The positive and often decisive role of the military in the Brazilian political process has been demonstrated again by the overthrow of the João Goulart government on April 2, 1964. Chaos and confusion building up from the time President Goulart took power in August, 1961, finally culminated in his ouster by the Brazilian armed forces.

The political history of modern Brazil centers on the military. The army toppled the monarchy in 1889 and in 1894 handed the administration of the country over to civilians who governed with minor challenges until 1930. The army managed the coup d'état of 1930 which brought Getúlio Vargas to power. It removed Vargas in 1945 and returned Brazil to a democratic political process. The army moved in November, 1955, to assure the assumption of office by President-elect Juscelino Kubitschek. The presidential elections of 1960 were guaranteed by the military even though a former Minister of War, General Enrique Lott, was decisively defeated by a civilian, Jánio Quadros.

The importance of the study of culture change lies not only in the opportunities for scientific understanding of culture through its dynamic aspects, but also in “applied” needs for analyzing and, so far as possible, predicting present-day cultural trends. Keesing defines culture change as a, “reformulation of group behavior. Such reformulation may be seen occurring from the level of individual experience to that of the total functional and integrational setting of a cultural system.”

This paper is concerned primarily with the second aspect of the reformulation, that is, the total setting in one country, Brazil. Obviously, in such a short paper, all aspects of change in Brazil cannot be treated nor can they be definitely stated. In fact, one of the purposes of this preliminary paper is to raise more questions than it answers concerning culture change in whole, contemporary, national cultures.

The most controversial newspaper in Brazil last year was not the Tribuna da Imprensa, the mouthpiece of Carlos Lacerda, the governor of Guanabara who was so closely identified with the revolution of March 31,1964, but the now-defunct Brasil Urgente, a weekly tabloid published in São Paulo with the approval of the Cardinal Archbishop by the Dominican Carlos Josaphat and a militant group of laymen determined to give Brazilians a Catholic Left beyond the promises of Christian Democracy and virtually as radical as the Communist Party. Although the revolution has put a stop to the politics of the Left, and movements of leftist tinge are momentarily as defunct as Brasil Urgente, it is still important for the background of the revolution to know what the Catholic Left was doing, and to realize once more that in a country like Brazil, where Christian Democracy was never a force, as in Chile and Venezuela, and where political nuances, until a few months ago, were not considered important, a Catholic Left, of the kind envisaged by the editors of Brasil Urgente, was not beyond the realm of possibility.

In October, 1963, the international crisis that centered on, and arose out of, events on the Caribbean island of Cuba, was the culmination of a series of events which had kept Cuba in the world's headlines for the previous four years — ever since the revolutionary régime headed by Dr. Fidel Castro established itself in power in December, 1958. The understanding of this crisis is quite difficult, because this matter has been subject to widely-differing interpretations, and many aspects of the regime's history are intensely controversial.

Puerto Rico ocupa un lugar de mucho interés en los estudios jurídicos debido a razones históricas y políticas que, brevemente, podrán resumirse en lo siguiente: es sin duda, un país de pertenencia al sistema de civil law en cuanto al origen de su orden jurídico, no obstante, en la actualidad, su Derecho en cualquiera de sus ramas, se halla influenciado por el sistema de common law a causa de su status político actual.

El Preámbulo de su Constitución de 1952 expresa en forma inequívoca esta idea en el párrafo 5 al decir que “consideramos factores determinantes en nuestra vida … la convivencia en Puerto Rico de las dos grandes culturas del hemisferio americano”, lo cual indica implícitamente también la convivencia de las dos grandes culturas jurídicas, el common law y el civil law, por ser el Derecho el sine qua non de toda vida organizada.

La guerra del Chaco (1932-1935) entre Bolivia y el Paraguay influyó poderosamente en la vida de ambos contendientes. Historiadores, sociólogos y especialistas en ciencias políticas coinciden en aseverar que el conflicto chaqueño marcó nuevos rumbos en el proceso histórico y cultural de los dos países por las crecidas pérdidas humanas que ocasionó, por la bancarrota económica que produjo, por la preponderancia que dio a los militares en los asuntos públicos, por el clima de intensa inquietud social que trajo consigo y, sobre todo, por haber sido la fuerza generadora que dio impulso a los intentos reformistas de los años siguientes, intentos que culminaron en el triunfo de la Revolución Boliviana de 1952, y que se truncaron con el afianzamiento de la hegemonía militar en el Paraguay.

In 1952, Bolivia experienced the most thorough-going social revolution in Latin America since the Mexican upheaval early in this century. In the twelve years which have followed, the Andean republic has made remarkable progress in breaking down centuries-old societal gaps and forging an integrated nation. The Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario (MNR), which inspired the revolution and which has retained firm political leadership of the nation, has played a vital role in politically activating the traditional Indian segment of the population. Prior to 1952, there had been very little communication between this indigenous majority and the Westarnized minority; this “vertical” cleavage was ona major barrier to the political socialization of Bolivia. On a “horizontal” plane, the process was further complicated by cleavages among the various Indian groups and, predominantly along regional lines, among the relatively homogeneous whites.

In 1920, at the National Preparatory School in Mexico City a series of experiments into the techniques of fresco painting blossomed into a full-blown mural movement that captured and held the American imagination for thirty years. Long before the names of the painters were famous as “revolutionary” artists, however, Mexican art had been in revolutionary ferment. The painters, despite their many individual differences, shared a common rich heritage which made possible the success of the mural movement.

The creative outburst which culminated in the Mexican mural movement was dependent upon two oddly dissimilar precedents. The first was the formal academic training most of the painters received at the Academy of San Carlos, the government-supported art school. The second was their participation in a bloody revolution and their assessment of the struggle when peace was restored.

Over the last thirteen years the United States has provided almost five hundred million dollars in military aid to Latin America. This program has continued undaunted despite the fact that the justification for the undertaking — as shown by testimony of U. S. congressional hearings — has undergone such a wide fluctuation that today's purposes are quite different from yesterday's. To understand the present program it is helpful to explore the peculiar evolution of this program of aid.

During World War II there was cooperation between the United States and Latin-American military forces. Two states, Mexico and Brazil, donated forces which saw combat. The chief contribution of Latin America to the war effort, however, was in the realm of economic assistance to the United States war machine.

Since 1930 the military has overthrown the Government of Argentina four times: in 1930, when General Uriburu overthrew the constitutional government of Hipólito Irigoyen; in 1943, when General Ramírez overthrew Ramón Castillo and initiated a confused series of events which led ultimately to the accession to the presidency of Juan Perón in 1946; in September, 1955, when officers of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force combined their forces to oust Perón himself; and in March, 1962, when a small group of officers staged a coup which deposed Arturo Frondizi, the first elected president to follow Perón.

Don Ramón Menéndez Pidal, notable historiador, gloria de las letras hispanas, filólogo y crítico de insospechada probidad, ha dado cima a una obra monumental: El Padre Las Casas: Su Doble Personalidad, que Espasa-Calpe de Madrid lanza en bella edición ilustrada de 400 páginas.

El libro será un acontecimiento intelectual por ocuparse de personaje tan célebre y discutido, y por provenir de tan fino ingenio y austero investigador. Reactualizará, además, la polémica que ya dura cuatro siglos sobre la acción de España en América. Pondrá aristas de fuego al tema del indio y su destino. Abrirá nuevos horizontes a la crítica histórica sobre el “lascasismo”, que sigue apasionando por dos vertientes a los estudiosos de la Conquista y del Coloniaje: la radiosa y la oscura, según se trate de apologistas y detractores del gran dominico.