in
these cases in Brazil. (Mourão, PSDB-TO, 14–5–2002)
(6.138) Something is failing in the National Congress. (Valverde, 19–12–2006)
As we have often seen in the last pages, precision, in these debates, is gen-
erally accomplished by the strategy of the Numbers Game, for instance
by many statistics (N=983) about racial inequality and discrimination (see
Reidinger, 1988, on the use of numbers in affirmative action). For instance,
to stress the negative aspects of past slavery, speakers often emphasize how
many years or centuries it lasted. In antiracist discourse, racial inequality is
seldom referred to without rather precise official statistics.
Granularity
Related to vagueness and precision is the granularity of descriptions, by pro-
viding more or less detail, as is the case in photographs or computer screens
(see, e.g., Zhang & Liu, 2016). Again, negative actions of opponents and
enemies tend to be represented with more detail than our own negative ac-
tion, and conversely, we are more detailed about our own good actions, and
less detailed on the good actions of THEM (for details on these discursive
expressions of ideologies, see Van Dijk, 1998).
Thus, in the antiracist discourse in the parliamentary debates, black and
(other) PT speakers talk at length about the details of past slavery and con-
temporary racism, on the one hand, as well as on the bravery of black heroes
such as Zumbi or the Black Movement, or their own positive activities in the
Câmara. On the other hand, in the debates about quotas, many detailed advan-
tages of quotas are mentioned by the proponents, and seldom their practical
problems, as referred to by the opponents.
Epistemic analysis
Discourse implies, expresses, conveys and presupposes vast amounts of
knowledge (Van Dijk, 2014). MPs do so extensively when talking about
past and current racist discrimination and prejudice, about quotas, students,
universities and a vast number of other themes and issues. They may express
such knowledge as more or less sure—as facts—as acquired from personal
experience or from different sources or presuppose such knowledge when
they know the recipients can or should draw the relevant inferences them-
selves. A detailed epistemic analysis of the myriad ways the MPs during 12
years talk about racism and quotas and variably manage such knowledge is
impossible here. There are many explicit or implicit ways to refer to such
knowledge, as in:
(6.139) There is therefore accumulated knowledge about racial inequalities to en-

sure policymaking. (Vitório, PT-MS, 17–5–2001)
(6.140)
The numbers of racial inequality in Brazil are common knowledge.
(Vitório, PT-MS, 21–3–2002)
(6.141) As such, I have sufficient knowledge to offer my testimony. (Trindade,

PT-PI, 19–3–2003)
(6.142) We know that this country’s debt to the black community is unpayable.
(Paim, PT-RS, 20–11–2000)
(6.143) We know that there is a national movement to identify racism in all its
forms. (Feldman, PSDB-SP, 25–3–2003)
(6.144) Finally, as can be inferred from these figures, the Brazilian black popula-
tion still suffers from the fact that Brazil was the last country in the West
to abolish slavery. (Dias, PT-PI, 24–4–2002)
It should be stressed however, that knowledge as such is not or need not be

referred to explicitly as in these examples. Normally, a fact is asserted or
presupposed directly without such epistemic markers, as in the presupposed
phrases of the definite expressions in the speeches of Paulo Paim, presuppos-
ing and asserting the existence of discrimination, and hence his knowledge
of these facts:
(6.145) I’d like to take this opportunity to commend the entire black community,
the organized movements fighting to end prejudice and racial discrimina-
tion, and all those who, in one way or another, contribute to this struggle.
(Paim, PT-RS, 20–11–2000)
(6.146) When it comes to the black race, the Constitution is not followed because
there is discrimination. (Paim, 17–5–2001)
196 Chapter Six
Paim does not, and need not, express how he arrived at such general social
knowledge, also because it is widely shared among his audience. In some
situations, newly asserted knowledge is not yet known or shared by the recipi-
ents, and in such cases speakers may need to explain how they arrived at such
knowledge, typically by referring to personal experiences (observation, etc.),
previous discourse and communication or inferences from known knowledge,
that is in many different kinds of evidentials (for details, see Aikhenvald,
2018). In the following examples, we see that knowledge is usually acquired
by experience or the senses, by discourse or by inference:
(6.147) While specializing in cardiac surgery at the Instituto do Coração do Hospi-

tal das Clínicas in São Paulo, I was able to observe that among more than
150 doctors only my twin brother, Cosme, and I were black. (Feliciano,
PSC-SP, 20–11–2000)
(6.148) An article published today in the newspaper Folha de S.Paulo highlights
factors that reflect Brazilian racial inequality. (Wilson, PT-GO, 20–11–
2007)
(6.149) I have reasons enough to conclude that structural racism in times of glo-
balization will be fought to exhaustion in the government of Lula and the
PT. (Grandão, PT-MS, 20–11–2002)
Modality
Beliefs are not always so sure, and knowledge may thus be presented in
various ways by existential or epistemic modal expressions, such as English
surely, probably, maybe, I guess, no doubt, and so on (see, e.g., Marín et al.,
2017). This is no different in parliamentary debates, and many of the asser-
tions of the MPs are thus modalized with modal adverbs or special grammati-
cal forms:
(6.150) If it were not for cultures originating in Angola, Brazil would no doubt be
poorer and sadder. (Machado, PT-MG, 21–3–2001)
(6.151) Of course there is social injustice in the country, probably more against
blacks and indigenous people and other similar groups. (Bengtson, PTB-
PA, 19–4–2005)
Bengtson’s use of probably is in stark contrast with the assertions of his col-
leagues about racism and social justice against blacks and indigenous people,
which leave little doubts about this fact.
Opinion
Finally, MPs not only presuppose old knowledge and assert new knowledge
but by definition also express ideologically based opinions about a large
number of issues, situations, events, actions or people. As is the case for an
epistemic analysis, such a doxastic analysis can only be provided for selected
data, and not for twelve years of debate. We already saw that many speakers
express their admiration for the black heroes of the past, for contemporary
Black Movements, for each other if the others share their opinions, as well
very negative opinions about discrimination, prejudice, racism, social in-
equality and the people actively involved in them, causing them, or denying
them. As is the case in English (Martin & White, 2005), also in Portuguese
the appraisal lexicon is huge, also in the formal discourse of parliament, and
we may find expressions of opinion in nearly each paragraph of each speech.
Again, we only can give some typical examples, which may be expressed by
adjectives or implied in substantives:
(6.152) (. . .) our satisfaction and our pride in speaking at this moment about the
great hero Zumbi dos Palmares (. . .) Oh, how good it would be if history
and songs spoke of the severed veins of black Latin Americans.
(6.153) Indeed, Mr. President, if this is a country of exclusions, blacks are the
greatest exclusion. (Portela, Bloco/PSLMG, 17–5–2001)
(6.154) The great human wisdom lies in respecting ethnic and cultural diversity as
one of the greatest values of humanity. (Dias, PT-PI, 24–4–2002)
(6.155) The Lula Government invests in the cultural sector and defines this contri-
bution very intelligently. (Valentim, Bloco/PCdoBRJ, 9–7–2007)
(6.156) The parliamentary debate on the issue of slavery was long, and the result
is this dramatic and terrible silence about the living conditions of the black
population, which emerged from prolonged captivity. (Vitório, PT-MS,
17–5–2001)
Notice in these examples that besides the explicit opinion expressions such as
bom (good) and grande (large, big, great), much of the opinion is implied by
the use of words that culturally imply positive or negative aspects, depending
on context. Thus, obviously, the notion of ‘wisdom’ is generally used as a
positive characteristic of people or their actions, and today ‘diversity’ usu-
ally found to be positive quality of a country or social situation. On the other
hand, the use of the concept of ‘exclusion,’ like that of ‘discrimination,’ in
198 Chapter Six
this context and co-text, implies a negative opinion of the speaker. Similarly,
in example (165), we may find explicit opinions, as expressed in dramático
and terrível, but also implicit ones expressed by an expression such as cat-
iveiro prolongado (prolonged captivity) Gradation adjectives such as muito
(much) may further emphasize positive or negative opinions.
Norms and values

Opinions are based on norms and values, which in this political context are
usually also part of progressive or antiracist ideologies. The MPs often make
these explicit as a benchmark of their evaluations. Thus, antiracist ideologies
imply such values as equality, fraternity, justice, solidarity, diversity and so
on, as in:
(6.157) Mr. Paulo Paim’s project has a profoundly educational dimension. It is

about educating Brazilian society with the values of a pluralistic and frater-
nal society, with equal opportunities for all. (Vitório, PT-MS, 17–5–2001)
In these antiracist debates on racism and quotas, it is not surprising that igual-
dade (N=1554) is among the most frequent words used by the MPs. Other
values are also routinely made explicit, as is the case of liberdade (N=225),
justiça (N=312) and solidariedade (N=81).
Similarly, the many deontic expressions in the debates, referring to what
the MPs or other people should (not) do, are based on social norms:
(6.158) That the State promote the increase of black women’s social security level
in order to create a healthy social environment free from violence and
insecurity, guaranteeing black women all the rights established by law,
conventions, and national and international standards. (Rocha Pietá, PT-
SP, 21–8–2007)
Thus, the very debate on quotas not only presupposes values of equality
(for the black population) and diversity (for the universities), but also norms
of government, distribution, human rights, legislation, public policies, etc.
Much of the debate in parliament, as well as in the media and in the universi-
ties deal with such norms: are quotas for black students constitutional, do they
infringe on the rights of other students, are they adequate policies to resolve
the problem of black underrepresentation in the universities and so on. As is
obvious from the speeches of black MPs, the very history of slavery and past
discrimination of black people activates the norm of repairing past injustice
by new social policies. A political analysis of the quota debates precisely
deals with such norms (see, e.g., Barbosa Gomes, 2001; Dos Santos, 2007;
Salgueiro Marques, 2010).
Conclusions
The debate in Brazilian parliament on affirmative action and especially on
quotas for black students has shown how especially black MPs engage in
many forms of antiracist discourse. Although more detailed discourse analy-
sis is needed of hundreds of individual speeches, our more general analysis
provides insight into some of the general properties of antiracist discourse
structures and strategies, which may be summarized as follows.
Details of racism in the past

Discriminated groups in society in general, and blacks in Brazil in particular,
interpret and emphasize racism in the past as a major cause of contemporary
racism. Especially during special days celebrating events of the black com-
munity, MPs extensively describe the horrors of the slave trade and slavery.
At the same time, they celebrate past heroes of black resistance against slav-
ery and discrimination, such as Zumbi dos Palmares.
Details of current racism

Similarly, black MPs and other black leaders detail and emphasize the many
aspects of current forms of discrimination and racism. They typically do so
with unassailable evidence, such as statistical data about social inequality in
all domains of society, e.g., about differences of education, salaries, access
and culture. Further evidence may be provided by telling personal stories of
personal experiences of discrimination. MPs identify and celebrate persons,
groups or movements who are important protagonists of antiracist struggle,
such as the Black Movement.
The need of antiracist policies

To counter the many forms of contemporary racism, MPs emphasize the
need for many forms of official antiracist policies and legislation about racial
equality, such as policies of affirmative action intended to redress inequality,
for instance the access to, and participation in higher education, the media
(such as television telenovelas), and leading roles in society for black people.
They extensively argue in favor of such policies and engage in counterargu-
ments against the arguments of their opponents. Antiracist policies are ad-
vocated also as a form of necessary compensation of the racism of the past.
Identifying opponents
The analysis of contemporary racism in general, and of prejudice and discrimi-
natory practices in particular, requires the identification and criticism of those
200 Chapter Six
groups and institutions in society who are seen as opposing antiracist policies,
such as conservative media, political parties or even an otherwise sympathetic
government. Some of these opponents may thus be described as racist.
Identifying allies
On the other hand, dominated groups need allies against their oppression.
Hence, MPs routinely refer to the judiciary (such as the Supreme Court),
international organizations (such as UNESCO [United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization]) in arguments in favor of antiracist poli-
cies. Hence the frequent reference to the III International Congress against
racism in Durban. In Brazil, this may also be the PT government of Lula.
International solidarity
Discriminated groups express solidarity with similar groups abroad. Hence
the many references to black people and their heroes in the U.S., such as
Martin Luther King Jr., or Mandela in South Africa.
(Counter) arguments
Parliamentary debates, as all debates, feature many arguments and counter-
arguments. We identified especially the arguments in favor of affirmative
action, e.g., to promote the opportunities of black students or more generally
as positive for the black community, or even as compensation for past slavery
and oppression. Many of these arguments are counterarguments against the
widely known fallacies against AA.
Other discursive strategies

Besides the major topics and themes featuring in antiracist discourse, such
discourse also shows a number of more specific discursive strategies, gener-
ally following the ideological polarization between (positive) US, and espe-
cially (negative) THEM, such as
• various kinds of war metaphors to refer to antiracist struggle,

• the Numbers Game in (statistical) (counter) arguments,
• negative actor descriptions of racist persons and groups,
• making positive norms and values explicit as criteria for current evaluation
Individual speeches of MPs may variously combine these and other discur-
sive strategies in rhetorically persuasive interventions. Further research will
be necessary to provide more detailed insights into these antiracist discourse

strategies of different speakers or groups of speakers.
Impressive in the debates are not only the many argumentative, rhetorical
and other persuasive discursive strategies of the proponents of affirmative
action, especially black MPs, but also their knowledge of slavery in the past
and of the many forms of contemporary discrimination, prejudice and racism,
supported by statistics. Such discourses are part of the broader media and
political debate about quotas for black students, raging especially in the first
two decades of the 21st century.
The success of the debate—and of quotas themselves

We have seen that there are multiple intertextual links between the parliamen-
tary debate and the broader social debate, as conducted mostly in the mass
media, as well as on the campuses. Interesting is that despite the growing
opposition of the media (and some professors) the opposition in the Câmara
slowly diminishes between 2000 and 2008—and that the Quotas Law was
adopted practically unanimously in 2008.
No doubt, within parliament itself it were also the debates, led especially
by (black and white) PT members in government, that may have contributed
to this (slow) change of attitude. But perhaps even more influential were the
actual changes “on the ground,” that is, on the very campuses, which since
2002 introduced various forms of AA, and not only encountered many prob-
lems, but on the contrary had much success: the black students entering with
quotas were doing very well. No better argument, and no more persuasive
discourse, than that of success.
Chapter Seven
Conclusions
Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) has focused especially on the discursive

abuse of power, but also needs to study the resistance against such domina-
tion. This book is about such resistance in Brazil and analyzes antiracist
discourse from antislavery and abolitionist discourse between the 17th and
19th centuries, and antiracist discourse after abolition until the discourse of
affirmative action today.
THEORY
The first challenge of such a study is a theory of antiracism. If racism is a

form of systemic power abuse in all domains of society, antiracism in the
past as well as today is less systemic, but a slowly growing international and
global social movement of resistance. As is the case for racism, also antira-
cism has two major dimensions, a social one of antiracist practices, on the one
hand, and antiracist social cognition, on the other hand. This antiracist social
cognition, consisting of personal mental models, as well as socially shared
knowledge, attitudes and ideologies, is the basis of antiracist social practices
in general, and of antiracist discourse, in particular.
Antiracist discourse has a prominent position in such a theoretical frame-
work. It is, first of all, a form of social practice, related to other forms of
resistance action and interaction. On the other hand, such practices are based
on forms of antiracist social cognition, such as knowledge, attitudes and
ideologies. And antiracist discourse is a form of antiracist social practice and
also based on antiracist social cognition.
Within this abstract and general theoretical framework, the theory of an-
tiracism as resistance against the many forms of racist power abuse may be
203
204 Chapter Seven
developed as a multidisciplinary theory of social macromovement, compa-

rable to a theory of feminism. It consists of locally and temporally more spe-
cific social movements, such as the international abolitionist and anticolonial
movements, the Civil Rights Movements or Black Lives Matter in the U.S. or
the Movimento Negro in Brazil. Such a theory explains what social actors are
involved in the movement, with what social identities, roles and relations, in
what kinds of social actions and interactions they are engaged, with what aims
or goals, of the basis of what socially shared attitudes and ideologies. Crucial
in such a multidisciplinary theory of antiracism as social movement is the role
of antiracist discourse as a central antiracist practice, and as the source and
expression of antiracist social cognition: what participant actors know about
current racism, what attitudes they have on for instance slavery or immigra-
tion, and what fundamental antiracist ideologies they share, with what group
identity, norms, values and aims, and what relations with their opponents.
Although many of the general properties of antiracist resistance are similar
to other forms of resistance against power abuse, as is the case for the femi-
nist or pacifist movement, more specific insight must be derived from sys-
tematic, historical study, especially of the many forms of antiracist discourse
in different periods of a specific country or region.
ANTIRACIST DISCOURSE IN THE HISTORY OF BRAZIL
Although antiracist discourse in Brazil has properties in common with such

discourse in Latin America, the United States and Europe, its topics and other
properties presuppose and oppose the specifics of racism in Brazil, from slav-
ery to abolition, racist pseudo-science in the late 19th century and early 20th
century, pervasive discrimination and exclusion of the large black population
until contemporary race relations and widespread social inequality.
The first relevant observations about antiracist resistance in Brazil are
about the many forms of resistance by slaves themselves, e.g., by escaping
from the plantations and founding and defending quilombos such as the one
of Palmares, led by black hero Zumbi. Unfortunately, we do not have the
discourses of such slaves, beginning with their conversations and planning
among themselves, the courageous forms of defiant talk with their masters or
overseers or documents with stories of personal experiences. Yet this histori-
cal resistance is relevant for this study, because most forms of later antiracist
discourse in Brazil refer to, and take inspiration from, this resistance by the
slaves.
As was the case in the history of Europe and the Americas, e.g., by Quak-
ers, the first antiracist discourse was formulated by priests, if only because
Conclusions 205
they were literate and trained to observe and comment on the violation of
Christian, or even more general humanitarian norms and values. Thus, in the
17th and 18th century, Jesuit priests such as Vieira, Benci and Rocha wrote
extensive sermons and pamphlets criticizing the abuses of the slaveowners.
Because of the strict control by the Inquisition, they as yet could hardly chal-
lenge the system of slavery itself, the basis of the economy of the Portuguese
colony, but they condemned harsh punishment, and urged slaveowners to
provide enough food, clothes, housing and necessary rest for the slaves, while
condemning the very usual harsh punishment.
By contemporary criteria of antiracism, such criticisms of the power abuse
of slaveowners might not yet be called antiracist in the narrow sense, first
because the very notion of ‘race’ and ‘racism’ only became discussed in
the 19th and 20th centuries. Also, they shared negative stereotypes about
“primitive” black people with most of their (white) contemporaries. But, by
aiming at the amelioration of the situation of black slaves, they contributed
to the slow development of social and human rights that today may be called
antiracist, though partly based on religious or biblical norms and criteria,
such as presumed humanity of the slaves, their souls and their salvation by
Christ. The Christian adoption of the old Golden Rule (treat others as you
want to be treated) in many of these discourses shows that religious and
humanitarian norms and values are often merged. Indeed, many of these
discourses show obvious empathy with the slaves on the one hand and fierce
criticism of the system of slavery. This does not mean, however, that their
writings defined the position of the Catholic church, which generally col-
luded with the powers that be.
The early antislavery discourses of the Jesuits have all the features of clas-
sical rhetoric, such as repetitions, parallelisms, hyperboles, irony and meta-
phors in order to emphasize the miserable life of the slaves, and the brutality
of the slaveowners. These are used until today in the description of the many
forms of racist prejudice and discrimination.
The slave trade and the very system of slavery only became challenged, at
first quite marginally, in the beginning of the 19th century by politicians such
as José Bonifácio de Andrade, under the influence of the abolition movement
in the UK. Religious and humanitarian arguments in this case combine with
political ones, such as the international reputation of Brazil—a topos of all
future antiracist discourse in the country, until today—and the position of
slaves and liberated blacks as citizens of the nation. Indeed, only then En-
lightenment notions of human rights and values of equality enter antislavery
discourse in Brazil.
Only after the abolition of the slave trade, enforced by the British navy,
abolition discourse and a broad social movement became popular in Brazil,
206 Chapter Seven
for instance in the discourses of politicians and journalists such as Bonifácio,

O Moço, Luís Gama, Rebouças and Joaquim Nabuco, among many oth-
ers. Slaveowners are described as hypocrites and parasites and despite their
economic and political power, they are losing the struggle of public opinion.
The abolition writers not only continue to severely criticize the abuses on the
plantations, but also begin to speculate about the position of liberated blacks
after abolition. For the first time notions of ‘race’ enter the debate, which is
now more political and sociological than the earlier, religious or humanitar-
ian, antislavery texts. The Emperor is challenged and criticized for his role in
the abolition movement. Women increasingly participate in the organization
of the many events—like public manumissions, festivals and plays—cel-
ebrating gradual abolition.
ANTIRACIST DISCOURSE AFTER ABOLITION
The situation of black people after abolition in Brazil hardly improved very
much—and it is therefore hardly surprising that antiracist discourse in the
coming decades routinely stressed precisely that point. Liberated slaves and
other black people had to compete with European immigrants, e.g., from
Italy, discrimination was pervasive and white prejudices remained rife. It
was not surprising that instead of antagonizing the white elites with com-
plaints on discrimination and exclusion, black intellectual discourse initially
focused on “uplifting” the black community, by founding and publishing
journals and clubs.
At the same time, racist pseudo-science, Social Darwinism and eugenic
ideas from Europe gained influence in Brazil at the end of the 19th and the
beginning of the 20th century, challenged especially by psychologist Manoel
Bomfim; it is his 1905 book on Latin America that ridicules the idea of white
racial superiority. In the narrow sense, thus, he might have been the first in
Brazil whose discourse was explicitly antiracist—even if he shared many ste-
reotypes about black people, stereotypes however he attributed to the social
situation and oppression and not to inherent racial characteristics. He also
wrote about how white people “underdeveloped” black people and thus was
an early precursor of anticolonialism.
In the struggle against prevalent racist pseudo-science and eugenics, physi-
cal anthropologist Edgar Roquette-Pinto defended “positive” eugenics recom-
mending how the situation of black people could be improved and rejecting
the thesis of racial degeneration due to miscegenation on the basis of his own
research. On the other hand, his work (measuring biological properties of black
and mestizo people) remained inspired by racist physical anthropologists.
Conclusions 207
After the First World War, and against the background of Nazi ideologies
and repression and broadly shared racist pseudo-science in Europe, the U.S.
and Brazil, and Jim Crow segregation in the U.S., antiracist discourse in Bra-
zil became increasingly academic and political. Pseudo-science and “whiten-
ing” were combated by science, as well as the more explicit political struggle
against the exclusion of black people, e.g., in the 1935 intellectual manifest
signed by Roquette-Pinto, Arthur Ramos and Gilberto Freyre.
Instead of opposing miscegenation, thus, Freyre celebrated it in his “luso-
tropical” defense of the Brazilian population, giving rise to the influential no-
tion of “racial democracy,” thus denying Brazilian racism in comparison with
explicit segregation in the U.S. Much antiracist discourse in the following
decades, especially also by black intellectuals, in turn focused on this alleged
“racial democracy” and delegitimated it by rejecting it as a myth.
At the same time, also black intellectuals such as Antônio de Morães and
José Correia Leite, in journals such as O Getulino and O Clarim, rejected
pseudo-racist science and policies of whitening, while at the same time
founding the first black social movements such as Frente Negra Brasileira in
1931. For the first time, the political term “negro” was now used to refer to
all non-white people. As was the case for antislavery discourse in earlier cen-
turies, also the emergent antiracist discourse before World War II was some-
times paradoxical, as was the case for Arlindo Veiga, who on the one hand
combated whitening and racist pseudo-science and founded the Frente Negra
Brasileira (FNB), but at the same time participated in the integralist move-
ment of Plinio Salgado, admiring Italian fascism, and opposing “foreign”
communism—using slogans such as DEUS, PATRIA, RAÇA, FAMILIA.
POSTWAR ANTIRACIST DISCOURSE
Many of the (white and black) prewar Brazilian intellectuals continued

to write after the war. Nazism, the Holocaust and Jim Crow had (at least
temporarily) delegitimated racist and antisemitic ideas, and stimulated the
scholars associated with UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization) to look elsewhere for more positive forms of race
relations. Unsurprisingly, they were interested in Brazil—where the idea of
“racial democracy” had not only spread in Brazil itself, and even was cel-
ebrated by the dictatorship, but also had been exported, e.g., to the U.S.
Alberto Guerreiro Ramos, advisor to Getúlio’s second government, and
director of the Instituto Nacional Negro (INN), participated in the First Con-
gresso do Negro Brasileiro in 1950, organized by the Teatro Experimental
Negro (TEN) with a paper on UNESCO and race relations. Unfortunately for
208 Chapter Seven
the UNESCO plans, however, some Brazilian scholars became increasingly

critical of the allegedly “benign” race relations in Brazil. This was the case
for Luis de Aguiar Costa Pinto, who had studied the marginality of mestizos
in Rio de Janeiro—concluding that prejudice and discrimination in Brazil
“act fundamentally to keep black men in their place.” As will be the case for
many later metaphors used to critically describe the hidden and denied nature
of racism in Brazil, he used the notion of “criptotracism.”
Most prominent and radical, however, was no doubt Abdias do Nasci-
mento, founder of the TEN, exiled panafricanist, and defender of civil rights
for black people, and author of O Negro Revoltado (1968). For the first time
the notion of genocide was used to describe Brazilian racism—thus radi-
cally opposing the ideology of “racial democracy” espoused by the military
dictatorship, as well as much of the white elites—until today. Before many
academics, Nascimento discussed neocolonialism, institutional racism and
white supremacy, and even notions of affirmative action—if only for Brazil-
ian diplomats in Africa.
Though hardly with access to public discourse, also black women after
the war participated in the scientific delegitimatization of racist ideas, as was
the case for the work of (discriminated) sociologists Virginia Bicudo, Lelia
González and Luiza Bairros.
At the same time, the influential Movimento Negro Unificado (MNU) was
founded during the last years of the dictatorship, urging affirmative action
policies for blacks and continuing the struggle against prevalent racism—thus
adding a more sociopolitical dimension to the academic criticism of racist
pseudo-science.
CONTEMPORARY ANTIRACISM
The end of the 1970s and the early 1980s not only saw the demise of the mili-
tary dictatorship, but also the first academic assaults on the ideology of ‘racial
democracy.’ Sociologist Nelson do Valle and Argentinian Carlos Hasenbalg
showed with statistical arguments that discrimination of blacks was not due to
class, but to ethnic prejudice, and hence a form of racism: ‘race’ thus became
an independent variable.
Their sociological approach at the same time corrected some of the tenets of
the sociologists of the São Paulo School, such as Florestan Fernandes, whose
analysis of the subordinate position of black people was still influenced by
a functional (and later Marxist) focus on class, but at the same time critical
of the ideology of ‘racial democracy.’ Relevant though was the idea that the
dominant white supremacist ideologies during slavery explained much of the
Conclusions 209
continued discrimination of black people—who were also unable to compete

with white immigrant workers. On the other hand, Oracy Nogueira from a
more cultural perspective emphasized that class could not explain discrimina-
tion, since also blacks in high positions were discriminated against.
Only in the 1990s thus, dominant academic discourse on race and racism
in Brazil adopted the criticism of the ideology of ‘racist democracy,’ and
scholars from Brazil and the U.S. began to publish articles and books and or-
ganized congresses with systematic analyses of the many forms of everyday
discrimination. Indeed, so far the very term ‘racism’ had hardly been used
in academic studies—none of the papers for a 1991 congress in Rio used
the term ‘racism,’ but only of ‘racial inequality.’ Studies dealt with (slow)
black emancipation, discrimination and exclusion. A Folha report of 1995
still had “racismo cordial” in the title: Racism yes, but benign—an attitude
widespread among white Brazilian elites until today.
At the same time, finally also politics was slowly changing. Presidents
Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and then Lula in the new millennium, for the
first time integrated black representatives in their ministries and govern-
ments. And it was the active official preparation and participation of the
World Congress against Racism in Durban in 2001 that may be seen as the
political watershed for the serious concern about racism in Brazil. Lula cre-
ated the Secretaria de Políticas de Promoção da Igualdade Racial (Seppir).
Parliament discussed the Statute of Racial Equality, and affirmative action for
black students, a law signed by President Dilma Rousseff in 2012, and nearly
unanimously supported in parliament—despite fierce opposition of the white
elites and their media. Thus, at least in academia and politics, antiracist dis-
course between 2000 and 2020 had finally become acceptable and sometimes
even prominent, at least as long as the antiracist Partido de Trabalhadores
(PT) was in power.
THE DISCOURSE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
A more detailed case study of parliamentary debates between 2000 and 2012
on affirmative action and especially on quotas for black students shows some
of the properties of contemporary antiracist discourse in politics—and at the
same time the struggle against the ideas of the white elites and their media.
After earlier proposals by Abdias do Nascimento, MP Nice Lobão in 1999
proposed a bill reserving 50% of university places for specific students from
secondary schools, in other bills soon specified for (mostly black) students
from (bad) public schools. During more than a decade various proposals of
such affirmative action were debated in the Câmara de Deputados and the
210 Chapter Seven
Senate, followed by increasingly negative commentary in the conservative

press, and from some university professors. Much of the debates, thus, should
be understood and analyzed intertextually in relation to this media opposition.
Especially black MPs of the PT—in power—however understood very
well that the future of the black community crucially depended on the for-
mation of a black elite, in a country that in the 1990s barely (they claimed)
had 2% students in the (good) public universities. Their contribution to the
debates, especially on special occasions, such as the Day of Black Conscious-
ness, integrate opinions on quotas in a much larger context of prejudice,
discrimination and racism in Brazil.
Initiated and repeatedly stimulated by the discourses of black MP Paulo
Paim, the debates offer many examples of contemporary antiracist discourse.
No doubt dominant, as may be expected, is the detailed description of the cur-
rent situation of black people, details about discrimination in all domains of
everyday life, prejudice, exclusion and racism in general. That main topic is
formulated with the riches of exuberant black rhetoric, with detailed negative
descriptions, metaphors and especially statistical data, the Numbers Game,
provided by official organizations.
The second main topic is Recalling the Past—the detailed historical refer-
ences to slavery, black resistance and heroes like Zumbi dos Palmares—with
the implicit and explicit conclusion that the oppression of the past is still
relevant today.
Third, as also may be expected in parliamentary discourse, the current
situation of blacks in Brazil requires new social policies, such as affirmative
action in all domains of society.
Besides details on the situation of U.S., black people, the ideological de-
bate of course shows the polarized structure by critically describing white
THEM, especially the white elites and their media—while at the same time
mentioning national and international allies, such as the Supreme Court
declaring quotas legal, as well as international black heroes such as Martin
Luther King Jr. and Mandela.
In the framework of these more general topics and rhetorical strategies, a
large part of the debate is organized by the many arguments in favor of quo-
tas, and the counterarguments challenging the arguments of their opponents,
such as the accusation of “reverse discrimination” or “racism” by favoring
black students, stimulating conflict in the university and introducing ‘race’ in
official policies, thus allegedly dividing the country.
These main topics and (counter) arguments are persuasively formulated by
many semantic and rhetorical strategies. Thus, the opposition against racism
is routinely formulated in the metaphorical terms of struggle and combat. At
the same time, we saw how main actors of the discourses are represented,
Conclusions 211
such as black men and women and students, on the one hand, and the media,
on the other. Epistemic strategies show what sources and degrees of knowl-
edge are used by the speakers. Further analysis in the future will be able to
focus on more detailed local strategies of antiracist discourse in parliament.
The analysis of parliamentary debates on affirmative action in general
shows what main topics have characterized antislavery and antiracist dis-
course through the centuries, such as the ideological polarization between
positive black portrayals and very critical negative portrayals of slaveowners,
racist scholars until conservative media today. Secondly, all antiracist opinion
discourse is intended to be persuasive by detailed argumentation, from the
Christian or humanitarian confirmation of the humanity of slaves and black
people, to the arguments in favor of black students today. Finally, the persua-
siveness of antiracist discourse is enhanced by a large number of rhetorical
strategies, such as irony by Vieira in the 17th and the abolitionists in the 19th
century, as well as the pervasive metaphor of struggle. Such religious and po-
litical discourses, inspired by the Enlightenment and the French Revolution,
are further sustained by increasingly scientific discourse in the 20th century,
challenging pseudo-science of race and miscegenation and whitening, and the
denial of racism implied by the ideology of ‘racial democracy.’
Though still in reduced sociological approaches explaining discrimination
in terms of class, after 1990 and 2000, new developments agreed with what
black intellectuals, writers and politicians knew all along: that the main inde-
pendent variable was and is race, and that inequality should be studied as the
consequence of the system of power abuse called racism.
References
Note: Different from bibliographical habits in Brazil, we use the international rule of
using both last names of Brazilian author(s) (when known and used by the author),
and alphabetically in the order of the first last name (which in Brazil is usually the
last name of the mother of the author, and not the last name of the father). However,
there are many exceptions to this Brazilian bibliographical rule, when authors may
use only the last name of the mother, or of the father or the last name of both father
and mother, in different publications. Also, we also follow international rules for
last names with prefixes such as de, do, etc., as in De Andrada, etc., where the
prefix is included in the last name and used in alphabetical ordering of the refer-
ences. So a publication by, say, an author called Antônio de Andrada Pereira will
be under D, but in Brazil may occur as Andrade Pereira, A de, as Andrade, A, as
Pereira, A, etc.
Adesky, J. E. (2001). Pluralismo étnico e multiculturalismo. Racismos e anti-racismos

no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Pallas.
Afolabi, N. (2009). Afro-Brazilians. Cultural production in a racial democracy. Roch-
ester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Aikhenvald, A. I. U. (2018). The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Alberto, P. L. (2011). Terms of inclusion. Black intellectuals in twentieth-century
Brazil. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Aldano Alves Rodrigues, M. (2019). O racismo está online: discurso de ódio nas
redes sociais no Brasil contemporâneo. Niterói: Universidad Federal Fluminense,
Instituto de Ciências Humanas e Filosofia, Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso
(Graduação em Sociologia).
Alexander, P. (1987). Racism, resistance and revolution. London; Chicago:
Bookmarks.
Allen, A. (1999). The power of feminist theory. Domination, resistance, solidarity.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
213
214 References
Allington, D. (2018). ‘Hitler had a valid argument against some Jews’: Repertoires
for the denial of antisemitism in Facebook discussion of a survey of attitudes to
Jews and Israel. Discourse Context & Media, 24, 129–136.
Alonso, A. (2011). Associativismo avant la lettre—as sociedades pela abolição da
escravidão no Brasil oitocentista. Sociologia, Porto Alegre, 13(28), 166–199.
Alonso, A. (2015). Flores, votos e balas. O movimento abolicionista brasileiro
(1868–88). São Paulo, SP: Companhia das Letras.
Alves da Silva, E. (2012). Ações Afirmativas na Educação Superior: Um Estudo
Sobre Dissertações Defendidas em Universidades Federais de 2001 A 2011. Dis-
sertação apresentada ao Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação da Universi-
dade de Brasília.
Alves dos Santos, C. V. (2014). Discurso em plenário. A construção do ethos sob a
luz das Ações afirmativas. Revista NupeX em Educação—Teixeira de Freitas, v.
1, n. 1, julho/dezembro.
Amaro, S. (2015). Racismo, igualdade racial e políticas de ações afirmativas no Bra-
sil. Porto Alegre, RS: EdiPUCRS.
Amparo Alves, J. (2018). The Anti-Black City. Police Terror and Black Urban Life
in Brazil. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Andrews, G. R. (1991). Blacks and Whites in São Paulo 1888–1988. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Angyalossi Alfonso, D. (2020). Bolsonaro’s take on the ‘absence of racism’ in Brazil.
Race & Class, 61(3), 33–49.
Ansell, A. (2017), Right‐Wing Politics in Brazil. Anthropology News, 58, 370–373.
Apdo Felipe, D. (2014). Páginas Negras: Discurso Sobre as Cotas Raciais nas Re-
vistas Veja e Época. IX EPCT—Encontro de Produção Científica e Tecnológica
Campo Mourão, 27 a 31 de Outubro de 201.
Aptheker, H. (1992). Anti-racism in U.S. history. The first two hundred years. New
York: Greenwood Press.
Aquino, K. (2016). Anti-racism ‘from below’: exploring repertoires of everyday anti-
racism. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(1), 105–122.
Araújo, J. Z. (2000a). A negaçao do Brasil. O negro na telenovela brasileira. Sao
Paulo: Senac.
Araújo, J. Z. (2000b). Identidade racial e estereótipos sobre o negro na TV Brasileira.
In Guimarães, A. S. A., & Huntley, L. (Eds.), Tirando a máscara. Ensaios sobre o
racismo no Brasil (pp. 77–95). São Paulo: Paz e Terra.
Arneil, B. (2006). Diverse Communities: The Problem with Social Capital. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Artes, A., Unbehaum, S., & Silvério, V. (Eds.). (2016). Ações Afirmativas no Brasil,
Vol. 2. Reflexões e desafios paras a pós-graduação. São Paulo: Cortez Editora.
Azevedo, C. M. M. (1995). Abolitionism in the United States and Brazil. A compara-
tive perspective. New York: Garland Pub.
Bacelar da Silva, A. J., & Larkins, E.R. (2019). The Bolsonaro Election, Antiblack-
ness, and Changing Race Relations in Brazil. The Journal of Latin American and
Caribbean Anthropology, 24, 893–913.
References 215
Bähre, E., & Gomes, F. (2018), Humiliating the Brazilian poor: The iconoclasm of
former president Lula. Anthropology Today, 34, 10–15.
Bailey, S. R. (2009). Legacies of race. Identities, attitudes, and politics in Brazil.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bailey, S. R., & Peria, M. (2010). Racial quotas and the culture war in Brazilian aca-
demia. Sociology Compass, 4(8), 592–604.
Bailey, S. R., Fialho, F., & Peria, M. (2015). Support for race-targeted affirmative
action in Brazil. Ethnicities, 1468796814567787.
Banks, A. J. (2014). Anger and racial politics. The emotional foundation of racial
attitudes in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barbosa Gomes, J. B. (2001). O debate constitucional sobre as ações afirmativas.
Revista de Direitos Difusos, 2(9), 1133–1163
Barbosa Silva, W., & Barreto, M. R. N. (2014). Mulheres e Abolição: Protagonismo
e Ação. Revista ABPN, 6(14), 50–62.
Barker, C., Johnson, A., & Lavalette, M. (Eds.). (2001). Leadership and social move-
ments. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Baronov, D. (2000). The abolition of slavery in Brazil. The “liberation” of Africans
through the emancipation of capital. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Barros, J. M. (2008). Diversidade cultural. Da proteção à promoção. Belo Horizonte,
Brazil: Autêntica.
Bastide, R. (1972). O negro na imprensa e na literatura. São Paulo: Universidade
de São Paulo, Escola de Communicações e Artes Departamento de Jornalismo e
Editoração.
Bastide, R., & Fernandes, F. (1955). Relações raciais entre negros e brancos em São
Paulo. Ensaio sociológico sôbre as origens, as manifestações e os efeitos do pre-
conceito de côr no município de São Paulo. São Paulo: Editôra Anhembi.
Batista de Lemos, I. (2017). Narrativas de cotistas raciais sobre suas experiências na
universidade. Revista Brasileira de Educação 22(71) 1–25
Bechelli, R. S. (2009). Nacionalismos anti-racistas. Manoel Bomfim e Manuel
González Prada: Brasil e Perú na passagem para o século XX. São Paulo: LCTE
Editora.
Benhabib, S. (2002). The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bennett, J. M. (2006). History matters. Patriarchy and the challenge of feminism.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Benwell, B. (2012). Common-sense anti-racism in book group talk: The role of re-
ported speech. Discourse and Society, 23(4), 359–376.
Berry, M. F. (1971). Black resistance, white law. A history of constitutional racism in
America. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Bhatia, V. K. (2005). Vagueness in normative texts. Bern, New York: P. Lang.
Bicudo, V. L. (1945). Atitudes raciais de pretos e mulatos em São Paulo. Tesis de
Mestrado USP.
Blake, F., Ioanide, P., & Reed, A. (Eds.). (2019). AntiRacism, Inc. Goleta, CA:
Punctum Books.
Blommaert, J., & Verschueren, J. (1994). Antiracisme. Antwerpen/Baarn: Hadewijch.
216 References
Bonnett, A. (2000). Anti-racism. London: Routledge.

Bowser, B. P. (Ed.). (1995). Racism and anti-racism in world perspective. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Brazil, M. C. (2002). Fronteira negra. Dominação, violência e resistência escrava em
Mato Grosso, 1718–1888. Passo Fundo, RS, Brasil: UPF Editora.
Browne, V. (2014). Feminism, time, and nonlinear history. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Buarque de Holanda, S. (1936). Raízes do Brasil. 26th Edition, 1995. São Paulo:
Companhia das Letras.
Butler, K. D. (1998). Freedoms given, freedoms won. Afro-Brazilians in post-
abolition, São Paulo and Salvador. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Butler, J., Gambetti, Z., & Sabsay, L. (2016). Vulnerability in resistance. Durham:
Duke University Press.
Caldas-Coulthard, C. R., & Coulthard, M. (Eds.). (1996). Texts and practices. Read-
ings in critical discourse analysis. London New York: Routledge.
Camino, L., Leite Tavares, T., Rosas Torres, A. R., Álvaro, J. L., & Garrido, A.
(2014). Repertórios discursivos de estudantes universitários sobre cotas raciais nas
universidades. Psicologia & Sociedade, 26(n. spe.), 117–128.
Campos, L. A. (2014). A identificação de enquadramentos através da análise de cor-
respondências: um modelo analítico aplicado à controvérsia das ações afirmativas
raciais na imprensa. Opinião Pública, Campinas, 20(3), 377–406.
Campos, L. A. (2016a). Multiculturalismos—Essencialismo e antiessencialismo—
Kymlica, Young & Parekh. Sociologias, Porto Alegre, ano 18, no 42, mai/ago,
266–229.
Campos, L. A. (2016b). Relações Raciais entre Negros e Brancos em São Paulo: a
história de uma edição. Revista de Estudos Politicos, 10, 620–627.
Campos, L. A. (2015). “O negro é povo no Brasil”: afirmação da negritude e de-
mocracia racial em alberto guerreiro ramos (1948–1955). Caderno CRH, 28(73),
91–110.
Campos, L. A., Feres Júnior, J., & Toste Daflon, V. (2013). Administrando o debate
público: O Globo e a controvérsia em torno das cotas raciais. Revista Brasileira de
Ciência Política, nº11, 7–31.
Campos, R. (2016). Authoritarianism and punitive eugenics: racial hygiene and
national Catholicism during Francoism, 1936–1945. Historia Ciencias Saude-
Manguinhos, 23, 131–147.
Carey, B. (2005). British abolitionism and the rhetoric of sensibility. Writing, senti-
ment, and slavery, 1760–1807. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Carey, B. (2012). From peace to freedom. Quaker rhetoric and the birth of American
antislavery, 1657–1761. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Carneiro, S. (2011). Racismo, sexismo e desigualdade no Brasil. São Paulo: Selo
Negro Edições.
Carneiro da Silva, M. H. (2015). Discursos femininos sobre abolicionismo, família
e trabalho doméstico (Recife e Slavador: Século XIX). Paper XVIII Simpósio
Nacional de História, Florianopolis, SC, 27–31 Julho, 2015.
References 217
Carone, I., Bento, M. A. S., & Piza, E. P. (2002). Psicologia social do racismo.
Estudos sobre branquitude e branqueamento no Brasil. Petropólis: Editora Vozes.
Carvalho França, J. M., & Ferreira, R. A. (2015). Manuel Ribeiro Rocha: um aboli-
cionista “avant la lettre”? Revista Portuguesa de História, XLVI (2015), 199–216.
Castle, J. (2018). What my left hand was doing. Lessons from a grassroots activist.
Detroit, MI: Against the Tide Books.
Castro, M. G., & Abramovay, M. (2006). Relações raciais na escola. Reprodução de
desigualdades em nome da igualdade. Brasília, DF, Brasil: UNESCO, Representa-
ção no Brasil INEP Observatório de Violências nas Escolas.
Cavalleiro, E. S. (2000). Do silêncio do lar ao silêncio escolar. Racismo, preconceitos
e discriminação na educação infantil. São Paulo: Humanitas Contexto.
Chacon, V. (2001). A construção da brasilidade. Gilberto Freyre e sua geração. São
Paulo, Brazil Brasília, DF: Marco Zero Paralelo 15.
Charteris-Black, J. (2014). Analysing political speeches. Rhetoric, discourse and
metaphor. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chaves Batista, N. (2014). Políticas públicas de ações afirmativas para a Educação
Superior: o conselho Universitário como arena de disputas. Ensaio: Avaliação e
Políticas Públicas em Educação 23(86): 95–128.
Cheng, J. E. (2017). Anti-racist discourse on Muslims in the Australian Parliament.
Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Childs, P., & Stromquist, N. (2015). Academic and diversity consequences of af-
firmative action in Brazil. Compare-a Journal of Comparative and International
Education, 45(5), 792–813.
Chilton, P. A. (1995). Security metaphors. Cold war discourse from containment to
common house. New York: Lang.
Chor Maio, M. (1999). O Projeto Unesco e a Agenda das Ciências Sociais no Brasil
dos Anos 40 e 50. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, 14(41), 141–158.
Chor Maio, M. (2010) Introdução: a contribuição de Virgínia Leone Bicudo aos estu-
dos sobre as relações raciais no Brasil. In: V. L. Biciudo, Atitudes raciais de pretos
e mulatos em São Paulo. São Paulo: Sociologia e Política[1945].
Chor Maio, M. (2011). Florestan Fernandes, Oracy Nogueira, and the UNESCO
Project on Race Relations in São Paulo. Latin American Perspectives, 38, 136–149.
Chor Maio, M., & Ventura Santos, R. (2005). Política de cotas raciais, os ‘olhos da
sociedade’ e os usos da antropologia: O caso de vestibular da Universidade de
Brasília (UNB). Horizontes antropológicos 11 (23): 181–214.
Cicalo, A. (2012). Urban encounters. Affirmative action and black identities in Brazil.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Conceição, F. (2006). Mídia e etnicidades no Brasil e nos Estados Unidos. Entre
Zumbi dos Palmares e Malcom X, entre Folha de S. Paulo e The New York Times.
São Paulo: Livro Pronto Upsys inf e editora ltda.
Conrad, R. E. (1972). The destruction of Brazilian slavery, 1850–1888. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Conrad, R. E. (1983). Children of God’s fire: A documentary history of black slavery
in Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
218 References
Conrad, R. E. (1986). World of sorrow. The African slave trade to Brazil. Baton
Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Contins, M., & Sant’Ana, L. C. (1996). O movimento negro e a questão da ação afir-
mativa. Estudos Feministas, 4(1), 209.
Covin, D. (2006). The Unified Black Movement in Brazil, 1978–2002. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland & Co.
Crass, C. (2013). Towards collective liberation. Anti-racist organizing, feminist
praxis, and movement building strategy. Oakland, CA: PM Press.
Crass, C. (2015). Towards the “other America.” Anti-racist resources for White
people taking action for Black Lives Matter. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press.
Crestani, L. M. (2003). Sem vez e sem voz. O negro nos textos escolares. Passo
Fundo, RS, Brasil: Universidade de Passo Fundo, UPF Editora.
Crook, L., & Johnson, R. (Eds.). (1999). Black Brazil: Culture, identity, and social
mobilization. Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center Publications, University
of California, Los Angeles.
Cruz de Anhaia, B. (2019). A “Lei De Cotas” no Ensino Superior Brasileiro:
Reflexões sobre a Política Pública e as Universidades Federais. Tese Doutorado
UFRGS.
Cutrim Nunes, E. (2018). Negritude na tela: manifestações da luta antirracista no
Youtube Brasil. Undergraduate thesis Universidade do Rio Grande do Sul, Instituto
de Filosofia y Ciencias Sociais.
Cypriano, A., & Anjos, R. S. A. (2006). Quilombolas. Tradições e cultura da resistên-
cia. São Paulo, SP: AORI Comunicação.
Da Silva, M. J. (1985). Racismo à brasileira: Raízes históricas: um novo nível de
reflexão sobre a história do Brasil. Goiânia: Ed. O Popular.
Da Silva Lima, F. (2018). Racismo e antirracismo no Brasil: temas emergentes no
cenário sócio jurídico. Santa Cruz do Sul: Essere nel Mondo.
Da Silva Muniz, K. (2009). Linguagem e Identificação: Uma contribuição para o
Debate sobre Ações Afirmativas para Negros no Brasil. Campinas, SP: Unicamp.
Tese Doutorado
Dall’Igna Ecker, D., & Torres, S. (2015). Política de cotas étnicas no ensino supe-
rior: análise de narrativas de sujeitos do meio universitário. Emancipacão, 15(1),
114–130.
Danin, R., Carvalho, J., & Reis, T. (2018). Discursive racism: the case of Marielle
Franco and the international media coverage. Methaodos-Revista de Ciencias
Sociales, 6(2), 279–289.
Dascal, R. (Ed.). (2012). Episodes from a history of undoing. The heritage of female
subversiveness. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Pub.
Dashtipour, P., & Rumens, N. (2018). Entrepreneurship, incongruence and affect:
Drawing insights from a Swedish anti-racist organisation. Organization, 25(2),
223–241.
Dávila, J. (2003). Diploma of whiteness. Race and social policy in Brazil, 1917–1945.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Davis, J. E. (Ed.). (2002). Stories of change. Narrative and social movements.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
References 219
Davis, T. W. (2014). Affirmative Action In Brazil: Its Recent Developments And

The Argument For A Narrow Federalism Doctrine. U. Miami Race & Soc. Just.
L. Rev., 4, 72.
De Almeida Cruz, M. (1989). Alternativas para combater o racismo. Recide, PE:
Nucleo Cultural Afro-Brasileiro.
De Azevedo, C. M. M. (1995). Abolitionism in the United States and Brazil. A com-
parative perspective. New York: Garland Pub.
De Carvalho, J. G. V. (1985). A Igreja e a escravidão. Uma análise documental. Rio
de Janeiro: Presença.
De Carvalho, J. V. (1985). Os conjurados de 1789 e a escravidão. Revista de história
(São Paulo), no. 119 (1985–88), pp. 91–99.
De França Neto, J. I., Fernandes de Souza, F. (2012). Afirmação Das Cotas Raciais
nas Universidades e o discurso naturalizado do preconceito. Uma Análise do
Gênero Discursivo Jurídico. In: Jornada Nacional do Grupo de estudos Linguísti-
cos do Nordeste. GEL.
De Jaccoud, L. B. (2009). A construção de uma política de promoção da igualdade
racial. Uma análise dos últimos 20 anos. Brasília: IPEA.
De Macedo Mendes, A. (2011). O discurso antiescravagista em Úrsula, de Maria
Firmina dos Reis. Revista Cerrados (Revista do Programa de Pós-Graduação em
Literatura Programa de Pós-Graduação em Literatura da Universidade de Brasília),
20(31).
De Mattos, W. R. (2008). Negros contra a ordem. Astúcias, resistências e liberdades
possíveis (Salvador, 1850–1888). Salvador, BA: EDUNEB EDUFBA.
De Matos Oliveira, I. (2008). O discurso judiciario sobre as ações afirmativas para a
população negra na Bahia. Dissertação de Mestrado, UFBA.
De Matos Oliveira, I. (2010). Discurso e Poder: Análise da Produção Acadêmica so-
bre as Ações Afirmativas para Afrodescendentes no Âmbito da Educação Superior
no Brasil. Plurais, Salvador, 1(1), 31–43.
De Oliveira, R. C. (2006). Caminhos da identidade. Ensaios sobre etnicidade e multi-
culturalismo. São Paulo Brasília, DF: Editora Unesp Paralelo 15.
De Souza, A. C. (2012). Terras e escravos. A desordem senhorial no Vale do Paraíba
/ Alan de Carvalho Souza. Jundiaí, SP: Paco Editorial.
De Souza, V. S. (2012). Retratos da nação: os ‘tipos antropologicos’ do Brasil nos es-
tudos de Edgard Roquette-Pinto, 1910–1920. Boltemim do Museu Paraense Emilio
Goeldi, Ciências Humanas, 7(3), 645–669.
De Souza, V. S. (2016). Science and miscegenation in the early twentieth century:
Edgard Roquette-Pinto’s debates and controversies with us physical anthropology.
Historia Ciencias Saude-Manguinhos, 23(3), 597–614.
De Souza, V. S. (2017). Em busca do Brasil: Edgard Roquette-Pintom e o retrato
antropológico brasileiro (1905–1935). Rio De Janeiro: FGV/Fiocruz.
Degler, C. N. (1971). Neither Black nor white. Slavery and race relations in Brazil
and the United States. New York: Macmillan.
Dei, G. J. S., & Calliste, A. M. (Eds.). (2000). Power, knowledge and anti-racism
education. A critical reader. Halifax, NS, Canada: Fernwood.
220 References
Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (Eds.). (2015). The Oxford handbook of social move-
ments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dennison, S. (2006). Joaquim Nabuco. Monarchism, Panamericanism and nation-
building in the Brazilian Belle Epoque. Oxford; New York: Peter Lang.
Do Couto Gontijo Muniz, D., & Macena, F. F. (2012). Mulheres e política: A par-
ticipação nos movimentos abolicionistas do século XIX. Revista Mosaico, 5(1),
45–54.
Do Nascimento, A. (1978). O genocídio do negro brasileiro. 1 ed. Rio de Janeiro:
Paz e Terra.
Do Nascimento, A. (1980). O quilombismo: documentos de uma militância. Petrópo-
lis: Vozes.
Do Nascimento, A. (1982). O negro revoltado. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira.
Do Nascimento, A. (1983). Combate ao racismo: discursos e projetos, 6v. Brasília:
Câmara dos deputados.
Do Nascimento, A. (1985). O quilombismo: uma alternativa política afro-brasileira.
In: Afrodiásporas. Revista de Estudos do Mundo Negro. ano 3, n. 6 e 7, abr./dez.
1985.
Do Valle Silva, N. (1978). Black-white income differentials: Brazil 1960. PhD Uni-
versity of Michigan.
Domingues, P. (2003). Uma história não contada. Negro, racismo e branqueamento
em São Paulo no pós-abolição. São Paulo: Senac.
Domingues, P. (2018). “Em Defesa da Humanidade”: A Associação Cultural do
Negro. Dados, 61(1), 171–211.
Dos Santos, S. A. (Ed.). (2007). Ações Afirmativas e Combate ao Racismo nas
Américas. Brasilia: MEC/UNESC.
Dos Santos Vieira, P. A. (2016). Para Além das Cotas. Contribuições sociológicas
para o estudo das ações afirmatiuvas nas universidades brasileiras. Jundiaí: Paco
Editiorial.
Eakin, M. C. (1985). Race and Identity: Sílvio Romero, Science, and Social Thought
in Late 19th Century Brazil. Luso-Brazilian Review, 22(2), 151–174.
Essed, P. (1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory. (Sage
series on race and ethnic relations, Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Every, D., & Augoustinos, M. (2007). Constructions of racism in the Australian
parliamentary debates on asylum seekers. Discourse & Society, 18(4), 411–436.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language.
London; New York: Longman.
Falcão, J., & Barbosa de Araújo, R. M. (2001). O imperador das ideias. Rio de Janeiro:
Topbooks.
Farkas, J., Schou, J., & Neumayer, C. (2018). Platformed antagonism: racist discourses
on fake Muslim Facebook pages. Critical Discourse Studies, 15(5), 463–480.
Feagin, J. R., Vera, H., & Batur, P. (2001). White racism. The basics. New York:
Routledge.
Félix, R. R., & Juall, S. D. (Eds.). (2016). Cultural Exchanges between Brazil and
France. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
References 221
Feres Júnior, J. (2004). Ação Afirmativa no Brasil: fundamentos e críticas.

Econômica, Rio de Janeiro, 6(2), 291–312.
Feres Júnior, J. (2010). Apresentação STF? ADPF 186 Audiência pública no
Supremo Tribunal Federal. Instituto Universitário de Pesquisas do Rio De Janeiro
—IUPERJ.
Feres Junior, J., & Toste Daflon, V. (2015). A nata e as cotas raciais: genealogia de
um argumento público. Opinião Pública, 21(2), 238–267.
Feres Júnior, J., Campos, L. A., & Toste Daflon, V. (2011). Fora de quadro: a ação
afirmativa nas páginas d’O Globo. Contemporânea, 2, 61–83.
Feres Júnior, J., Campos, L. A., & Toste Daflon, V, & Venturini, C. (2018). Ação
afirmativa: conceito, história e debates. Rio de Janeiro, EDUERJ.
Fernandes, F. (1969). The Negro in Brazilian society. New York: Columbia Univer-
sity Press.
Fernandes, F. (1972). O negro no mundo dos brancos. São Paulo: Difusão Européia
do Livro.
Fernandes do Nascimento, T. E. (2012). As Ações Afirmativas na Câmara Federal.
Uma análise da orientações políticas que as norteiam. Juiz de Fora. UFJF: Dis-
sertação de Mestrado.
Fernandes Ribeiro, M. A. (2011). As relações raciais na obra de Fernando Henrique
Cardoso e a dimensão moral do racismo. Anais do Seminário Nacional da Pós-
Graduação em Ciências Socias—UFES. 1(1).
Fernandes Rocha, K. (2015). Mensageiras da Libertade. Porta-Vozes da Fé; Mul-
heres capixabas no movimento abolicionista do Espirito Santo. Paper 7º Encontro
Escravidão e Libertade no Brasil Meridional, Curitiba (UFPR), 13–16 de maio.
Ferrara, M. N. (1986). A imprensa negra paulista, 1915–1963. São Paulo: FFLCH-
USP.
Ferreira, G. L. (2017). Lei de cotas no Serviço Público Federal. Sub-representação
legal nas ações afirmativas. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Lumen Juris.
Ferreira Abraão, J. L. (2010) Virgínia Bicudo: A trajetória de uma psicanalistas
brasileira. São Paulo: Arte&Ciência Editora/Fapesp.
Ferreira Barcellos, L. (2012). Interdiscursividade e Práticas Cotidianas: Modos
De Fazer/Operar a Politica De Reserva de Vagas na UERJ. Tese de Doutorado,
PUC Rio.
Ferreira Pinheiro, N. (2010). Cotas Na UFBA: Percepções sobre Racismo, Antir-
racismo, Identidades e Fronteiras. Dissertação apresentada ao Programa Multi-
disciplinar de Pós-Graduação em Estudos Étnicos e Africanos, Centro de Estudos
Afro-Orientais, Faculdad.
Ferro Otzuka, A. (2016). Antonio Bento: discurso e prática abolicionista na São Paulo
da década de 1880. USP: Tese doutorado.
Flowerdew, J., & Richardson, J. E. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge handbook of critical
discourse studies. London; New York: Routledge.
Fonseca Ferreira, L. (Ed.). (2011). Com a palavra Luiz Gama. Poemas, artigos, cartas,
máximas. São Paulo: Imprensa Oficial.
Fozdar, F. (2008). Duelling discourses, shared weapons: rhetorical techniques used to
challenge racist arguments. Discourse & Society, 19(4), 529–547.
222 References
Fragoso, H. (2012). Na Bahia Setecentista, um pioneiro do abolicionismo? História,

31(2), 68–105.
Freedman, E. B. (2002). No turning back. The history of feminism and the future of
women. New York: Ballantine Books.
Fry, P. (2007). Divisões perigosas. Políticas raciais no Brasil contemporâneo. Rio de
Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira.
Fry, P., & Maggie, Y. (2004). Cotas Raciais. Construindo um Pais Dividido.
Econômica, Rio de Janeiro, 6(1), 153–161.
Garcia, C. C. & Baldin Lippi Fernandes, D. (2014). 18 Mulheres Brasileiras que fiz-
eram a diferença. Forum. www.revistaforum.com.br.
García Agustín, Oscar. (2015). Sociology of discourse: From institutions to social
change. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Company.
Garcia Pallares-Burke, M. L. (2005). Gilberto Freyre. São Paulo: Unesp.
Gaspar, L., & Barbosa, V. (2013). Ações Afirmativas e Políticas de Cotas no Brasil:
Uma bibliografia 1999–2012. Recife: Ministério da Educação e Fundação Joaquim
Nabuco.
Gentili, P. (2018). Marielle Franco y el Futuro de Brasil. Esperanza O Barbarie.
In O. Campoalegre Septien (Ed.). Afrodescendencias. Voces en Resistencia (pp.
181–183). Buenos Aires: Clacso.
Geraldo, E. (2007). O “perigo alienígena”: política imigratória e pensamento racial no
governo Vargas (1930–1945). Campinas (SP): Universidade Estadual de Campi-
nas: Tese de doutorado.
Girão, R. (1956). A abolição no Ceará. Fortaleza: Editôra A. Batista Fentenele.
Goldman, A. I. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Gomes, N. L. (2007). Um olhar além das fronteiras. Educação e relações raciais. Belo
Horizonte Brazil: Autêntica.
Gonçalves, P. (2017). 17 mulheres negras brasileiras que lutaram contra escravidão.
Livre. catralivre.com.br.
Gonçalves Ferreira, L. et al. (Eds.). (1999). Suaves Amazonas: Mulheres e abolição
da escravatura no Nordeste. Recife: Ed. Universitária da UFPE.
Grant, R. G. (2000). Racism. Changing attitudes 1900–2000. Austin, TX: Raintree
Steck-Vaughn.
Guimarães, A. S. A. (1995). Racismo e Anti-Racismo no Brasil. Novos Estudos, 43,
26–44.
Guimarães, A. S. A. (1996). Políticas públicas para a ascensão dos Negros no Brasil.
Argumentando para a ação afirmativa. Afro-Asia, 18, 235–261.
Guimarães, A. S. A. (1998). Preconceito e discriminação. Queixas de ofensas e trata-
mento desigual dos negros no Brasil. Salvador, Bahia: Programa A Cor da Bahia,
Mestrado em Sociologia, FFCH-UFBA.
Guimarães, A. S. A. (1999a). Measures to combat discrimination and racial inequality
in Brazil. In Reichmann, R. L. (Ed.). (1999). Race in contemporary Brazil: From
indifference to inequality (pp. 139–153). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State
University.
References 223
Guimarães, A. S. A. (1999b). Racism and anti-racism in Brazil: A postmodern per-

spective. In: L. Harris (Ed.), Racism: Key concepts in critical theory (pp. 314–330).
Amherst, NY: Humanity Books
Guimarães, A. S. A. (1999c). Racismo e anti-racismo no Brasil. São Paulo, SP, Brasil:
Fundação de Apoio à Universidade de São Paulo Editora 34.
Guimarães, A. S. A. (2002). Classes, raças e democracia. São Paulo: UFSP, Fundação
de Apoio à Universidade de São Paulo Editora 34.
Guimarães, A. S. A. (2003). Acesso de Negros às Universidades Públicas. Cadernos
de Pesquisa, 118, 247–268.
Guimarães, A. S. A. (2004). Preconceito de cor e racismo no Brasil. Revista de Antro-
pologia, São Paulo, USP, 9–43.
Guimarães, E. S. (2006). Múltiplos viveres de afrodescendentes na escravidão e no
pós-emancipação. Família, trabalho, terra e conflito (Juiz de Fora-MG, 1828–
1928). Juiz de Fora, Brazil São Paulo, SP, Brasil: FUNALFA Edições Annablume.
Guimarães, A. S. A. (2016a). As cotas nas universidades públicas 20 anos depois.
Fundação Carlos Chagas.
Guimarães, A. S. A. (2016b). O Legado de Carlos Hasenbalg (1942–2014). Afro-
Ásia, 53, 277–290.
Guimarães, A. S. A., & Huntley, L. (Eds.). (2000). Tirando a máscara. Ensaios sobre
o racismo no Brasil. São Paulo, SP: Paz e Terra.
Haghighat, C. (1988). Racisme “scientifique.” Offensive contre l’égalité sociale.
(“Scientific” Racism. An attack against social equality). Paris: L’Harmattan.
Hamilton, C. V. et al., (Eds.). (2001). Beyond racism. Race and inequality in Bra-
zil, South Africa, and the United States. London; Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner
Publishers.
Hanchard, M. (1994). Orpheus and Power: The Movimento Negro of Rio de Janeiro
and São Paulo, Brazil, 1945–1988. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hanchard, M. G. (Ed.). (1999). Racial politics in contemporary Brazil. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Hart, C., & Cap, P. (Eds.) (2014). Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies. London:
Continuum.
Hasenbalg, C. A. (1978). Race Relations in Post-Abolition Brazil: The Smooth Pres-
ervation of Racial Inequalities. PhD UC Berkeley.
Hasenbalg, C. A. (1979). Discriminação e desigualdades raciais no Brasil. Rio de
Janeiro: Graal.
Hasenbalg, C. A., & Silva, N. V. (1988). Estrutura social, mobilidade e raça. Rio
de Janeiro São Paulo, SP, Brasil: Instituto Universitário de Pesquisas do Rio de
Janeiro Vértice.
Hasenbalg, C. A., Silva, N. V., & Lima, M. (1999). Cor e estratificação social. Rio de
Janeiro, RJ: Contra Capa Livraria.
Helbling, M. (Ed.). (2012). Islamophobia in the West. Measuring and explaining
individual attitudes. London; New York: Routledge.
Hochman, G., Trindade Lima, N., & Chor Maio, C. (2010). The Path of Eugenics
in Brazil: Dilemma’s of Miscegenation. In: Alison Bashford & Philippa Levine
224 References
(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenetics (pp. 493–510). Oxford
University Press.
Holmes, R. L., & Gan, B. L. (Eds.). (2012). Nonviolence in theory and practice. Long
Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
House, J. R. (1997). Antiracism and antiracist discourse in France from 1900 to the
present day. PhD thesis, University of Leeds.
Hoy, D. C. (2004). Critical resistance. From poststructuralism to post-critique. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Htun, M. (2004). From ‘Racial Democracy’ to Affirmative Action: Changing State
Policy on Race in Brazil. Latin American Research Review, 39(1): 60–89.
Hunter, W., & Power, T. J. (2019). Bolsonaro and Brazil’s Illiberal Backlash. Journal
of Democracy, 30(1), 68–82.
Hutchinson, J. F. (Ed.). (1997). Cultural portrayals of African Americans: Creating an
ethnic/racial identity. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Ilie, C. (Ed.). (2010). European parliaments under scrutiny. Discourse strategies
and interaction practices. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Pub.
Company.
Johnson, O. A. (2000). Representação racial e política no Brasil: parlamentares ne-
gros no Congresso Nacional (1983–99). Estudos Afro-Asiáticos, (38), 7–29
Johnson, O. A. (2015). Race, politics, and education in Brazil. Affirmative action in
higher education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Joyce, S. N. (2012). Brazilian telenovelas and the myth of racial democracy. Lanham,
MD: Lexington Books.
Kabengele Munanga. (1999). Rediscutindo a mestiçagem no Brasil identidade nacio-
nal versus identidade negra. Petrópolis: Editora Vozes.
Kailin, J. (2002). Antiracist education. From theory to practice. Lanham, MD: Row-
man & Littlefield Publishers.
Kelley, R. D. G. (1994). Race rebels. Culture, politics, and the Black working class.
New York; Toronto: Free Press Maxwell Macmillan Canada Maxwell Macmillan
International.
Kelly, P. (2002). Multiculturalism Reconsidered: Culture and Equality and Its Critics.
Oxford: Polity Press.
Kennedy, J. H. (1974). Luiz Gama: Pioneer of Abolition in Brazil. The Journal of
Negro History, 59(3), 255–267.
Kittleson, R. A. (2005). Women and Notions of Womanhood in Brazilian Abolition-
ism.” In: Pamela Scully & Diana Paton (Eds.), Gender and Slave Emancipation in
the Atlantic World (pp. 99–140). Durham: Duke University Press.
Klandermans, B., & Roggeband, C. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of social movements
across disciplines. New York: Springer.
Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority
Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Klein, A. (2018). O Serpentear dos Demônios: A demonização em imagens midiáticas
e seus substratos culturais. Trabalho apresentado ao Grupo de Trabalho Imagem e
References 225
Imaginários Midiáticos do XXVIII Encontro Anual da Compós, Pontifícia Univer-

sidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre -RS, 11 a 14de junho de 2018.
Klein, H. S., & Vidal Luna, F. (2010). Slavery in Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Klein, H. S., & Vinson, B. (2007). African slavery in Latin America and the Carib-
bean. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Lafer, C. (2005). A internacionalização dos direitos humanos. Constituição, racismo
e relações internacionais. Barueri, SP, Brasil: Manole.
Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don’t.
Chicago, IL: University Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lehmann, D. (2008). Gilberto Freyre: The Reassessment Continues. Latin American
Research Review, 43(1), 208–218.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Lima, M. (2014). A Obra de Carlos Hasenbalg e seu Legado à Agenda de Estudos
sobre Desigualdades Raciais no Brasil. Dados, 57(4), 919–933.
Lima Viana, V. J., & De Vasconcelos Bentes, H. (2011). Mídia Brasileira Como
Instrumento De Racismo E Interdição Do Negro No Contexto Das Ações Afirma-
tivas. Revista da ABPN, 2(4), 81–101.
Lindgren Alves, J. (2002). O contrário dos direitos humanos. Lua Nova, 55, 105–132.
Liu, J. H., & Mills, D. (2006). Modern racism and neo-liberal globalization: The dis-
courses of plausible deniability and their multiple functions. Journal of Community
& Applied Social Psychology, 16(2), 83–99.
Lloyd, C. (1998). Discourses of antiracism in France. Aldershot, Brookfield, U.S.:
Ashgate.
Lloyd, M. (2015). A Decade of Affirmative Action in Brazil. Lessons for the Global
Debate. Mitigating Inequality: Higher Education Research, Policy, and Practice in
an Era of Massification and Stratification. Advances in Education in Diverse Com-
munities: Research, Policy and Praxis, Volume 11, 169–189
Lobão, A. S. (2014). Quilombos e quilombolas. Passado e presente de lutas. Belo
Horizonte, MG: Mazza Edições.
Lopes Cardoso, M. M. (2001). António Vieira: Pioneiro e Paradigma de Intercultur-
alidade. Lisboa: Chaves Ferreira Publicações.
Lovell, P. A. (Ed.). (1991). Desigualdade racial no Brasil contemporâneo. Belo Hori-
zonte: CEDEPLAR, FACE, UFMG.
Lund, J., & McNee, M. (Eds.). (2006). Gilberto Freyre e os Estudos Latino-America-
nos. University of Pittsburgh: Instituto Internacional de Literatura Iberoamericana.
Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2007). Antiracism in the British government’s model re-
gional newspaper: the ‘talking cure.’ Discourse & Society, 18(4), 453–478.
Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis. A multimodal
introduction. Los Angeles; London: SAGE.
Magalhães Pinto, A. F. (2015). A Gazeta da Tarde e as peculiaridades do aboli-
cionismo de Ferreira de Menezes e José do Patrocínio. Paper XXVIII Simpósio
Nacional de História, 27–31 de Julho.
226 References
Maggie, Y., & Fry, P. (2002). A reserva de vagas para negros nas universidades.
Enfoques (Revista Eletrônica), Rio de Janeiro, 1(1), 93–117.
Marable, M. (1996). Speaking truth to power. Essays on race, resistance, and radical-
ism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Marín-Arrese, J. I., Lavid-López, J., Carretero, M., Romero, E. D., de la Rosa, M. V.
M., & Blanco, M. P. (2017). Evidentiality and Modality in European Languages.
Peter Lang AG.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation. Appraisal in
English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Martin, J. R., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2003). Re/reading the past. Critical and functional
perspectives on time and value. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub.
Martins, Z. (2018). Cotas raciais e o discurso da mídia. Um estudo sobre a construção
do dissenso. Curitiba, PR: Appris Editora.
Matamoros-Fernandez, A. (2017). Platformed racism: the mediation and circulation
of an Australian race-based controversy on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube. Infor-
mation Communication & Society, 20(6), 930–946.
McGinnes, A. B. (2014). Between Subjection and Accommodation. The Develop-
ment of José de Anchieta’s Missionary Project in in Colonial Brazil. Journal of
Jesuit Studies, 1, 227–224.
Medina Pereira, I. (2008). O discurso sobre a política de cotas no jornalismo online.
Revista Fronteiras—estudos midiáticos X(3): 173–182
Mislan, C., & Dache-Gerbino, A. (2018). Not a Twitter Revolution: Anti-neoliberal
and Antiracist Resistance in the Ferguson Movement. International Journal of
Communication, 12, 2622–2640.
Mitchell, M., Every, D., & Ranzijn, R. (2011). Everyday Antiracism in Interpersonal
Contexts: Constraining and Facilitating Factors for ‘Speaking Up’ Against Racism.
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 21(4), 329–341.
Modood, T. (2013). Multiculturalism: A Civic Idea. (2nd ed.), Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Monteiro de Brito Filho, J. C. (2013). Ações afirmativas. São Paulo, SP, Brasil: LTr.
Morais de Cuadros, D., & Da Silva Jovino, I. (2016). Discurso e Poder: Análise das
Disputas Acerca das Ações Afirmativas Na UEPG. 4 Encontro Rede Sul Letras.
UNISUL Palhoça.
Morais de Quadros, D. F. (2017) Discurso e poder—um olhar acerca das ações afir-
mativas na UEPG em 2013. Dissertação apresentada à Universidade Estadual de
Ponta Grossa.
Morgan, S. (2006). The feminist history reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Moritz Schwarcz, L. (1999). The spectacle of the races: Scientists, institutions, and
the race question in Brazil, 1870–1930. New York: Hill and Wang.
Moritz Schwarcz, L. (2019). Sobre Autoritarismo Brasileiro. São Paulo: Companhia
das Letras.
Moura, C. (1959). Rebeliões da senzala. Quilombos, insurreições, guerrilhas. São
Paulo: Edições Zumbí.
Müller, A. (2019). Política do ódio no Brasil. Maringá, PR: Viseu.
References 227
Nelson, J. (2015). ‘Speaking’ racism and anti-racism: perspectives of local anti-

racism actors. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(2), 342–358.
Nésio Suttana, R., & Pereira Lutz, C. (2017). Ações Afirmativas E Imprensa No
Brasil—Um Estudo A Partir Da Revista Veja. Linguagens, Educação e Sociedade,
Teresina, 22(36), 179–199
Nogueira, O. (1955). “Relações raciais no município de Itapetininga.” In R. Bastide
& F. Fernandes (Eds.). Relações raciais entre negros e brancos em São Paulo (pp.
362–554). São Paulo: UNESCO-ANHEMBI.
Nogueira, O. (1985 [1942]). Tanto preto quanto branco: Estudos de relações raciais.
São Paulo: T.A. Queiroz.
Nunes de Araújo Nascimento, M., & Leal Rodrigues, M. (2011) Processo De Refer-
enciação No Discurso Midiátio—Política De Ação. III SELL—Simpósio Interna-
cional de Estudos Linguísticos e Literários da UFTM.
Nunes Martins, A. R. (2012). Racismo discursivo o debate sobre a política de cotas
para negros na imprensa. Discurso & Sociedad, 6(2), 389–417.
O’Brien, E. (2001). Whites confront racism. Antiracists and their paths to action.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Okun, R. A. (Ed.). (2014). Voice male. The untold story of the profeminist men’s
movement. Northampton, MA: Interlink Books.
Omeno Tamano, L. T. (2013). O pensamento e atuação de Arthur Ramos frente ao
racismo nos decánios de 1930–1940. Crítica Histórica, 4(8), 81–96.
Pae Kim, R., & Carneiro Tommasiello, F. (2018). A Produção Acadêmica Jurídica
sobre as Ações Afirmativas no Brasil (2013 a 2016): Teses e Dissertações sob a
Ótica Dos Direitos Humanos e Fundamentais. Revista de Direito Brasileira | São
Paulo, SP, 19(8), 276–297.
Paixão, M. J. P. (2006). Manifesto anti-racista. Idéias em prol de uma utopia chamada
Brasil. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil: DP&A Editora LPP/UERJ.
Penalves Rocha, A. (2008). Abolicionistas brasileiros e ingleses. A coligação entre
Joaquim Nabuco e a British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society (1880–1902). São
Paulo: Editora da Unesp.
Pereira Gonçalves, L. (2018). Plínio Salgado: Um católico integralista entre Portugal
e Brasil 1895–1975. Rio de Janeiro: FGV Editora.
Pereira Toledo Machado, M. H. (2006). From Slave Rebels to Strikebreakers: The
Quilombo of Jabaquara and the Problem of Citizenship in Late-Nineteenth-Century
Brazil. Hispanic American Historical Review, 86(2), 247–274.
Petöfi, J. S., & Franck, D. M. L. (Eds.). (1973). Presuppositions in linguistics and
philosophy. Frankfurt: Athenaeum.
Petry Trapp, R. (2013). A Conferência de Durban e o Antirracismo no Brasil (1978–
2001). Porto Alegre, PUC: MA Thesis.
Petty, R. E., Fazio, R. H., & Brinol, P. (Eds.). (2008). Attitudes. Insights from the new
implicit measures. New York: Psychology Press.
Piketty, T. (2020). Capital and Ideology. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
Pinto, A. F. M. (2010). Imprensa negra no Brasil do século XIX. São Paulo: Selo
Negro.
228 References
Pires, M. J. (2006). Sobrados e barões da velha São Paulo. Barueri, SP, Brasil:
Manole.
Polletta, F. (2006). It was like a fever. Storytelling in protest and politics. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Prah, K. K. (Ed.). (2000). Knowledge in black and white. The impact of apartheid on
the production & reproduction of knowledge. Cape Town: Centre for Advanced
Studies of African Society.
Proner, C., Cittadino, G., Ricobom, G., & Dornelles, J. R. (2018). Comments on a
notorious verdict: the trial of Lula. Buenos Aires: CLACSO.
Queirós Mattoso, K. M. (1986). To be a slave in Brazil, 1550–1888. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Rauch, S. M., & Schanz, K. (2013). Advancing racism with Facebook: Frequency
and purpose of Facebook use and the acceptance of prejudiced and egalitarian mes-
sages. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 610–615.
Rebouças, A. (1988). A Agricultura Nacional. Estudos Econômicos. Propaganda
Abolicionista e Democrática. Recife: Fundação Joaquim Nabuco Editora Mas-
sangana.
Reichmann, R. L. (Ed.). (1999). Race in contemporary Brazil: From indifference to
inequality. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Reidinger, P. (1988). The Numbers Game—7Th-Circuit Limits use of Statistics in
Affirmative-Action. Aba Journal, 74, 115–115.
Reis, J. J., & Gomes, F. S. (1996). Liberdade por um fio. História dos quilombos no
Brasil. São Paulo, Brazil: Companhia das Letras.
Reiter, B., & Mitchell, G. L. (Eds.). (2010). Brazil’s new racial politics. Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Rezende de Carvalho, M. A. (1998). André Rebouças e a construção do Brasil. Rio
de Janeiro, Revan/Iuperj.
Reisigl, M. (2017). The Discourse-Historical Approach. In John Flowerdew & John
Richarson (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (pp.
44–59). London: Routledge.
Ribeiro Nunes, K. (2011). O Padre António Vieira e a devoção ao Rosário de Maria
na Baía colonial. Dissertação de Mestrado, Dept. de Linguas e Culturas. Aveiro
(Portugal): Universidade de Aveiro.
Riella Benites, M., & Arruda de Moura, S. (2012). Cotas Raciais Na Universidade—
O discurso dos ministros do STF Fragmentado Na Divulgação Midiática. Cadernos
do CNLF, Vol. XVI, Nº 04, t. 1, 414–425.
Rocha, S. (2014). Eugenia no Brasil. Análise do discurso “científico” no Boletim de
Eugenia, 1929–1933. Curitiba, Brazil: Editora CRV.
Rodriguez, J. P. (2007a). Encyclopedia of emancipation and abolition in the Transat-
lantic world. Armonk, NY: Sharpe Reference.
Rodriguez, J. P. (2007b). Encyclopedia of slave resistance and rebellion. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Rodriguez de Assis Machado, M., Lima, M., & da Silva Santos, N. (2019). Anti-
racism legislation in Brazil: the role of the Courts in the reproduction of the myth
References 229
of racial democracy. Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, Curitiba, 6(2),

267–296.
Salgueiro Marques, A. C. (2010). Ética do discurso e deliberação mediada sobre cotas
raciais. Líbero: São Paulo, 13(26), 75–90.
Salzberger, R. P., & Turck, M. (2004). Reparations for Slavery. A Reader. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Santana, C. (2015). Abdias Do Nascimento: Atuação De Um Negro No Parlamento
Brasileiro 1983–1986. Revista Digital Simonson, Rio de Janeiro, nr. 2., 101–108.
Santos, J. V. T., Barreira, C., & Baumgarten, M. (2003). Crise social & multicultur-
alismo. Estudos de sociologia para o século XXI. São Paulo: Sociedade Brasileira
de Sociologia Editora Hucitec.
Santos da Silva Pessanha, A. (2005). Da Abolição da Escravatura à Abolição da
Miséria: A Vida e as Idéias de André Rebouças. Rio de Janeiro: Quartet Editora.
Santos da Silva Pessanha, A. (2013). Pela palavra e pela imprensa. André Rebouças
e propostas sociais para o Brasil do final do XIX. XXVII Simpio Nacional de His-
toria, Natal 22–26 de junho.
Santos Moya, T., & Silvério, V. R. (2010). Ação afirmativa e raça no Brasil contem-
porâneo: um debate sobre a redefi nição simbólica da nação. Sociedade e Cultura,
12(2), 235–250.
Sant’Anna, T. F. (2008). Escravas em Ação: Resistências e Solidaridades Abolicio-
nostas na Provincioa de Goiás—Século XIX. Em Tempo de Histórias. Publicação
do Programa de Pós-Graduação em História PPG-HIS/UNB, nº 12, Brasilia, 53–67.
Scott, E. K. (2000). Everyone against racism: Agency and the production of mean-
ing in the anti-racism practices of two feminist organizations. Theory and Society,
29(6), 785–818.
Shapiro, S. (2008). Vagueness in context. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press Ox-
ford University Press.
Silva, M. A. (2017). Trajetória de mulheres negras ativistas. Curitiba, PR: Appris
Editora.
Silva Santos, J. (2016a). As Cotas Raciais em uma Publicação Jornalística Universi-
tária: imagens das relações raciais brasileiras. Belo Horizonte, UFMG: Dissertação
de Mestrado.
Silva Santos, J. (2016b). O discurso favorável sobre as cotas raciais em artigos de
opinião de circulação universitária. Palimpsesto, Rio de Janeiro, Nº 23, Ano 15,
pp. 592–609.
Silvério, V. R. (Ed.). (2012). As cotas para negros no tribunal. A audiência pública
do STF. São Carlos: EDUFSCar.
Sitrin, M. (2005). Horizontalidad. Voces de poder popular en Argentina. Buenos
Aires: Cooperativa Chilavert Artes Gráficas.
Sitrin, M., & Azzellini, D. (2014). They can’t represent us! Reinventing democracy
from Greece to Occupy. London; Brooklyn, NY: Verso.
Sivanandan, A. (1982). A different hunger: Writings on black resistance. London:
Pluto.
Sivanandan, A. (1990). Communities of resistance: Writings on Black struggles for
socialism. London; New York: Verso.
230 References
Skidmore, T. E. (1974). Black into White: Race and Nationality in Brazilian Thought.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skidmore, T. E. (2003). Racial mixture and affirmative action: the cases of Brazil and
them United States. American Historical Review, 108(5), 1391–1396.
Slocum, R. (2006). Anti-racist practice and the work of community food organiza-
tions. Antipode, 38(2), 327–349.
Souza, J. (2016). A radiografia do Golpe: Entenda como e por que você foi enganado.
Rio de Janeiro: Leya, 2016.
Souza, J. (2017). A elite do atraso—Da escravidão à Lava Jato. Rio de Janeiro: Leya
Editora.
Stepan, N. L. (1991). The Hour of Eugenics: Race, Class and Nation in Latin Amer-
ica. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Stutje, J. W. (Ed.). (2012). Charismatic leadership and social movements. The revolu-
tionary power of ordinary men and women. New York: Berghahn Books.
Stern, S. J. (1987). Resistance, rebellion, and consciousness in the Andean peasant
world, 18th to 20th centuries. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E., & Schiffrin, D. (Eds.). (2015). The Handbook of Dis-
course Analysis. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Tarrow, S. (2013). The Language of Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tavares do Amaral Martins Keuller, A. (2012). Entre antropologia e medicina: uma
análise dos estudos antropológicos de Álvaro Fróes da Fonseca nas décadas de
1920 e 1930. Bol. Mus. Para. Emílio Goeldi. Cienc. Hum., Belém, v. 7, n. 3, p.
687–704, set.-dez.
Teles dos Santos, J. (2012). Ações afirmativas e educação superior no Brasil: um
balanço crítico da produção. R. bras. Est. pedag., Brasília, 93(234), 401–422.
Teles Silveira, S. M. (2014). Multiples faces femininas da tessitura literaria de Ines
Sabino. Porto Alegre, RS: PUC: Tese doutorado Pós-graduação em Letras.
Telles, N. (1989). Rebeldes, Escritoras, Abolicionistas. R. História, São Paulo, 120,
jan/jul, 73–83.
Telles, E., & Paixão, M. (2013). Affirmative Action in Brazil. LASAForum.
XLIV(2), 10–11.
Tilly, C., Castañeda, E., & Wood, L. J. (2020). Social Movements, 1768–2018. New
York: Routledge.
Tochluk, S. (2008). Witnessing whiteness. First steps toward an antiracist practice
and culture. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Toledo Mendonça, C. (2003). Júlia Lopes de Almeida: A busca da liberaço feminina
pela palavra. Revista Letras, Curitiba, n. 60, p. 275–296, jul./dez. Editora UFPR.
Toplin, R. B. (1981). Freedom and prejudice. The legacy of slavery in the United
States and Brazil. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Torres Montenegro, A. (1989). Reinventando a Liberdade—A Aboliço da escravatura
no Brasil. São Paulo: Atual Editora
References 231
Toste Daflon, V., & Feres Júnior, J. (2012). Ação afirmativa na revista Veja—estra-
tégias editoriais e o enquadramento do debate público. Revista Compolítica, 2(2),
66–91.
Toste Daflon, V., Feres Júnior, J., & Campos, L. A. (2013). Ações Afirmativas raci-
ais no Ensino Superior Público Brasileiro: Um Panorama Analítico. Cadernos de
Pesquisa, 43(148), 302–327.
Turra, C., & Venturi, G. (1995). Racismo cordial: A mais completa análise sobre o
preconceito de cor no Brasil. São Paulo, SP: Editora Atica.
Twine, F. W. (1998). Racism in a racial democracy. The maintenance of white su-
premacy in Brazil. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Twine, F. W., & Blee, K. M. (Eds.). (2001). Feminism and antiracism. International
struggles for justice. New York: New York University Press.
Uitermark, J. (2017). Complex contention: analyzing power dynamics within Anony-
mous. Social Movement Studies, 16(4), 403–417.
Vainfas, R. (1986). Ideologia & escravidão. Os letrados e a sociedade escravista no
Brasil Colonial. Petrópolis: Vozes.
Vainfas, R. (2011). Antônio Vieira. Jesuita do Rei. Rio de Janeiro: Companhia das
Letras.
Van Deemter, K. (2010). Not exactly. In praise of vagueness. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Van den Besselaar, J. (1981). António Vieira: o homen, a obra, as ideias. Lisboa:
Instituto de Cultura e Lingua Portuguesa.
Van der Auwera, J. (1975). Semantic and pragmatic presupposition. Wilrijk: Univer-
siteit Antwerpen.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1982). Episodes as units of discourse analysis. In: D. Tannen, (Ed.)
Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk (pp. 177–195). Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1984). Prejudice in discourse. An analysis of ethnic prejudice in
cognition and conversation. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1987). Communicating racism. Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the Press. London: Routledge.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1992). Discourse and the Denial of Racism. Discourse & Society,
3(1), 87–118.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Elite discourse and racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2008a). Discourse and Context. A sociocognitive approach. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2008b). Discourse and Power. Houndsmills: Palgrave-MacMillan.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Society and discourse. How Social Contexts Influence Text
and Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2014). Discourse and knowledge. A sociocognitive approach. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2017). How Globo media manipulated the impeachment of Brazilian
President Dilma Rousseff. Discourse & Communication, 11(2), 199–229.
232 References
Van Dijk, T. A. (2021). Antiracist Discourse. Theory and History of a Macromove-

ment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (2011). Discourse Studies. A multidiscplinary introduction.
Second (one-volume) Edition. London: Sage.
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New
York: Academic Press.
Van Leeuwen, T. J. (1996). The Representation of Social Actors. In Caldas-
Coulthard, Carmen Rosa, & Coulthard, Malcolm (Eds.), Texts and Practices:
Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 32–70). London, England: Routledge.
Van Leeuwen, T. J. (2008). Discourse and practice. New tools for critical discourse
analysis. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Vidal Luna, F., & Klein, H. S. (2014). The Economic and Social History of Brazil
since 1889. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vieira Guarnieri, F., & Leal Melo-Silva, L. (2017). Cotas Universitárias no Brasil:
Análise de uma década de produção científica. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional,
SP. 21(2), 183–193
Warren, J. W. (2001). Racial Revolutions: Antiracism and Indian Resurgence in Bra-
zil. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Whitehead, K. (2015). Everyday Antiracism in Action: Preference Organization in
Responses to Racism. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34(4), 374–389.
Wodak, R. (Ed.). (2013). Critical discourse analysis. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Wodak, R., & Van Dijk, T. A. (Eds.). (2000). Racism at the Top. Parliamentary
Discourses on Ethnic Issues in Six European States. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava
Verlag.
Wood, M. (2019). The black butterfly. Brazilian slavery and the literary imagination.
Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press.
Woodly, D. R. (2015). The politics of common sense. How social movements use
public discourse to change politics and win acceptance. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Young, J. C. (2017). The age of charisma. Leaders, followers, and emotions in Ameri-
can society, 1870–1940. Cambridge, UK; New York, USA.: Cambridge University
Press.
Zhang, H., & Liu, H. (2016). Rhetorical relations revisited across distinct levels of
discourse unit granularity. Discourse Studies, 18(4), 454–472.
Index
Note: The names of the authors and speakers discussed in the text are mentioned
with their first name(s). Authors of cited references are only mentioned with their
initials, as they appear in the References. For the use of Brazilian last names, see the
note under References. Some well-known authors and politicians appear both with
their complete first and last names, as well as with a commonly used abbreviation.
A Cidade do Rio, 61 affirmative action, 1, 14, 15, 18–19,

A Redempção, 56 119–20, 123–201, 209–11
A Voz da Raça, 95 Afolabi, N., 87
Abdias. See Do Nascimento, Abdias Afonso Arinos Law, 95
abolition, 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 18, 21–22, 26, Africa, 1, 2, 8, 11, 38, 47–48, 54, 73,
29–74, 76, 87, 89, 91, 97–98, 100, 82, 88, 92–93, 96, 98–100, 105, 119,
102–3, 106, 109, 117, 128, 143, 145, 126, 128, 131, 140, 142–43, 146–47,
147–48, 150, 157, 159, 172, 181, 180, 187, 200, 208
183, 203–6 African-Brazilian authors, antiracist
abolitionist discourse, 29–74, 86, 203 discourse of, 87–93
abolitionists, 29–74, 78–79, 91, 97, 211 Afro-Brazilians, 3, 116–18, 169, 187
abolitionists, women, 65–69 Agualtune, 66
Abramovay, M., 119 Aikhenvald, A. I. U., 196
Ação Integralista Brasileira, 92 Alberto, Luiz (PT-BA), 133, 136, 158,
Acotirene, 66 164, 170, 172, 176, 181, 186, 189–90
action: Alberto, Paulina, vii, 87–99
antiracist, 21–23, 26, 187; as topic, Aldano Alves Rodrigues, M., 25
187; collective, 12, 17, 19, 21, 187 Aldo Arantes (Bloco PCdoBGO), 147,
actors: 151
antiracist, 21–22, 26; as topic, 180 Alexander, P., 11
Adesky, J. E., 13, 184 Allen, A., 187
233
234 Index
Allen, Charles H., 57 antislavery texts. See antislavery

Allington, D., 24 discourse
Almeida, Daniel (Bloc/PCdoB, BA), antislavery topos, 36
136, 147 Apartheid, 84, 93, 96, 99, 105, 171
Alonso, Angela, vii, 51–53, 56–57, Apdo Felipe, D., 133
66–67, 69, 74 appraisals, 197
Álvaro, J. L., 132 Aptheker, H., 10
Alves da Silva, E., 132 Aquino, K., 24
Alves dos Santos, C. V., 133 Aranha, Maria, 66
Alves, Castro, 52 Arantes, Aldo (Bloco/PCdoBGO), 154,
Alvorada. See O Clarim d’Alvorada 187
Amaro, S., 132 Araújo, J. Z., 119, 184
American Revolution, 44 Arcadismo, 44
Amerindians, 33–35, 76, 80, 156 arguments, for quotas, 159–77
Amparo Alves, J., 2 Arneil, B., 13
Anastácia, 66 Arrese, J. L., 196
Andrews, G. R., 87 Arruda de Moura, S., 133
Angyalossi Alfonso, D., 173 Arruda, João (PMDB-PR), 161
Anjos, R. S. A., 11–31 Artes, A., 132
Ansell, A., 172 Asia, 1, 11
antiracism, 1–7, 10–27, 38, 82, 90, Associação Brasileira da Imprensa, 89
95, 110, 117–22, 140, 153, 179, Associação Central Emancipadora, 61
187, 203; and feminism, 1, 3–5, 10, Associação Culural do Negro, 96
12–13, 19, 26–27; as resistance, Associação do Negro Brasileiro, 93
11–12; as social movement, 10–11; attitudes, antiracist, 17–18
as social transformation, 13–14; Augoustinos, M., 23
contemporary, 114–20, 208–10; Australia, 1, 166
history of, 5, 25–27; theory of, 3–4, Ave Libertas, 66–7, 69
10–27, 203 Azzellini, D., 27
antiracist:
action, 21–22; actors, 21–22; Bacelar da Silva, A. J., 173
attitudes, 17–18; cognition, 15–22; Bähre, E., 184
ideology, 18–19; knowledge, 16; Bailey, S. R. 18, 132
science, 80 Bairros, Luiza, 99, 116, 208
antiracist discourse, 5, 22–25, 75–93, Baldin Lippi Fernandes, D., 65
105–122, 203; after abolition, 206–7; Banks, A. J., 18
elite vs. popular, 23–24; history of, Baptista de Souza, Federico, 88
5–6, 204; in 16th 17th centuries, Barata, C., 45
32–41; in 18th century, 41–45; of Barbosa de Araújo, R. M., 87
African-Brazilian authors, 87–93; Barbosa Gomes, Joaquim Benedito,
postwar, 207–10; summary of, 186, 198
199–201 Barbosa Silva, W., 65–66
antislavery discourse, 7, 19, 26, 31, Barbosa, Ruy, 52, 91
32–45 Barbosa, V., 133
Anti-Slavery Reporter, 57 Barker, C., 21
Index 235
Baronov, D., 32 Bonifacio de Andrade, José, 72, 205

Barreira, C., 14 Bonifácio. See De Andrada e Silva, José
Barreto, Jackson (PTB-SE) 152 Bonifácio, O Moço
Barreto, M. R. N., 65–66 Bonnett, A., 10
Barros, J. M., 14 Bowser, B. P., 10
Bastide, Roger, 87, 90, 108, 110 branqueamento, 97.
Batista de Lemos, I., 132–33 See also whitening
Batur, P., 10 Brazil, 1–15, 21–22, 25–26, 29–32,
Baumgarten, M., 14 42–49, 51–46, 60, 66, 68–72, 74, 81,
Bechelli, R. S., 75 84, 86–103, 105, 108, 111–22, 124–
Benci, Jorge, 37–40, 44, 70, 205 34, 137, 142–50, 153, 156, 161–64,
Bengtson, Paulo (PTB-PA), 196 166, 169, 172–76, 179, 204–10
Benhabib, S., 13 Brinol, P., 18
Bennett, J. M., 26 British & Foreign Anti-Slavery Society
Bento de Souza e Castro, Antônio, 56 (BFASS), 57
Bento, M. A. S., 119 Browne, V., 26
Benwell, B., 23 Buarque de Holanda, Sérgio, 29
Berry, M. F., 11 Butler, J., 87, 92, 187
BFASS. See British & Foreign Anti- Butler, K. D., 92
Slavery Society
Bhatia, V. K., 193 Caldas-Coulthard, C. R., 23
Bicudo, Virginia Leone, 110–11, 208 Caldeira Brant Pontes, F., 64
Biffi, Anônio Carlos (PT-MS), 185 Calliste, A. M., 17
Bittencourt, Luiz (PMDB-GO), 185, Calvalho França, J. M., 43
187, 190 Câmara dos Deputados, 123–201
Black agency, as topic, 189 Camino, L., 132–33
Black Brotherhoods, 36 Campos, L. A., 94, 132, 134, 160, 172,
Black Consciousness Day, 15, 134,136– 184
37, 146–47, 152, 154, 159, 161, 187, Caneiro, Sueli, 120
210 Cap, P., 23
black history, 7, 15, 114, 148 Cardoso, Fernando Henrique (FHC),
Black Lives Matter, 22, 204 118, 120, 122,
black movement, as topic, 181 Carey, B., 47
black parliamentarians, as topic, 191 Carneiro da Silva, M. H., 65
black press, 88–89 Carneiro Tommasiello, F., 132
blacks, as topic, 180–81 Carone, I., 119
Blake, F., 13 Carretero, M., 196
Blee, K. M., 116 Carvalho de Melo, Sebastião José,
Blommaert, J., 23 Marqués de Pombal, 42
Blumer, Herbert, 106 Carvalho, J., 122
Boas, Franz., 86 Castle, J., 21
Boletim de Eugenia, 81 Castro, M. G., 119
Bolsonaro, J., 113, 122, 127 Catholic church, 31, 35–36, 59–60, 74,
Bomfim, Manoel, 55, 75–80, 101, 103, 78–79
206 Catholic priests, 33–40.
236 Index
See also Jesuits Costa Pinto. See De Aguiar Costa

Cavalleiro, E. S., 119 Pinto, L.
CDS. See Critical Discourse Studies Coulthard, M., 23
Centre for the Evaluation of Complexity Covin, D., 100
Across the Nexus (CECAN), 100 Crass, C., 12
Centro de Estudos Afro-Asiáticos, 100, Crestani, L. M., 119
112 Crioula, Mariana, 66
Chacon, V., 87 Critical Discourse Studies, 1, 8–9, 23,
Charteris-Black, J., 173 203
Charuteira, Adelina, 66 Crook, L., 185
Chaves Batista, N., 132–34 Cruz de Anhaia, Bruna, vii, 132, 135.
Cheng, J. E., 13–23 Cutrim Nunes, E., 35
Chicago School, 106, 111, 114, 121 Cypriano, A., 11, 31
Childs, P., 132
Chilton, P. A., 177 D’Avila, Manuela (Bloco/PCdoB), 137,
Chinaglia, Arlindo, 126 163, 173
Chiquinha. See Neves Gonzaga, Da Costa, C. M., 44
Francisca Edwiges Da Cunha, E., 75
Chor Maio, M., 85, 94, 111 Da Silva Jovino, I., 133
Cicalo, A., 132 Da Silva Lima, F., 120
Cittadino, G., 184 Da Silva Muniz, K., 132
Civil Rights Movement (U.S.), 3, 11, Da Silva Xavier, José, 44
22, 29, 204 Da Silva, Antônio Leandro, 127
Clapp, José, 56 Da Silva, Benedita (PT-RJ), 117, 137
Clement X, Pope, 34 Da Silva, Martiniano José. J., 115
Club dos Libertos de Nictherói, 56 Dache-Gerbino, A., 24
Clube Abolicionista do Recife, 68 Dall’Igna Ecker, D., 133
cognition, antiracist, 15–21 Danin, R., 122
Collares, Alceu (PDT-RS), 136, 149, Darwinism, 75, 80
190, 193 Dascal, R., 26
colonization, 2, 96, 99, 157 Dashtipour, P., 22
comrades, as topic, 181 Datafolha, 116
Comte, Auguste, 75 Davenport, Charles, 82
Conceição, F., 119 Dávila, J., 75
Confederação Abolicionista, 55–56, 61 Davis, J. E., 22
Congresso do Negro Brasileiro, 98 Davis, T. W., 132, 186
Conjuração Baiana, 45 De Aguiar Costa Pinto, Luiz, 105–10,
Conrad, R. E., 30–32, 36 121, 208
Constituinte, 46 De Almeida Cruz, Manuel, 115
context models, 20 De Andrada e Silva, José Bonifácio, O
context, theory of, 6, 20 Moço, 46–48, 52–53, 72, 206
contexts of arguments, 159 De Anquieta, José, 33
Contins, M., 131 De Assis Barbosa, José, 93
corpus, parliamentary debate, 135 De Azevedo Amaral, Antônio José, 85
Correia Leite, José, 90–92, 93, 96, 207 De Azevedo, C. M. M., 29, 32
Index 237
De Azevedo, Thales, 94, 105 Dias, Wellington (PT-PI), 195, 197

De Benguela, Tereza, 66 discourse:
De Bonsucesso, Eva Maria, 66 abolitionist, 52–71; and quotas, 123–
De Campos, Narcisa Amália, 68 201; antiracist, 22, 203; antislavery,
De Carvalho, J. V., 44 31–45; parliamentary, 123–201
De Dirceu, M., 44 discrimination, 1–3, 6, 7, 11, 12–14,
De França Neto, J. I., 132–33 21, 29, 30, 33, 38, 42, 87, 88–95,
De Gobineau, Arthur, 78 98–103, 106, 109–20, 125–27, 130,
De Jaccoud, L. B., 120 131, 138, 140, 142, 147–55
De Lapouge, Georges Vacher, 89 discrimination, topic, 149–55
De las Casas, Bartolomé, 26, 33 Do Amaral, R. J., 95
De Macedo Mendes, A., 67 Do Couto Gontijo Muniz, D., 65
De Matos Oliveira, I., 132 Do Nascimento, Abdias, 14, 94, 102,
De Mattos, W. R., 11 119, 130–35, 208–9
De Mello Freyre, Gilberto, 29, 84, Do Patrocínio, José Carlos, 55–56,
86–87, 92, 95, 96, 98–99, 101, 103, 61–64, 74, 91
108, 111, 207 Do Quariterê, Rainha Tereza, 66
De Morães, Antônio Evaristo, 89–90, Do Valle Silva, Nelson, 100, 112–13,
207 116, 121, 208
De Morães, Gervásio, 89 Dom Pedro, Infante, 32
De Nóbrega, Manuel, 33 Domingues, P., 93
De Oliveira Vianna, José, 81 Dornelles, J. R., 184
De Oliveira, R. C., 14 Dos Palmares, D, 66
De Queiroz, Maria Amélia, 67 Dos Reis, Maria Firmina F., 66
De Queiroz, Rachel, 68 Dos Santos Vieira, P. A., 132
De Roure, Wasny (PT-DF), 168, 185 Dos Santos, Ivanir, 117
De Seixas Martins Torres, Alberto, Dos Santos, S. A., 198
83–84, 101 doxastic analysis, 197
De Silveira Lopes de Almeida, Júlia Durkheim, Émile., 86
Velantina, 68
De Souza, V. S., 81, 82 Eakin, M. C., 75
De Vasconcelos Bentes, H., 133, 184 elite vs. popular antiracist discourse,
Degler, C. N., 29 23–24
Dei & Calliste, 17 Emperor. See Pedro II
Dei, G. J. S., 17 England, 31, 53, 70.
Della Porta, D., 10 See also United Kingdom
democracia racial, 29–30, 61, 86, 94, English/British Navy, 32, 51, 72, 205
96, 97, 98, 103, 121, 153, 158. Enlightenment, 32, 44–45, 211
See also racial democracy epistemic analysis, 194–96
denial of racism, 153 Época, 133
Dennison, S., 57 Essed, P., 116, 149
Dia da Consciencia Negra, 146, 150–53. Estado de São Paulo, 133
See also Black Consciousness Day Estado Novo, 85, 92–93,102
Diani, M., 10 ethnicism, 11
Diario Trabalhista, 94 Eugenics, 75, 81, 84, 103, 206
238 Index
Every, D., 22–23 France, 31, 33, 42, 51–52, 71–72, 116,
evidentials, 196 118, 133, 166
experiences of racism, topic, 148–49 Franck, D. M. L., 193
Franco, Marielle, 122
Facebook, 24–25 Free Womb Law, 51, 53, 55, 58, 62, 64
Fairclough, N., 23 Freedman, E. B., 26
Falcão, J., 87 French philosophers, 44, 55
Faria de Sá, Arnaldo (PTB-SP), 179 French Revolution, 32, 72, 211
Farkas, J., 24 Frente Negra Brasileira (FNB), 89–90,
Fascism, 102 92, 95, 102, 207
Fazio, R. H., 18 Freyre. See De Mello Freyre, Gilberto
Feagin, J. R., 10 Fróes de Fonseca, Álvaro, 83, 101
Federal Supreme Court (STF), 122, 128, Fry, P., 129, 134
132, 135, 144, 152, 163, 176, 186,
200, 210 Gaba, Zacimba, 66
Feldman, Walter (PSDB-SP), 180, 195, Gama. See Gonzaga Pinto da Gama,
Feliciano, Damião (PMDB-PR), 149, Luís
196 Gambetti, Z., 187
Félix, R. R., 44 Gan, B. L., 187
feminism, 1, 3–5, 10, 12–13, 19, 26–27 García Agustín, O., 22
Feres Júnior, João., vii, 132–34, 160, Garcia Pallares-Burke, M. L., 87
170, 172, 184, 186 Garcia, C. C., 65
Fernandes de Souza, F., 132–33 Garcia, Esperança, 66
Fernandes do Nascimento, T. E., 134 Garrido, A., 132
Fernandes Ribeiro, M. A., 119 Garvey, Marcus, 92
Fernandes Rocha, K., 65–66 Gaspar & Barbosa, 131
Fernandes, Florestan, 90, 92, 95, 99, Gaspar, L., 131
107, 108–12, 118, 121, 208 Gazeta da Tarde, 54, 58, 61
Ferrara, M. N., 87, 91 Gazeta de Notícias, 61–62, 83
Ferreira Abraão, J. L., 111 Generoso Estrela, Maria Augusta, 68–69
Ferreira Barcellos, L., 172 Genro, Luciano (PSOL-RS), 173
Ferreira de Menezes, José, 54, 61 Gentili, P., 122
Ferreira Pinheiro, N., 133 Geraldo, E., 130
Ferreira, G. L., 68 Germano, Reginaldo (PFL/PP-BA), 136,
Ferreira, R. A., 43 149, 156–57, 178, 183, 188, 189
Ferro Otzuka, A., 56 Ginsberg, Aniela, 110–11
Fialho, F., 132 Girão, R., 67
Figueira Lima, Maria Tomásia, 67 Globo Media, 129
Fischer, Eugen, 82 Gobineau, 89–90
Flowerdew, J., 23 Golden Law. See Lei Aurea
Folha de São Paulo, 116, 133, 184, 209 Golden Rule, 36, 47, 205
Fonseca Ferreira, L., 53 Goldman, A. I., 16
Fozdar, F., 23 Gomes, F. S., 31
Fragoso, H., 42, 44 Gomes, F., 184
Index 239
Gomes, N. L., 119 119, 140, 153, 208; antiracist, 18–19,

Gonçalves Ferreira, L., 66, 68 86, 102, 140
Gonçalves, P., 65–66 Ilie, C., 140
Gonzaga Pinto da Gama, Luís, 52–56, impeachment, 184
58, 91, 206 implications, 192
Gonzaga, T. A., 44 implicatures, 192
González, Lélia, 99, 209 Inconfidência Mineira, 44
Grandão, João (PT-MS), 136, 161, 168, India, 140, 165–66, 188
196 Indians. See Amerindians
Grant, R. G., 18 Inquisition, 42, 70
granularity, 194 Instagram, 24
Guarda Negra, 62 Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e
Guedes, Lino, 89 Estatistica (IBGE), 134
Guerreiro Ramos, Alberto, 94–95, 102 Instituto Nacional Negro (INN), 94, 207
Guimarães, Antônio Sérgio Alfredo, vii, Intercept, 129
98, 112–13, 115, 117, 118, 120, 123, International Programme Content
172 Network (IPCN), 100
Guimarães, E. S., 98 Ioanide, P., 13
Istoé, 133
Haghighat, C., 81
Hamilton, C. V., 130 Jesuits, 4, 6, 18, 26, 31–34, 41–42, 50,
Hamilton, H. E., 23, 141 70, 74, 205
Hanchard, Michael., 92, 117 Jim Crow, 99, 101, 103, 121, 207
Hart, C., 23 João IV, 33
Hasenbalg, Carlos, 100, 112–13, 116– Johnson, A., 21
17, 121, 208 Johnson, M., 177
Helbling, M., 18 Johnson, O. A., 131–32
history, of antiracism, 25–27 Johnson, R., 185
history, of racism, topic, 145–48 Johnson-Laird, P. N., 20
Hitler, Adolf., 81–82, 93 Jornal do Comércio, 84
Hochman, G., 85 Jornal Nacional, 113
Holmes, R. L., 187 Joyce, S. N., 184
Holocaust, 93, 102, 105, 121, 207 Juall, S. D., 44
House, J. R., 23
Hoy, D. C., 187 Kailin, J., 12
Htun, M., 87 Kehl, Renato, 81–82, 84
Hunter, W., 173 Kelley, R. D. G., 24
Huntley, Lynn Walker, 120 Kelly, P., 13
Hutchinson, J. F., 185 Kennedy, J. H., 53
Kintsch, W., 20
Ianni, Octávio., 116 Kittleson, R. A., 66
ideology, 1, 18–19, 44, 54, 60, 80, 86, Klandermans, B., 10
92–93, 96–99, 102, 106, 108–10, Klein, A, 173
240 Index
Klein, H. S., 30, 76 Machado, Gilmar (PT-MG), 136, 153,

knowledge, 5–9, 16–17, 18–20, 32, 161, 169, 178, 182, 185, 188, 196
60–61, 64, 71–72, 76, 107, 127, 140, Machin, D., 23
149, 157–58, 194–96 macrostructures, semantic, 141–44
Kymlicka, W., 13 Magalhães Pinto, A. F., 61
Maggie, Y., 129, 134
Lafer, C., 14 Maia, Marco (PT-RS), 186
Lakoff, G., 177 Manifesto em favor da Lei de Cotas e
Lara, Maria do Carmo (PT-MG), 147 do Estatuto da Igualdade Racial, 131
Larkins, E. R., 193 Marable, M., 11
Lavalette, M., 21 Marín Arrese, J. I., 196
Lavid, J., 196 Marinho, Márcio (PRB-BA), 136, 163
Leal Melo-Silva, L., 132 Martin, J. R., 26, 197
Leal Rodrigues, M., 133 Martins, Z., 132
Lehmann, D., 87 Marxism, 99
Lei Aurea, 32, 61, 89, 91, 157 Matamoros-Fernandez, A., 24
Lei de Cotas, 123, 131, 170 Mayr, A., 23
Lei Dois Terços, 130 McGinnes, A. B., 33
Leite Tavares, T., 132 McNee, M., 87
Leite. See Correia Leite, José Medeiros, Carlos Alberto (PT-MG),
Leo X, Pope, 45 175–76
Lévi Strauss, Claude, 86 media, 7, 14, 21–27, 97, 99, 105, 110,
Lévy Bruhl, Lucien, 86 113–14, 119, 122; as topic, 184–85;
Libão, Nice, 134, 209 on quotas, 14, 22, 123–24, 129, 132–
Lima Viana, V. J., 133, 184 33, 140–41, 144, 152–54, 158–59,
Lima, M., 112, 186 160, 167, 170–76, 179, 182, 184–86
Lindgren Alves, J., 119 Medina Pereira, I., 133
Liu, H., 194 Mendes De Jesus, João (PSB-RJ), 136,
Liu, J. H., 192 155, 164–65, 179, 185
Lloyd, C., 23 Mendes, Luiz Oscar, 127
Lloyd, M., 132 Menezes. See Ferreira de Menezes, José
Lobão, A. S., 31, 135 mental models, 19–20
Long Term Memory, 16 mestiçagem, 87
Lopes Cardoso, M. M., 36 metaphors, 177–80
Lovell, Peggy, 115, 117 Métraux, Alfred, 105
Lula da Silva, Luis Ignácio, 125, 113, Middle Passage, 30
118–19, 120, 122, 125–27, 129, 135, Milhomem, Evandro, 127
144, 159, 172–73, 176, 180, 184, Mills, D., 182
186, 196–97, 200, 209 Mislan, C., 24
Lula. See Lula da Silva, Luis Ignácio missionaries, 33
Lund, J., 87 Mitchell, G. L., 120
Mitchell, M., 22
Macena, F. F., 65 Mitchell, Michael, 117
Machado de Assis, Joaquim Maria, 68 modality, 196
Index 241
models, context, 20 New Zealand, 1

models, mental, 19–20 Nina Rodrigues, Raymundo., 81, 85–86,
Modood, T.. 13 97–98, 106
Monteiro de Brito Filho, J. C., 132 Nogueira, Antônio (PT-AP), 190
Montesquieu, 43 Nogueira, Hamilton, 95
Morais de Cuadros, D. F., 133 Nogueira, Oracy, 110–11, 113
Morgan, S., 26 Nonô. José Thomaz (PFL-AL), 181
Moritz Schwarcz, Lilia, 5 norms, 198
Moscovici, Serge, 86 Nossa Senhora do Rosario, 36
Moura, C., 31 Novães, Zelinda (PFL-BA), 137, 151
Mourão, Paulo (PSDB-TO), 152, 193, numbers game, 152, 166
194 Nunes de Araújo Nascimento, M., 133
Movimento Eugenico Brasileiro, 81 Nunes Martins, A. R., 133
Movimento Negro Unificado (MNU), Nuremberg Laws, 82
3–4, 11, 29, 87, 99–100, 103, 115–
17, 119, 121, 204, 208 O Baluarte, 88
Mulholland, Timothy, 128 O Clarim d’Alvorada, 90–92, 95, 102,
Müller, A., 25, 173 207
multiculturalism, 13–14 O Cupim, 67
multidisciplinary framework, 7 O Elite, 88, 90, 102
Munanga, Kabengele, 14, 116 O Getulino, 89–90, 102, 207
O Globo, 113, 132–33, 194
Nabuco de Araújo Filho, José Tomás, O Povo, 83
57 O’Brien, E., 12, 21
Nabuco, Joaquim, 52–53, 56–59, 70, Okun, R. A., 12
74, 206 Oliveira Viana, Francisco José, 97
Nascimento. See Do Nascimento, Omeno Tamano, L. T., 85
Abdias opinions, 197
National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People Pae Kim, R., 132
(NAACP), 93 Paim, Paulo (PT-RS), 123, 135–36, 146,
National System for the Advancement 150, 154–55, 157, 161, 162, 166,
of Racial Equality (SINAPIR), 126 177, 178, 184, 187, 192–93, 195, 210
Nazis, 82, 101 Paixão, M. J. P., 120
Nazism, 93. 102, 207 Pan-Africanism, 95–96, 103
negro vs. preto, 207 Paraguay, 54
negro, preto, pardo, 91, 125 parliament, 123–201;
Nelson, J., 21, 23 sessions, 136
Neris da Silva Santos, N., 186 parliamentary debates, 1–2, 4, 6–7, 8,
Nésio Suttana, R., 133 14, 21, 27, 45, 123–201; theory of,
Neumayer, C., 24 140
Neves Gonzaga, Francisca Edwiges, 67 Partido Democrático Trabalhista
New Christians, 33–34, 42 (PTD), 130
242 Index
Partido do Frente Liberal (PFL), 134 142–43, 148, 152–55, 157–59,

Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT), 12, 161–63, 168, 170, 174–78, 188–89,
113, 122, 125, 129, 136–37, 140, 191–92, 195, 197, 199, 201, 205,
153, 158–59, 172–74, 181, 191, 196, 206, 208, 210
200, 210 presuppositions, 193
Partido Operário, 89 preto/negro, 89
Partido do Movimento Democrático pretos vs. pardos, 3
Brasileiro (PMDB), 135 Princess Isabel, 32, 61
Partido Social Democrático (PSD), 134 Programa Nacional de Direitos
Partido Socialista, 89 Humanos, 118
parties in parliament, 136 Proner, C., 184
Patrocínio. See Do Patrocinio, José pseudo-science, 100, 206, 207
Carlos PT. See Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT)
Pedro II, Emperor, 32, 52, 55, 62–65,
74 Quakers, 26, 31, 36, 44–47, 57, 60,
Penalves Rocha, A., 57 70–71, 204
Pereira de Oliveira, Paulo César, 129 qualitative analysis, 139–41
Pereira Gonçalves, L., 92 Queirós Mattoso, K. M., 30
Pereira Lutz, C., 133 quilombos, 31, 69, 98, 204
Pereira Toledo Machado, M. H., 56 Quota Law. See Lei de Cotas
Peria, M., 132 quotas, arguments, 159–77
Petöfi, J. S., 193
Petry Trapp, R., 119 race, 2, 4, 7, 10, 18, 26, 48–49, 59, 92;
Petty, R. E., 18 as topic, 175; concept of, 4
philosophers, 77 vs. class, 109, 112–13
philosophers, French, 35, 42 racial democracy (democracia racial),
Piaget, Jean, 85 74, 87–88, 93, 95–100, 103, 105–10,
Pierson, Donald, 99, 108, 111, 113 113, 116–21, 131, 143, 150, 207,
Piketty, T., 19 208, 211
Pinto Rebouças, André, 52, 55–56, 59, racism, 1–27, 29, 75, 86–100, 103, 105–
61, 73, 75, 206 8, 124–28, 135–40, 143–49, 155–58,
Pinto, A. F. M., 87 172, 187, 199, 203–10; as topic, 155;
Pires, M. J., 85 denial of, 153; theory of, 2–3
Piza, E. P., 119 racismo cordial, 116, 209
Polletta, F., 20–22 racist:
Portela, Leo (Bloco/PSL-MG), 162, 197 discourse, 3, 18; science, 80–81
Porto, Leonor, 66 racists, as topic, 183
Positivism, 75 Radcliffe Brown, Alfred, 111
Power, T. J., 173 Ramos de Araújo Pereira, Arthur,
Prah, 17 84–86, 86, 99, 101, 106–7
Prah, K. K., 17 Ramos, Alberto. See Guerreiro Ramos,
precision, 193–94 Alberto
prejudice, 1–3, 11, 13–14, 26, 29, Ramos, Arthur. See Ramos de Araújo
37–38, 71, 81, 84–86, 92, 94–95, Pereira, Arthur
98–99, 101–2, 106–19, 121, 131, Ranzijn, R., 22
Index 243
Rauch, S. M., 24 Rumens, N., 22

Rebello, F., 43 Russell, Bertrand., 85
Rebouças. See Pinto Rebouças, André
Reed, A., 13 Sabino Pinho Maia, Maria Inés, 69
Reichmann, Rachel, 118 Sabsay, L., 187
Reid Andrews, George, 116 Salgado, Plínio, 92, 102
Reidinger, P., 194 Salgueiro Marques, A.C., 198
Reis, J. J., 31 Salzberger, R. P., 129
Reis, T., 122 Samoa, Tia, 66
Reis, Vieira (PMDB-RJ), 167, 185, 192 Sant’Ana, L. C., 131
Reisigl, M., 26 Sant’Anna, T. F., 65
Reiter, B., 120 Santana, C., 130
resistance, as topic, 187 Santana, Carlos (PT-RJ), 136, 165–67,
Revolta das Alafaietes, 45 171, 174, 180, 193
Rezende de Carvalho, M. A., 56 Santo Oficio, 42, 43
rhetoric, 6, 23, 26, 35–37, 42–46, Santos da Silva Pessanha, A., 51
52–56, 62–64, 66, 69, 70, 73–74, 76, Santos Moya, T., 133, 184
80, 118, 147, 149, 151–52, 162, 177, Santos Roland, Edna Maria, 127
182, 200, 205, 210–11 Santos, J. V. T., 14
Ribeira, Matilde, 120, 126 Santos, Theresa, 117
Ribeiro Nunes, K., 36 São Paulo School of sociology, 108–12,
Ribeiro Rocha, Manuel, 42–43, 70, 205 208
Richardson, J. E., 23 Sarney, José, 135
Ricobom, G., 184 Schanz, K., 24
Riella Benites, M., 133 Schiffrin, D., 23, 141
Rocha Pietá, Janete (PT-SP), 136, 137, Schou, J., 24
198 Scott, E. K., 21
Rocha, S., 81 Secretaria de Politicas de Promoção
Rocha, Sebastião, 135 da Igualdade Racial (SEPPIR), 100,
Rocha. See Ribeiro Rocha, Manuel 118, 122, 127, 209
Rodrigues, Narcio, (PSDB-MG), 155, segregation, 84
177 semantic macrostructures, 141–44
Rodriguez de Assis Machado, M., 186 Seminário Internacional sobre
Rodriguez, J. P., 11, 34 Desigualdade Racial no Brasil
Roggeband, C., 10 Contemporâneo, 115
Romero, Sílvio, 75 Senate, Quota Law in, 135
Roque, José Ferreira, 127 Shapiro, S., 193
Roquette-Pinto, Edgard, 81–84, 101, Silva Santos, J., 133, 160
206 Silva, M. A., 134
Rosas Torres, A. R., 132 Silvério, V. R., 132–33, 184, 186
Rosinha, Dr (PT-PR), 136, 145, 179 SINAPIR. See National System for the
Rousseau, Jean Jaques, 77 Advancement of Racial Equality
Rousseff, Dilma, 100, 113, 120, 123, (SINAPIR)
128–29, 135, 159, 172–73 184, 186, Sinba, 100
209 Sitrin, M., 27
244 Index
Sivanandan, A., 11 Supreme Court (U.S.), 165

Skidmore, Thomas E., 75, 86, 97, 116 symbolic elites, 12, 23–24, 51–52, 98
slave revolt, 4, 70, 190
slave trade, 30–33, 43–48, 51–53, 55, Tajfel, H., 11
58–59 Tannen, D., 23, 141
slavery, 1–7, 26, 29–74, 76–8, 80, 82, Tavares do Amaral Martins Keuller, A.,
87, 88, 97, 101, 103, 106, 107, 109, 83
114, 117–18, 124, 128, 137, 140, Teatro Experimental Negro (TEN), 94,
142–47, 151, 156–59, 161, 163, 168– 207–8
69, 172–73, 178, 181–82, 187, 188, Teixeira, Amauri (PT-BA), 136
193–95, 197–201, 204–8, 210; Teles dos Santos, J., 130
condemnation by Jesuits, 34; history Teles Silveira, S. M., 69
of, 30; resistance against, 31 Telles, Edward, 115, 117, 132
slaves, 29–74; Telles, N., 65, 67
conversion of, 34; harsh treatment of, Temer, M., 113, 122
31, 37–38 TEN. See Teatro Experimental Negro
Slocum, R., 21 (TEN)
Social Darwinism, 75, 80, 206 texts. See discourse
social media, 22, 24–5, 122 theoretical framework, 9–27
social movements, 3, 4, 7–12, 16, Tiradentes. See Da Silva Xavier, José
21–26, 52, 118, 148, 154, 158, 165, Tochluk, S., 12
183, 203–5, 207 Toledo Mendonça, C., 68
Sociedade Brasileira contra a topic:
Escaravidão, 56–57, 61 actions as, 187; actors as, 180;
Sociedade das Senhoras Libertadoras, black agency, 189; black movement,
67 181; black parliamentariana, 191;
Society of Friends. See Quakers blacks as, 180–81; comrades as, 181;
South Africa, 84, 140 discrimination, 149; experiences of
Souza da Silva, Benadita, 135 racism, 148–149; history of racism,
Soyinka, Wole. 95 145–48; media as, 184; race, 175;
Spain, 31, 49 racism as, 155–56; racists as, 183;
speakers in parliament, 136 resistance as, 187; white power, 182;
speeches in parliament, numbers, whites as, 182
136–37 topics, 141–82
Spencer; Herbert, 75 Toplin, R. B., 29
Statute of Racial Equality, 120, 124–29, topos (topoi), 36, 41, 47, 62–64, 69, 72,
135–36, 159 127, 129, 145, 148, 151, 158, 205
Stepan, N. L., 81 Torres Montenegro, A., 68
Stern, S. J., 11 Torres, Alberto. See De Seixas Martins
stories, 20, 22–23, 132–33, 148–49, Torres, Alberto
165, 199, 204 Torres, S., 133
Stromquist, N., 132 Toste Daflon, V., 132–33, 160, 170,
Stutje, J. W., 21 172, 184
Suess, P., 43 Trindade Lima, N., 85
sugar plantations, 35 Trindade, Francisca (PT-PI), 163, 195
Index 245
Turck, M., 129 Vera, H., 10

Turra, C., 116 Verschueren, J., 23
Twine, France Windance., 116 Vianna. See De Oliveira Vianna, José
Twitter, 24–25 Vidal Luna, F., 30
Vieira Guarnieri, F., 132
Uitermark, J., 21 Vieira, Antônio, 33–37, 44, 70–71, 205,
UK. See United Kingdom 211
Unbehaum, S., 132 Vinson, B., 76
United Kingdom, 26, 31–32, 44–46, 51, Vitório, Manoel (PT-MS), 183, 195,
57, 65, 70–72, 205 197, 198
United States of America, 3–6, 8, 11,
22, 25, 29, 31–32, 37, 44–45, 51, Wagley, Charles, 105
65, 70–71, 82, 84, 86–89, 93–94, 99, Warren, Jonathan, 119–20
100–101, 103, 105, 108, 111, 113, white power, as topic, 182
118–21, 124, 129–30, 140, 143, 165– white supremacy, 80, 116, 119
67, 176, 179, 200, 204, 207, 209 White, P. R. R., 197
United Nations Educational, Scientific Whitehead, K., 22
and Cultural Organisation whitening, 97, 100
(UNESCO), 81, 85, 94–96, 99, 101– whites, as topic, 182
2, 105–12, 121, 200, 207 Willems, Emelio, 108, 111
Us vs. Them, 19 Wilson, Pedro (PT-GO), 136, 196
U.S. See United States of America Winant, Howard, 117
Wodak, R., 13, 23, 26, 140
vagueness, 193–94 women, abolitionist, 65–69
Vainfas, Ronaldo, 31, 34, 36, 44 Wood, M., 75
Valente, Ivan (PSOL-SP), 136 Woodly, D. R., 22
values, 198 World Congress Against Racism
Valverde, Eduardo (PT-RO), 136, 151, (Durban), 113, 119, 127, 209
170, 183, 188, 194
Van Deemter, K., 193 Xavier, Eudes (PT-CE), 136, 137
Van den Besselaar, J., 36 xenophobia, 11
Van der Auwera, J., 193
Van Dijk, T. A.. 3, 6, 8–10, 12–13, 16, Young,, J. C, 21
18, 20, 23, 26, 31–32, 35, 37, 43, 65, Youtube, 24, 25
78, 81, 98, 113, 126, 140–42, 149,
153, 173, 179, 183–84, 192–94 Zeferina, 66
Van Leeuwen, T. J., 23, 180 Zhang, H., 194
Vargas, Getulio, 85, 92, 207 Zola, Émile, 68
Veiga dos Santos, Arlindo, 92, 102, 207 Zumbi dos Palmares, 2, 143, 145, 147,
Veja, 129, 133, 145, 184 148, 180, 187, 194, 197, 199, 204,
Venturi, G., 116 210
About the Author
Teun A. van Dijk was professor of Discourse Studies at the University of

Amsterdam until 2004 and from 1999 at Pompeu Fabra University, Bar-
celona. He holds three honorary doctorates and has lectured in some 60
countries, especially also in Latin America. With Adriana Bolivar in 1995 he
founded the Latin American Association of Discourse Studies (ALED). In
2017 he founded the Centre of Discourse Studies, Barcelona. He is founding
editor of the journals Discourse & Society, Discourse Studies and Discourse
& Communication. His publications are about text grammar, racist and
antiracist discourse, news discourse, ideology, context and knowledge and
discourse, within the general paradigm of Critical Discourse Studies. For
details about his projects and publications, see www.discourses.org. E-mail:
vandijk@discourses.org.
247

Teun A. Van Dijk - Antiracist Discourse in Brazil - From Abolition To Affirmative Action-Lexington Books (2020)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teun A. Van Dijk - Antiracist Discourse in Brazil - From Abolition To Affirmative Action-Lexington Books (2020)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antiracist Discourse

6 Tinworth Street, London SE11 5AL, United Kingdom

Copyright © 2020 by The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available

Library of Congress Control Number: 2020944443

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of

I am indebted to many people, and especially to

• Ronaldo Vainfas for reading and commenting on chapter 3.

well of non-European immigrants and refugees in Europe and North America

peoples. In Brazil, such racism is primarily directed against people of African

Toward a theory of antiracism

ments taking place in different historical periods and in different countries

The history of antiracist discourse presented in this book contributes part

History of Antiracist Discourse

The Multidisciplinary Theoretical Framework

• The general theoretical framework of antiracism, antiracist discourse and

In this chapter we present elements of the theoretical framework for the

work sketched here is therefore also a first installment of a more general

Antiracism as historical, global movement

opposition against, for instance, Japanese prejudices against Koreans, inter-

the important ingroup activity of consciousness raising, that is, of antiracist

a powerful and profoundly embedded system of racism may precisely require

Antiracism as Social Transformation

Barros, 2008; De Oliveira, 2006; Kabengele Munanga, 1999; Santos, Barreira

• Antiracist Legislation. Obviously, a main task of an antiracist society is

aspects of antiracist practices and discourse are crucial to understand anti-

instance, authors share an antiracist attitude about slavery, and by expressing

many different antiracist attitudes as well as interpretations of many group

Personal mental models

6 we’ll find examples of stories told by black parliamentarians about their

Antiracist Actors, Action and Interaction

microsociological analysis. Thus, it may feature various forms of preparation,

their overall organization (superstructures), their overall topics of themes

Elite vs. popular antiracist discourse

versational comments in families, or among friends or colleagues on the job

Greece, even when by contemporary standards, there was no question of

Antislavery and Abolitionist Discourse

Although African-Brazilian slaves and intellectuals had their own critical

Slavery and Abolition

oppression as experienced by the slaves, challenging the widespread views

Antislavery Discourse in the 16th and 17th Centuries

Relevant here is especially the speaker’s awareness of the prevalent attitudes

1680s and dedicated to Maria, Nossa Senhora do Rosario, venerated by the

Besides its rhetorical pathos of contrasting slaves and masters, as well as

Besides the implicit or explicit condonement of slavery as a system of

• Slaves are human beings

The global and local semantic structures of the conclusions, summarized by

Antislavery Discourse in the 18th Century

also because of the censorship imposed by Portugal’s powerful Secretary of

dominate-dominated. Finally, the fragment summarizes in a more concrete

Although we have been unable to find 18th century Brazilian writings

Early 19th Century: Preparing Abolition

also was another brief Quaker text in Portuguese, published in London in

Besides “Christian” allegiance, note the characteristic of sensibility, prevalent

Also in this compact fragment we find the familiar negative qualification

of negative appraisal (hideous, abominable, shameful, inhuman, unjust,

theoretical or programmatic ideas about slavery and abolition. However,

who had killed their masters as a form of self-defense. We may assume he

(3.18) There is no liberal reform, however great, that cannot be accomplished by

Rebouças used an interesting metaphor, later used by Manoel Bomfim in his

In the manifest of the Conferação Abolicionista of 1883, written by Rebouças

similar topics and metaphors. Besides the usual qualification of slavery as

(3.18) There is no liberal reform, however great, that cannot be accomplished by

(3.40) My Lords and my Ladies:

(4.1) Black slaves—coerced by whipping—adapted and became accustomed to

(4.12) The concept of racial hierarchy, one of scientific dilettantism’s favorite

(4.18) The black man’s verb

(4.27) We observe that the extensive miscegenation practiced as an imperative

(6.3) I am very pleased to be here representing the federal government in my role