Oral History in Brazil: Development and Challenges
Meihy, Jose Carlos Sebe Bom, The Oral History Review
In the case of Brazil, as in Latin America in general--or at least in those countries which only recently lived through
Oral History in Brazil: Development and Challenges
Meihy, Jose Carlos Sebe Bom, The Oral History Review
In the case of Brazil, as in Latin America in general--or at least in those countries which only recently lived through the syndrome of military dictatorships--the emergence of oral history was directly tied to the process of re-democratization. It established a natural link between the advent of oral history and the political issues arising from democratic acceptance. This fact makes the role of oral history in Latin America different from that in Europe or North America. For this purpose, Brazil is an eloquent example.(1)
Identification of themes immediately leads to the observation that Latin American oral history requires solutions and approaches which are notably different from foreign ones. Reflecting exclusively in terms of Brazil, one questions the virtues of the importation of theoretical models and the insistence that the same thematic matrixes should prevail there and elsewhere.(2) Is our oral history simply an echo of a "First World" oral history? Do we not have specific responsibilities and commitments to our own social environment? Even more pertinently: are the same analytical criteria used to study "their" immigration valid for us studying "ours"? Can the experience of black slavery in Latin America be filtered according to "their" criteria? How should oral historians proceed, and which models should they use, when encountering native Indian societies? What have "they" to teach us about immigration, native Indians, miscegenation, or the experiences of black slaves and abandoned children? In regards to themes relating to popular culture, could they be addressed in one or another culture according to the same criteria? In short, could the same European and North American models have any use for "us"? Should we create our own analytical criteria? Would that be possible?
We evidently insist on the relevance of the exchange of academic experiences, for