Biological Discourses On Human Races and Scientific Racism in Brazil (1832-1911)

Journal of the History of Biology (2017) 50:267–314 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10739-016-9445-8
Biological Discourses on Human Races and Scientific Racism

in Brazil (1832–1911)
JUANMA SÁNCHEZ ARTEAGA

History and Philosophy of Biology and Biology Teaching Laboratory (LEFHBIO),
Institute of Biology (IBIO)
Universidade Federal da Bahia
Rua Barão de Geremoabo, 147 - Campus de Ondina
CEP: 40170-290 Salvador de Bahia, BA
Brazil
Institute of Humanities, Arts and Sciences Prof. Milton Santos (IHAC)

Federal University of Bahia (UFBA)
Salvador de Bahia
Brazil
E-mail: juanma.ufba@gmail.com; juan.arteaga@ufba.br
Abstract. This paper analyzes biological and scientific discourses about the racial
composition of the Brazilian population, between 1832 and 1911. The first of these dates
represents Darwin’s first arrival in the South-American country during his voyage on
H.M.S. Beagle. The study ends in 1911, with the celebration of the First universal Races
congress in London, where the Brazilian physical anthropologist J.B. Lacerda predicted
the complete extinction of black Brazilians by the year 2012. Contemporary European
and North-American racial theories had a profound influence in Brazilian scientific
debates on race and miscegenation. These debates also reflected a wider political and
cultural concern, shared by most Brazilian scholars, about the future of the Nation.
With few known exceptions, Brazilian evolutionists, medical doctors, physical
anthropologists, and naturalists, considered that the racial composition of the
population was a handicap to the commonly shared nationalistic goal of creating a
modern and progressive Brazilian Republic.
Keywords: Human races, Evolutionism, Miscegenation, Brazil, Latin America,

Scientific racism
Introduction: Race, Science, Culture and the Birth of a Nation
‘‘The Negro is not just an economic machine; most of all, despite his
own ignorance, he is an object of scientific study’’ (Romero, 1888a,
268 JUANMA SÁNCHEZ ARTEAGA
p. 10).1 This concise quotation of Sı́lvio Romero—one of the most

influential Brazilian intellectuals of the nineteenth century-, could be
considered as a perfect example of the cultural and political paradigm
within which Brazilian scientists debated about race in the period that
eventually led to the abolition of slavery and the proclamation of the
new Brazilian Republic, in 1889. The quotation appeared in one of the
scientific papers of Raimundo Nina Rodrigues, unanimously considered
as the father of Brazilian medical anthropology, and the first prominent
racial theorist among Brazilian scientists.2 The sentence constitutes a
perfect synthesis of the unveiled racial prejudices that, during the whole
century, permeated scientific approaches to the ‘‘racial problem’’ in
Brazil.3 Here I would like to focus on the way in which racial issues
(especially concerning ‘‘biological human races’’) were considered by
Brazilian natural scientists between 1832 and 1911. During this period,
the Brazilian population was seen as a vast and unique melting pot of
races and cultures from all continents. It was this anthropological
peculiarity—miscegenation—what mostly drew the attention of foreign
scientists and naturalists, throughout the whole nineteenth century.
Concerning its ethnic composition, Brazil was observed as an
unprecedented example among former European colonies. As summa-
rized by the French traveler and poet Gustave Aimard, (who visited
Brazil in 1887), any foreign visitor could perceive, just from the very
moment of crossing the border, ‘‘that singular event that I have only
observed in Brazil: the infinite changes experienced by the population
due to the mixture of the races. They are the children of the sun’’
(Aimard, 1888, p. 255).
Such a mixture, however, left no doubts about the exact place as-
signed to each ‘‘race’’ on the social scale, within Brazil’s ultra-hierar-
chical society. Stratification in social classes (including slaves, until
1888) was clearly tainted with a sharp ethnic component. Social strati-
fication linked to skin color and ancestry had been received as an
immediate inheritance of Brazil’s colonial and imperial past. When, in
1888, Princess Isabel, on behalf of a sick and absent emperor, Pedro II,
signed the abolition law, racial prejudices among the elite had not
changed a great deal. Abolition ‘‘was to a great extent a triumph for the
1
Quoted in Rodrigues (1938, p. 7).
2
The literature on Rodrigues is abundant. See, for example, Oda (2003), Corrêa
(2001), Maio (1995), Peixoto (1957) and Piccinini (2003).
3
For a general discussion of scientific approaches to the concept of race in Latin
America during the nineteenth century, see Graham (1990), Stepan (1991), Skidmore
(1974) and Rodrigues (2011).
HUMAN RACES AND SCIENTIFIC RACISM IN BRAZIL (1832–1911) 269
Figure 1. Front page of Nina Rodrigues’ book Me´tissage, de´geńérescence et crime,

1899
pragmatic flexibility of slave owners themselves (…) Considering the

inevitability of abolition, those same fazendeiros (landowners) were
astute enough to realize that, if they kept controlling the abolitionist
process up to the end they would keep the political power in their
hands’’ (Skidmore, 1976, p. 33). Therefore, many of the leaders of the
abolitionary process did not contest the traditional racial beliefs that
were predominant during the slavery period.
Even though a detailed description of Brazilian colonial legacy and
its relation to racial issues would go far beyond the scope of this paper,4
4
A detailed historical account of the formation of the new Brazilian republic can be
found in Bethell (1989). For a comparative analysis of Brazilian colonial context, in
comparison with the USA and South-Africa, see Marx (1997).
Figure 2. Degeneration caused by racial mixture. Originally published in Rodrigues,

1899
it is important here to make some general statements about the his-

torical and political context in which Brazil made its transition from
colonial dependency into an independent republic. The colonial legacy
was extremely important to understand the way in which racial hier-
archies were ‘‘naturalized’’ in the South-American country, which re-
mained an empire and not a republic for most of the nineteenth century
(an anomaly in an area in which the republic was the norm after
independence). Of course, the Brazilian empire was intrinsically con-
nected to slavery, and Brazil was also an exception in the area, in terms
of how long slavery remained part of the country’s social and economic
organization, until 1889. But even after the emancipation of slavery,
racial stratification in Brazilian society could still be easily perceived in
the newborn Republic. In 1895, Medical Doctor de Sá Oliveira—a
prominent figure in the Medical Faculty of Bahia-, described the racial
stratification of the north-eastern Brazilian population in these terms:
‘‘Travelers in Bahia would be able to discriminate prominent groups of
native-born blacks and pure Africans lost in the midst of a considerable
Figure 3. Medical School of Bahia. Nina Rodrigues’ portrait is situated in the eighth
position (from left to right) on the upper row
crowd, formed by more or less civilized peoples. Lower layers of society

consist of people of mixed blood at all levels, intermittently interrupted
by a few whites, in an approximate ratio of one per cent’’ (Oliveira,
1895, p. 85). Social hierarchies were still based on the old firm racial
preconceptions shared by the imperial aristocracy. In practice, the
natural superiority of European descendants above all other human
groups was an unquestionable a priori assumption for the cultural elites.
The old ethnic hierarchies were perpetuated during the Republic under
the form of a clear racial polarity in all areas of society: the white
minority occupying the upper layers on the one hand, and the vast
majority of mestiços, blacks and Indians (with a few poor whites),
staying at the bottom of the social ladder, on the other: ‘‘It was the same
social system of stratification, which gave the land owners—white or,
occasionally, fair mulattoes-, a virtual monopoly of the economic, social
and political powers. The lowest strata of the population, including
poor whites and most of the freed men of color, were accustomed to
subservience and deference. This hierarchy, in which social classification
was closely linked to skin color, had been developed as a concomitant
part of the colonial economy based on slave labor. However, by the time
of abolition, it was no longer dependent on the maintenance of slavery
to be self-perpetuated’’ (Skidmore, 1976, pp. 54–55)..After abolition,
those old ideas continued, astonishingly well-established, in part, as we
shall see, because they received a new form of justification by contem-
porary scientific discourses.
By the end of the nineteenth century, racial hierarchies were ex-
plained as results of natural laws, since it was taken for granted the
existence of a biological and intellectual evolutionary progression from
non-Caucasians to ‘‘pure’’ whites (Schwarcz, 1993, 1994). As I will try
to explain in the rest of this work, scientists pointed towards different
biological and intellectual capacities that nature had assigned to the
different ‘‘races’’ (and their different mixed products), in order to
legitimize the higher or lower position that each group could (and
should) occupy on the social scale.
The general assumption of such scientific premises would have
enormous consequences beyond the academic milieu, influencing the
Brazilian society for decades. By 1900, a notion that positive laws and
rights should be based on biological postulates about the natural dif-
ferences of the various human groups was predominant in the two main
Brazilian Schools of Law (established in Recife and São Paulo), where
positivism, Lombrosianism and Darwinism were devotedly adopted by
many influent Brazilian jurists. They tried to conciliate, as much as
possible, political and social legislation with ‘‘scientific laws’’ (Schwarcz,
1994; Koracakis, 1999). It was fashionable to hold ‘‘a scientific concept
of law, which had to come together with evolutionary biology, the
natural sciences, and with a deterministic physical anthropology (…)
Legislative science was trying to distance itself from all the other human
sciences, aiming to associate itself with other disciplines that, were
supposedly, just concerned with certainty and exactness’’ (Schwarcz,
1993, p. 10). Assuming miscegenation as a kind of ‘‘biopolitical’’ dis-
advantage for Brazil, some jurists, in legal circles and juridical journals
(such as the official publication of the Law Faculty in Recife, Revista da
Faculdade de Direito de Recife), debated at length about ‘‘the necessity
of acting on the population profile, since it was composed of unequal
races; some of them were—perhaps- unprepared for the exercise of
citizenship’’ (Schwarcz, 1994, p. 149). During the 1880s, such discus-
sions would enhance legislative initiatives aimed to prohibit the entry of
black and Asian workers in the country (Hall, 1976; Skidmore, 1976,
pp. 130–143; Holloway, 1980; Lesser, 1999; Oliveira, 2001). By 1890, a
new Republican decree stipulated the opening of the country to quali-
fied immigrant workers ‘‘except for the natives of Asia or Africa, who
only by means of a special authorization of the Congress may be
admitted, in accordance with the stipulated specific terms’’ (Skidmore,
1976, p. 155). At the same time, naturalists, race scientists and physical
anthropologists were developing their own scientific diagnoses and
solutions to what they considered as the main ‘‘national problem’’.
Foreign Scientists for a National Science
As a consequence of the Portuguese colonial education policy, until the

end of the eighteenth century—with the Foundation of the first Savant
Societies and Royal Academies, during the reign of João VI-, Brazil was
almost a desert in terms of cultural and educational institutions (apart
from those that depended directly on the Catholic Church). This pre-
carious academic and scientific institutionalization in Brazil constituted
a Portuguese colonial peculiarity with respect to former Spanish co-
lonies in South-America, where local universities had been created by
the Spaniards since the sixteenth century in Lima, Bogotá, Quito, Sucre,
and other cities. This situation begun to change some decades before
1800, when the influence of the Enlightenment finally arrived to Brazil
(Barros, 1986), producing a new impulse for Brazilian science and
philosophy (Furtado, 2010). In Brazil, the fist scientific institutions and
academies were founded by the Portuguese between 1808 and 1810
(Lopes, 2009). In this period appeared the Royal Military Academy
(which offered courses in mathematics, chemistry, physics, mineralogy,
geography and natural history), the National Library, the Royal Bo-
tanic Gardens, and the two Medical Schools in Rio and Bahia (the
Escola de Cirurgia in Bahia and the Escola de Anatomia, Medicina e
Cirurgia in Rio de Janeiro). Apart from these institutions, there were no
other Brazilian universities,5 remarkable museums or big scientific li-
braries in the country. Before the independence (1822), the local de-
mand for lawyers, jurists and priests was supplied by Jesuit cole´gios and
other Catholic institutions, while rich students aspiring to higher edu-
cation in medicine, law, commerce, etc. went to study overseas, usually
at the University of Coimbra, in Portugal. For the most part of the 19th
century, the only two Brazilian medical schools were in need of qualified
teachers for different scientific disciplines (Ferraz, 1997, pp. 191–200).
5
For the scientific institutionalization of science and the history of higher education
in Brazil, see, among other references, Lopes (2009), Paulilo (2004), Niskier (1996), de
Almeida (1989) and Romanelli (1978).
After this initial phase of scientific institutionalization, and until the

second half of the nineteenth century, the best part of Brazilian natural
sciences originated from scientific expeditions. Scientific studies were
usually commanded by Europeans. Under the supervision of Prince
Maximilian zu Wied-Neuwied, Carl von Martius, Johann Baptist von
Spix, Auguste Saint-Hilaire, Charles Hartt, Langsdorff, Charles Dar-
win, Fritz Müller, Hermann von Ihering, Émil Goeldi, and others,
naturalistic expeditions in the Brazilian territory provided precious
descriptions of the marvelous Brazilian biodiversity, in terms of zool-
ogy, botany, anthropology or geology. Up to the foundation of the
National Museum of Rio de Janeiro, in 1818, collected specimens were
usually carried out of Brazil and deposited in foreign scientific Institu-
tions It was not until the decade of 1870 that new Natural Museums
were inaugurated outside the city of Rio, such as the Museu Paraense
Emı´lio Goeldi (1871), Museu Paranaense (1876), Museu Botânico do
Amazonas (1883) and the Museu Paulista (1895) (Lopes, 2009).
Scientific debates and academic studies about biological human races
appeared first in the Medical Schools, especially in Bahia. There, under
the influence of Domingos Guedes Cabral (1876), the application of
evolutionary thought to the study of the human races would find a
fertile ground in men like Pedro Corrêa Filho, J.B. de Sá Oliveira, and
Raimundo Nina Rodrigues. In 1876, with the publication of the official
journal of the National Museum in Rio—the Arquivos do Museu Na-
cional- and the creation, 1 year later, of the first anthropology course,
directed by Lacerda, the scientific contribution of National Museums to
the Brazilian racial debate became also decisive (Santos, 2012).
The influence of foreign analyses on the Brazilian scientific discourse
on race was imponderable. Emperor D. Pedro II would look continu-
ously for white European or American experts in order to lead and
organize many of the first scientific institutions in the country
(Schwartzman, 1990). The foreign presence in the Brazilian scientific
milieu was so significant that it would even take complete control over
some of the best national scientific institutions. The vast majority of the
scientific articles published by the Revista do Museu Paulista—journal
of the São Paolo Natural History Museum- directed by the German
scientist Hermann von Ihering, were signed exclusively by Europeans, a
good number of whom where travelers, hired temporarily to collect and
analyze different samples of scientific interest. Similarly, out of the 44
members on the editorial board of the official journal of the National
Museum of Rio de Janeiro—the Archivos do Museu Nacional-, there
were only three Brazilians (Andermann, 2008). This clear foreign
dominance was noticeable in all scientific areas. However, the influence

of foreign discourses and theories was particularly sensitive when the
discussion pointed to the natural status of the different races. The
Brazilian intelligentsia found in those foreign studies on race and
miscegenation an essential source for their own scientific inspiration. In
his book about miscegenation as the main cause of degeneration and
crime in Brazil, Nina Rodrigues pointed out that some of the top
European and American anthropologists, had already studied the
problem of racial fusion within the American countries, long before any
Brazilian scientist had attempted that task (Rodrigues, 1899, pp. 3–4).
In fact, Nina Rodrigues himself was the first Brazilian to do so
extensively. It was impossible ‘‘to deny the enormous influence of
European racial theories among the Brazilian intellectuals of late
nineteenth century (…). nineteenth century Brazilian society—with
deep historical roots based on slavery and a system of class domination
overlapped with racial hierarchies-, constituted a perfect target for such
theoretical influences’’ (Petrucelli, 1996, p. 139). Brazilian physicians,
anthropologists, and natural scientists would readapt those foreign
scientific proposals, often marking them with an original Brazilian
character, as the paradigmatic example of Raimundo Nina Rodrigues
perfectly shows.
For reasons of linguistic proximity to the Portuguese language, there
were more French readers than English or German readers among
Brazilian scholars. Concerning human biology and physical anthro-
pology, the main sources were either French original texts or French
translations. As a natural consequence, evolutionary anthropologists
such as Paul Broca, Topinard, Le Bon, or Clémence Royer—all of them
supporters of the multiple human species hypotheses- were extremely
influential. For reasons that I will discuss later on, the German Ernst
Haeckel,6—one of the most influential scientists of the whole XIX
6
Even though Haeckeĺs monumental work cannot be reduced to his anthropological
writings—and it would be very unfair to judge his scientific importance based only on
that dimension of his thought-, his influence on the racial debates that took place among
some of the first Brazilian evolutionists was imponderable, and this will be our main
focus here. An excellent discussion on Haeckel’s evolutionism and its situation in the
context of the cultural, political and scientific debates of his time can be found in
Richards (2008). For further details about Haeckel’s ideas about the origin of the
human races, see also Richards (2007), Di Gregorio (2002, 2005), Gliboff (2014) and
Marks (2012).
century, and ‘‘the primary and fairly authentic German voice of Dar-
winism’’ (Marks 2012, p. 98)-, would become the most influential
propagator of Darwinism and evolutionary anthropology among the
first Brazilian evolutionists interested in human races.7 Other famous
scientists such as Spencer, Huxley, Vogt, Büchner, Agassiz, Morton,
Knot and Gliddon, Lombroso, Garofalo and Enrico Ferri, were also
read with eagerness by Brazilian scholars.
Throughout the nineteenth century, the vast majority of foreign
scientists that referred specifically to the racial composition of the
Brazilian population, did not question at all the prejudice of Caucasian
racial superiority—in physical and moral terms-, above all other pop-
ulations inhabiting the country. That was the case even for abolitionist
and politically liberal scientists, such as the French Louis Couty, who
directed the Polytechnic School in Rio de Janeiro, exemplifies. Even
though Couty was definitely contrary to slavery, he thought that blacks
were actually inferior to Europeans by their biological and intellectual
nature. ‘‘Black laziness’’ was, ‘‘in part, responsible for the backwardness
of the country: even when they [black people] recovered freedom with
emancipation, they did nothing to work or cultivate land or for social
progress’’ (Petrucelli, 1996, p. 139). According to him, slavery had
worked pragmatically as a social protection for black people, since,
during that period ‘‘they were well fed, cared for and protected against
old age or Unemployment’’ (Petrucelli, 1996, p. 139). In general terms,
for all these foreign scientists, ‘‘some moral values, positive or negative,
were matched with the physical characteristics [of each ‘‘race’’]. The
further away the physical appearance was from the Caucasian proto-
type, the worst moral and esthetic characteristics were attributed to the
population’’ (Oda, 2003, p. 91). Nonetheless, some rare exceptions
could be found to that generalization, such as the work by French
7
In Brazil, Haeckel was first known mainly through the French translations of some
his most popular books, such as Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (Haeckel, 1868); The
natural history of creation (Haeckel, 1876) or Anthropogenie: oder, Entwickelungs-
geschichte des Menschen - Anthropogeny: Or, the Evolutionary History of Man- (1874).
Two of the most familiar translations of the German original editions were Haeckel,
Ernst. 1877a. Histoire de la creátion des eˆtres organise´s d’apre`s les lois naturelles. Paris:
Reinwald; Haeckel, Ernest. 1877b. Anthropogeńie ou Histoire de l’’Évolution Humaine.
Leçons familie`res sur les principes de l’’Embryologie et de la Phylogeńie humaines. Paris:
Reinwald.
anthropologist Armand de Quatrefages,8 who found a positive factor in

miscegenation, praising ‘‘the entrepreneurial boldness and energy of the
Brazilians’’ (Quatrefages, 1861; quoted in Rodrigues, 1899, p. 4). Sim-
ilarly, Carl Friedrich von Martius—who had traveled the country
commanding a scientific expedition in the first half of the century (Spix
and Martius, 1938)-, recalled that some of the leading European na-
tions, such as England, had also been formed from a mixture of different
races. ‘‘Who could deny’’, stated von Martius, ‘‘that the English nation
owes its own energy, as well as all his strength and perseverance, to this
fusion of Celtic, Danish, and Normand peoples?’’ (Martius, 1939;
quoted in Oda, 2003, p. 86). Paradoxically, despite being apparently
favorable to the idea of miscegenation (when going between European
strains), von Martius contributed decisively to spreading amongst
Brazilian scholars a belief that racial mixing had harmful and degen-
erative effects, when it happened between Indians and Europeans.
Those pernicious effects of racial mixture would be especially detri-
mental for the Indians, whose degeneration von Martius described as an
irreversible biological decline (Martius, 1939, 1982). He reported as a
particular feature, noticeable in all Brazilian Indians, their ‘‘progressive
decline of body and face, beauty and strength from the primitive state of
the indigenous races. A decline that have modified them up to a point in
which they are characterized by their current deformity and ugliness,
just after a few centuries of coexistence and mixture with whites (…). It
is hard to believe how, in such a short space of time, a strong and
8
In France, during the last half of the XIXth century, Quatrefages was the most
influential defender of the unity of the human species, from a non evolutionary per-
spective of physical anthropology. Some of his books, such as Unite´ de l’espe`ce humaine
(1864), or the monumental Crania ethnica (1882)––written in collaboration with Ernst
Hamy- were internationally considered as hallmarks of the best physical anthropology
of the 19th century. Contrary to the Darwinian models of human evolution, Quatre-
fages was also clearly opposed to French evolutionary anthropologists such as Paul
Broca or Paul Topinard, as well as to other famous European scientists such as Haeckel,
Vogt, Büchner, or James Hunt, all of whom defended that races were, in fact, multiple
human species. Quatrefages was also famous for his studies on colonial acclimation. He
stressed the importance of miscegenation in the formation of all known human popu-
lations, opposing the essentialist and deterministic views of race that were predominant
at the time, especially in Germany. In this sense, Quatrefages maintained a heated
argument with the famous German scientist Rudolf Virchow over the racial unity of the
German people, with the French anthropologist defending the non-existence of any
homogenous ‘‘German race’’ (Di Gregorio, 2002, pp. 103–104). Notwithstanding his
opposition to evolutionism and Darwinism, some of his anthropological ideas against
biological determinism have been assumed by contemporary human biology. In this
sense, Quatrefages was a precursor of ‘‘the idea that hominid evolutionary pathways
have been trigged by climatic causes’’ (Livingstone, 2012). See also Conklin (2013).
warlike nation like the ancient Indians may have suffered such a great
reduction in number, and may have degenerated to such a degraded and
insignificant state. All of which makes of them an object of compassion,
more than a subject of history’’ (Spix and Martius, 1938, vol. 1, p. 197).
According to von Martius, it was presumable that, in short, such bio-
logical and cultural degeneration would lead to the total extinction of
the indigenous peoples of Brazil: ‘‘there’s no doubt that Native Amer-
icans are about to disappear. Other peoples will survive in the New
World while those unhappy populations rest in the eternal sleep’’
(Martius, 1982, p. 70). As previously mentioned, neutral or favorable
descriptions of Brazilian miscegenation were very rare among the
international scientific community during the second half of the nine-
teenth century. In any case, even when they were taken into ac-
count,—as in the aforementioned cases of Quatrefages and von
Martius, the influence of those indecisive, if not contradictory,
defenders of racial mixing were certainly incomparable with the influ-
ence of those defending the opposite point of view, for whom Brazilian
miscegenation was estimated as a source of decadence and degeneration.
The same identification of Indians and their mestiços with degener-
ation, the same kind of predictions of racial extinction for those sup-
posedly retarded branches of human evolution, were also common in
other Latin American countries, apart from Brazil (Graham, 1990;
Bratlinger, 2003). In Argentina, for example, miscegenation not only
triggered interest in the process of speciation, but also in its relationship
with extinction (Novoa and Levine, 2010). Racial degeneration and
racial extinction of the decadent native populations became a synonym
of progress and civilization: ‘‘If the country was civilizing itself, the
‘natural’ elimination of inferior individuals, unfit for the struggle for
existence, had to be proved and displayed. The origin of modernity was
here associated with the existence of evolutionary waste that revealed
the work of natural selection on behalf of national improvement’’
(Novoa, 2009, p. 2017). Similar ideas were expressed in Cuba, where the
native Indians of the island were considered to have been formed by
populations ‘in a degenerative stage, leading inevitably to their extinc-
tion, when the Spaniards conquered them and ‘fulfilled that sentence’’’
(Helg, 1990, p. 58).
Among the defenders of the idea that racial miscegenation caused
degeneration, a prominent place must be assigned to the Count Arthur
de Gobineau, who lived in Rio de Janeiro as the French ambassador
between 1869 and 1870, and eventually became a friend of Emperor
Pedro II (Raeders, 1988). Gobineau’s influence in Brazilian scientific
circles would be remarkable for decades. Even authors whose work was
developed many years after the Count́s visit to Brazil, such as Nina
Rodrigues, recalled the Count’’s dramatic description of the ‘‘decline
observed in the South-American mestiços’’ (Rodrigues, 1899, p. 4). In
1869, during his stay in Rio, the famous author of the Essay on the
Inequality of the Human Races (Gobineau, 1967) reported, with moral
and esthetic horror, that ‘‘no Brazilian has pure blood. All possible
combinations of marriages between whites, blacks and Indians have
proliferated to such an extent that the nuances in the color of the skin
are endless, and this has produced the most pitiful degeneration, both in
the lower as in the upper classes’’ (Raeders, 1988, p. 40).9 According to
the French diplomat, the deleterious effects of Brazilian miscegenation
were so patent that, following his calculations, decay caused by inter-
racial crosses would ‘‘inevitably condemn the degenerate mestiços to
disappearance (…) in about two hundred and seventy years’’ (Raeders,
1988, p. 62). It was a very similar opinion to that maintained by another
illustrious French visitor to Brazil, the botanist Auguste Saint-Hilaire.
Some decades before Gobineaús arrival in the country, in 1833, Saint-
Hilaire published a book about his travels along the Brazilian coast and
the diamond territories of the inner-lands, which lasted from 1816 to
1822. There, Saint-Hilaire described ‘‘a horrible population, formed
from the mixture of oppressed and oppressors’’ (Saint-Hilaire, 1974, p.
153). In his view, Brazilian Indigenous people constituted only ‘‘the sad
remnants of a civilization that will quickly fade away, accompanied by
the disappearance of the unhappy race to which it belongs’’ (de Saint-
Hilaire, 1974, p. 153).
The future of Brazilian people looked equally pessimistic for one of
the greatest naturalists of the nineteenth century, Louis Agassiz—who
visited the country between 1865 and 1866. A disciple of Cuvier, the
zoologist, geologist and paleontologist Luiz Agassiz remained an anti-
Darwinist until his death. He considered that the human species was the
result of divine Creation, but he asserted that the Bible ‘‘never meant to
say that all men originated from a single pair, Adam and Eve, nor that
the animals had a similar origin from one common center or from a
single pair’’ (Agassiz 1850, p. 135; quoted in Sussman 2014, p. 33). After
leaving Europe, he arrived in the United States in 1846, where he re-
mained for the rest of his life. He joined Morton and Nott in their
defense that different human types were in fact different biological
species, created in different biogeographic areas, each one characterized
9
Letter from A. de Gobineau to Caroline de Gobineau, April 19th, 1869. Quoted in
Raeders (1988, p. 90).
by a peculiar fauna and flora. ‘‘Agassiźs basic view was that all humans
were created differently, with different talents. People of color had dif-
ferent, but inferior talents to those of whites, and these differences
should be studied so the best could be gotten out of each race. Just as
Hume and Kant before him, he based his theory on the supposition that
Africans had never created a civilization, never developed ‘‘regulated
societies’’, had always been slaves and therefore should remain so.
Furthermore, Agassiz believed that because of this, it was a waste of
time and effort to give to Africans the educational and cultural benefits
of European civilization’’ (Sussmann, pp. 33–34). During his stay in
Brazil, Agassiz conducted anthropological research, comprising a series
of pioneering anthropological photographs intended to prove the bio-
logical degeneration of mixed races in relation with ‘‘pure’’ breeds
(Balanta, 2012; Machado and Huber, 2010). In his travel notes, he
described the devastating effect that racial mixture had caused to the
nation. ‘‘Those who doubt about the pernicious effects of racial mixing
and, led by a false philanthropy, try to deny all the natural barriers
existing between the human races, should come to Brazil. Here, better
than anywhere else, it is not possible to deny the racial decline resulting
from the crosses. They could not deny that miscegenation shuts down
the best qualities of each race: in whites as in blacks or Indians, racial
mixture produces an indescribable kind of hybrid, of poor physical and
mental energy’’ (Agassiz and Agassiz, 1938, p. 366).
Agassiz, as it is well known, used anti-evolutionary and creationist
arguments to explain the natural differences between the races—con-
sidered by him as different zoological species. But in Brazil, a country
where—unlike in other Latin American States- the theories of biological
evolution were relatively quickly accepted without much tension (Bertol
et al., 2003), these kind of old fashioned creationist anthropological
arguments would rapidly be forgotten and replaced by more modern
evolutionary discourses about the origin of racial divergences.
On the Origin of Races: The Reception of Evolutionism in Brazil
In the last decades of the nineteenth century, racial theories inspired by

the Darwinian understanding of human evolution, which comprised the
extinction of the less ‘‘favoured races’’ in the biological struggle for
survival (Darwin, 1871, vol. 1, pp. 236–239)- received an enthusiastic
reception in Brazil (Glick, 2003). As it is well known, between 1832 and
1834, during his voyage on the H.M.S Beagle, Darwin had visited dif-
ferent parts of Brazil, where he got profoundly disgusted by Brazilian

slavery. As he wrote in his diary: ‘‘If to what Nature has granted the
Brazils, man added his just & proper efforts, of what a country might
the inhabitants boast. But where the greater parts are in a state of
slavery, & where this system is maintained by an entire stop to educa-
tion, the mainspring of human actions, what can be expected; but that
the whole would be polluted by its part’’ (Darwin, 2001, p. 46). Any-
how, despite this horror for slavery (Desmond and More, 2009), despite
his definite scientific defense of the unity of the human species (Darwin,
1871, vol. 1. p. 228) and his own personal belief in the existence of
‘‘many excellent and kind-hearted mulattos’’ (Darwin, 1868, vol. 2, p.
46)- Darwin had not a favorable opinion about miscegenation. Many
years after his visit to South American countries, he admitted that
‘‘when two races low in the scale, are crossed, the progeny seems to be
eminently bad. Thus the noble-hearted Humboldt, who felt no prejudice
against the inferior races now so current in England, speaks in strong
terms of the bad and savage disposition of Zambos, or half-castes be-
tween Indians and Negroes; and this conclusion has been arrived at by
various observers. From these facts we may perhaps infer that the de-
graded state of so many half-castes is in part due to reversion to a
primitive and savage condition, induced by the act of crossing, as well as to
the unfavorable moral conditions under which they generally exist’’
(Darwin, 1868, vol. 2, pp. 46–47). The context of Darwińs affirmation
was a discussion on inheritance, more specifically, about the proximate
causes that lead to reversion to atavistic states. According to Darwin,
these reversions could induce the expression of primitive traits. It shall
be remembered here that the exact mechanisms of genetic inheritance
were unknown by the scientific community at the time Darwin pub-
lished his Descent of man, in 1871, and remained a subject of contro-
versy and speculation for the rest of the century. In this same speculative
context, Darwin also quoted an observation made by Livingston during
his 1865 expedition to the Zambezi region in Africa, that ‘‘God made
white men, and God made black men, but the Devil made half-castes’’
(Darwin 1868, vol. 2, p. 46). According to Darwin, atavistic reversions,
probably produced for racial admixture, could be the main cause for the
apparent ugliness he had observed in Latin American populations:
‘‘many years ago, long before I had thought of the present subject, I was
struck with the fact that, in South America, men of complicated descent
between Negroes, Indians, and Spaniards, seldom had, whatever the
cause might be, a good expression’’ (Darwin, 1868, vol. 2, p. 47).
Apart from Darwin, this same theoretical framework, which con-

sidered miscegenation as a potential source of evolutionary degenera-
tion and atavistic regression, was taken for granted in many countries
and in some of the most important evolutionary schools of physical
anthropology at the end of the nineteenth century. However, at the time
the Darwinian conceptual framework about the evolution of our species
was formulated, the concept of species was not consensual (especially
when applied to humans). Darwin preferred to speak of one human
species with many varieties or races, but he admitted that this distinc-
tion between species and race was rather arbitrary (Darwin, 1871, vol. 1,
p. 235). In this sense, Ernst Haeckel—who thought that humankind
could be divided into genuine species- also expressed the difficulties that,
from an evolutionary perspective, presented the taxonomic categoriza-
tion of the different human groups either as races or as species, and the
relative arbitrariness in which that decision ultimately depended on.
‘‘The difficulties met with in classifying the different races or species of
men are quite the same as those which we discover in classifying animal
and vegetable species. In both cases, forms apparently quite different are
connected with one another by a chain of intermediate forms of tran-
sition. In both cases the dispute as to what is a kind or a species, what a
race or a variety, can never be determined’’ (Haeckel, 1887, vol. 2, p.
305). At the same time, the understanding of the mechanisms of heredity
and speciation were also unstable and immersed in a permanent flux of
new ideas. Therefore, the first Darwinians needed to make sense of
human diversity without a thorough understanding of genetics and, in
general, about the role of culture as a unique and profound character-
istic of human nature, with a decisive influence in rapport to human
biosocial diverseness. In that context, Darwin’s defense of monogenism
and the uniqueness of the modern human species coexisted, among the
first Darwinians, with alternative interpretations of human diversity,
even among ostensible supporters of Darwin, such as Haeckel himself,
who divided humanity into twelve separate species of humans (Haeckel,
1887, vol. 2, p. 333).10
Apart from Haeckel, through the end of the nineteenth century and
into the twentieth, many other famous evolutionary scientists such as
Alfred Wallace, Paul Broca, Ludwig Büchner, Karl Vogt, or Henry
Fairfield Osborn, believed that human races evolved as genuine species.
10
In the first German edition of his popular book Natural History of Creation
(Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, 1868), Haeckel proposed a system of classification
which included nine species of humans. See Richards (2007, p. 98). In all subsequent
editions, he divided humankind into 12 separate species of the genus Homo, further
subdivided into 36 human races. See Marks (2012, p. 97; footnote #4).
For these scientists, as for Haeckel, there could be no doubt that the
biological differences between some human races were ‘‘as great and
even greater than the specific differences by which zoologists and
botanists distinguish recognized good animal and vegetable species
(bonae species)’’ (Haeckel, 1887, vol. 2, p. 305). Some authors have
referred to the defenders of these ideas as evolutionary polygenists
(Alter, 2007a, p. 239; Caspari and Wolpoff, 2013, p. 355), while others
refer to them as ‘‘neopolygenists’’ (Sussman, 2014, p. 87).11
The anthropological ideas of these post-evolutionary polygenists
were radically opposite to polygenic creationism, whose basic
tenet—reinvigorated in scientific terms by the ‘‘American School of
Anthropology’’ in the first half of the nineteenth century- was the sep-
arate creation of the human races by God. This old creationist
assumption ‘‘did not die with Darwin’s Origin of Species’’ (Stocking,
1982, p. 45), and was still supported in Darwin’s times by non-Dar-
winian polygenic anthropologists, such as James Hunt and his closest
allies in the Anthropological Society of London (Stocking, 1982, p. 46;
1987, pp. 245–254; Richards, 2007, p. 99). On the contrary, Haeckel, as
well as many other post-evolutionary polygenists, accepted natural
selection and the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm, and explicitly re-
jected any kind of creationist explanations in biological anthropology.
In fact, as some authoritative scholars have recently suggested, some of
Haeckel’s most controversial ideas regarding human racial diversity
cannot be completely understood without placing them in relation with
Haeckel’s radical aversion towards creationism and all form of ortho-
dox religions, particularly Catholicism.12 In this sense, Haeckel’s poly-
genic rejection of the idea ‘‘that all men are descended from one pair’’
(Haeckel, 1887, vol. 2, p. 304) as an untenable supposition ‘‘taken from
11
Alter (2007a, p. 239) says that Darwin’s anthropological ideas ‘‘opposed to a new
evolutionary polygenism formulated in the wake of Darwin’s Origin of Species by his
ostensible supporters Alfred Russel Wallace and Ernst Haeckel’’. Similarly, Caspari and
Wolpoff (2013) state that ‘‘through the end of the nineteenth century and into the
twentieth, many paleoanthropologists and paleontologists were evolutionary poly-
genists, who essentially described human races (= subspecies) as having independently
evolved from different primate species, some in ancient times and others more re-
cently(…). Key elements shared by all variations of evolutionary polygenism include the
independent evolution of human races (for so long that races acquired their humanity
separately) and the tree models at their core’’ (Caspari and Wolpoff, 2013, p. 355). See
also Haller (1995), Alter (2007b), and Gliboff (2014).
12
See Richards (2007, p. 100) and Marks (2012, p. 97).
the Semitic myth of the Mosaic history of creation’’ (ibid), could be

better understood when taking into account Haeckel’s ‘‘extreme anti-
religious views’’ (Richards, 2007, p. 99).13
However, in Haeckel’s system, this polygenic belief in the multiplicity
of the ancestors of the modern races was compatible with the defense of
a monophyletic origin for all the human groups, which, according to the
German scientist, had evolved from a speechless ‘‘primeval man’’
(Haeckel, 1887, vol. 2, pp. 327–328). In other words, Haeckel coupled
his belief in the plurality of the human species ‘‘with a general mono-
genetic theory that held that all human forms had originally descended
from some Urform’’ (Di Gregorio, 2002, p. 99). From this perspective,
Haeckel could be considered a monogenist, with Darwin. However,
differently from the British naturalist, Haeckel maintained that the
descendants of that common antecessor gave place to a number of
different proto-human (speechless) ancestral species (now extinct). Later
on, under the action of natural selection, those different branches of
speech-les ancestors would have suffered successive evolutionary mod-
ifications until they eventually acquired language independently and
thence, evolved into the different modern human species. In his best-
seller The History of Creation, Haeckel provided a detailed explanation
about how this evolutionary process of multiple human speciation took
place. ‘‘Out of speechless primeval man, whom we consider as the
common primary species of all the others, there developed in the first
place—probably by natural selection- various species of men unknown
to us, and now long since extinct, and who still remained at the stage of
speechless ape-men—Alalus, or Pithecanthropus-’’ (Haeckel, 1887, vol.
2, pp. 327–328). After the extinction of that primeval speechless ante-
cessor, the different branches into which their descendants were divided
diverged so much on their physical characteristics, degree of cerebral
development, cultural and intellectual achievements and rates of pro-
gress, as to separately acquire the capacity to create different articulate
languages ‘‘quite independently of one another’’ (Haeckel, 1887, p. 303).
For that reason, according to Haeckel, a taxonomist could perfectly
distinguish them as separate ‘‘bonae species’’ (Haeckel 1887, vol. 2, p.
305). Those multiple processes of Human speciation occurred in dif-
ferent moments and regions, each time that one of those proto-human
speechless species acquired language, what for Haeckel constituted the
decisive event for a complete hominization. In that sense, and even
though he accepted a common antecessor for all the modern human
13
For a comprehensive discussion of Haeckel’s thought about religion, see Richards
(2008, especially pp. 343–390).
species, the German scientist refused the idea that they descended from
a single human pair and thus, from this point of view, he could be
classified with the evolutionary polygenists. As Haeckel recognized, this
was a paradoxical situation in which, depending on the perspective
adopted, his evolutionary anthropology could be considered either as
monogenist or as polygenist. In Haeckel’s own words, ‘‘two great par-
ties have for a long time been at war with each other upon this question;
the monophylists (or monogenists) maintain the unity of origin and the
blood relationship of all races of men. The polyphylists (or polygenists),
on the other hand, are of the opinion that the different races of men are
of independent origin. According to our previous genealogical investi-
gations, we cannot doubt that, at least in a wide sense, the monophyletic
opinion is the right one. For even supposing that the transmutation of
Man-like Apes into Men had taken place several times, yet those Apes
themselves would again be allied by the one pedigree common to the
whole order of the Apes. The question, therefore, would always be
merely about a nearer or remoter degree of blood relationship. In a
narrower sense, on the other hand, the polyphylist’s opinion would
probably be right, inasmuch as the different primeval languages have
developed quite independently of one another. Hence, if the origin of an
articulate language is considered as the real and principal act of
humanification (sic), and the species of the human race are distinguished
according to the roots of their language, it might be said that the dif-
ferent races of men had originated independently of one another by
different branches of primeval speechless men, directly springing from
apes and forming their own primeval language. Still, they would of
course be connected further up or lower down at their root, and thus all
would finally be derived from a common primeval stock. While we hold
the latter of these convictions, and while we for many reasons believe
that the different species of speechless primeval men were all derived
from a common ape-like human form, we do not of course mean to say
that all men are descended from one pair. This latter supposition, which
our modern Indo-Germanic culture has taken from the Semitic myth of
the Mosaic history of creation, is by no means tenable’’ (Haeckel, 1887,
vol.2, pp. 303–304).
This peculiar combination of the defense of the multiplicity of the
human species with the idea that they all had a monophyletic origin,
having evolved from a common primeval proto-human Urform, situated
Haeckel’s anthropology in an intermediate position between Darwin’s
monogenism and the radical polygenism of the time. This last position
was represented in Haeckle’s times by the advocates of polygenic
creationist anthropology, such as James Hunt and his closest allies in

the Anthropological Society of London-, as well as by other evolutionary
thinkers—such as the German linguist August Schleicher14-, for whom,
differently from Haeckel, the existence of a common Urform was
impossible.
Besides, Haeckel’s Monist philosophy—which had deep roots in the
German Romantic Movement (Richards, 2008)-, implied a profound
intertwining of nature and culture, where biological, linguistic and
cultural elements formed an organic whole in which ‘‘language, the idea
of nation, the concept of species and races, were all united’’ (Di Gre-
gorio, 2002, p. 99). His understanding of human evolution established a
peculiar ‘‘marriage between the mental-spiritual element of language
and the physical elements of hair and skull morphology, between Volk
and Rasse’’ (Di Gregorio, 2002, p. 103). Therefore, it is not surprising
that his ideas found an enthusiastic reception among Brazilian racial
scientists, in a moment when both race and nation seemed to be almost
an obsession for the Brazilian cultivated elites. Many of the first
Brazilian evolutionists, such as Cabral (1876), Nina Rodrigues (1899,
1938, 1945), Cunha (1902) or Lacerda (1911), among others, were
deeply influenced by Haeckel’s ideas about the role that each race could
play in order to contribute (or get adapted) to the formation of a
modern civilized nation in Brazil. In that sense, for these Brazilian
evolutionists—as well as for many others in Latin America-, Haeckel
became more relevant than Darwin, who had said very little on this
matter.
Particularly, the problem of the different rates of biological and
cultural development among the different human races was a central
issue in Haeckel’s evolutionary anthropology. Regarding this question,
Haeckeĺs ideas caused an enormous effect in some of the first Brazilian
defenders of evolutionism. Under his influence, Brazilian Medical
Doctors and anthropologists such as Domingos Guedes Cabral, João
Batista de Sá Oliveira, Jansen Ferreira or Corrêa Filho, quickly adopted
a Haeckelian perspective on human evolution, considering that the
different races that conformed the Brazilian populations were separate
14
It was under Schleicher’s influence that Haeckel firstly drew inspiration for his
genealogical trees, which he transferred from philology to natural history. Besides,
Schleicher was responsible for convincing Haeckel that the origin of language was
crucial to understand human evolution. Based on his own linguistic research, Schleicher
thought that the existence of an original Urform at the base of the human genealogic
tree was unconceivable. A further discussion on the influence of Schleicher on Haeckel’s
understanding of evolution and on his Monist philosophy can be found in Richards
(2008) and Di Gregorio (2002).
species with different innate capabilities for cultural and intellectual

progress towards civilization.
Haeckel’s understanding of evolution as a complex process of
‘‘progressive differentiation and perfecting of animal and veg-
etable groups in the successive periods of the earth’s history’’ (Haeckel,
1887, vol. 2, p. 352), when applied to humans, implied that all human
races were susceptible of perfecting themselves to a certain degree along
their peculiar evolutionary pathways, even though at very different
rates. In this sense, some authors have correctly pointed out that
Haeckel’s racial classification system could be interpreted as just ‘‘a
snapshot of a living tree’’, on which the so-called inferior groups were
not ‘‘stuck permanently at the lower levels, but had the potential for
growing upward’’ (Gliboff, 2014, p. 117). Anyhow, this belief in the
gradual perfectibility of all human races was not equally distributed
among the different branches of the human evolutionary tree. Not
surprisingly, Haeckel believed that the ‘Mediterranean human species’’,
Homo mediterraneus—which comprised the races of the Caucasians,
Basques, Semites-and the Indo-Germanics- (Haeckel, 1887, vol. 2, p.
308) and particularly, Indo-Germans such as Haeckel himself, consti-
tuted the highest expression of biological and cultural evolution. He was
convinced that ‘‘the Indo-Germanic have, by means of the higher
development of their brain, surpassed all the other races and species in
the struggle for life, and have already spread the net of their dominion
over the whole globe’’ (Haeckel, 1887, vol. 2, p. 324). At the same time,
Haeckel accepted that a significant susceptibility to brain development
and high rates of intellectual and cultural progress were also charac-
teristic of the other Mediterranean races, and particularly of the Semites,
who were always situated ‘‘neck and neck with the Germans’’ in his
classificatory stem-trees (Richards, 2007, p. 100). Out of the Mediter-
ranean species, biological and cultural progressive development were
also possible for some of the other human groups, even though at lower
rates than in the Indo-Germanics and the other Mediterraneans. This
capacity of evolutionary progress, implying relatively high rates of
biological, cultural and intellectual development, applied especially to
the Lissotrichous (straight-haired) subdivision of humankind. Apart
from the highest members of the species Homo Mediterraneus, which
constituted the ‘‘pinnacle’’ of humankind (Richards, 2007, p. 100), the
Lissotrichi group comprised another seven human species—including
the Australian, the Malay, the Mongolian, the Artic, the American, the
Dravidian, and the Nubian-, which Haeckel furtherly subdivided into
nineteenth races (Haeckel, 1887, vol. 2, p. 308). Among this group, some
races of the Mongolian species (Homo Mongolus) were particularly

susceptible of high rates of biological and cultural progress. On the
other hand, Haeckel explicitly denied any practical capability of sig-
nificant progress for ‘‘the lower, more backward, and smaller groups’’
(ibid.) which conformed the inferior strands of the Lissotrichi—such as
the Australians (Homo Australis)—and, most of all, the Ulotrichi—or
wooly-haired—subdivision of humankind. This ‘‘lower’’ subdivision
comprised the species of the Papuans, the Hottentots, the Kaffre (sic)
and the ‘‘genuine’’ Negroes (Haeckel, 1887, vol. 2, p. 309). Regarding
these last groups, Haeckel maintained that ‘‘They are on the whole at a
much lower stage of development, and more like apes, than most of the
Lissotrichi, or straight-haired men. The Ulotrichi are incapable of a true
inner culture and of a higher mental development, even under the
favorable conditions of adaptation now offered to them in the United
States of North America. No woolly-haired nation has ever had an
important ‘‘history’’ (Haeckel, 1887, vol. 2, pp. 307, 310). Moreover,
according to the German scientist—who, in this particular subject, de-
clared his support to Darwin’s authoritative discussion on the extinction
of the lower human races (Darwin 1871, vol. 1, pp. 236–239)- these
inferior human strands would ‘‘sooner or later completely succumb in
the struggle for existence to the superiority of the Mediterranean races’’
(Haeckel, 1887, vol. 2, p. 325). For the German scientist, whereas the
higher species of humans were experiencing a ‘‘progressive diffusion’’ of
their kinds, these lower groups were faded to ‘‘retrogression and
extinction’’ (Haeckel, 1887, vol .2, p. 333). Besides, since their particular
evolutionary pathways made them not susceptible of a significant
improvement of their brains—an idea that Domingos Guedes Cabral
will adopt and propagate in Brazil, as I will discuss later-, they would
never make any significant cultural advance towards civilization. As he
declared on his famous best-seller The History of Creation, ‘‘all attempts
to introduce civilization among these, and many of the other tribes of
the lowest human species, have hitherto been of no avail; it is impossible
to implant human culture where the requisite soil, namely, the per-
fecting of the brain, is wanting. Not one of these tribes has ever been
ennobled by civilization; it rather accelerates their extinction’’ (Haeckel,
1887, vol. 2, pp.363–364). A few pages later in the same work, he
reinforced the idea that the inferior human groups were not capable of
adapting to civilization, even after decades of philanthropic efforts to
educate them, made by the higher races in the colonies. ‘‘Even many
Christian missionaries who, after long years of fruitless endeavors to
civilize those lowest races, have abandoned the attempt, express the
same harsh judgment, and maintain that it would be easier to train the
most intelligent domestic animals to a moral and civilized life,
than these unreasoning brute-like men’’ (Haeckel, 1887, vol. 2, pp. 365–
366).
Moreover, Haeckel’s characterization of the big human divisions as
different species implied that miscegenation could be interpreted as a
process of hybridization (Haeckel, 1887, p. 303). For many of the
neopolygenists of the period, this kind of racial admixture would in-
evitably result in the biological degeneration of the population. This
idea obtained additional scientific support from the French Anthropo-
logical Society, led by Paul Broca, whose theories about human crossing
between what he considered as different human species had been pub-
lished in 1860, with the significant title ‘‘On the phenomenon of Hy-
bridity in the Genus Homo’’ (Broca, 1860, 1864). As mentioned before,
perhaps because of a simple question of linguistic proximity, the newest
advances and theories of evolutionary anthropology came to Brazil
mainly through original French publications or French translations
(even though, in Brazilian scientific libraries, such as in the Medical
School of Bahia, there could also be found scientific books in Italian,
English, and to a lesser extent, in German). For that reason, the French
anthropological school had a decisive influence when evolutionism was
first received in the South American country. In the 1870s, when one of
the pioneers of Brazilian evolutionism, Domingos Guedes Cabral, a
Bahian student of medicine, begun to speak publicly in evolutionary
terms about the inaccuracy of the Bible’s account of human origins
(Cabral, 1876), his denial of the existence of Adam was clearly influ-
enced both by Paul Broca and especially, by Ernst Haeckel. Cabral’s
polemic affirmation that Adam was just ‘‘a myth’’, directly taken from
the German scientist (Haeckel, 1887[1868], vol. 2, p. 304) was oriented
towards a twofold goal. In the first place, the denial of the biblical
narrative was a defense of evolutionism against creationism; but at the
same time, Cabraĺs denial of Adam was a refutation of the monogenic
belief in a single human species, and of a common human origin for all
races.
Cabral was not the only one to adopt this Haeckelian interpretation
of human origins. Despite Darwin’s final victory in the defense of the
unity of the human species (Darwin, 1871, vol. 1, p. 228)-, French and
German evolutionary polygenic anthropological models of human
evolution were enthusiastically received in Brazilian academic circles at
the end of the century.15 People of mixed descend were supposed to be

less fertile than the pure breeds. Some of the best physical anthropol-
ogists of the time, such as the aforementioned Paul Broca, defended
that, racial ‘‘hybrids’’ were often degenerative or inferior to individuals
with a ‘‘pure’’ parental lineage. Moreover, as Darwin himself had rec-
ognized, half-breeds usually presented atavistic features, as manifesta-
tions of evolutionary reversions to a savage and primitive state (Broca,
1860). In this sense, racial miscegenation could only constitute a process
leading to both social and biological degeneration.
A good part of the Brazilian elite—among which the Emperor Pedro
II16, a notorious scientific amateur and a financial promoter of different
scientific projects, both in Brazil and abroad—should be included in a
prominent place, received those evolutionary polygenic theories with
open arms. Paradoxical as it may seem—given the close connections
that, traditionally, linked Brazilian ruling classes with Catholicism-,
many ‘‘members of the Catholic elite were prompt to accept polygenic
evolutionary models of human evolution as a scientific justification for
the maintenance of white supremacy in the social realm. Therefore, even
though Catholic, those elites could be reinforced by accepting the
polygenic models of human evolution’’ (Glick, 2003, p. 23). During the
last decades of the nineteenth century, a good portion of Brazilian
scientific institutions—such as Natural History Museums, Ethnographic
Museums, and Medical Schools- were inclined to polygenic explana-
tions of racial differences. Even among monogenists, it was common to
describe the biological characteristics of mixed races as degenerative and
atavistic (Rodrigues, 1899; Filho, 1895; Netto, 1882c; Lacerda, 1912).
15
Explicit defenses of the evolutionary polygenic theory among Brazilian medical
doctors and physical anthropologists were published both in Bahia and Rio de Janeiro
before 1900. Significant examples can be found in Domingos Guedes Cabral, Funções do
Ce´rebro (Bahia: Imprensa Nacional, 1876); João B. de Lacerda, and José Rodriguez
Peixoto, ‘‘Contribuções para o estudo anthropologico das raças indı́genas do Brazil’’
Arquivos do Museu Nacional de Rio de Janeiro 1876, 1(10): 47–75; Sı́lvio Romerós
Ethnographia Brazileira. Estudos crı´ticos sobre Couto de Magalhães, Barbosa Rodrigues,
Theophilo Braga e Ladislau Netto, (1888); Justo Jansen Ferreira, O parto e suas con-
seqüeˆncias na espećie negra. These inaugural. (1887); Pedro A Corrêa Filho, A
genealogia Humana. These de doutoramento apresentada à Faculdade de medicina e
Pharmacia da Bahia (1895); and João B. de Sá Oliveira, Craneometria comparada das
espećies humanas na Bahia (1895).
16
The emperor Pedro II was member of the Paris Academy of Sciences (which only
accounted for 8 foreign Academics). He even gave economic support to some of Louis
Pasteur researches.
For example, the director of the National Museum of Rio de Janeiro,

Ladislau Netto, a monogenist himself, wrote a paper on miscegenation
between whites and Indians (Netto, 1882c). According to him, among
those Brazilian mestiços, it was easy to observe a whole series of
atavistic reversions to primitive and brutish evolutionary stages. ‘‘There
is conspicuous growth of the mouth and the nose, while at the same
time, the chin retracts; then it appears that disgusting odour in their
axillary transpiration, called caatinga; their hair gets curlier […] and
their facial angle suffers a decline. All these changes come together with
a sharp increase in their indolence, an excessive apathy, and a deeper
state of alienation, or rather intellectual inactivity, similar to the stupid
ineptitude of the Negro. There is also a kind of libidinous instinct
preceding all of these degenerative symptoms, as well as an outbreak of
burgeoning animal sensuality, which can only be eradicated with the
efficient dam of the strongest moral education standards’’ (Netto, 1882c,
p. 4). According to Netto, these atavistic features of the mestiço were
especially apparent during their puberty. But fortunately, according to
Netto, in most cases ‘‘this morbid condition was ephemeral’’ (Netto,
1882c, p. 5).
The Medical School of Bahia received a decisive influence both from
Haeckel and from the French polygenic school of physical anthropol-
ogy (Faria, 1952; Corrêa, 2001). Some of Rodrigues’ colleagues, disci-
ples and associates in Bahia were responsible for the dissemination in
Brazil of Haeckel’s ideas concerning the different rates of evolutionary
and cultural progress that corresponded to each of the races that con-
formed the Brazilian population. Besides, the French polygenic
thought—and very especially, Paul Broca- had a decisive influence
among the Bahian doctors in providing authoritative arguments for the
idea that biological and intellectual degeneration resulted from inter-
racial crossing (Rodrigues, 1899; Oliveira, 1985; Filho, 1895; Cabral,
1876). Influenced by Haeckel, Nina Rodrigues admitted that only the
‘‘higher’’ mestiços—in which the European component clearly domi-
nated—, could reach the same capacity of intellectual progress and
civilization as pure ‘‘whites’’. In all other cases, the Mestiço breeds
constituted a kind of human sub-product, especially prone to biological
and mental degeneration. Along with pure blacks and Indians, inferior
mestiços should not be considered equal to white citizens—in legal,
biological, intellectual or moral terms. Rodrigues defended that they
should be considered and judged under different standards and civil
codes (Rodrigues, 1938, pp. 161, 169, 215–217). The main purpose of
Rodrigues’ book Me´tissage, de´geńe´rescence et crime was to present

miscegenation ‘‘as a degenerative influence in the social etiology of
crime’’ (Rodrigues, 1899, p. 4). Following the French poligenist Gustave
Le Bon (Le Bon, 1894) he described ‘‘South American mestiço popu-
lations as the incontestable proof of the disastrous social effect of racial
mixture’’ (Rodrigues, 1899, p. 4).
Polygenic racial thought also influenced some other leading Brazilian
evolutionists, working outside of Bahia. In 1886, M.D. Jansen Ferreira
presented his obstetrical Dissertation on ‘‘Childbirth and its conse-
quences in the Negro species’’ at the Medical Faculty of Rio de Janeiro
(Ferreira, 1887). At the same period, the Museum of Natural History in
Pará was led by the Swiss naturalist Émil Goeldi, who had learnt about
polygenism directly from Ernst Haeckel at the University of Jena, where
the famous German evolutionist had been his mentor. In São Paulo,
polygenic evolutionary discourse was present in the Museu Paulista,
directed by the German scientist Hermann von Ihering, who stated that
‘‘degeneration, as frequently observed in the hybrids of the animal
kingdom, is easily seen among the crossed products of the different
human groups’’ (Schwarcz, 1993, p. 80). At some point during his
careed, von Ihering was accused of supporting the extermination of
Kaingang indigenous people, who, reluctant to abandon their own
lands, had entered into a war with the white settlers of the inner lands.
Even though he positively denied that accusation (von Ihering, 1911),
the German scientist—who was, as Goeldi, an admirer of Haeckel,-
legitimized, in scientific terms, the war of extermination against those
rebel indigenous groups. Talking about this conflict, von Ihering quoted
von Martius to predict the inevitable extinction of those uncivilized
‘‘paleobrazilians’’ (von Ihering, 1911, p. 132). According to him, what
actually condemned those ‘‘savages’’ to extinction was nothing else than
Nature herself, against whom invoking any kind of humanist moral
principles it would be childish: ‘‘We can say that the American race has
no future. They are condemned to disappear in front of our eyes. Public
administration and legislation must surrender to this lesson from science
and experience’’ (von Ihering, 1911, p. 132). Another German scientist,
Fritz Müller—perhaps the most influential of all evolutionary natural-
ists living in Brazil during that period-, showed total confidence that
German blood would soon overpass the Latin decadent element,
responsible for much of the backwardness of the Brazilian population
(Gualtieri, 2003, p. 83).
Ad Instar Animalium: Botocudos at the ‘‘Human Zoo’’
Beginning in the seventies, director Ladislau Netto and deputy director

João Batista de Lacerda conducted their pioneering anthropometrical
research on the ‘‘physical characteristics of the indigenous breeds of
Brazil’’ at the main scientific institution of the country, the National
Museum of Rio de Janeiro. Even though monogenist themselves, their
research was directly inspired by the work of Morton, Nott, Gliddon,
and Broca, some of the most notorious defenders of polygenism. Fol-
lowing their example, they formed an important collection of indigenous
skulls. The Archivos do Museu National, the Museum’s official Journal,
begun publishing original anthropometrical studies on native Brazilian
Indians since the 1876 (Santos, 2012; Sá et al., 2008). Both Lacerda and
Netto agreed that Aboriginal Brazilians had diverged very early from
European and Asian lineages in the history of human evolution (Netto,
1882b, pp. 113–114; Lacerda and Peixoto, 1876), even though they
considered them as part of the same biological species as the rest of the
humankind. To their view, though, the biological and linguistic pecu-
liarities of some isolated Brazilian tribes, such as the Botocudos, made
plausible—if not definitive- the theory of the evolutionary autochthony
of the American races. The autochthony of the American human races
was defended by many anthropologists at the end of the nineteenth
century. The idea that an ancestral human species could have evolved
autochthonously in South-America was contemporarily defended by the
Argentinian paleontologist Florentino Ameghino (Ameghino, 1879,
1880; Romero, 1888b). Among Brazilian scholars, the famous poet,
essayist, literary critic, professor and journalist Sı́lvio Romero (1851–
1914) was a declared defender of the Homo americanus hypotheses. In his
book Brazilian ethnography, Romero criticized and even ridiculed a
number of Brazilian intellectuals who didn’t accept that the American
ancestors of the Botocudo could have evolved independently in the New
World, as an autochthonous hominid species.17 As for Lacerda, after an
initial support of polygenism,18 he eventually accepted Darwinian
monogenism as a more adequate theory for explaining the origin of
races. In 1911, during the First Universal Race Congress (Souza and
Santos, 2012), in which Lacerda represented Brazil, he proclaimed:
‘‘Science has as yet no infallible criterion by which it can distinguish races
17
See Romero (1888b, pp. 28–34, 87–90, 100, 105, 112).
18
In 1876, he declared that if he had to choose between the two hypotheses (mono/
polygenism), he would be ‘‘a polygenist with Agassiz’’. Lacerda and Peixoto (1876, p.
75).
from species. The one test by which we can provide a secure foundation
for this distinction is the fertility or infertility of the offspring which
results from crossing the two species in question. If their progeny con-
tinues to reproduce in successive generations, the parents constitute a
race. If on the opposite, they prove sterile, the parents which were
crossed must be considered species. Admitting this principle, which
seems to me sounder physiologically and more natural than any of the
others, I have no difficulty in granting that the white man and the black
man are merely two races and not two distinct species. Everyone is aware
that the metis, who come of the mating of the White and the black,
remain fertile for many generations’’ (Lacerda, 1911, pp. 377–378).
In 1882, Netto and Lacerda had organized a great anthropological
exhibition at the National Museum, in which a group of living Botocudo
natives was exhibited as the main attraction. Before further considera-
tions, it is important here to introduce a brief digression, in order to
better understand why the organizers of the exhibition chose the Bo-
tocudo, among the many native indigenous nations living in the country,
in order to be transported to the city of Rio,19 and get displayed for the
public. Given their peculiar appearance, as a result of their use of the
Tembeta,20 the Botocudos became object of special attention, curiosity
and interest for naturalists and anthropologists since their first contact
with whites. Besides, the Botocudos had provided some of the most
valuable skulls to the National Museum anthropological collections,
since their creation. Those skulls had been object of systematic
anthropometrical studies by the Musem’s naturalists Lacerda and Ro-
drigues Peixoto (Lacerda and Peixoto, 1876; Lacerda, 1876; Peixoto,
1885). But, in the context of exacerbated nationalism that characterized
Brazilian society during the last decades of the nineteenth century, there
were also other political reasons for considering these particular Indi-
ans—and no others—as perfect examples of biological primitivism and
cultural savagery.
During the second half of the nineteenth century, ‘‘national charac-
ters’’ were considered to be determined by ethnic or racial factors. After
their independence, many Latin-American countries tried to build a new
national identity through a complete revision of their national history.
The creation of new Historical Institutes, such as the Brazilian Instituto
Histórico e Geográfico, founded in 1838, stimulated the production of a
new kind of historical narratives in which the racial matters played a
19
The exhibited natives came from the inner lands of the Brazilian States of Goiás and
Espı´rito Santo. See Langer and Rankel (2004).
20
Traditional wood tablets used by Botocudos as labial and auricular extensors.
central role. In the case of the different Indian nations living in the
Brazilian territory, some native groups were stereotypically represented
as being ‘‘noble by nature’’, while other populations, especially those
who resisted occupation of their lands and were not subjugated to the
colonial rule, such as the Botocudos, used to be depicted as brutish and
primitive savages, evolutionary underdeveloped. Historically—al least
since the seventeenth century—the Portuguese had established in Brazil
a clear demarcation between the Tupi and Tapuia Indians (Peixoto,
1885, p. 205). The Tapuia group—to which the Botocudo belonged-
included non-acculturated indigenous populations, whose languages
belonged to the Jê family. The Tapuians included some resistant, belli-
cose, and rebel peoples, such as the Botocudos themselves, or the
aforementioned Kaingang, who historically had always resisted to ren-
der their original lands to the administration of the white authorities.
Significantly, Tapuians were commonly considered by contemporary
Brazilian scholars and anthropologists as representatives of the lowest
grade of human civilization. On the contrary, the Tupi—who originally
spoke different Tupinambá dialects and—after their standardization by
the Jesuits-, used the Nheengatu language, or Lıńgua Geral, had been
largely assimilated by the Portuguese colonial authorities and mission-
aries. After the independence from Portugal, in a period still marked by
violent conflicts for the land between Indian natives and white set-
tlers—or Bandeirantes-, the dichotomy Tupi/Tapuia gained new politi-
cal connotations, associated with the search for a new national identity.
‘‘For the Empire intellectuals (…) the Tapuia Indians, frequently
characterised as enemies instead of allies, represented the treacherous
savage of the inner lands, always menacing and interrupting the pro-
gress of civilisation. They were situated in the opposite pole of the
Tupi—the noble warrior who signed a peace and blood brotherhood
with the coloniser’’ (Monteiro, 2001, p. 174).
The First Brazilian Anthropological Exhibition—one of the most
important scientific events held in Brazil during the whole nineteenth
century—was inaugurated on July 29,1882, in the presence of the Em-
peror and the Imperial family (Arteaga and El-Hani, 2010; Andermann,
2005; Langer and Rankel, 2004). With its scientific authority, the
exhibition reinforced the idea of the biological, intellectual and moral
inferiority of the rebel Tapuians. The Botocudo natives were exhibited
‘‘in a simulated everyday-life environment’’ (Andermann, 2003, p. 300),
as it was fashionable in contemporary anthropological exhibitions
(Sánchez-Gómez, 2013; Abbatista, 2005; Rothfels, 2002, Bancel et al.,
2002). The ‘‘human zoo’’ was complemented with an official catalogue,
the ‘Revista da exposição antropológica Brazileira’ (Filho, 1882). Visitors

could find a detailed scientific narrative of the Indians biological
degeneration, as well as prolific descriptions of their supposed atavistic
and animalistic features. ‘‘Under a moral and intellectual point of
view’’, as Lacerda explained in the catalogue, the Botocudos were the
perfect example of a human race carried down to their deepest degree of
inferiority. Some of them were still fond of cannibalism, and ‘‘only with
great difficulties could they get adapted to a civilized environment’’
(Lacerda, 1882c, p. 2).
Scatered among many other historical, ethnographic, and linguistic
notes, the official catalog contained several short articles specifically
devoted to biological questions. Some of them referred to the signifi-
cance of those Indians for the understanding of Human evolution.
Ladislau Netto, for example, explained that there existed more bio-
logical differences between the Botocudos and the Aryans, than between
the exhibited natives and the great apes. ‘‘When we carefully study the
gradual descent of humanity, and we take into account the superior
evolutionary qualities acquired by the Indo-Germanic races—the
highest expression of human improvement–, we find a bigger difference
between the most educated and beautiful types of this race, and the most
bestial and imperfect human groups, than the distance between these
latter and gorillas and chimpanzees’’ (Netto, 1882b, p. 113). According
to Netto, the Botocudo people could hardly be described as human,
from a scientific point of view. In his opinion, they were just ‘‘creatures
that only had the form and the physical nature of man; individuals
whose almost absolute deprivation of a modulate language, capable of
expressing their thought, whose crude gestures and ape-like customs,
revealed much of the character of those animals with whom they live in
complete promiscuity’’ (Netto, 1882c, p. 3).
In other parts of the catalogue, Botocudos were described as living
fossils. Netto explained that living Brazilian Indians showed the signs of
an evolutionary degenerative process. According to him, racial degen-
eration had degraded the natives, either in biological and cultural terms,
to a semi-animal savagery: ‘‘all the lofty moral and physical charac-
teristics of the American people—very probably, a collateral branch of
the oldest sources of humanity—have turned off, one by one’’ (Netto,
1882d, p. 78). Netto—probably influenced by his Argentinian colleague
Florentino Ameghino (1878, 1880), who also defended the autochthony
of the human species in America- even stated the possibility that Bo-
tocudos were the living remnants of one of the evolutionary racial
sources of all humanity, from whom more recent and advanced races,
such as the Aryans, could have evolved. Netto supported his unortho-
dox biological assertions on even more unorthodox philological argu-
ments, considered as ridiculous pseudoscience by intellectuals as Silvio
Romero.21 ‘‘According to some linguists, Quichua is a corruption of
some military language closely related to Sanskrit (…). Why could not
be stated that, contrary to this assumption, Sanskrit evolved as a pro-
found alteration of the ancient sources of the primitive language spoken
by the men of the Andes?’’ (Netto, 1882d, p. 77).
Reinforcing the idea of a great evolutionary primitivism of the Bo-
tocudo, another article in the Revista—signed by Lacerda-, explained
that the morphology of modern Botocudo skulls presented similarities
with the prehistoric fossils of Lagõa Santa (Neves et al., 2007). The
anatomical peculiarities of these ancient skulls, discovered by Lund in
1843, had been considered by many polygenists as one of the main
arguments in favour of the hypothesis of the evolutionary autochthony
of the American races, and their belonging to a common American
human species, the Homo americanus. Lacerda had described the Bo-
tocudos as one of the most ‘‘brutalized’’ indigenous breeds of Brazil, but
in relation with the Lagoa Santa men, he thought they occupied a
slightly higher position in the evolutionary scale of brain development
(Lacerda, 1882a, pp. 22–23). Another of Lacerda’s studies in the cata-
logue dealt with the dental anatomy of the Botocudos. His comparative
analysis with Europeans reinforced the idea that both races had di-
verged from the first stages of human evolution. According to Lacerda,
the teeth and mandibles of the Botocudo people clearly showed their
closer evolutionary proximity to the extinct races and the great apes,
and ‘‘could be considered as a biological character of ethnic inferiority.
When you see the Museum’s whole anthropological collection […], at
first glance, it becomes apparent the bestiality printed on the teeth of
these Indian skulls’’ (Lacerda, 1882b, p. 91).
21
Sı́vio Romero considered Ladislau Netto as a vacuous and egotistic pseudo intel-
lectual, of very limited scientific skills and lacking the anthropological culture required
for directing the National Museum. Concerning Netto’s limited knowledge of linguistic
matters, Romero sarcastically ridiculed his extravagant incursions in the comparative
philology of ancient languages: ‘‘I take the historical responsibility for the affirmation of
Netto’s absolute ignorance in any of the branches of oriental languages, auctoritate ex
qua fungor. For confirming this, it suffices a 10 min talk with him’’ (Romero, 1888b, p.
152). In this same book, Romero accused Netto of stealing and plagiarizing many of the
ethnographic materials that the Canadian-American naturalist Charles F. Hartt—chief
of the Imperial Geological Commission and director of the section of geology at the
National Museum—had left unpublished in the Museum, after contracting yellow fever
and dying in Rio de Janeiro in 1878. See Romero (1888b, pp. 149–151). About Charles
F. Hartt, see Freitas (2002).
In another short note, Netto explained that the Botocudos had be-
come aesthetically repulsive for the civilized eyes because of their par-
ticular code of sexual selection. Darwińs idea that different sexual codes
and beauty patterns could have played a main role in the diversifying
evolution of the human races through sexual selection became very
popular in Latin-America, a continent where sex and race where tightly
intertwined in many aspects (Lavrin, 1989). According to Netto, sexual
selection operated through generations on the peculiar sexual prefer-
ences and beauty patterns of the Botocudo Indians, forcing ‘‘this de-
plorable race to become not much more than animals’’ (Netto, 1882e, p.
60). Among the amatory rituals of this indigenous people, an entire
deployment of manifestations of brutality reflected, in Netto’s view,
their ‘‘simian’’ primitivism. According to Netto, the use of Tembetá
prevented the Indians from the knowledge of the European kiss, con-
sidered by him as the true and ‘‘sweet expression of pure love’’ (Netto,
1882e, p. 60). In his view, ‘‘this ignorance of kissing must have been also
helped by the way in which sexual unions are held among many of these
Indians. Whether or not this kind of sexual union could be a con-
comitant cause—along with the use of labial ornaments—for the ab-
sence of kissing (…), I am led to believe that among peoples relegated to
such a wild state, so far from the heights reached by the civilized na-
tions, their sexual union would always happen ad instar animalium’’
(Netto, 1882e, p. 60). In this sense, Lacerda agreed that their already
brutal physical appearance was further reinforced by the special orna-
ments with which they deformed their lips, causing their physiognomy
to acquire the most ‘‘repulsive aspect’’ (Lacerda, 1882c, p. 2).
Some decades after the Brazilian Anthropological exhibition, sexual
selection would be interpreted by Lacerda as a theory that opened the
possibilities of both explaining and promoting the whitening of Latin-
American populations on scientific terms, when combined with scien-
tifically oriented public policies (Appelbaum et al., 2003). Lacerda used
the Darwinian theory of sexual selection to explain the whitening pro-
cess that, according to the National Museum statistics, eventually would
lead to an almost Caucasian Brazil, with black Brazilians becoming
completely extinct in the year 2012 (Lacerda, 1911). This transformation
of Brazil into a white country would be obtained, according to Lacerda,
by means of combining an adequate immigration policy with the natural
effects of Sexual selection operating in the Brazilian population. The
reason, Lacerda explained, was simple: most Brazilians naturally pre-
ferred to marry someone whiter, the only way to aspire to social
ascension.
The Scientific Dream of a White Brazil
Nineteenth century Brazilian science was characterized by a strong

determinism (Skidmore, 1990; Scwharcz, 1993; Arteaga, 2009). The
Opus Magnum of the engineer, geographer and sociologist Euclydes da
Cunha, Os Sertões—The inner lands-, constitutes the literary climax of
this deterministic Weltanschauung. In Os Sertões (Cunha, 1902), da
Cunha describes the profound and tragic effects of the physical envi-
ronment on the social behaviour of isolated populations of mixed origin
in the North-eastern hinterlands of Brazil. Before da Cunha, Brazilian
scholars were afraid that Henry Thomas Buckle’s famous assertions
about Brazil’s climate could be right, with the implication that no civ-
ilization would ever be possible in the country: ‘‘The whole of Brazil,
notwithstanding its immense apparent advantages, has always remained
entirely uncivilized. Its inhabitants, wandering savages, [are] incompe-
tent to resist those obstacles which the very bounty of nature had put in
their way’’ (Buckle, 1904 [1857–1861], p. 60). On these bases, it seemed
plausible that the country could never compete on an equal bases in the
race for progress and civilization with countries in the northern hemi-
sphere, where in addition to better climatic conditions, white popula-
tions were not as much ‘‘contaminated’’ by inferior racial elements.
During the second half of the nineteenth century, the Brazilian intel-
lectual and scientific elite ‘‘were always willing to repeat the accusation
that the blacks never created any kind of civilization’’ (Skidmore, 1976,
p. 70). Beyond the accepted scientific ‘‘evidence’’ about the intellectual
superiority of the ‘‘Caucasian’’,22 for a good percentage of Brazilian
scientists and intellectuals ‘‘the inability of certain races to develop a
true civilization was confirmed by the history of the European expan-
sion, which automatically implied the rapid disappearance of primitive
societies in the Americas’’ (Monteiro, 2001, p. 177). In this sense,
nineteenth century Brazilian scholars seemed well integrated in the
Western anthropological tradition that coincided with the decline of the
myth of the ‘‘noble savage’’, and gave place to a concept of ‘‘civiliza-
tion’’ restricted to Europeans, North-Americans and a few other peo-
ples. ‘‘Civilization lent itself quite easily to—indeed, seemed to some to
call for- a racial interpretation’’ (Stocking, 1982, p. 37). Thus, a
nationalistic fear for ‘‘racial degeneration’’ cast its shadows over many
22
The term Caucasian was coined by the German Christoph Meiners in his The
Outline of History of Mankind (Meiners, 1876), and later was popularized under Jo-
hann Friedrich Blumenbach́s enormous influence in physical anthropology.
Brazilian intellectuals, considering it as an inevitable consequence of the

mixture of ‘‘higher’’ and ‘‘inferior’’ racial groups. ‘‘The self-recognition
of Brazil as a nation of mestiços created new dilemmas for Brazilian
scientists. It seemed appropriate to talk about races,—since the issue
seemed to be empirically supported, and since that concept permitted
the naturalization of certain differences between human groups in the
social realm-. But at the same time this generated a great paradox: it
seemed to imply also that there was no future for a nation of mixed
races’’ (Schwarcz, 1993, p. 149).
During the last decades of the nineteenth century, these issues would
be especially discussed within the Brazilian Medical Schools of Rio and
Salvador de Bahia. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the
Brazilian journal Brazil Medico, one of the main medical publications of
Brazil—edited by the Medical School of Rio de Janeiro-, claimed for for
‘‘closing the Brazilian frontiers to human slag, defective in body and
intelligence’’ (Schwarcz, 1993, p. 232). For many doctors, equality
seemed to be no more than an idealistic category that the natural
sciences—evolutionary biology, human anthropometry and legal med-
icine, in particular- had demolished (Corrêa, 2001). In 1894, a paper
published in the medical journal Brazil Medico stated that ‘‘the idea of
an equal intelligence for all races, which would only vary in degree of
culture, and the idea that, in consequence, even the representatives of
the most inferior races could achieve the high mental development and
culture degree of the superior races, all of these ideas must be aban-
doned under the principles of modern scientific knowledge’’ (Schwarcz,
1993, p. 222). In other cases, taking for granted the impossibility of
regeneration for a large percentage of the inferior mestiço society, it was
proposed to abandon those mixed human breeds up to their natural
extinction. They would vanish by natural means given their own enor-
mous degree of degeneration, which rendered them incapable of any
kind of progress above their actual degenerative state. Even in 1923, the
Gazeta Me´dica da Bahia—another influential medical journal, from
Salvador- published that ‘‘It would be better, for those deeply degen-
erate populations, to let them breed with each other, since this would
accelerate their extinction by means of sterility and high infant mor-
tality, both of which are mere results of their progressive decadence’’
(Schwarcz, 1993, p. 216).
Brazilian medical schools were not the only scientific promoters of
these whitening projects. The National Museum of Rio de Janeiro—
which in 1877 inaugurated the first Brazilian chair of Anthropology,
held by João B. Lacerda (Lacerda, 1878; Faria, 1952; Santos, 2012)-,
was a major center for the scientific legitimating of branqueamento. One

of the most optimistic examples of these views was developed by Lac-
erda, successor of Ladislau Netto as the scientific director of the insti-
tution. Based on biostatistical data—resulting from a consecutive series
of Brazilian census since 1878-, Lacerda estimated that the complete
disappearance of blacks in Brazil would take no more that one hundred
years. To be more exact: according to his estimates—based on calcu-
lations carried out by Edgard Roquette Pinto23-, there would be no
more blacks in the country by the year 2012 (Lacerda, 1911). Lacerda’’s
scientific authority was warranted by his charges as Professor of the first
Chair of Anthropology in Brazil, director of the main Brazilian Scien-
tific Museum, and Chairman of the National Academy of Medicine of
Rio de Janeiro. All these scientific merits may account for the social
impact of his ideas about the complete removal of pure blacks—along
with a significant decay in the proportion of mestiços and Indians- in
future Brazilian population. His thesis would be at the center of all
discussions about race in Brazil during the early decades of the twen-
tieth century (Schwarcz, 2011). Lacerda used the Darwinian theory of
sexual selection to explain the whitening process, since, according to
him, most people of color preferred to marry someone whiter because it
was the only way to aspire to go a minimum step higher in the social
ladder. But the Darwinian principles evoked in Lacerda’s theses should
be socially reinforced by a racially sensible immigration policy, facili-
tating the entry into the country for Europeans, while restricting it for
Asians and Africans.
Even if these factors couldn’t be completely successful in eradicating
some of the problems caused by miscegenation, Lacerda gave some
motives for optimism, since he stated that the product of racial mixture
between the whiter mestiço layers could also lead to a healthy popula-
tion, almost as perfectible, as capable of progress and cultural evolution
as ‘‘pure’’ Caucasians. Lacerda recognized high esthetic values and
beauty in the Brazilian mestiços, especially in the case of the women:
‘‘although it is impossible to say that the me´tis are models of beauty (…)
it is nevertheless quite true that, especially in the female sex, we meet
types with graceful and well-proportioned figures’’. Maybe for the first
time in Brazilian history, race theorists assigned a positive value to the
23
Professor of Anthropology at the National Museum, Pinto would become its Chief
Director after Lacerda’’s retirement. He would also be the President of the First
Brazilian Congress of Eugenics, held in 1929. About Roquette Pinto, see Santos (2012).
‘‘higher’’ mestiços, considering that, in some cases, their capacity and

intelligence as equal to that of ‘‘pure’’ whites. This was a complete
novelty with relation to the common perception of miscegenation as a
perfect synonym of degeneration. Somehow, Lacerda was anticipating
the new Brazilian cultural paradigm which would emerge later in the
1930́s, with the appearance of Gilberto Freyres ‘‘racial democracy’’
(Freyre, 1933), when miscegenation would be finally assumed as the
quintessential symbol of the Brazilian identity.24
However, Lacerda managed to counterbalance his own optimism
about Brazilians of mixed descent, since ‘‘the voluptuous instincts are
strongly developed in most of them, and may be traced in the lan-
guorous eyes, thick lips, indolent tone, and comparative slowness of
speech’’ (Lacerda, 1911, p. 380). Combining all these ideas, Lacerda
predicted that, in the long run, the Brazilian ‘‘racial problem’’ was going
to be naturally eradicated. Interracial crossings would gradually lead to
a whiter country, and, as a consequence, to a better country. As Lacerda
explained to the international scientific community gathered in the
Universal Races Congress, held in London in 1911, it was ‘‘logical to
expect that in the course of another century, the me´tis will have dis-
appeared from Brazil. This will coincide with the parallel extinction of
the black race in our midst’’ (Lacerda, 1911, p. 382).
The ‘‘Race Question’’ at the Medical School of Bahia
At the end of nineteenth century, Bahiás Medical School became the

main scientific center of discussions on racial issues. In 1875, Domingos
Guedes Cabral presented a doctoral dissertation at Bahia’s Medical
School, in which he discussed at length racial brain differences from an
explicit evolutionary perspective. The Medical Faculty refused his work
because, in his radical defense of polygenic evolutionism, Cabral ri-
diculed the Biblical history of creation and the common descent of men
from Adam as a pure fable (Almeida and El-Hani, 2010). Anyhow, he
24
For decades, the idea of a multiethnic Brazilian ‘‘racial democracy’’, based on
Gilberto Freyre’s assumption that an absence of violent rancor due to race constituted
one of the peculiarities of the Portuguese colonial system, became the official paradigm
for historians and social scientists (Freyre, 1933). According to Freyre interpretation,
the plasticity of the Portuguese national character and their racial tolerance impeded
classes and institutions to be definitely determined in terms of race in Brazil. But recent
scholarship has debunked Freyre sweetened narrative of the mixed origins of Brazilian
population (Marx, 1997, p. 29).
managed to publish it one year later as a book, entitled Brain Function

(Cabral, 1876).
Cabral’s concepts about the biological status of black populations
tended to compare them as evolutionary intermediates between the
anthropomorphic human ancestors and the superior Europeans. ‘‘The
negro’’ is described by Cabral with attributes similar to those that current
zoology used to describe the great apes. He thought that in Africa there
still existed wild tribes whose members presented a tail as an anatomic
peculiarity: ‘‘Today, we can still find human races equipped with long
bestial appendix, whose disappearance in the majority of humans is only
an achievement of civilization over Nature’’ (Cabral, 1876, Appendix).25
He also accepted that some black tribes had prehensile toes similar to
those of monkeys, which these Africans used to grasp objects and climb
trees. This idea—shared by some of the best known scientists of the
nineteenth century, including Darwin (Darwin, 1871, vol. 1, p. 142)-, was
defended by Cabral, based on information provided by contemporane-
ous travelers. ‘‘The evidence provided by conspicuous travelers provides
a demonstration of the existence of savage hordes whose life is passed
over the trees, similarly to monkeys, and whose feet are really provided
with a handling capacity’’ (Cabral, 1876, Appendix). Considering racial
differences in intellectual capacities, he explained that the evolutionary
closeness between black people and the great apes ‘‘is accentuated when
we consider the cerebral functions (…) because, under this point of view,
the chimpanzee appears to be almost at the same level as the Hottentots’’
(Cabral, 1876, Appendix). There could never be an equality between
whites and blacks at the intellectual level because, according to him,
during childhood, cranial sutures closed at an earlier age in black chil-
dren. Following the poligenist Broca, Cabral asserted that this preco-
cious arrestment in cranial development impeded black children brains to
attain the same size and development as in white children. ‘‘Dr. Broca has
proven that in the superior races, cranial sutures don’t close as soon as in
their inferior relatives—and this is sufficient to explain their relative
unfitness and primitive condition. This unquestionable fact (…) proves
that education can only play a minor role in reducing the effects of this
dividing wall, which is soon erected and closed by Nature’’ (Cabral, 1876,
p. 64). In order to solve the social problems that coexistence of whites
with ‘‘inferior races’’ had caused in Brazil, Cabral promoted control of
marriages and a broad educational reform (Almeida, 2005, p. 134).
25
Pages on the apêndix of Cabraĺs book, devoted to discuss Racial diferences in brain
function, were not numbered in the original edition.
After Cabral, other medical doctors from Bahia’s Medical School

would play a key role in racial debates, especially in the field of Legal
Medicine. ‘‘Legal Medicine offered the specific possibilities of cultivat-
ing ‘‘a truly Brazilian science’’, focused on the pathological cases of
racial degeneration. Intoxication, epilepsy, alienation, violence and
amorality [in blacks and mestiços] were taken as the corroborating
examples of social Darwinian models that condemned racial crossings,
warning about the imperfection of mixed heritage. That sinister origi-
nality made doctors discover the laws of the impoverishment of the
races, which allowed them not only to exalt the specificity of national
medical research, but also to reinforce their social role as a professional
group’’ (Schwarcz, 1993, p. 190). At that time, no one represented a
better example of this kind of professional than Raimundo Nina Ro-
drigues.
The physician, psychiatrist and anthropologist Raimundo Nina
Rodriguez is unanimously considered as the ‘‘main propagator of
Brazilian racial thought of his time’’ (Skidmore, 1976, p. 75). Recog-
nized as a prominent figure of national science in his later years, he
became distinguished with Honorary Memberships in numerous medi-
cal and scientific societies in Brazil and abroad. Regarding the formation
of his racial concepts, it was not a trivial circumstance that his father had
been a slave owner in Maranhão, where Rodrigues grew up under the
care of a mulata woman, and very soon he could get in close contact with
black people. As an adult, he would devote many of his medical, psy-
chiatric and ethnological studies to Brazilian blacks and mestiços,
accomplishing the first systematic studies on the African Diaspora in
Brazil. Nina admitted that he felt an enormous sympathy for black
people and, on various occasions, he defended them, denouncing fre-
quent abuses perpetrated by the police against practitioners of Can-
domble´ (Rodrigues, 2010, pp. 265, 271, 272).26 Paradoxically, despite
this sympathetic ‘‘affinity’’ with the Afro-Brazilian people, Nina was the
main scientific theorist of their biological and intellectual inferiority.
Clearly inspired by Broca’’s anthropological research, his understanding
of legal medicine was also definitely influenced by the new criminal
anthropology practiced in Europe by Lombroso, Ferri and Garofalo.
Significantly, Rodrigues dedicated his influential book on Miscegena-
tion, degeneration, and crime to these three authors. He admitted having
learned from Ferri that, in multiracial societies, ‘‘inferior races hold the
26
Candomblé is the name given to the syncretistic cult that—although forbidden- was
object of a fervent devotion among many African slaves and their descendants in Bahia.
largest contingent of criminals’’ (Ferri, Ferri and 1895).27 He was also

aware of Lombroso’’s research about the African tribe of the Dinka,
where the Italian criminalist claimed to have discovered a biological
link—in terms of atavistic anthropological traits- between African
populations and innate born criminals (Lombroso and Carrara, 1896).
These same ideas were reformulated by Rodrigues, applying the same
comparison to the Brazilian blacks and mestiços. In Nina’’s own words,
the most important point was to determine, scientifically, ‘‘whether the
mestiço is a normal socially viable, human type, or, on the contrary, if
those mixed products are incapable, bastard, and inferior races, whose
offspring results unfit and degenerated’’ (Rodrigues, 1899, p. 2). The
social determinants of criminal or abnormal behaviors in Brazilian
lower classes—particularly, the extreme poverty in which many of the
blacks and mestiços were forced to live- were almost completely oblit-
erated in Rodrigues’’ research. In his own words: ‘‘crime, as all the other
manifestations of degeneration present in mestiço populations (…) is
closely linked in Brazil to that natural decadency produced by means of
a defective fusion of races that were strongly differentiated in anthro-
pological terms’’ (Rodrigues, 1899, p. 39).
For Nina Rodrigues, a decided adept to evolutionism, an admirer of
Paul Brocás evolutionary polygenism and Gustave LeBońs psycho-soci-
ological theories of the primitive mind, and most of all, a Lombrosian
follower of the doctrine of the innate criminal, ‘‘Blacks have an organic
constitution that has been shaped by the social and physical habitat in
which they evolved. For this, they cannot be adapted to the degree of
civilization shown by the superior races’’ (Rodrigues, 1945, p. 272).
However, it remained a scientific incognita whether or not Brazilian blacks
were practically incapable of evolutionary progress, as Haeckel had sug-
gested when referring to the lower Ulotrichi groups of humankind.
Regarding this question, Rodrigues’ own beliefs were partially optimistic:
as Guedes Cabral had previously stated in his book Brain function, al-
though Brazilian blacks and mestiços could possibly evolve to a state of
greater perfection in the future, they would always do so at a lower rate
than whites. Thus, even if a certain degree of progression was possible for
all Brazilians, real equality among races would remain impossible forever
(Rodrigues, 1945, pp. 414–417). Other influential members of the Medical
School of Bahia would radically deny any possibility for the progress of
black people, stressing their biological differences with whites in a much
more drastic way than Nina Rodrigues. Among them, M.D. de Sá Oliveira
undertook the poligenist project of making a ‘‘Comparative Craniometry
27
Quoted in Rodrigues (1899, p. 3).
of the different Human Species in Bahia’’ (Oliveira, 1895). Anticipating

Lacerda’’s predictions of the complete disappearance of pure black
Brazilians, Oliveira believed that evolutionary progress alone would cause
the complete extinction of blacks and inferior mestiços in Brazil: ‘‘Evolu-
tion does not stop (…). Africans and Indians will disappear, sooner or
later; and then, more slowly, the lower mestiços will also vanish, while the
rest of the human groups will get to a new balanced stage in the human
evolutionary pathway’’ (Oliveira, 1895, p. 91).
Concluding Remarks
During the second half of the nineteenth century, different forms and
degrees of racism penetrated biological discourses about human diversity
in Brazil. Protected under the theoretical and rhetorical apparatus of the
natural sciences, it was precisely their scientific status which provided
these ethnocentric discourses with the greatest legitimacy in the Brazilian
society. Thus, biology was (mis)used as a formidable symbolic apparatus
for the naturalization of Brazilian social inequalities between different
ethnic groups. Of course, it was not nineteenth century biology that in-
vented racism in Brazil or Latin America. Ideas about the inferiority of the
African People, the degeneration of the Indians and their mixed descen-
dants, etc. had appeared long before in American history. In fact, the
degeneration theory of race was the most accepted version in prescientific
times. ‘‘Rather than challenging the biblical account of human origins, a
generally unpopular approach, the degeneration theory assumed that all
humans were created by God, beginning with Adam and Eve. Nonwhites
were thought to be inferior and to need the guidance and control of
rational, moral men (i.e. European Christians). Their condition was
considered to be caused by some degenerative process that was related to
climate or conditions of life, to isolation from Christian civilization, or to
some divine action explained in the Bible (Popkin, [1974] 1983). This was,
in fact, the more liberal point of view, since proponents of this approach
believed that these degenerates could be remediated by giving them the
benefits of European education and ‘culture’, especially by missionizing
them to Christianity’’ (Sussman, 2014, p. 14). Brazilian racism was not
created by science, but at the end of the nineteenth century, it was ab-
sorbed and recreated into a new form of modern ideology by natural
sciences (Arteaga and El-Hani, 2012). Scientific discourses in human
biology, anthropology, evolutionary theory, craniometrics, obstetrics,
psychiatry, etc., became, in many cases, perfect theoretical instruments for
the legitimation of racial hierarchies after the abolition of slavery.
In different moments along the nineteenth century, biology was in-

voked to justify the expulsion of indigenous people from their native
lands, or to foresee their extinction—along with that of Brazilian blacks
and some mestiços- as a natural consequence of Darwinian inter-racial
competition and sexual selection. Biology also served as an ideological
weapon for the legitimation of racially biased immigration laws. Brain
science was invoked to promote the application of different legal codes
for each race, adapted to the supposed innate differences in the mental
capacities of the different ethnic groups. Biological discourses were used
to defend different forms of social programs, intended to improve the
biological characteristics of the Brazilian population, making it ‘‘whiter’’
(which at the time was synonymous for ‘‘more intelligent’’ and ‘‘better’’).
Finally, human biology, combined with physical anthropology and legal
medicine, were misused to stigmatize blacks and mestiços as degenerate
human breeds, as well as potential innate criminals. Immediately after
the arrival of evolutionism at Brazilian universities, many scientists
adopted polygenic models of human evolution, in an attempt to natu-
ralize the social inequalities that the country had inherited from its
colonial past. At the end of the nineteenth century, some of the best
scientific institutions in the country, such as the medical School of Bahia,
considered perfectly scientific to distinguish white and black people as a
different human species. For many Brazilian white scientists, as I have
tried to show, this biological myth was ‘‘the truth, based on the study of
comparative anatomy, of embryological development, as well as on what
is observed in the domains of phylogeny’’ (Oliveira, 1895, p. 5).
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Andrés Galera, Ronnie Almeida, Charbel

El-Hani, Renata Souza and the anonymous referee of the paper, for
their constructive support and contributions to this research.
Funding This study was funded by FAPESB and CNPq (Grant

number DCR 0008/2013).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The author declares that there is no conflict of

interest.
References
Abbatista, Guido. 2005. ‘‘Africains en exposition (Italie XIXe siècle) entre racialisme,
spectacularité et humanitarism.’’ Cromohs 10: 1–9.
Agassiz, Louis. 1850. ‘‘The Diversity of Origins of the Human Races.’’ Christian
Examiner and Religious Miscellany 48: 181–2014.
Agassiz, Louis and Agassiz, Elisabeth C. 1938. Viagem ao Brasil, 1865–1866. São Paulo:
Companhia Editora Nacional.
Aimard, Gustave. 1888. Le Bre´sil nouveau. Paris: E. Dentú.
Almeida, José Ricardo Pires de. 1888. História da instrução pública no Brasil (1500–
1889). São Paulo: Inep.
Almeida, Ronnie J. 2005. Religiâo, cieˆncia, darwinismo e materialismo na Bahia Imperial:
Domingos Guedes Cabral e a recusa da Tese Inaugural ‘‘Funções do ce´rebro’’—1875.
Salvador: Universidad Federal de Bahia.
Almeida, Ronnie J and El-Hani, Charbel N. 2010. ‘‘Por que a tese de Domingos Guedes
Cabral foi recusada pela Faculdade de Medicina da Bahia em 1875?’ Revista
Brasileira de História da Cieˆncia 3(1): 44–67.
Alter, SG. 2007a. ‘‘Race, Language, and Mental Evolution in Darwin’s Descent of
Man.’’ Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 43(3): 239–255.
Alter, Stephen G. 2007b. ‘‘Darwin and the Linguists: The Coevolution of Mind and
Language, Part 1: Problematic Friends.’’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Bio-
logical and Biomedical Sciences 38(3): 573–584.
Ameghino, Florentino. 1879. ‘‘L’Homme préhistorique dans la Plata.’’ Revue d’An-
thropologie 8: 210–249.
—— 1880. La antigüedad del hombre en el Plata, 2 v. Parı́s: G. Masson.
Andermann, Jens. 2003. ‘‘Empires of Nature.’’ Nepantla: Views from the South 4: 283–
315.
—— 2005. ‘‘Espetáculos da diferença: a Exposição Antropológica Brasileira de 1882’’.
In Andermann and Stephan, pp. 129–170.
—— 2008. The Museu Nacional and its European employees. Relics & Selves, 2008.
Available in www.bbk.ac.uk/ibamuseum/texts/Andermann01E.htm. Accessed 11
February 2015.
Andermann, Jens and Stephan Beatriz González (eds). 2005. Galerıás del progreso:
museos, exposiciones y espectáculos en la modernidad latinoamericana. Rosario:
Beatriz Viterbo Editora.
Appelbaum, Nancy P., Anne S. Macpherson, and Karin Alejandra Rosemblatt (eds.).
2003. Race and Nation in Modern Latin America. Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press.
Arteaga, Juanma Sánchez. 2006. ‘‘Las teorıás biológicas sobre el origen de las razas
humanas (1859–1900).’’ Doctoral Dissertation. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de
Madrid.
—— 2007a. La razón salvaje. Tecnociencia, racismo y racionalidad. Madrid: Lengua de
Trapo.
—— 2007b. ‘‘La racionalidad delirante: el racismo cientı́fico en la segunda mitad del
siglo XIX.’’ Revista de la Asociación Española de Neuropsiquiatrıá 27(2): 111–126.
—— 2008. ‘‘La biologı́a humana como ideologia. El racismo biológico y las estructuras
simbólicas de dominación racial a fines del siglo XIX.’’ Theoria. Revista de Teorıá,
Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 23(1): 107–124.
—— 2009. ‘‘Las ciencias y las razas en Brasil hacia 1900.’’ Asclepio 61(2): 67–100.
Arteaga, Juanma Sánchez and El-Hani, Charbel N. 2012. ‘‘Othering Processes and STS
Curricula: From Nineteenth Century Scientific Discourse on Interracial Competition
and Racial Extinction to Othering in Biomedical Technosciences.’’ Science & Edu-
cation 21(5): 607–629.
Bancel, Nicolas; Pascal Blanchard, Gilles Boëtsch, Eric Deroo, and Sandrine Lemaire.
2002. Zoos humains. De la Veńus hottentote aux reality shows, ed. Paris: Editions La
Découverte.
Balanta, Beatriz ER. 2012. ‘‘Especı́menes antropométricos y curiosidades pintorescas: la
orquestación fotográfica del cuerpo ‘‘negro’’ (Brasil, circa 1865).’’ Revista Ciencias de
la Salud 10(2): 223–242.
Barros, Roque Spencer Maciel. 1986. A ilustração brasileira e a ideía de universidade.
São Paulo: Edusp/Convı́vio.
Bertol, Heloı́sa; Romero, Magalı́, and Thomas Glick (eds). 2003. A Recepção do Dar-
winismo no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: FIOCRUZ.
Bethell, Leslie (ed.). 1989. Brazil: Empire and Republic: 1822–1930. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Brantlinger, Patrick. 2003. Dark Vanishings: Discourse on the Extinction of Primitive
Races, 1800–1930. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Broca, Paul. 1860. Recherches sur l’hybridite´ animale en geńe´rale et sur l’hybridite´ hu-
maine en particulier conside´reés dans leur rapports avec la question de la pluralite´ des
espe`ces humaines. Parı́s: Reiwald.
—— 1864. On the Phenomenom of Hybridity in the Genus Homo. London: Longman.
Buckle, Henry Thomas. 1904 [1857–1861]. Introduction to the History of civilization in
England. London: G. Routledge.
Cabral, Domingos Guedes. 1876. Funções do Ce´rebro. Bahia: Imprensa Nacional.
Caspari, Rachel and Wolpoff, Milford H, 2013. ‘‘The Process of Modern Human
Origins: The Evolutionary and Demographic Changes Giving Rise to Modern Hu-
mans.’’ Fred H. Smith, James C. M. Ahern (eds.), The Origins of Modern Humans
Biology Reconsidered. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 355–393.
Conklin, Alice L. 2013. In the Museum of Man: Race, Anthropology, and Empire in
France, 1850–1950. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Corrêa, Mariza. 2001. As ilusões da liberdade. A escola Nina Rodrigues e a
antropologia no Brasil. Bragança Paulista. Editora da Universidade São Francisco.
Cunha, Euclides da. 1902. Os Sertões: campanha de Canudos. Rio de Janeiro: Laem-
mert.
Darwin, Charles. 1868. The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, 2
vols. London: John Murray.
—— 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2 vols. London: John
Murray.
—— 2001. Charles Darwin’s Beagle diary, ed. Richard Darwin Keynes. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Desmond, Adrian and More, James. 2009. Darwin’s Sacred Cause. Race, Slavery, and
the Quest for Human Origin. London:Allen Lane, Penguin Books.
Di Gregorio, Mario A. 2002. ‘‘Reflections of a Nonpolitical Naturalist: Ernst Haeckel,
Wilhelm Bleek, Friedrich Müller and the Meaning of Language.’’ Journal of the
History of Biology 35: 79–109.
—— 2005. From here to eternity: Ernst Haeckel and scientific faith. Dorgrecht: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht.
Faria, Luiz de Castro. 1952. ‘‘Pesquisas de antropologia fı́sica no Brasil.’’ Boletim do

Museu Nacional 13: 1–106.
Ferraz, Márcia Helena Mendes. 1997. As cieˆncias em Portugal e no Brasil (1772–1822):
o texto conflituoso da quı´mica. São Paulo: Educ-Fapesp.
Ferreira, Justo Jansen. 1887. O parto e suas conseqüeˆncias na espećie negra. These
Inaugural. Rio de Janeiro: Laemmert.
Ferri, Enrico. 1895. L’omicidio nell’antropologia criminale (Omicida nato e omicida
pazzo). Torino: Fratelli Botta.
Filho, Mello Moraes (ed). 1882. Revista da Exposição Antropológica Brazileira. Rio de
Janeiro: Typographia Pinheiro.
Filho, Pedro A Corrêa. 1895. A genealogia Humana. These de doutoramento apresentada
à Faculdade de medicina e Pharmacia da Bahia. Bahia: Imprensa Popular.
Freyre, Gilberto. 1933. Casa-grande & senzala: formação da famı´lia brasileira sob o
regime da economia patriarcal. Rio de Janeiro: J. Olympio.
Freitas, Marcus Vinicius de. 2002. Charles, Frederick Hartt, um naturalista no Impe´rio de
D. Pedro II. Belo Horizonte: UFMG.
Furtado, Júnia Ferreira. 2010. ‘‘Enlightenment Science and Iconoclasm: The Brazilian
Naturalist José Vieira Couto.’’ Osiris 25(1): 189–212.
Gliboff, Sander. 2014. ‘‘Ascent, Descent, and Divergence: Darwin and Haeckel on the
Human Family Tree.’’ Konturen 6: 103–130.
Glick, Thomas. 2003. Introdução. In: Bertol, Heloı́sa, Romero, Magalı́, and Thomas
Glick (eds.), A Recepção do Darwinismo no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: FIOCRUZ, pp.
19–23.
Gobineau Arthur de. 1967 (first ed. 1853-1855). Essai sur l’Inégalité des Races Hu-
maines Paris: Pierre Belfond.
Graham, Richard (ed.). 1990. The Idea of Race in Latin America, 1870–1940. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
—— 2010. The Idea of Race in Latin America, 1870–1940. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Gualtieri, Regina. 2003. O evolucionismo na Produção Cientı́fica do Museu Nacional
do Rio de Janeiro (1876–1915). In: Bertol, Heloı́sa, Romero, Magalı́, and Thomas
Glick (eds.), A Recepção do Darwinismo no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: FIOCRUZ, pp.
45–96.
Haeckel, Ernest. 1874. Anthropogenie oder Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen:
gemeinverständliche wissenschaftliche Vorträge über die Grundzüge der menschlichen
Keimes-und Stammes-Geschichte. Lemgo: Wilhelm Engelmann.
—— 1868. Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte. Berlin: Reimer.
—— 1876. The History of creation, or the development of the Earth and its inhabitants by
the action of natural causes. London: Henry S. King and Co.
—— 1877a. Histoire de la creátion des êtres organise´s d’apre`s les lois naturelles. Paris:
Reinwald.
—— 1877b. Anthropogeńie ou Histoire de l’’Évolution Humaine. Leçons familie`res sur les
principes de l’’Embryologie et de la Phylogeńie humaines. Paris: Reinwald.
—— 1877c. The History of Creation: or the development of the Earth and its Inhabitants
by the Action of Natural Selection, 2 vols. New York: D. Appleton and Co.
Hall, Michael. 1976. ‘‘Reformadores de classe média no Império brasileiro e a Sociedade
Central de Imigração.’’ Revista de História 53(105): 148–160.
Haller, John S Jr. 1995. Outcasts from Evolution. Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority
1859–1900. Urbana: Southern Illinois University Press.
Helg, Aline. 1990. ‘‘Race in Argentina and Cuba, 1880–1930: Theory, Policies, and
Popular Reaction.’’ R Graham (ed.), The Idea of Race in Latin America, 1870–1940.
Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 35–69.
Holloway, Thomas H. 1980. Immigrants on the Land: Coffee and Society in Sao Paulo,
1886–1934. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Ihering, Hermann von. 1911. A questão dos Ińdios no Brasil, Revista do Museu Paulista.
São Paulo: Typographia do Diario Official.
Koracakis, Teodoro. 1999. ‘‘Os positivismos e a Faculdade de Direito do Recife.’’ Logos
6(2): 50–53.
Lacerda, João Batista de. 1876. ‘‘Contribuições para o estudo anthropologico das raças
indigenas do Brazil: nota sobre a conformação dos dentes.’’ Archivos do Museu
Nacional de Rio de Janeiro 1: 77–83.
—— 1878. ‘‘Resumo do Curso de Antropologia. Museu Nacional, 1877.’’ Archivos do
Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro 1: 164–169.
—— 1882a. A morphologia craneana do homen dos sambaquis. In Filho, Mello Moraes
(ed.), Revista da Exposição Antropológica Brazileira. Rio de Janeiro: Typographia
Pinheiro, pp. 22–23.
—— 1882b. Sobre a conformação dos dentes. In Filho, Mello Moraes (ed.), Revista da
Exposição Antropológica Brazileira. Rio de Janeiro: Typographia Pinheiro, pp. 82–
83; 91–92.
—— 1882c. Botocudos. In Filho, Mello Moraes (ed.), Revista da Exposição Antropo-
lógica Brazileira. Rio de Janeiro: Typographia Pinheiro, p. 2.
—— 1912. O congresso universal das raças humanas reunido em Londres, 1911: apre-
ciaçâo e comentários pelo Dr. J. B. de Lacerda, Delegado do Brasil nesse congresso.
Rio de Janeiro: Macedo.
Lacerda, João B de. 1911. The métis, or half-breeds, of Bazil, in Spiller, Gustave (ed.),
Papers on inter-racial problems. London: P.S. King and Son, pp. 377–382.
Lacerda, João B de, Peixoto, José Rodriguez. 1876. ‘‘Contribuções para o estudo
anthropologico das raças indı́genas do Brazil.’’ Archivos do Museu Nacional de Rio
de Janeiro 1(10): 47–75.
Langer, Jonhy; Rankel, Luiz Fernando. 2004. A Exposição Antropológica de 1882,
Revista Museu, 2004. Available in http://www.revistamuseu.com.br/artigos/art_.
asp?id=4245. Accessed February 11, 2015.
Lavrin, Asunción (ed.). 1989. Sexuality and Marriage in Colonial Latin America. Lin-
coln: University of Nebraska Press.
Le Bon, Gustave (ed.). 1894. Lois psychologiques de l’evolution dês peuples. Paris: Felix
Alcan.
Lesser, Jeff. 1999. Negotiating National Identity: Immigrants, Minorities, and the Strug
gle for Ethnicity in Brazil. Durham: Duke University Press.
Livingstone, David N. 2012. ‘‘Changing Climate, Human Evolution, and the Revival of
Environmental Determinism.’’ Bulletin of the History of Medicine 86(4): 564–595.
Lombroso, Cesare and Carrara, Maria. 1896. ‘‘Contributo all’’antropologia dei Dinka’’
Archivio di Psichiatria.’’ Antropologia Criminale, ed Scienze Penali 17: 49–363.
Lopes, Maria Margaret. 2009. O Brasil descobre a pesquisa cientı´fica: os Museus e as
Cieˆncias Naturais no Sećulo XIX. São Paulo: Hucitec/UnB.
Machado, Maria Helena P. T and Huber, Sacha. 2010. Rastros e Raças de Louis
Agassiz: fotografia, corpo e cieˆncia, ontem e hoje. São Paulo: Expressão e Arte.
Meiners, Christoph. 1876. Grundriss der Geschichte der Menschheit. Frankfurt:Verlag-
sort.
Maio, Marcos C. 1995. ‘‘Brazilian Physician Nina Rodrigues: Analysis of a Scientic

Career.’’ Cadernos Saúde Pública 11(2): 226–237.
Marks, Jonathan. 2012. ‘‘Why be Against Darwin? Creationism, Racism, and the Roots
of Anthropology.’’ American journal of physical anthropology 149(S55): 95–104.
Martius, Carl P.F. von. 1939 (first ed. 1844). Natureza, doenças, medicina e remédios
dos ı́ndios brasileiros. São Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional.
Martius, Carl. F. P. von. 1982 (first ed. 1838). O Estado do Direito entre os Autóctones
do Brasil. São Paulo-Belo Horizonte: Edusp/Itatiaia.
Marx, Anthony W. 1997. Making Race and Nation. A Comparison of South Africa, the
United States, and Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Monteiro, John M. 2001. Tupis, Tapuias e historiadores, Estudos de História Indı´gena e
do Indigenismo. Campinas: UNICAMP.
Netto, Ladislao. 1882a. Do atavismo. In Filho, Mello Moraes (ed.), Revista da Ex-
posição Antropológica Brazileira. Rio de Janeiro: Typographia Pinheiro, pp. 4–5.
—— 1882b. Observações relativas à teoria da evolução. In Filho, Mello Moraes (ed.),
Revista da Exposição Antropológica Brazileira. Rio de Janeiro: Typographia Pin-
heiro, pp. 113–114.
—— 1882c. Ao leitor. In Filho, Mello Moraes (ed.), Revista da Exposição Antropológica
Brazileira. Rio de Janeiro: Typographia Pinheiro, pp. 3–6.
—— 1882d. Discurso inaugural da Exposição antropológica. In Filho, Mello Moraes
—— 1882e. Ponderações physiologicas sobre o uso do tembetá. In Filho, Mello Moraes
Neves, Walter A, Hubbe, Mark, and Piló, Luı́s Beethoven. 2007. ‘‘Early Holocene
Human Skeletal Remains from Sumidouro Cave, Lagoa Santa, Brazil: History of
Discoveries, Geological and Chronological Context, and Comparative Cranial
Morphology.’’ Journal of Human Evolution 52: 16–30.
Niskier, Arnaldo. 1996. Educação brasileira: 500 anos de história, 1500–2000. Rio de
Janeiro: Consultor.
Novoa, Adriana. 2009. ‘‘The Act or Process of Dying Out: The Importance of Dar-
winian Extinction in Argentine Culture.’’ Science in Context 22(02): 217–244.
Novoa, Adriana and Alex Levine. 2010. From Man to Ape: Darwinism in Argentina,
1870–1920. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Oda, Ana MR. 2003. Alienação Mental e Raça: A psicopatologia comparada dos negros e
mestiços brasileiros na obra de Raimundo Nina Rodrigues. Campinas: UNICAMP.
Oliveira, João B de Sá. 1985. Craneometria comparada das espećies humanas na Bahia.
Bahia: Litho-Typographia de J.G. Tourinho.
Oliveira, Lucia Lippi. 2001. O Brasil dos imigrantes. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar.
Paulilo, André Luiz. 2004. ‘‘Projeto polı́tico e sistematização do ensino público brasi-
leiro no século XIX.’’ Cad. Pesqui 34(122): 467–496.
Peixoto, Rodrigues. 1885. ‘‘Novos estudos craniológicos sobre os Botocudos.’’ Archivos
do Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro 6: 205–256.
Peixoto, Afranio. 1957. ‘‘A vida e a obra de Nina Rodrigues’’. In Raimundo Nina
Rodrigues (ed.), As raças humanas e a responsabilidade penal no Brasil. Salvador:
Progresso. pp. 9–19; also available online in Alin Walmor J. Piccinini. 2003.
Petrucelli, José Luis. 1996. ‘‘Doutrinas francesas e o pensamento racial brasileiro, 1870–
1930.’’ Estudos Sociedade e Agricultura 7: 134–149.
Piccinini, Alin Walmor J. 2003. Nina Rodrigues: 1862–1906. Psychiatry On-Line Brazil,
2003, 8 (7) http://www.polbr.med.br/ano03/wal0703.php. Accessed 11 February
2013.
Popkin, Richard H. 1993. ‘‘The Philosophical Bases of Modern Racism.’’ Richard H.
Popkin and James E. Force (eds.), The High Road to Pyrrhonism. Indianapolis:
Hackett Publishing, pp. 79–102.
Quatrefages, Armand de. 1861. Ĺunite´ de l’’espe`ce humaine. Paris: Hachette.
Raeders, Georges. 1988. O inimigo cordial do Brasil: o conde de Gobineau no Brasil. Rio
de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Richards, Robert J. 2007. ‘‘Ernst Haeckel’s Alleged Anti-semitism and Contributions to
Nazi Biology.’’ Biological Theory 2(1): 97–103.
—— 2008. The Tragic Sense of Life: Ernst Haeckel and the Struggle over Evolutionary
Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rodrigues, Juliana. 2011. ‘‘A Complex Fabric: Intersecting Histories of Race, Gender,
and Science in Latin America.’’ Hispanic American Historical Review 91(3): 409–429.
Rodrigues, Raimundo Nina. 1938 (first ed. 1894). As raças humanas e a Responsabili-
dade Penal no Brasil. São Paulo: Editora Nacional.
—— 1899. Me´tissage, de´geńe´rescence et crime. Lyon: A. Stock & Cie.
—— 1945 (first ed. 1933). Os africanos no Brasil (p. 272). São Paulo: Editora Nacional.
—— 1957 (first ed. 1894). As raças humanas e a responsabilidade penal no Brasil. Sal-
vador: Progresso.
—— 2010. Os africanos no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Centro Edelstein de Pesquisas Sociais
(first ed. 1933).
Romanelli, Otaı́za de Oliveira. 1978. História da educação no Brasil. Petrópolis: Vozes.
Romero, Silvio. 1888a. Estudos sobre a poesia popular do Brasil. Rio de Janeiro:
Laemmert & Cia.
—— 1888b. Ethnographia Brazileira. Estudos crı´ticos sobre Couto de Magalhães, Bar-
bosa Rodrigues, Theophilo Braga e Ladislau Netto. Rio de Janeiro: Livraria Clássica
de Alves.
Rothfels, Nigel. 2002. Savages and Beasts. The Birth of the Modern Zoo. Baltimore:
John Hopkins University Press.
Sá, Guilherme José da Silva, Santos, Ricardo Ventur, Carvalho, Claudia Rodrigues,
and Santos, Ricardo Ventur. 2018. ‘‘Crania, Bodies, and Measurements: Formation
of the Collection of Anthropometric Instruments at the Museu Nacional in the Late
Nineteenth/early Twentieth Century.’’ História, Cieˆncias, Saúde—Manguinhos 15(1):
197–208.
Saint-Hilaire, Auguste de. 1833. Voyage dans le district des diamans et sur le littoral du
Bre´sil, suivi… d’un précis de l’histoire des révolutions de l’empire brésilien.. Balti-
more: John Hopkins University Press.
—— 1974. Viagens pelo distrito dos diamantes e litoral do Brasil. São Paulo-Belo hor-
izonte: USP-Itatiaia.
Sánchez-Gómez Luis A. 2013. Human Zoos or Ethnic Shows? Essence and Contingency
in Living Ethnological Exhibitons. Culture & History Digital Journal, 2(2). doi:
10.3989/chdj.2013.022.
Santos, Ricardo Ventura. 2012. ‘‘Guardian Angel on a Nation’s Path. Contexts and
Trajectories of Physical Anthropology in Brazil in the Late Nineteenth and Early
Twentieth Centuries.’’ Current Anthropology 53(S.5): S17–S32.
Schwarcz, Lilia M. 1993. O espetáculo das raças: cientistas, instituições e questão racial
no Brasil, 1870-1930. São Paulo: Cia. das Letras.
—— 1994. O espetáculo da miscigenação. Estudos Avanzados 8(20): 137–152.

Schwartzman, Simon. 1990. ‘‘Os estrangeiros na ciência brasileira.’’ Cieˆncia Hoje
11(62): 12.
Schwarcz, Lilia M. 2011. ‘‘Predictions are Always Deceptive: João Baptista de Lacerda
and His White Brazil.’’ História, cieˆncias, saúde-Manguinhos 18(1): 225–242.
Skidmore, Thomas E. 1974. Black into White: Race and Nationality in Brazilian
Thought. New York: Oxford University Press.
—— 1976. Preto no branco. Raça e nacionalidade no pensamento brasileiro. Rio de
Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
—— 1990. Racial Ideas and Social Policy in Brazil, 1870–1940. In: Graham, Richard
(ed.), The idea of race in Latin America, 1870–1940. Austin: University of Texas
Press, pp. 7–36.
Souza, Vanderlei S., Santos, de Ricardo Ventura. 2012. ‘‘O Congresso Universal de
Raças, Londres, 1911: contextos, temas e debates.’’ Boletim do Museu Paraense
Emı´lio Goeldi. Cieˆnc. Humanas 18(1): 225–242.
Spiller, Gustave (ed). 1911. Papers on Inter-racial Problems Communicated to the First
Universal Races Congress. London: P.S. King and Son, pp. 377–382.
Spix, Johan Baptist Von. 1938. Viagem pelo Brasil, 2 vols. Rio de Janeiro:Imprensa
Nacional.
Stepan, Nancy Leys. 1982. The Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain, 1800–1960.
London: Macmillan.
—— 1991. The Hour of Eugenics: Race, Gender, and Nation in Latin America.
Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
Stocking, George W Jr. 1982. Race, Culture and Evolution: Essays in the History of
Anthropology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
—— 1987. Victorian Anthropology. New York: Free Press.
Sussman, Robert Wald. 2014. The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press.

Biological Discourses On Human Races and Scientific Racism in Brazil (1832-1911)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Biological Discourses On Human Races and Scientific Racism in Brazil (1832-1911)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of the History of Biology (2017) 50:267–314 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Biological Discourses on Human Races and Scientiﬁc Racism

JUANMA SÁNCHEZ ARTEAGA

Institute of Humanities, Arts and Sciences Prof. Milton Santos (IHAC)

Keywords: Human races, Evolutionism, Miscegenation, Brazil, Latin America,

Introduction: Race, Science, Culture and the Birth of a Nation

p. 10).1 This concise quotation of Sı́lvio Romero—one of the most

Figure 1. Front page of Nina Rodrigues’ book Me´tissage, de´ge´nérescence et crime,

pragmatic ﬂexibility of slave owners themselves (…) Considering the

Figure 2. Degeneration caused by racial mixture. Originally published in Rodrigues,

it is important here to make some general statements about the his-

crowd, formed by more or less civilized peoples. Lower layers of society

Foreign Scientists for a National Science

As a consequence of the Portuguese colonial education policy, until the

After this initial phase of scientiﬁc institutionalization, and until the

dominance was noticeable in all scientiﬁc areas. However, the inﬂuence

anthropologist Armand de Quatrefages,8 who found a positive factor in

On the Origin of Races: The Reception of Evolutionism in Brazil

In the last decades of the nineteenth century, racial theories inspired by

ferent parts of Brazil, where he got profoundly disgusted by Brazilian

Apart from Darwin, this same theoretical framework, which con-

the Semitic myth of the Mosaic history of creation’’ (ibid), could be

creationist anthropology, such as James Hunt and his closest allies in

species with diﬀerent innate capabilities for cultural and intellectual

races of the Mongolian species (Homo Mongolus) were particularly

the end of the century.15 People of mixed descend were supposed to be

For example, the director of the National Museum of Rio de Janeiro,

Rodrigues’ book Me´tissage, de´ge´ne´rescence et crime was to present

Ad Instar Animalium: Botocudos at the ‘‘Human Zoo’’

Beginning in the seventies, director Ladislau Netto and deputy director

the ‘Revista da exposição antropológica Brazileira’ (Filho, 1882). Visitors

The Scientiﬁc Dream of a White Brazil

Nineteenth century Brazilian science was characterized by a strong

Brazilian intellectuals, considering it as an inevitable consequence of the

was a major center for the scientiﬁc legitimating of branqueamento. One

‘‘higher’’ mestiços, considering that, in some cases, their capacity and

The ‘‘Race Question’’ at the Medical School of Bahia

At the end of nineteenth century, Bahiás Medical School became the

managed to publish it one year later as a book, entitled Brain Function

After Cabral, other medical doctors from Bahia’s Medical School

largest contingent of criminals’’ (Ferri, Ferri and 1895).27 He was also

of the diﬀerent Human Species in Bahia’’ (Oliveira, 1895). Anticipating

In diﬀerent moments along the nineteenth century, biology was in-

The author wishes to thank Andrés Galera, Ronnie Almeida, Charbel

Funding This study was funded by FAPESB and CNPq (Grant

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conﬂict of Interest The author declares that there is no conﬂict of

Faria, Luiz de Castro. 1952. ‘‘Pesquisas de antropologia fı́sica no Brasil.’’ Boletim do

Maio, Marcos C. 1995. ‘‘Brazilian Physician Nina Rodrigues: Analysis of a Scientic

—— 1994. O espetáculo da miscigenação. Estudos Avanzados 8(20): 137–152.

Вам также может понравиться