Egalitarian Extremism in the Teaching of History – Folha de S. Paulo, December 21, 1987

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

Let the reader examine the Transitional Provisions of the Cabral Bill, Article 24. It is worth reading, if only for the surprise it consistently provokes in every sensible Brazilian.

This article states: “The government shall reformulate the teaching of Brazilian history at all levels, with the aim of giving equal consideration to the contributions of different ethnic groups to the multicultural and multiethnic formation of the Brazilian people.”

Single paragraph — “The law shall provide for the establishment of commemorative dates of great significance for the country’s various ethnic groups.”

The Cabral Bill, now in its final draft, will soon be voted on in the plenary session of the Constituent Assembly. The Assembly must therefore decide whether to accept or reject the raw egalitarian radicalism evident in several other articles of the same bill.

As shown, this article advocates nothing less than a revolution in the teaching of Brazilian history. And this revolution will affect everyone, as it will be carried out “at all levels.” In other words, it will impact primary and secondary education and carry its heavy load all the way up to university level.

If approved, this “reformulation” — that is, revolution — will be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, acts of educational tyranny ever carried out in Brazil. It clashes violently with the freedom of thought guaranteed by the very same Cabral Bill: “Art. 6, para. 5 — Freedom of expression is guaranteed, but anonymity is prohibited.”

In fact, the stated goal of history education in Brazil is to give equal attention to the historical roles of the various ethnic groups among us, viewed through the lens of the multicultural and multiethnic makeup of the Brazilian people. But what, in this context, makes up the “multicultural formation” of our people? Is it just that different cultures have established roots here? Nothing could be more trivial. Because if white, indigenous, and Black groups have settled in this land, each bringing their own cultural elements, then it is obvious that a multiethnic population is, by definition, also multicultural.

Building on these empty platitudes, Article 24 states its goal: that education should “give equal consideration to the contributions of different ethnic groups” toward the “formation … of the Brazilian people.”

“Giving equal consideration” here means that history teaching must fairly distribute coverage and emphasis to each ethnic group in the “multicultural formation” of our people.

How broadly does this egalitarian principle apply in teaching history?

As the ancient Herodotus said, history is the narration and explanation of certain past facts worth remembering. It must, therefore, be a truthful account of what happened.

Therefore, the importance given to the historical actions of each ethnic group in education must align with their significance within the broader context of Brazilian society.

Since different ethnic groups have historically played vastly unequal roles here, any history that treats these diverse groups as equally significant ceases, ipso facto, to be history.

Additionally, Article 24 of the Cabral Draft Bill states that the primary goal for a multiethnic people like ours is to keep different ethnic groups strictly separated to protect each group’s authenticity.

This is as unnatural as apartheid because all coexistence usually moves toward mutual assimilation—that is, some level of blending. And, depending on the situation, it can result in full mixing.

In Brazil, the trend toward this cultural blend is obvious. It is an irreversible reality that reflects a natural aspect of how our three main ethnic groups think and live. The same trend is also clear among the significant Italian, Spanish, German, Austrian, Syrian, and Japanese communities, whom we rightly welcomed into our borders in the 19th century.

It is certainly true that different ethnic minorities face the opposing influences of two tendencies. The centripetal tendency encourages racial mixing and cultural integration, while the centrifugal tendency arises because the “hardliners” within each ethnic group or foreign community fear losing their social identity. As a result, they work to prevent the dilution of their own ethnic group and culture within the dominant majority. I believe both the centrifugal and centripetal tendencies are valid, as long as they are carefully balanced.

Such a balance must ensure that no barriers prevent different ethnic groups from ultimately blending culturally to a significant degree in the not-too-distant future.

That being said, let’s go back to studying history.

In my opinion, Article 24 of the Cabral Bill’s Transitional Provisions can only be understood as requiring that the study of history give equal importance, attention, and space to all ethnic groups in Brazil. As a result — and to the detriment of the already limited history taught in our elementary and secondary schools — important parts are being left out so that our youth may instead learn about the nomadic wanderings of our indigenous peoples through the wilderness or similar topics.

One should hope that many teachers across all three levels of education do not see national values this way. After all, it is the inalienable right of a history teacher to teach the subject as they understand it, because that matches their beliefs.

Under the authority of Article 24, the opposite will occur. A handful of bureaucrats, comfortably ensconced in the highest posts of the Ministry of Education, will form a tight, ideologically uniform team that will impose the worldview of a privileged few on all teachers and students.

If a teacher, aware that this severely distorts history, asserts their right to teach the opposite, an administrative inquiry may be opened against them — the usual outcome being their dismissal from the teaching position, or at least their forced retirement, with their already limited salary reduced in proportion to their years of service.

This is the form of egalitarian dictatorship that the Brazilian political opening — achieved by the Catholic left in coalition with every left-wing national faction, including the PCB and the PC do B — will lead to in the name of “reestablishing freedom” in our country!

However, I doubt that those supporting Brazil’s leftward shift will protest against it. For this educational dictatorship — one of the worst forms of dictatorship — does not block the progress of communism. On the contrary, it encourages it…