United States foreign policy has not been without error. Hindsight analysis of the consequences of U.S. government agencies’ activities in Brazil in the 1960s permits criticism. Black’s book is a review of policies which she implies appear to have been specifically designed to undermine popular movements (for example, the João Goulart government) in favor of selected elites and conservative military government.
Black has examined extensive source material in developing her case for U.S. culpability. However, her selective and indiscriminate use of that material presents serious problems. She cites classic scholarly works, Master’s theses, and essays of opinion without consideration for the validity of the facts and opinions presented. She admits she has not sought to hide her personal biases in her analysis. Indeed, they emerge so clearly that the reader is left convinced there must be another side to the story. Black demonstrates little understanding for the complexity of the Brazilian situation in the 1960s. She apparently forgets that the Brazilian military has participated, without U.S. help, in every government and regime crisis since independence. She never questions the intent of populist leadership, while Brazilian authors, as sympathetic with the populist movement as is Black, have frequently lamented the “manipulation of the emerging classes” by their own leaders as well as conservative elites.
The details of U.S. involvement in the 1964 Brazilian revolution are now known as a result of Phyllis Parker’s and others’ research. Black laments U.S. contribution, witting or unwitting, to those events. However, she fails to entertain an alternative hypothesis that, given divisions in Brazilian society in the 1960s, it is very likely that the revolution would have occurred anyway. The Brazilian revolution resulted from a very complex set of conditions and events. Given this complexity, the period deserves a more serious and impartial treatment than Black has provided.
