Anti-Americanism in Brazil

Not quite four years ago, I studied abroad for a semester in Murcia, Spain and got the chance to live the “Erasmus experience.” Erasmus is a government-sponsored exchange program offered to European university students who wish to study in another European country. Some European universities have recently opened up the program to students from around the world, offering the opportunity for pockets of international synergy to take shape across the Continent and the British Isles, whether in the classroom or the pub. So, à la L’Auberge Espagnol, I studied, lived, and partied with students from all over the European Union, Russia, CIS countries, Japan, and, of course, the United States. With so many people from so many different backgrounds concentrated into so small an area, the logical question asked after meeting a fellow international student was, “So where you from?” Europeans, I found, have a general notion of where a fellow Continental (or Brit or Irishman) may come from solely by appearance. My neon whiteness could have made me hail from anywhere north of the Alps. “Estados Unidos,” I’d reply to this question, “¿Y tú?” More often than not, before I’d get an answer in return, I’d be greeted with a shocked, indignant, and standoffish, “Oh…”

Such a welcome should have come as no surprise. Most of my European acquaintances had likely seen—or participated in—lots of anti-war (read anti-U.S.) protests in the year-and-a-half since the United States invaded Iraq. Many Spaniards took American foreign policy personally, as it was unquestionably Spain’s linkage to it that cost the lives of 198 people in the March 11, 2004 train bombing in Madrid. Thus their disdain toward the U.S.-led war in Iraq, along with that of many of their European brethren, became equally as personal, directed toward my fellow Americans and I as if we had beat the war drums ourselves. The anti-Americanism we faced from our peers reached its climax in the days following George W. Bush’s re-election as president in November, and then tapered off as many Europeans, their hopes for regime change vanquished, resigned themselves to the fact that they would have to endure another four years of the Bush Administration’s folly.

I should make two points clear. First, not every European (or, better, non-American) received us so scornfully. My fellow Americans and I made lots of friends with professors, members of the community, and fellow students, and while several discussions on American foreign policy inevitably arose, they were always peaceful, and the moments of mirth we shared vastly outnumbered them.


Second, while the war in Iraq was the focal point of the anti-Americanism we faced, in the end it was “merely” a bloodstained banner behind which marched hundreds of documented atrocities committed, directly or indirectly, by American interventionism since the 1950s. Vietnam. Cambodia. Nicaragua. El Salvador. Israel and Palestine. Not to mention the numerous human rights abuses perpetrated by American-led multinational corporations that all too often fly under the radar of world media. And then there’s the U.S. Government’s stance on global warming. And the abandon with which U.S. soft power (Mickey Mouse, Coca-Cola, McDonalds) has so deeply penetrated cultures around the world. And I’m sure other grievances that I’m not yet aware of.

Brazilian anti-Americanism shares the same roots as the European variety above. Yet it has several other components that give it a distinctly autochthonous (and arguably more fervent) flavor. Che Guevara grew up and fought in Brazil’s backyard, the same backyard where the United States bullied left-leaning Latin American regimes for decades, beating them over the head with a Monroe Doctrine revitalized by the Cold War threat of communism spreading to the Western Hemisphere. Brazilians watched from the window as Salvador Allende was assassinated and replaced by the ruthless Augusto Pinochet in Chile during the Ford Administration. They continue to watch as U.S. aid dollars get funneled to Colombian paramilitary forces, arguably more brutal in their treatment of innocent Colombian civilians than the FARC guerrilla forces they’ve sworn to fight.

And now, after all that Brazil has witnessed from its window, could the U.S. be so crazy as to invade Brazil itself? Many here don’t believe such a scenario to be too far-fetched. In fact, they see U.S. military aid to Colombia as a precursor to an eventual joint U.S.-Colombia invasion and occupation of the Amazon Rainforest. The recent incursion of Colombian forces into Ecuadorian territory to kill a key FARC commander, which spurred the mobilization of both Venezuelan and Ecuadorian troops along their respective borders with Colombia, further justified many Brazilians’ fears of such an event. Where do their fears come from?

Much like the slanderous emails circulating in the United States claiming that Barack Obama is an America-and-freedom-hating Islamist terrorist linked to Al-Qaeda, here in Brazil many people have been forwarded an email showing “Page 76” of a purported American junior high geography textbook. At the bottom of the page is a map of Brazil that depicts the Amazon Rainforest as an “Internationally Protected Zone” that is principally under the governance of the United States. The text alongside the map lauds the U.S. for rescuing the endangered region from the grip of “bandits” and “drug traffickers” that inhabit the various “kingdoms” of South America. The text appears with a translation in Portuguese. The page is unquestionably false. First, such garbage would never have cleared reviews by textbook clearinghouses in the U.S., and second, words such as “explorate” used in place of exploit (from the Portuguese explorar) and “cert” for certain (from certo) clearly reveal the forger’s likely Brazilian identity. However, the average Brazilian citizen, with limited knowledge of English, is more than likely to believe this libel. The fact that the creator of the email declared that this page came from a textbook used in ALL American junior high geography classes only succeeds in fomenting greater mass fear, anger, and hatred among Brazilians toward the United States. Sadly, it should come as no surprise that such fear could spread like wildfire in this country. Brazilians witnessed the impunity in which the United States went to war in Iraq to secure its continued control of one of the world’s most important resources: oil. With one-fifth of the world’s fresh water residing in the Amazon, it’s perhaps not so unnatural that Brazilians would think the U.S. would have a hair-trigger pointed at such a vast source of an even more important resource. And according to “Page 76”, we’re not only crazy enough to do it. We already did.

(This photo isn't mine, though who knows, maybe I'll get up there...)

I have been asked on many an occasion to whom I believe the Amazon belongs, even before I learned of the “Page 76 hoax.” I have always definitively answered, “Brazil,” with the caveat that if the Amazon does indeed belong to Brazil, then Brazilians should be fighting to protect it from being totally destroyed by rogue loggers on the bankroll of Big Agriculture. While in their hearts I’m sure nearly all Brazilians agree with me, to many such a comeback is tantamount to sympathies for military occupation and internationalization. The worst have been exchanges in which fellow students have asked my opinion on Global Warming, namely, if I believe it exists. Equally as definitively I have answered, “Yes, it does exists, and the U.S., along with China and India, need to do a better job of cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time,” I continue, “Brazil needs to stop slashing and burning the Amazon, as this has the doubly pernicious effect of releasing tons of carbon into the atmosphere while destroying the organisms that would otherwise absorb that carbon right back up. The Amazon is, without question, the ‘lungs of the world’, and while all countries are smokers, Brazil, the caretaker of those lungs, is cutting them away lobe by lobe.” Again, rather than opening up a healthy dialog focused on changing the world, my answer only further justifies Brazilian suspicion of American interest in the Amazon. The debate could go on. So far, it hasn’t.


The BBC World Service released the results of a poll earlier this month in which citizens of 34 countries were asked to assess the influence (positive or negative) that each of the same 34 countries has in the world.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7324337.stm)

Indeed, while data pertaining to any country in such a poll are interesting and important, those involving the United States are always the main event (followed closely by those on China). According to the results, 39% of Brazilians believe the U.S. has a mainly positive influence in the world. 40% believe American influence is mainly negative, leaving 21% that 1) believe U.S. influence is neither positive nor negative, 2) think that whether it’s positive or negative depends on further qualification of the question, or 3) are undecided. On the ground, that seems about right, about half and half. The 39% has consisted of Rotarians, Ricardo and his family, close friends at PUC, and common working-class folk I’ve had a chance to meet—I’m perhaps the only American they’d ever met. Of the 40% I can count most of my professors, and most students in my history classes, many of these sporting dreadlocks, beards, and Che Guevara T-shirts. Indeed nearly the entire crop of young and budding Brazilian intellectuals falls into this second column.


It’s not hard to find stuff to justify criticism of the United States. I’ve already supplied an abridged version of the laundry list of global grievances. It is equally not hard to see how criticism can quickly become anti-Americanism among intellectuals in a country that has been such a close witness to the effects of American interventionism and is afraid it will soon find itself even closer. It is equally-equally not hard for me to dig up stuff on which to criticize Brazil. I’ve already mentioned the Amazon and the treacherous ground I walk on there. But what about social and economic inequality? Disparity in education? Overblown machismo and objectification of women?

“Let he who is without sin…”

Maybe it’s fate that once again I’ll be abroad during a presidential election. Whether founded or not, this election, as was the case 4 years ago, will be the grand litmus test in the eyes of many around the world of how much Americans wish to move closer to or distance themselves from the rest of the world. Although a Democratic candidate has yet to be officially established, Brazil has already declared itself a blue state. John McCain, while in many ways a moderate maverick in the Republican Party, will be unable to escape the shadow of George W. Bush in this election. His comment that the United States would stay in Iraq for 100 years if need be hasn’t helped his worldwide popularity. Should he win, it’s likely that 40% will grow.

While my political preference is now likely quite clear, I’m no political foot soldier. The vast majority of the rest of the world may see a vote for McCain as a manifestation of American ignorance, yet it's Americans who vote for the candidate who best appeals to their convictions, whoever that may be. That’s democracy. In the same vein, my bringing tidings of anti-Americanism is not a call for us Americans to drastically change our way of life. I love Hawkeye football Saturdays. I love road-tripping and roller coasters. I love barbeques. I love them just as much as I love traveling and learning about the rest of the world. We Americans need not and should not give up that culture that we identify with, that gives us a sense of home. Yet while we need not give up our culture, we must not be reactionary. We must reflect on who we are as American citizens. And we must do so with the knowledge that we are at the same time citizens of the world. Entrusted with such dual citizenship, we must look upon ourselves as Martin Luther King did, in an anti-war speech that he gave April 4, 1967, exactly one year before his death:

“I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation.”

While we may deserve the criticism we receive from abroad, we’re better than whatever skewed anti-American vision a PUC-Minas history professor may have of us. We have integrity. The world just doesn’t see it anymore. Whether with our vote, or with our actions at home or abroad, it’s time for us to prove the world wrong.