Good Neighbor Circuits. Cultural Diplomacy and Educational Exchange Between Brazil and the United States During World War II

Abstract

The article analyzes the educational exchange agreement signed in 1938 by the University of Michigan and the Instituto Brasil-Estados Unidos (IBEU), a newly founded bi-national institute in Rio de Janeiro. The IBEU’s proposed Brazilian Fellowship Program meshed well with the university’s interest in drawing Latin American students to the U.S. Midwest as the Roosevelt administration implemented its Good Neighbor Policy. In exploring the pathways and network of actors, interests, and practices that developed over the course of the program, we argue that this case constitutes a fine example of the concrete, complex dynamics that shaped the circuits of the Good Neighbor Policy and inter-American cultural diplomacy during World War II. Our primary source was formed of records held in the custody of the University of Michigan. The period of analysis runs from 1938, when the program was drafted, through 1943, when U.S. cultural diplomacy and foreign policy shifted their focus away from inter-American relations in light of expectations concerning the post-war period. By examining this specific experience in educational cooperation during a decisive phase in the construction of U.S. global hegemony, we hope to contribute to the historiographic discussion about the transnational circulation of knowledge, people, and practices as a process characterized by moments of encounter but also by tensions and asymmetries.

Keywords
Brazil-U.S. relations; cultural diplomacy; Good Neighbor Policy

Resumo

Este artigo analisa o programa de intercâmbio educacional firmado, em 1938, entre o Instituto Brasil-Estados Unidos (IBEU) e a Universidade de Michigan. A proposta partiu do instituto binacional recém fundado no Rio de Janeiro e veio ao encontro dos interesses daquela universidade em atrair ao meio-oeste dos EUA os estudantes latino-americanos que buscavam o país estimulados pela política da boa vizinhança do governo Roosevelt. Focalizando o percurso e a rede de atores, interesses e práticas que conformaram o Brazilian Fellowship Program, argumenta-se que esse é um caso exemplar das dinâmicas concretas e complexas que conformaram os circuitos da boa vizinhança e da diplomacia cultural interamericana durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial. Utiliza-se como fontes, preferencialmente, a documentação sob a guarda da Universidade de Michigan. O período analisado se estende de 1938, quando o programa foi formulado, até 1943, quando as relações interamericanas deixaram de ser o carro-chefe da diplomacia cultural e da política externa estadunidense, tendo em vista as expectativas para o pós-guerra. Ao focalizar essa experiência particular de cooperação educacional, em uma fase decisiva na construção da hegemonia global dos EUA, busca-se contribuir para os debates historiográficos sobre a circulação transnacional de saberes, pessoas e práticas enquanto processo marcado por encontros mas também por tensões e assimetrias.

Palavras-chave
relações Brasil-Estados Unidos; diplomacia cultural; política da boa vizinhança

Introduction

“The friendship between Brazil and the United States is practically synonymous with inter-American relations.” On July 5, 1938, Secretary of State Cordell Hull’s words were the headline with which the morning paper Diário de Notícias inaugurated its special, 24-issue series focusing on relations between Brazil and the United States.¹ Educational exchange programs were one of the points emphasized in the abundantly illustrated articles written by intellectuals and politicians from both countries. That was a turning point in U.S. cultural diplomacy in Latin America. Under the Good Neighbor Policy, the U.S. State Department inaugurated its Division of Cultural Relations (DCR) on July 28, 1938 to fund programs within this scope with the “other American republics” in association with philanthropic entities and universities that already worked in this field.² The United States had proposed the Convention for the Promotion of Inter-American Cultural Relations during the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace held in 1936 in Buenos Aires, and the advance of the Third Reich made its implementation a top priority. This marked the beginning of the U.S. government’s participation in cultural diplomacy. In Brazil, given Getúlio Vargas’ “double game” with Germany and the United States, it was a strategic step for those who sought, under the Vargas dictatorship, to favor the neighbor to the north.³

This article analyzes the cooperation program established in late 1938 between the Instituto Brasil-Estados Unidos (IBEU) (Brazil-United States Institute) and the University of Michigan (UM) to promote exchanges of young academics from both countries. The initiative came from the institute, created in 1937 in Rio de Janeiro, and aligned with the interests of that university, which wished to bring the educational movement that was advancing under the winds of Pan- Americanism to the U.S. Midwest. UM proudly claimed to be the first U.S. university to establish a reciprocal educational exchange program with a Latin American country. Focusing on the pathways and the network of actors, interests and practices that made the Brazilian Fellowship Program possible, we argue that it as an exemplary case of the negotiations, tensions and contingencies that shaped the transnational circuits of the Good Neighbor Policy and of inter-American cultural diplomacy, especially during World War II. By analyzing lesser-known actors in these circuits, such as the IBEU and the University of Michigan, we seek to contribute to the historiography that has been emphasizing the heterogeneity of dynamics, institutions and processes that constituted these exchanges, as well as strengthening the understanding that Latin Americans were not passive recipients of a cultural diplomacy imposed by the United States, but rather played an active role in its development based on their own positions, interests, networks and initiatives.⁴

The circulation of knowledge, people and practices has been the theme of several historiographical agendas. Criticism of the Europeanizing, unidirectional perspective of diffusionist approaches, rooted in the “center/periphery” dichotomy, is a common denominator for those seeking new lenses through which to understand the polyphonic, multidirectional interactions of “knowledge in transit” (Secord, 2004). The “global turn” breathed new life and amplitude into analyses on the connections and entanglements that, on different scales, and at distinct places and times, make transnational mobility and exchanges a constitutive dimension of the very process of production and legitimation of knowledge.⁵ Historians studying the relations between Latin America and the United States have shown how these intercultural encounters grew not out of fixed or homogeneous positions, but rather out of multifaceted, mutually constructed—albeit asymmetric—processes. This historiography has also drawn attention to the agency and protagonism of Latin Americans, through dynamics that are always complex and contradictory, ranging from cooperation to hegemony. Emphasis has also been placed on the material, concrete dimensions of these exchanges, as well as the necessary care to avoid analyzing these flows in a naturalized or simplified way, without considering the practices and circumstances that supported or hindered them and the power relations upon which they are built (Joseph; Legrand; Salvatore, 1998; Adelman, 2004; Scarfi; Tillman, 2016).

Following the line of research initiated by Ninkovich (1981), historical studies on inter-American cultural relations have been illuminating the unique development of this “diplomacy of ideas” in the Americas, particularly with regard to the first phase of U.S. cultural/public diplomacy (1936-1953), focusing on the “other American republics.”⁶ Several authors have argued that Good Neighbor diplomacy made Latin America a laboratory for U.S. hegemony building worldwide, which the Cold War then expanded. This took place within the context of cultural and educational exchanges that, legitimized by the principles of multilateralism, reciprocity and mutual cooperation—pillars of cultural internationalism from the inter-war period (Iriye, 1997)—assumed new meanings and intensity beginning in the 1930s.⁷

Based on the case examined here, we argue that the Pan Americanism and Good Neighbor circuits through which the individuals, knowledge and practices related to inter-American exchanges circulated did not consist of stable, linear pathways, but were rather traced out as the interactions became viable in practice and in specific situations. The vicissitudes encountered by the IBEU and the University of Michigan when trying to implement an academic exchange program are an example of the many specific experiences arising from these circuits and which, at the same time, were crucial in shaping them. Beginning with previous, often-informal collaboration networks and changing form as required along the way, the educational exchanges between the Brazilian capital and the small city of Ann Arbor, Michigan, during World War II, were implemented through a multi-layered entanglement of individuals, logics and interests, via both existing channels and contradictions and obstacles that changed the paths of these flows.⁸ We therefore seek to examine the machinery of a program whose specific characteristics shed light on what Ninkovich called cultural relations “at work” (Ninkovich, 1981, p.4).

This article consists of four sections. We start by identifying the main individual and institutional actors who, driven by distinct interests, connected Michigan and Brazil in the specific context of the Good Neighbor Policy at a time that preceded the implementation of cultural relations and educational exchange programs by the U.S. government. Then, we analyze the challenges related to the establishment of the Brazilian Fellowship Program, such as the selection of candidates and arrangements to make travel feasible, attempting to establish an “organizational routine” (Smith, 2017, p.7) capable of transforming the intention of cooperation into concrete experiences. In the third section, we focus on the tensions, asymmetries and obstacles faced in the interaction between these different (and unequal) Americas, such as the language barrier and stereotypes and prejudices on both sides. Finally, we examine the continuity of the program in a context in which UM’s initiatives in Latin America expanded and started to encompass the new actors and institutional dynamics of inter-American cultural diplomacy and the effects of war. The program is studied from 1938 to 1943, at which point the priority given to the “republics to the south” by UM (and by U.S. foreign policy in general) was reassigned to other latitudes, anticipating the post-war circuits.

An interesting aspect of this study concerns the opportunities for a connection that, despite the asymmetries between the countries, caused interests from different “peripheries” to converge. When Brazil (through the IBEU) proposed an exchange program based on reciprocity—highly valued in U.S. cultural diplomacy—to U.S. universities, it achieved a strong position on the chessboard of inter-American exchanges. UM, in turn, saw an opportunity to compensate for its peripheral position vis-à-vis other U.S. universities that already had consolidated positions in this area. In short, specific cases like this help us unveil the multiple strategies used by the various unequally positioned actors when moving on this chessboard, shaping the dynamics of the game itself.

Connecting the U.S. Midwest and the Brazilian capital: actors, institutions and scenarios

The University of Michigan, founded in 1817, had welcomed Latin Americans since the end of the 19th century, but a more systematic interest in the region arose due to the scientific expeditions organized beginning in 1910 by Alexander Grant Ruthven (1882-1971), a zoologist and director of the university’s museum. These trips were mainly for botanical studies, especially those focusing on Amazonian rubber, which was strategic for the state of Michigan, the birthplace of Henry Ford and the automotive industry.⁹

Ruthven was decisive in UM’s cooperation with Brazil. As president of the university (1929-1951), in 1933 he established the position of “counselor to foreign students,” and the duties of this position expanded in 1938 to include heading the just-founded International Center (IC). Joseph Raleigh Nelson (1873-1961) held both of these positions and became the principal organizer of exchanges between UM and Latin America. A graduate of UM (1894), Nelson coordinated an English instruction program for foreign students at the university’s College of Engineering, in addition to serving as an advisor. His interest in foreign students came from his family’s own history (his mother was a missionary through the Woman’s Board of Foreign Missions) and went beyond his professional duties. A member of the UM Cosmopolitan Club, Nelson had written and produced the play Magic Carpet to raise funds for needy foreign students in 1917. As the counselor to foreign students, he sought to promote interaction between foreigners and the local community through diverse cultural activities.¹⁰

The 1930s were promising for the insertion of UM in the transnational educational flows that intensified after World War I. In 1934-1935,¹¹ of the 8,372 foreign students in the United States, distributed among 450 colleges and universities in 50 states, the University of Michigan ranked fifth, and was the first among the inland universities.¹² According to Nelson, despite being far from both the east and west coasts, on the “edge of the wilderness,” UM had a “cosmopolitan tradition” that “made it less provincial in its thinking than the more homogeneous college centers to the east.”¹³ Among the factors influencing this, he highlighted the Protestant missionary movement that recruited students on several continents and the diplomatic and educational exchange programs with Far-Eastern countries, especially China. In late 1937, noting the favorable conditions for ties with Latin America, Nelson seized the opportunity for UM to take part in inter-American cooperation with the assistance of a former UM student, Bernard Beckwith. The latter, an engineer who had studied at UM and was then working in Buenos Aires, suggested that Nelson submit a proposal to the College of Engineering to set up an educational program for South Americans. Shortly thereafter, Nelson learned of the Rockefeller Foundation’s interest in diversifying the destinations of South Americans who received scholarships or fellowhips for studies in sanitary engineering and public health in the United States and who generally went to universities on the east coast.¹⁴

Enthusiastic, Nelson went to Washington D.C. in April 1938 to learn more about the Pan American Airways Travel Fellowships (PAATF) that would provide airfare for some Latin American students to the United States each year. Pan American Airways, founded in 1927, was an important player in inter-American commercial and cultural relations and the initiative contributed to solving one of the main challenges of these exchange programs: travel costs. In a meeting with the director of the Pan American Union, Leo S. Rowe, Nelson stressed UM’s “long-term interest” in Latin America, mentioning, for example, the fact that it was the first U.S. institution to confer an honorary degree on a South American (the Argentine Domingo Faustino Sarmiento). Nelson heard from Rowe that he was willing to decrease the concentration of South American students at universities on the east coast and claimed that UM, one of the oldest state universities in the Midwest, “was in a strategic position” to receive the students. After a more formal meeting at the State Department, Nelson headed for New York for a meeting at the Institute of International Education (IIE).¹⁵

The IIE had been founded in 1919, in New York City, to promote educational exchange programs as an instrument for peace between nations. It acted as an information and counseling center for the institutions that offered scholarships and fellowships, intermediating contacts between these institutions and candidates, collaborating on selection of beneficiaries and administering the benefits granted (including the PAATF). Initially focused on exchange programs between the United States and European countries, it began to focus on Latin America after the trip taken in 1931 by its director, Stephen Duggan, to several South American countries to promote the institute’s programs.¹⁶ The U.S. government’s decision, after the 1936 Convention, to finance cultural relations programs (albeit as a minority partner compared to private institutions) led to a broader scope for the IIE’s activities as an intermediary in these exchanges, in which the universities were decisive. Nelson heard from Duggan that UM could be awarded a PAATF as long as it offered a scholarship to cover the beneficiary’s stay in the United States, since Pan American Airways would only cover the South American’s transportation costs. Nelson returned to Ann Arbor convinced that it was an excellent investment. However, the path that led inter-American circulation to Michigan started from an unexpected source: not from Washington or New York, but from Rio de Janeiro. The protagonist was the recently created Instituto Brasil-Estados Unidos (IBEU).

The idea of an organization to promote cultural relations between Brazil and the United States had been discussed by intellectuals from both countries, including Duggan, throughout the 1930s. On the occasion of the 1936 Inter-American Conference, the topic was discussed with members of the Academia Brasileira de Educação (Brazilian Education Association) by Samuel Guy Inman, a member of the U.S. delegation who was passing through Rio towards Buenos Aires. Inman was one of the leaders of the Protestant missionary movement in Latin America and had contributed directly to the formulation of the Good Neighbor Policy. According to him, it was the perfect time to establish an association that, like the Argentine-American Cultural Institute, could serve as a counterbalance to the growing European influence in Latin America. With the support of the U.S. community in Rio de Janeiro (led by Methodist Reverend Hugh Clarence Tucker), the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other influential sectors in both countries, the IBEU was inaugurated on January 13, 1937. Among the approximately 180 founding members were renowned figures of the Brazilian intellectual and political elite—such as Oswaldo Aranha (a well-known Americanist), Gilberto Freyre, Austregésilo de Athayde, Francisco Campos, Pedro Calmon and Afrânio Peixoto.¹⁷

A private organization whose members included important Brazilian and U.S. companies, the IBEU had close ties to one of the cultural diplomacy branches of the Vargas government, the Brazilian Commission for Intellectual Cooperation (associated with the Intellectual Cooperation Service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs). The diplomat Helio Lobo, the first president of the new institute, was a member of the Commission. In his inaugural speech, Lobo stressed the relevance of exchanges that promoted “the arrival in Brazil of individuals representative of U.S. culture and, at the same time, the voyage of Brazilian professors, teachers and students to the United States.”¹⁸ At that time, higher education, especially with the creation of universities, had a major political role in the Vargas government’s plan to modernize and build a “new nation.”¹⁹

The official representative of the IIE in Brazil, the new institute was responsible for receiving applications and selecting the Brazilians who would be granted the scholarships and fellowships provided by U.S. institutions to study on their campuses (Góes, 1943).²⁰ In August 1938, the IBEU created a new form of support, using resources from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, then headed by Oswaldo Aranha. Through the intermediation of the IIE, it provided three fellowships, each worth 10 contos de réis (approximately six hundred dollars), for young people from U.S. universities or colleges to study in Brazil for six months. The proposal presupposed a counterpart: Brazilians were expected to be offered three fellowships for studies “at a class-A college or university in the United States.”²¹

The U.S. applicants should have completed their undergraduate degrees, be at least 25 years old and two of the three fellowships would be, in principle, reserved for individuals studying Latin American history, sociology or anthropology. If there were no candidates in those fields, candidates in the areas of geography, economics, literature, folklore and education would be accepted. One of the three applicants might come from the field of medicine in order to learn about the “very good work” done at the Oswaldo Cruz Institute on research on tropical diseases. Apart from this comment, fellowships offered by the IBEU were not linked to any specific institutions. The interest in promoting studies focused on Brazil was explicit: the beneficiaries were expected to be instructors in the fields in which they requested fellowships, so that when they returned to the United States they could incorporate what they had learned in their courses.²² On the inter-American chessboard that was being drawn, the IBEU moved its pieces to obtain an advantage when searching for a partner from the North.

The initiative satisfied one of the main expectations of U.S. cultural diplomacy: reciprocity. Seen as an expression of the bilateralism and gradualism advocated by defenders of cultural internationalism (including the IIE), it was valued as protection against propaganda and the unilateral imposition that many feared could characterize government intervention in the field of cultural relations (Arndt, 2005; Kramer, 2009; Graham, 2015). However, implementing reciprocity was not trivial. Despite the increasingly significant presence of Latin Americans studying in the United States, the flow did not occur in the other direction. While the deep-rooted preference of Latin Americans to study in Europe was already being counterbalanced by the opportunities created in U.S. universities, students from the United States continued to prefer European countries as their destination. Duggan recognized that the exchange program with Latin America was still “largely a one-sided affair.”²³ Despite some initiatives, such as scholarships offered to U.S. students by the University of Chile beginning in 1935/1936,²⁴ the IBEU’s proposal was in fact aligned with the idea of reciprocity, as a “two-way street” was a requirement for granting benefits.

After the IBEU’s offer was made, the IIE was responsible for identifying a U.S. university that would accept it. At that time, the institutional conditions for international exchanges at UM were quite favorable. The expansion of the facilities of the Michigan Union (a student organization) made Nelson’s longstanding dream possible. Inaugurated in September 1938, the International Center, under his direction, was created as a vibrant space for interaction and integration between foreign students and local communities. The free, weekly teas and suppers were increasingly popular, followed by varied cultural activities organized by different clubs or national groups of foreigners. The center also offered courses on U.S. culture, sports tournaments, picnics, tours of the city and its surroundings, musical events and art exhibitions. English tutoring services and classes were also an important attraction, as were counseling activities.²⁵

Informed by the IIE of the IBEU’s “splendid offer,” the director of the IC declared himself “anxious to do everything possible” in order to guarantee the opportunity for Michigan.²⁶

Setting up the Brazilian Fellowship Program (BFP)

Nelson became aware of the fellowships offered by the IBEU on the eve of the Eighth International Conference of American States. The Lima meeting, held December 9-24, 1938, was intended to advance the intentions established by the Buenos Aires Convention two years earlier. The escalation of Nazi fascism and expansionist politics in Asia heightened concerns about a possible world war and the event was seen as decisive for inter-American relations. The Brazilian newspaper Correio da Manhã reported on the front page that everyone had received “with satisfaction” the news that the U.S. government would engage “to an unprecedented degree to ensure economic, scientific and cultural cooperation between the American republics.”²⁷ However, the event participants themselves recognized the challenges to be faced, such as an increase in “donations, scholarships and other funds available to promote the exchange of students.”²⁸

It was on this strategic stage that Nelson made known that Michigan would contribute to the “hemispheric solidarity” network. On the eve of the Conference, he told Edgar Fisher, assistant director of the IIE, that Ruthven had authorized funding for three fellowships to match those offered by the IBEU. Fisher suggested that they ask Laurence Duggan, chief of the State Department’s Division of American Republics, to announce the decision in Lima.²⁹ The president of the IBEU, Levi Carneiro, would be there as a member of the Brazilian delegation. Nelson ensured yet another “spokesperson” at the Conference. He asked Charles Hurrey, a UM graduate and Secretary General of the Committee on Friendly Relations Among Foreign Students, to spread the news so that everyone would know of the “genuine interest on the part of the University in South American education.”³⁰

That done, Nelson focused entirely—with the help of other professors from the university—on working out the details in his proposal for the exchange program with Brazil. UM would offer Brazilians three fellowships for the same amount as those of the IBEU, aimed at students at an advanced level or young professors linked to prestigious institutions of higher education, or even individuals recognized in their professional fields, to spend an academic year in Michigan.³¹

A first challenge was to select beneficiaries on both sides. UM candidates who would go to Brazil would be identified by Nelson and by professors involved in Brazilian and Latin American studies through academic channels that already existed at the university. Geographer Preston E. James, a renowned UM Latin Americanist who had had contact with the IBEU in 1938, was especially active in this recruitment process. UM forwarded the following applications to the IIE: Frederick Holden Hall, to study Brazilian colonial history; William W. Lewis, James’ assistant, who intended to study geographic aspects of land tenure in the Paraíba Valley; and Byron O. Hughes, an associate researcher at the School of Education who was interested in race relations in Brazil. Hughes, however, worried about financial issues and, fearing that being away for six months would jeopardize his professional position at the university, withdrew his candidacy. To replace him, Nelson invited Robert King Hall, a doctoral student at the School of Education, who submitted a proposal for a comparative study of the educational systems in Argentina, Chile and Brazil.³²

While the selection of UM candidates who would travel to Brazil resulted from an active search by Nelson, with the help of other professors at the university, Nelson and Fisher selected the Brazilians who would study in Michigan from the many candidates who contacted the IBEU because they were interested in studying in the United States in general. In other words, in a clear asymmetry between the northern and southern sides of the program, although the IBEU had to confirm the choices, they were ultimately made by the North Americans for both directions of the exchange. It is worth mentioning some aspects considered during the selection process. When examining the 16 Brazilian applications submitted by the IBEU, Fisher felt that, since there were more opportunities for Latin American women in U.S. women’s colleges, the three fellowships to Michigan should be filled by male applicants.³³ Although women were considered for the BFP, this is an indication of the biases that shaped that circulation. One name that interested Nelson was that of Cecília Meireles (a renowned writer), but she withdrew her candidacy at that time. One of the reasons was purported to be discomfort surrounding the departure of the secretary of the IBEU, Kate De Pierri (who was responsible for the BFP), in the face of rumors that De Pierri was a German spy. De Pierri (with whom Meireles had become close when teaching literature classes at the IBEU) credited the intrigue to Gustavo Lessa, a member of the institute’s board, in an example of the tensions in Brazilian cultural circles at the time.³⁴

In addition to the academic aspects, the decision regarding which Brazilians would fit in better at UM was also influenced by local informants. For example, regarding Anísio Teixeira’s candidacy, Fisher commented that, despite having heard from the YMCA secretary in Rio de Janeiro that he would probably be Minister of Education in the future, he thought that Teixeira was “in political disfavor” at that time.³⁵ Other educators were also considered: Antonio Carneiro Leão, his brother Alberto, and Paschoal Lemme. The first, highly recommended, was rejected due to his age (52 years). Lemme, interested in studying the U.S. school administration system, had also been highly recommended and Fisher reported to Nelson that he had been told that “a fellowship awarded to him would have a far-reaching influence in Brazil.” In addition to Lemme, two physicians were chosen, brothers Jorge Joaquim de Castro Barbosa and Paulo Marcello de Castro Barbosa, who were interested in the U.S. hospital system.³⁶

Here, too, adjustments would have to be made. In a misunderstanding that would irritate Fisher, the young physicians withdrew from the program when they realized that the academic year in the United States did not correspond to the Brazilian one. They were replaced by attorney Osvaldo Trigueiro and educator Alberto Carneiro Leão. Trigueiro intended to study administrative law and organization in the United States.³⁷ Leão was a high school English teacher and was interested in phonetics and linguistics. However, he was unable to obtain authorization for leave from his job and postponed his plans until the following year. In the end, in addition to Lemme and Trigueiro, Heloisa Cabral da Rocha Werneck took part in the first group of Brazilians to go to UM through the BFP. A National Library employee assigned to the IBEU to catalog the institute’s book collection, Werneck wished to study library science at UM.

When everything seemed properly arranged and Michigan candidates were planning for their “adventures” south of the equator, an unexpected obstacle appeared. Nelson was counting on the Pan American Airways travel grants to pay for the travel of fellows from UM, since they were being extended to U.S. students traveling to Latin America too. However, he was informed that the new program would support only one candidate for each country. In other words, only one travel grant would be allocated to Brazil, and there was no guarantee that a UM fellow would receive it. The director of the International Center then launched an obstinate effort to solve the problem. Providing clear evidence of how academic processes were interconnected with political dynamics, he immediately sought Washington’s support. He asked Ben Cherrington, chief of the State Department’s Division of Cultural Relations (DCR), to intercede with the airline. Reiterating, as usual, the idea that UM was the first university to establish an exchange program of this type with a Latin American country, Nelson claimed that the BFP was decisive for Michigan and also for the government’s cultural relations program itself: “I feel it concerns not only the university, but the whole future of our cultural relations with Brazil.”³⁸ Nelson obtained the intervention of Secretary of State Cordell Hull but, at a time when many resisted the government’s entry into an arena that until then had belonged to private institutions, the only negotiation possible with Pan American Airways was to allocate the fellowship for Brazil to a UM candidate. The company’s president made a point of saying that earmarking the travel fellowship for UM expressed goodwill towards the University of Michigan given the State Department’s appeal.³⁹

With the travel fellowship assigned to W. Lewis, Nelson persisted in his quest to find travel funds for the other two UM representatives.⁴⁰ Cherrington advised Nelson that they should apply for the government grants established within the Buenos Aires Convention, which were finally to be implemented for the 1939-1940 academic year.⁴¹ Approval of the first (still restricted) budget for the government’s cultural relations program reinforced the expectation that universities (and other private institutions) would join this new network, hence the involvement of the DCR chief, who intended to use the UM initiative as an example. The State Department’s involvement in the case certainly contributed to Ruthven’s decision to solve the dilemma using university resources. The episode was “capitalized on” in order to further enhance UM’s position. When announcing the solution of the “imbroglio” to Cherrington, Nelson pointed out: “I am sure you will appreciate how sincere our interest as an institution has been in putting over this exchange agreement.”⁴² A week after the Nazi invasion of Poland, UM celebrated its entry into a circuit that would assume increasing strategic importance.

The year 1939 was prolific for the inclusion of Ann Arbor on this map. From June to August, during its Summer Session, UM hosted the Institute of Latin American Studies (ILAS), under the auspices of the American Council of Learned Societies and with support from the Rockefeller Foundation. The selection of the university to inaugurate the initiative was attributed to its “prominent position in the field of Latin American studies.”⁴³ Bringing together professors from other U.S. universities, ILAS comprised several courses, talks and activities in the fields of history, geography, anthropology, political science, economics, business, education, art and architecture. The renowned Brazilian scholar Gilberto Freyre, the only Latin American on the program, gave a talk and courses on the history of Brazil, with an emphasis on the subject of race relations. Under his coordination, the preparation of a Handbook of Brazilian Studies was discussed.⁴⁴

The first year of the BFP (1939-1940) gave Nelson confidence regarding the continuity of the program. He praised Trigueiro, Lemme and Werneck to the IBEU for their academic performance and for having fulfilled “their responsibility as representatives of their country.”⁴⁵ The IBEU also expressed satisfaction with the fellows from Michigan and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs renewed funding for the following year.

Adaptations, tensions and asymmetries in good neighbor practices

Renewal of the BFP would require some adjustments. Given the difficulty in obtaining grants from Pan Am, UM decided to offer only two fellowships for Brazilians for the 1940-1941 academic year and reserve the remaining resources for the travel expenses of the UM candidates in case no funds were available from other sources. Likewise, the IBEU would also grant only two fellowships to U.S. participants. Due to adaptation difficulties, their stay in Brazil would be extended from six to nine months. The reports of the first fellows from Michigan on their experiences south of the equator identified barriers to be faced in intercultural encounters in the Americas.

A recurring complaint from the Michigan students regarded the routines and (lack of) organization of Brazilian academic institutions. William Lewis, for example, complained about the bureaucracy and the indexing system of libraries, which had often left him “up in blind streets.”⁴⁶ Frederick Hall was sarcastic when describing the limits to “mutual understanding”:

The Fahrenheit thermometer hovers around 90 degrees when I am having coffee! I am now working—or making a feeble attempt to—at the Instituto Histórico e Geográfico Brasileiro [Brazilian Historical and Geographic Institute], which has the beautifully Brazilian hours of 12 to 4 [...]. It is a short time and the hottest part of the day! [...] The attendant “who speaks English” (and if she speaks English, I speak Hindustani!) is a sweet old thing that must have been a debutant during the time of Pedro II. [...] It takes all my energy to fill out the long requisition blank for each document [...]. It seems almost impossible to make my simmering brain generate.⁴⁷

Robert Hall, in contrast, sought to downplay the heat of Rio de Janeiro by comparing it to the “hottest days in Ann Arbor.”⁴⁸ In this case, diplomacy did not work and Fisher put more store in Frederick Hall’s account. In the search for adaptations, there was no concern on the part of UM, the IIE or even the IBEU regarding how Brazilians would deal with Michigan’s harsh winter.

Even more challenging than the weather was the language barrier. In addition to impairing academic performance, it enhanced the stress experienced daily by the foreigners. The problem also affected the students from the United States, but in very different ways. In the latter case, their poor performance was credited not to individual shortcomings, but to the lack of opportunities for learning Portuguese. The BFP later contributed to changing this situation, which in turn stimulated interest in Brazil. Alberto Carneiro Leão, who studied at UM in the second year of the program, started teaching Portuguese at the International Center. The surprising demand for his classes contributed to the university’s decision to offer a Portuguese-language course in its Department of Romance Languages beginning in 1941.⁴⁹

The adaptation of the U.S. participants to Brazil was seen as more difficult than that of the Brazilians to the United States. According to the IBEU secretary, in addition to being unfamiliar with the climate and even with the food, “the living conditions [in Brazil] are certainly less organized than in the States; in fact, they are not organized at all!”⁵⁰ This perception of the differences was also expressed by other U.S. professors involved in the cooperation between these very different academic and cultural spaces. Sociologist Donald Pierson, a key actor in Good Neighbor diplomacy as a professor at the Escola Livre de Sociologia e Política de São Paulo (Free School of Sociology and Politics of São Paulo) (Maio; Lopes, 2017), congratulated Nelson on the BFP, but recommended that Brazilian candidates be endorsed by people familiar with U.S. academic standards. Making himself available for this task, he warned that “friendship,” according to the “Brazilian mentality,” could take on negative connotations if associated with the “subtleties of politics.”⁵¹

As for adaptation in the United States, Latin Americans had to face, in addition to language, a barrier that was not explicitly discussed: race. Despite praising Ann Arbor for its “relative freedom from racial discrimination as compared to the South,”⁵² Nelson recognized, in reserved reports, that the foreign students suffered “prejudices against color, even though only brown or yellow, or accent, or just because they are foreign.”⁵³ Racial tensions became apparent, for example, when the Interracial Association (a local organization of students and teachers) suggested the possibility of making books related to racial themes available in the IC reading room. Nelson’s assistant, Robert Klinger, was afraid to receive “some of the colored students who are not exactly desirable,” but he decided that, at a time when the United States was fighting for democracy abroad, an attitude like this would be incongruous and could particularly offend the “racially-mixed” Latin-Americans.”⁵⁴

Despite the rhetoric of “hemispheric solidarity,” relations between the two Americas were marked by mistrust on both sides. The resistance of Latin Americans to their northern neighbor was nourished both by the fear of imperialism associated with “big stick” policy and “dollar diplomacy,” and by the stereotypes that the United States was a materialistic country, rich in industry and technology, but poor in spiritual and cultural terms. A Mexican professor who visited Ann Arbor on a “goodwill mission” did not spare his hosts when he stated in an interview with a local newspaper: “We are willing to accept your teachings on industrial and technical matters, but we do not want to be coca-cola-ized. You teach us many things. Perhaps we can teach you some things as far as the meaning of life is concerned.”⁵⁵

Meanwhile, the Latin Americans, in addition to dealing with the usual impression of the tropics as exotic, were sometimes explicitly treated as inferior. A document of unknown authorship on the plan for the Institute of Latin American Studies, which Ruthven kept among his papers, discussed the challenges of “mutual understanding” and mentioned the view that many had of Latin Americans as “a lazy and vain product of racial confusion, dominated by traditions.”⁵⁶ Publicly, prejudices against the “other American republics” were disguised under the condescending superiority of those who identified a backwardness in the South to be overcome through assistance from the North. When advising U.S. students on how to act as “cultural ambassadors” in Latin America, the IIE advised them to be “adaptable and tactful” in the face of adversities ranging from the lack of “good drinking water” to the “tempo of living [that is] everywhere slower.” In short, it was “better to expect too little than too much.”⁵⁷

World War II and the continuity of the exchange program with Brazil

In 1940, cultural relations in the Americas grew to include new actors and dynamics with the implementation of grants and programs both by the State Department’s DCR and by the recently established Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs. In addition to the support provided by universities and private organizations, this new network expanded the opportunities for a circulation that also benefited from the increasing restrictions imposed on flows to Europe.

For the second year of the BFP (1940-1941), Fisher and Nelson chose the physician Nelson Cotrim, who wished to study cardiology, and Alberto Carneiro Leão who, as mentioned above, had not been able to go the previous year.⁵⁸ At a time when pathways to Latin America were being emphasized in announcements of government initiatives, more U.S. candidates applied for that type of exchange. The UM committee responsible for the BFP chose Joseph H. Alli, who had received his PhD in public health from the university and had experience in the study of tropical diseases in Europe, and George S. Quick, a doctoral student in economics who intended to study the history of labor in São Paulo. Joseph R. Bailey, a doctoral student at the UM Museum of Zoology, was listed as an alternate if one of the others needed to be replaced.⁵⁹ This time, however, the IBEU intervened directly in the selection process, choosing Bailey instead of Alli.⁶⁰ The justification that the decision was based on academic criteria did not convince Nelson, who attributed it to the fact that Alli, despite his U.S. citizenship, had been born in Albania. Even declaring himself “shocked” by the situation, the director of the IC accepted the decision of his Brazilian partners and downplayed the embarrassment by saying that “war conditions [had] influenced the feeling of people in Brazil regarding aliens or those who [had] been aliens.”⁶¹

The occupation of Paris in June 1940 increased the tension of the war exponentially. Nelson shared his concerns about the fate of the BFP with Fisher: “I am sure that you are quite as much disturbed and probably quite anxious as I am over the possibility of our whole beautiful plan being shattered by the consequences of the war.”⁶² The candidates themselves perceived the new meanings of their “mission.” Quick declared himself aware of the “diplomatic significance” of educational exchange “in this world gone mad” and committed to acting as a “cultural ambassador” in Brazil.⁶³ The war itself, however, would impose other dynamics on these flows. Summoned for military service, Quick had to postpone his trip to Brazil to the following year.

The same obstacle existed for those selected for the 1941-1942 academic year: Earl Wesley Thomas, a PhD student in the Department of Romance Languages interested in the phonetics of Brazilian Portuguese, and Ulrich Howard Williams, a PhD student at the Anthropology Museum who intended to study Brazilian plants. Nelson asked the Michigan State Selective Board to exempt them from military enlistment, stating that they would be excellent U.S. “diplomatic representatives” in South America.⁶⁴ In this third year of the BFP, the IBEU sent José Famadas Sobrinho, an English teacher at Colégio Pedro II, to study phonetics and linguistics, and attorney Luiz Antonio Severo da Costa to study sociology.⁶⁵

In 1941, UM felt the dramatic effects of the war daily. Either due to the risk or to the blockade of routes, many European and Asian students were prevented from returning to their countries or receiving funds from their families. In addition to raising extra funds to help them, Nelson was part of the committee created by the American Friends Service (a Quaker organization) in the city of Ann Arbor to receive and assist refugee students and professors from Europe. At the same time, he had to deal with racial and political animosities and the escalation of nationalism among the foreigners who gathered at the IC.⁶⁶ His efforts to overcome these tensions earned him an appointment by the State Department to the Advisory Committee on the Adjustment of Foreign Students in the United States in April 1941. The consequences of the war were also felt in the Brazilian intellectual milieu, intensifying disputes between those who aligned themselves politically and culturally with the Axis or the Allies.

At the same time, that year, UM hosted important events and initiatives related to inter-American cooperation, such as the Eighth International Conference of the New Education Fellowship, held for the first time in the Americas, and which discussed how intellectual cooperation on the continent could help compensate for the destruction in the “old world.” There was also the Latin American Summer School, held with the support of the steamship company Grace Line, the State Department, the Pan American Union and the IIE, which received 50 students from Venezuela, Ecuador and Chile. Course materials would be be used by the State Department to prepare cultural attachés sent to Latin American countries.⁶⁷ The most important initiative was the inauguration, at the IC, of the English Language Institute (ELI), a research institute funded by the Rockefeller Foundation to develop new methods and materials for teaching English specifically to Spanish and Portuguese-speaking students. The ELI was soon nationally recognized and praised in U.S. government forums as a model for other universities.⁶⁸ Finally, in November 1941, UM was invited to be an “Inter-American Demonstration Center,” a joint project of the Office of Education and the DCR to implement, in certain locations in the United States, a series of diversified educational activities on Latin America for students and teachers from primary and secondary schools, in conjunction with higher education institutions.⁶⁹

In view of this increase in activities, in November 1941 Ruthven decided to create the Committee on Latin American Relations (CLAR), coordinated by Nelson, to develop an extension plan for the fellowships granted to Latin American students. Thus, the cooperation that had begun in 1939 through a specific agreement with Brazil was able to expand and form part of an increasingly diversified network of exchanges that included not only government agencies and private institutions, but also local organizations such as the Kellogg Foundation, in addition to specific programs at the university itself (such as in the Schools of Law, Public Health and Forestry).⁷⁰ However, the expansion of this inter-American academic mobility circuit was accompanied by tensions. Dissatisfied with the disparity between the high investments by universities (especially public universities like UM, financed by the respective states) compared to federal government funding (despite its being highly publicized), Ruthven was incisive when addressing Charles Thomson, chief of the DCR: “[...] a country which is spending billions on defense could well afford to spend a few hundred thousand dollars on bringing South American students to this country.”⁷¹

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and the entry of the United States into the war would affect the principle of which the BFP had been emblematic: reciprocity. In late 1942, the State Department suspended all grants for the “other American republics” due to the growing need for military enlistment. Even without Michigan’s contribution, the Brazilian government agreed to continue the BFP in hopes of resuming the exchange when the situation returned to normal.⁷² The program’s beneficiaries themselves advertised UM in Brazil, with the aim of maintaining flows to Ann Arbor.⁷³ At the end of 1941, at the initiative of Paschoal Lemme, member of the IBEU Courses and Library Commission, a UM alumni club was founded at that institute. Trigueiro, Werneck, Cotrim, F. Hall, Quick, Bailey, Williams and Thomas were also founding members of the new club.⁷⁴

The fellows of the BFP and other exchange programs with Latin America were both academic and political actors in the Good Neighbor circuits.⁷⁵ On January 19, 1942, while the Third Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics, convened by Washington, was being held in Rio de Janeiro to discuss the severing of ties between American countries and the Axis, Nelson received a document signed by 37 of the 40 Latin American students from UM, representing 16 countries and headed by Brazilians José Famadas and Luiz Antonio Severo da Costa. “As supporters of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor Policy,” they emphatically expressed their firm commitment to cooperate with the university “in its defense program and with the free men and women of this nation in their fight for world preservation of liberty.”⁷⁶

The students’ gesture had national repercussions. Sent to the Secretary of State and to President Roosevelt,⁷⁷ the document was used by the chief of the Division of Cultural Relations to reinforce the request for more resources for the area in a congressional hearing.⁷⁸ Strengthened in their mobilization, in April 1942 the students created the Sociedad Latino Americana, a new club that met at the IC and became an important actor in promoting cultural activities related to Latin America at UM. According to Nelson, it was the best “example of the ‘Good Neighbor Policy’ really at work.”⁷⁹

Conclusions

With the entry of the United States into the war, the cultural diplomacy of the Roosevelt government experienced a progressive “turn towards pragmatism, propaganda and ‘instrumentalism’” (Graham, 2015, p.77), especially beginning in 1943 when the Allies, moving from defense to attack, began to prepare for the postwar period. That more immediatist perspective—with a focus on technical areas and the informational dimension of cultural relations—differed from the academic, gradualist approach that had dominated until then, of which the “university model” structured on the idea of reciprocal exchange had been an emblem (Ardnt, 2005, p.89). At UM, the “plan for the extension” of Latin American fellowships developed in January 1943 had already prioritized areas with more explicit economic returns, such as tropical medicine and forestry, due to the “increasing dependence” of the United States on the supply of rubber and other natural products from the region.⁸⁰

In 1943, other processes, at the local level, signaled new relations with Latin America. The Committee of Latin American Relations became the Committee on Intercultural Relations, and began to encompass relations with European, Near East and Far East countries, following the guidelines of the government and other sectors that saw post-war reconstruction as the preferred way for the United States to consolidate its hegemony worldwide.⁸¹ Although everyone agreed that the “other American republics” should not be forgotten, focus was directed toward the new contingents of students and academics who would go to universities in the United States, not only those coming from the regions affected by the conflict, but U.S. citizens themselves who, having served in the war, received government support to enroll in higher education (Ninkovich, 1981; Hart, 2013; Graham, 2015).

At the same time, a unique occurrence made 1943 a watershed year for inter-American exchanges at UM: Nelson’s retirement. For that reason, the meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Adjustment of Foreign students was held in Ann Arbor, and at the “retirement dinner” in honor of the director of the IC, the attendees celebrated the spirit of cooperation of which he had been a tireless promoter. On the other hand, the minutes of the meeting recorded the “new times”: some thought “that too much emphasis was being placed on Latin American students.”⁸² During the administration of the new director of the IC, Esson Gale, the flow of Latin Americans would continue, but was no longer the showcase of the university’s exchange programs. If the Good Neighbor Policy had built the foundations on which U.S. cultural diplomacy was established, the post-war period and especially the Cold War would bring new meanings to cultural and educational relations between the United States and the “rest of the world.”

In examining the circumstances, interests and practices that led to educational exchanges between a university in the Midwestern United States and an institute created in the Brazilian capital to promote cultural alignment between the two countries, we sought to highlight how transnational relations arise from concrete, complex dynamics, at the intersections and due to frictions between local, regional and national processes and actors. This network, marked by agreements and disagreements, confluences and asymmetries, was formed through existing channels, in terms of both academic and political connections on the local level and broader guidelines from government agencies and foreign policy. At the same time, as it became concretely shaped it became a fundamental element circumscribing the circuits of which it was a part. By offering three fellowships for U.S. students to study Brazil, in Brazil, hoping to receive the same benefits in return, the IBEU did not just satisfy the expectations of those—in Washington or New York—setting up the machinery for their “empire of ideas” on the continent. It offered a concrete opportunity to put into practice the principles and mechanisms of this enterprise, which also satisfied Brazilian expectations for joining these circuits. The IBEU probably did not expect that the path that would connect it to the “northern neighbor” would lead to the “edge of the wilderness,” as Nelson described Ann Arbor, but UM was ready to take a chance to make its presence felt on “hemispheric” routes. In this convergence of interests, although under such unequal conditions, both were placed on the map.

• Translated from Portuguese to English by: Naomi Sutcliffe de Moraes
• 1
  HULL, Cordell. Uma mensagem de confiança. Diário de Notícias, Rio de Janeiro, July 5. 1938, p.13.
• 2
  The Good Neighbor Policy, implemented in 1933 by Franklin D. Roosevelt, advocated solidarity, multilateralism and mutual defense in the Americas—contrary to the interventionist practices of U.S. foreign policy before then—with a view to consolidating U.S. hegemony in the region. During the war, the strategic use of the Good Neighbor perspective intensified to support the military and economic interests of the Allies and prevent the expansion of Nazi fascism in Latin America. The literature on the subject has emphasized that the policy, as well as the Pan-Americanism to which it contributed, was not something univocal and monolithic, but rather a complex negotiation process marked by convergences, but also by disputes, fractures and contradictions. As Smith (2017) suggests, when analyzing the different situations in which a “shared imagination” of the continent was developed, Pan-Americanism must be examined through the experiences and concrete interactions through which it was shaped. See, among others: PIKE, 1995; SHEININ, 2000; ALVES JUNIOR, 2014; SCARFI; TILLMAN, 2016; SMITH, 2017.
• 3
  On Brazilian cultural diplomacy, see SUPPO; LESSA, 2012. On cultural exchanges between Brazil and the United States during World War II, see MOURA, 1984; TOTA, 2000. Inter-American scientific relations during this period, in different fields, have received increasing attention from Latin American historians. See, among others, FREIRE JUNIOR; SILVA, 2014; 2019; GARCÍA, 2015; ORTIZ, 2003; FREIRE JUNIOR, 2017; MAIO; LOPES, 2017, KROPF; HOWELL, 2017; SÁ, Magali Romero; SÁ, Dominichi Miranda de; SILVA, André Felipe Cândido da (orgs.). As ciências na história das relações Brasil-Estados Unidos. Rio de Janeiro: Mauad X, (in production).
• 4
  This aspect is specifically addressed in FREIRE JUNIOR; SILVA, 2014; 2019. A field yet to be explored by historians concerns the role of bi-national institutes, such as the IBEU, as key actors in promoting cultural relations between the United States and Latin America. One of this article’s particular contributions is to improve understanding of their role.
• 5
  For a global overview of transnational history, see SAUNIER, 2013. On the global, transnational perspective on the history of science, see ROBERTS, 2009; FAN, 2012; RAJ, 2013; KRIGE, 2019.
• 6
  These chronological milestones are related to the Convention for the Promotion of Inter-American Cultural Relations and the creation of the United States Information Agency (USIA) in the new Cold War context. On inter-American cultural diplomacy, see: ESPINOSA, 1977; HAYNES, 1977; NINKOVICH, 1981; ARNDT, 2005; HART, 2013; SADLIER, 2012; GRAHAM, 2015; SMITH, 2017.
• 7
  There is extensive historiography on the Roosevelt government’s cultural relations program in Latin America and Brazil, especially on the activities of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs (OCIAA). Created in August 1940 with emergency funds provided by the federal government and led by Nelson Rockefeller, the OCIAA played a broad, significant role in promoting cultural relations with “other American republics.” On its initiatives in the fields of cinema (such as the films of Walt Disney and Orson Welles in Brazil, and those of Carmen Miranda in the United States), in the arts in general and communications, see TOTA, 2000; GARCIA, 2003; SOUZA, 2004; MAUAD, 2005; SADLIER, 2012; MONTEIRO, 2014; VALIM, 2017. On OCIAA’s investments in public health in Brazil, see CAMPOS, 2006; on scientific cooperation, see FREIRE JUNIOR; SILVA, 2014; GARCÍA, 2015; FREIRE JUNIOR; SILVA, 2019. The extent and intensity of the OCIAA’s activities have led some authors to consider it the beginning of Roosevelt’s cultural relations program. However, the program was established in 1938 by the Division of Cultural Relations (DCR) of the U.S. State Department in order to implement the guidelines of the 1936 Convention. On the disputes between the DCR and the OCIAA, see ESPINOSA, 1977; ARNDT, 2005. On the State Department’s cultural and educational programs from 1938 to 1943, see HANSON, Haldore. The cultural-cooperation program, 1938-1943. Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1944.
• 8
  As stated by SILVA (2018), transnational academic mobility is not a “natural” and “inexorable” process of internationalization driven by a presumed epistemological universalism, but rather consists of concrete practices implemented by specific historical actors. A particularly interesting study on the heterogeneity of the initiatives, dynamics and actors of the Good Neighbor Policy, as well as the obstacles faced in its implementation, was carried out by Valim (2017) on the distribution and exhibition, in Brazil, of the films produced by the OCIAA.
• 9
  The Ford Motor Company was founded in 1903 in Detroit, located 57 km from Ann Arbor, the site of UM’s campus. On the history of the University of Michigan, see SHAW, Wilfred B. (ed.). The University of Michigan, an encyclopedic survey. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 4 volumes, 1942; 1958.
• 10
  The records of Ruthven, Nelson and the International Center are preserved and available at the Bentley Historical Library (UM) and were the main documentary sources used in this article.
• 11
  The academic year in the United States generally runs from September to May.
• 12
  Report of the Counselor to Foreign Students to the University Council. May 13, 1935. International Center Records (ICR), Box 1, Folder Academic Records and Files. Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
• 13
  NELSON, Joseph Raleigh. The Foreign Student on the Michigan Campus. The Michigan Alumnus, vol. XLIII, n. 1, Oct. 3, 1936, p.309.
• 14
  J. R. Nelson to H. C. Anderson. Nov. 30, 1937; Feb. 1, 1938. ICR, Box 1, Folder Latin-American Students. The Rockefeller Foundation’s activities in Brazil were decisive in several fields, especially in medical education and public health. See, among others, MARINHO, 2001.
• 15
  An account of this trip can be found at: Nelson to A. G. Ruthven. May 16, 1938. Alexander Grant Ruthven Papers (AGRP), Box 20, Folder 7. Bentley Historical Library. On the history of universities in the United States, see THELIN, 2011.
• 16
  For a history of the institute, see INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION. Institute of International Education, 1919-1969. New York, IIE, 1970.
• 17
  Brazil had already created bi-national cultural institutes with European countries, such as France, Italy, Portugal and Germany.
• 18
  JORNAL DO COMMERCIO. Instituto Brasil Estados Unidos - Sua fundação, ontem. Jornal do Comércio, Rio de Janeiro, 14 de jan. de 1937, p.4. The institute’s activities would encompass conferences, exhibitions, concerts, film screenings, social receptions, regular language courses (English for Brazilians and Portuguese for English-speakers), as well as a library specializing in U.S. culture. On the IBEU, see GÓES, Joaquim Faria. O intercâmbio pelas bolsas de estudos. Revista do Instituto Brasil-Estados Unidos, vol. 1, n. 1, p.136-145, jan.1943; TUCKER, Hugh Clarence. Fundação do Instituto Brasil-Estados Unidos. Revista do Instituto Brasil-Estados Unidos, v. VIII, n. 17, p.3-8, Jan.-Jun.,1950.
• 19
  In addition to the IBEU in Rio de Janeiro, bi-national institutes with the United States were established in the Brazilian cities of São Paulo, Florianópolis, Porto Alegre, Curitiba, Salvador and Fortaleza. On the IBEU in Florianópolis, see GOETZINGER, 2014.
• 20
  An interesting aspect of the universe of students sent to the United States by the IBEU was the presence of women, especially in the fields of education and library science.
• 21
  Levi Carneiro to Stephen Duggan. Aug. 23, 1938. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-2).
• 22
  Levi Carneiro to Stephen Duggan. Aug. 23, 1938. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-2).
• 23
  INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION. Nineteenth Annual Report of the Director. New York, IIE, Oct. 1938, p.42.
• 24
  IIE, 1938, p.42.
• 25
  NELSON, Joseph Raleigh. International Center Proves Its Worth. The Michigan Alumnus, vol. XLV, n. 2, Oct. 15, 1938, p.23-24; SHAW, Wilfred B. (ed.). The University of Michigan, an encyclopedic survey. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 4 volumes, 1942; 1958.
• 26
  Edgar J. Fisher to Nelson. Oct. 25, 1938; Nelson to Fisher. Nov. 4, 1938. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships - Brazilian Exchange (10-2).
• 27
  CORREIO DA MANHÃ. A Conferência de Lima será mais um êxito para a causa da paz, declara o senhor Cordell Hull. Correio da Manhã, Rio de Janeiro, 1 dez. 1938. p.1.
• 28
  PAN AMERICAN UNION. Eighth International Conference of American States, Lima, Peru, December 9, 1938. Special handbook for the use of delegates, prepared by the Pan American Union. Pan American Union, Washington, D. C., 1938, p.112.
• 29
  Nelson to Fisher. Dec. 8, 1938; Fisher to Nelson. Dec. 9, 1938. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships - Brazilian Exchange (10-2).
• 30
  Nelson to Charles D. Hurrey. Dec. 14, 1938. ICR, Box 1, Folder Hurrey, Charles D. The Committee on Friendly Relations Among Foreign Students was created in 1911 to stimulate the actions of missionaries with a view to attracting foreign students to the United States.
• 31
  Proposed plan for exchange of students between the institutions of higher learning in Brazil and the University of Michigan. Enclosure in: Nelson to Ruthven. Mar. 9, 1939. AGRP, Box 23, Folder 6.
• 32
  The documentation related to the BFP selection process can be found at: ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-2; 10-3). Robert K. Hall, who later became a professor at the Teachers College at Columbia University, established long-lasting relationships with Brazilian educators. See CUNHA; MAYNARD, 2019. The study carried out in Brazil was the basis for his doctoral dissertation at UM, defended in 1941. See HALL, Robert King. Federal Control of Education in Argentina, Brazil and Chile. The School Review, vol. 50, n. 9, p.651-660, 1942.
• 33
  Fisher to Nelson. Apr. 1, 1939. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-2).
• 34
  See De Pierri’s letter enclosed in: Fisher to Nelson. Mar. 4, 1939. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-2). Meireles traveled to the United States in 1940.
• 35
  Fisher to Nelson. Apr. 1, 1939. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-2).
• 36
  Fisher to Nelson. Apr. 1, 1939. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-2). It is interesting to note that Paschoal Lemme, one of the organizers of the Manifesto of New Education Pioneers (Manifesto dos Pioneiros da Educação Nova) and a member of Teixeira’s group, had been arrested in 1936 on charges of teaching a Marxist course to workers. The intermediation of José Silvado Bueno, from the Departamento Administrativo do Serviço Público (Administrative Department of Public Service), who was Lemme’s friend and who had contacts at the UM School of Education, may explain why, in his case, the political aspect was not considered. José Silvado Bueno to George Carrothers. Aug. 31, 1939. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-2). For an account by Lemme (who would distinguish himself as an important intellectual in the field of Brazilian education) of his stay in Michigan, see LEMME, Paschoal. Universidade de Michigan, primeiras impressões. Educação, n. 5, p.14-15, Jan. 1940.
• 37
  Osvaldo Trigueiro de Albuquerque Melo was the son of a local political chief in the state of Paraíba and had been mayor of Campina Grande (the capital of that state). After his stay in Michigan, he would be governor of Paraíba, Justice of the Superior Electoral Court, Federal Attorney General and Justice of the Federal Supreme Court. His thesis, developed at UM and entitled O regime dos estados na União Americana (The Regime of the States in the American Union), was published in Rio de Janeiro in 1942 by Compania Editora Americana.
• 38
  Nelson to Ben Cherrington. June 3, 1939. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-2).
• 39
  Juan T. Trippe to Cordell Hull. July 26, 1939. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-2).
• 40
  Among the Brazilian candidates, the Pan Am benefit was granted to Paschoal Lemme. The others went by ship.
• 41
  Ben Cherrington to Nelson. Aug. 1, 1939. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-2). For a detailed account of this and other grants awarded by the U.S. government, see ESPINOSA, 1977.
• 42
  Nelson to Ben Cherrington. Sept. 8, 1939. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-2).
• 43
  AITON, Arthur S. Latin-American Studies Emphasized. The Michigan Alumnus, vol. 49, n. 14, Feb. 6, 1943, p.247.
• 44
  UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN. The Institute of Latin American Studies. Summer Session, 1939. University of Michigan Official Publication, vol. 41, n. 3, p. 1-15, July 8, 1939.
• 45
  Nelson to Mary Nogueira. Mar. 25, 1940. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-3).
• 46
  William Lewis to Nelson. Mar. 3, [1940]. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-3).
• 47
  Transcribed in: Fisher to Nelson. Mar. 5, 1940. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-3).
• 48
  Cited in: Fisher to Nelson. Apr. 24, 1940. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-2).
• 49
  Nelson to Ruthven. Feb. 13, 1941. AGRP, Box 29, Folder 9.
• 50
  Mary Nogueira to Nelson. Feb. 26, 1940. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-3).
• 51
  Donald Pierson to Nelson. Oct. 29, 1940. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-2).
• 52
  The Committee on Latin-American Relations to Raymond T. Rich. Mar. 16, 1943. ICR, Box 10, Folder Miscellaneous.
• 53
  Nelson to Louis M. Gram. Aug. 28, 1941. ICR, Box 1, Folder National Youth Administration. Nelson was a member of the Dunbar Association in Ann Arbor, a center for social activities for “colored people.”
• 54
  R. Klinger to Nelson [1942]. Joseph Raleigh Nelson Papers (JRNP), Box 1, Folder Correspondence 1942 (1).
• 55
  Better neighbors. Interchange of two cultures urged by Mexican professor. [May 1944]. ICR, Box 1, Folder State Department Visitors.
• 56
  Institute for Latin-American Studies (undated). AGRP, Box 22, Folder 28. On the representations of Latin America published in the magazine Seleções, the Brazilian version ofReader’s Digest, as an instrument of the Good Neighbor Policy, see JUNQUEIRA, 2000.
• 57
  Popper, Florence. “Some observations on study in South America” (IIE, 1942). JRNP, Box 2, Folder Papers 1942, Concerning Latin American Students.
• 58
  The exchange between Latin American physicians (including Cotrim) and UM cardiologist and professor Frank N. Wilson (who welcomed these physicians into his laboratory and visited Brazil on a “goodwill mission” sponsored by the State Department’s DCR in 1942) was decisive both in developing cardiology as a specialty in Brazil and other Latin American countries, and in earning recognition for Wilson’s innovative ideas in electrocardiography. KROPF; HOWELL, 2017.
• 59
  See correspondence from May 1940, in ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-3).
• 60
  As with R. K. Hall, Bailey established long-lasting links with researchers in Brazil, and became a collaborator of Heloisa Alberto Torres at the National Museum in Rio de Janeiro.
• 61
  Nelson to Edna Duge. July 11, 1940. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-3).
• 62
  Nelson to Fisher. June 19, 1940. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-3).
• 63
  Quick to Nelson. July 18, 1940. ICR, Box 10, Folder Scholarships-Brazilian Exchange (10-3).
• 64
  Nelson to Colonel George Brent. May 21, 1941. ICR, Box 9, Folder Scholarships/UM Committee on Foreign Students. It is worth noting that this was before Pearl Harbor.
• 65
  Upon returning to Brazil, Severo da Costa went to work in the Coordenação de Mobilização Econômica (Economic Mobilization Coordination Office), a federal agency created in 1942 to develop economic measures given Brazil’s entry into the war.
• 66
  NELSON, Joseph Raleigh. A counselor’s office in war time. The Michigan Alumnus, vol. XLVII, n. 15, p.133-140, Feb. 22, 1941.
• 67
  See ICR, Box 1, Folder Latin-American Summer Session.
• 68
  See SHAW, 1958 (vol. IV, part IX).
• 69
  MACKINTOSH, Helen Katherine. What is the Inter-American Demonstration Center Project? The Journal of Educational Sociology, vol. 16, n. 3, p.146-149, 1942.
• 70
  Plan for the extension of fellowships for Latin American Students. Attached to: Report of the Committee on Latin-American Relations. University of Michigan. Jan. 1, 1943. AGRP, Box 34, Folder 22. Established in 1930 by the cereal manufacturer in Battle Creek, Michigan, the Kellogg Foundation provided funds to UM’s schools of public health and dentistry, attracting many Latin Americans.
• 71
  Ruthven to Charles Thomson. Apr. 26, 1941. AGRP, Box 28, Folder 24.
• 72
  Joaquim Faria Góes Filho to Nelson. June 9, 1942. JRNP, Box 1, Folder Correspondence 1942 (1). For the 1942-1943 academic year, Oscar Ribeiro (of the Ministry of Agriculture’s Agricultural Chemistry Institute) and Nahum Isaac Klein were selected to study agricultural chemistry and genetics, respectively. From 1943 to 1945, the following individuals were BFP fellows: Stelio Morais (from the University of Brazil School of Fine Arts) to study architecture, and José da Cruz Paixão, Evangelina Meira (both from the Rio de Janeiro National School of Agronomy) and José Maria Joffily (from the Pernambuco School of Agriculture) to study botany.
• 73
  At Lemme’s initiative, the journal Educação of the Associação Brasileira de Educação (Brazilian Education Association) published an article by Nelson on the International Center. NELSON, Joseph Raleigh. O Centro Internacional da Universidade de Michigan. Educação, n. 10, p.7-10, abr. 1941.
• 74
  Brazilians form U. of M. club. The International Center News, vol. III, n. 3, Dec. 1941. ICR, Box 19, Folder International Center - Printed.
• 75
  The analysis of the trajectories of the BFP beneficiaries is beyond the scope of this article, but an example of contradictions regarding the later political alignment of these “ambassadors of the Good Neighbor Policy” was Paschoal Lemme, recognized for his Marxist views on education. At the National Education Conference in 1950, Lemme criticized the ideas of Robert K. Hall (who in the postwar years had worked on educational reform in Japan in the service of the U.S. government), claiming that Hall was a “spokesman [for the] imperialist politics” of the United States (apud CUNHA, 2016, p. 5).
• 76
  Copy of the document enclosed in: Nelson to Ruthven. Jan. 20, 1942. AGRP, Box 32, Folder 5.
• 77
  Nelson to President Roosevelt. Jan. 20, 1942. ICR, Box 1, Folder La Sociedad Latino-Americana.
• 78
  Reported in: R. Klinger to Ruthven. May 19, 1942. AGRP, Box 32, Folder 5.
• 79
  NELSON, Joseph Raleigh. South Americans organize to cooperate. The Michigan Alumnus, vol. XLVIII, n. 21, May 16, 1942, p.378.
• 80
  Plan for the extension of fellowships for Latin American Students. Attached to: Report of the Committee on Latin-American Relations. University of Michigan. Jan. 1, 1943. AGRP, Box 34, Folder 22, p. 1-2.
• 81
  Nelson to Ruthven. May 28, 1943. JRNP, Box 1, Folder Correspondence, 1943 (1).
• 82
  Minutes enclosed in: Fisher to Klinger. June 15, 1943. ICR, Box 6, Folder Bureaus-NAFSA, 1942.

Acknowledgements

This article is the result of research carried out during a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Michigan in 2017-8. I would like to thank my colleagues from the Brazil Initiative of the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies at UM for their support and welcome during my stay.

Referências bibliográficas

• ADELMAN, Jeremy. Latin American and World Histories: Old and New Approaches to the Pluribus and the Unum. Hispanic American Historical Review, vol. 84, n. 3, p.399-409, 2004.
• ALVES JUNIOR, Alexandre Guilherme da Cruz. Discursos americanos de cooperação no contexto da 2ª. Guerra Mundial Rio de Janeiro: Multifoco, 2014.
• ARNDT, Richard T. The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century. Lincoln, NE: Potomac Books, 2005.
• CAMPOS, André Luiz Vieira de. Políticas internacionais de saúde na Era Vargas: o Serviço Especial de Saúde Pública, 1942-1960. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Fiocruz, 2006.
• CUNHA, Adriana Mendonça. Presença norte-americana na educação brasileira nos anos 1940 e 1950: um debate entre Paschoal Lemme e Robert King Hall na X Conferência Nacional de Educação (1950). Anais eletrônicos do V Congresso Sergipano de História e V Encontro Estadual de História da Anpuh/SE; 24 a 27 de outubro de 2016; Aracaju. Anpuh/SE, 2016.
• CUNHA, Adriana Mendonça; MAYNARD, Dilton Cândido Santos. “Educando com o livro e a enxada”: Robert King Hall e o Programa de Educação Rural do INEP (1949-1951). Revista Práxis Educacional, vol. 15, n. 33, p.338-353, 2019.
• ESPINOSA, José Manuel. Inter-American Beginnings of U.S. Cultural Diplomacy, 1936-1948 Washington, D.C.: Department of State, 1977.
• FAN, Fa-Ti. The Global Turn in the History of Science. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an international journal, vol. 6, p.249-258, 2012.
• FREIRE JUNIOR, Olival. Diplomacia cultural no contexto da Segunda Guerra: o caso da engenharia metalúrgica na USP. Revista Brasileira de História da Ciência, vol. 10, n. 2, p.142-153, 2017.
• FREIRE JUNIOR, Olival; SILVA, Indianara. Diplomacy and Science in the Context of World War II: Arthur Compton’s 1941 Trip to Brazil. Revista Brasileira de História, vol. 34, n. 67, p.181-201, 2014.
• FREIRE JUNIOR, Olival; SILVA, Indianara. Scientific exchanges between the United States and Brasil in the Twentieth century: cultural diplomacy and transnational movements. In: KRIGE, John (ed.). How knowledge moves Writing the transnacional history of science and technology. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press, 2019. p.281-307.
• GARCÍA, Adriana Minor. Manuel Sandoval Vallarta en la encrucizada entre Estados Unidos y México. Ludus Vitalis, vol. 23, n. 43, p.125-149, 2015.
• GARCIA, Tânia da Costa. Carmen Miranda e os Good Neigbours. Diálogos, vol. 7, p.37-46, 2003.
• GOETZINGER, Camila. O Office of The Coordinator Of Inter-American Affairs e o Instituto Brasil-Estados Unidos em Florianópolis na década de 1940. Revista Santa Catarina em História, vol. 8, n. 2, p.61-75, 2014.
• GRAHAM, Sarah Ellen. Culture and Propaganda The Progressive Origins of American Public Diplomacy, 1936-1953. New York/London: Routledge, 2015.
• HART, Justin. Empire of Ideas The Origins of Public Diplomacy and the Transformation of U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
• HAYNES, Gerald K. Under the Eagle’s Wing: The Franklin Roosevelt Administration Forges An American Hemisphere. Diplomatic History, vol. 1, n. 4, p.373-388, 1977.
• IRIYE, Akira. Cultural Internationalism and World Order Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
• JOSEPH, Gilbert Michael; LEGRAND, Catherine C.; SALVATORE, Ricardo Donato (eds). Close Encounters of Empire: Writing the Cultural History of U.S.-Latin American Relations. Durham: Duke University Press, 1998.
• JUNQUEIRA, Mary Anne. Ao sul do Rio Grande: imaginando a América Latina em seleções: oeste, wilderness e fronteira (1942-1970). Bragança Paulista: EDUSF, 2000.
• KRAMER, Paul A. Is the world our campus? International students and U.S. global power in the long twentieth century. Diplomatic History, vol. 33, n. 5, p.775-806, 2009.
• KROPF, Simone Petraglia; HOWELL, Joel D. War, Medicine, and Cultural Diplomacy in the Americas: Frank Wilson and Brazilian cardiology. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, vol. 72, n. 4, p.422-447, 2017.
• MAIO, Marcos Chor; LOPES, Thiago da Costa. Entre Chicago e Salvador: Donald Pierson e o estudo das relações raciais. Estudos Históricos, vol. 30, n. 60, p.115-140, 2017.
• MARINHO, Maria Gabriela S. C. Norte-americanos no Brasil: uma história da Fundação Rockefeller na Universidade de São Paulo, 1934-1952. Campinas: Associados, 2001.
• MAUAD, Ana Maria. Genevieve Naylor, fotógrafa: impressões de viagem (Brasil, 1941-1942). Revista Brasileira de História, vol. 25, n. 49, p.43-75, 2005.
• MONTEIRO, Érica Gomes Daniel. Quando a guerra é um negócio: F. D. Roosevelt, iniciativa privada e relações interamericanas durante a II Guerra Mundial. Curitiba: Prismas, 2014.
• MOURA, Gerson. Tio Sam chega ao Brasil São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1984.
• NINKOVICH, Frank Anthony. The Diplomacy of Ideas U.S. Foreign Policy and Cultural Relations, 1938-1950. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
• ORTIZ, Eduardo L. La política interamericana de Roosevelt: George D. Birkhoff y la inclusión de América Latina en las redes matemáticas internacionales. Saber y Tiempo, Revista de Historia de la Ciencia, vol. 4, n.15, p.53-111, n. 16, p.21-70, 2003.
• PIKE, Frederick B. FDR’s Good Neighbor Policy. Sixty years of generally gentle chaos Austin: University of Texas Press, 1995.
• RAJ, Kapil. Beyond Postcolonialism... and Postpositivism. Circulation and the Global History of Science. Isis, vol. 104, n. 2, p.337-347, 2013.
• ROBERTS, Lissa. Situating Science in Global History: Local Exchanges and Networks of Circulation. Itinerario, vol. 33, p.9-30, 2009.
• SADLIER, Darlene J. Americans All: Good Neighbor Cultural Diplomacy in World War II. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2012.
• SAUNIER, Pierre-Yves. Transnational History. Theory and History London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
• SCARFI, Juan Pablo; TILLMAN, Andrew Reid. Cooperation and Hegemony in US-Latin American Relations: Revisiting the Western Hemisphere Idea. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
• SECORD, James. Knowledge in Transit. Isis, vol. 95, n. 4, p.654-672, 2004.
• SHEININ, Daivid (ed.). Beyond the Ideal: Pan Americanism in Inter-American Affairs (Contributions in Latin American Studies, n.18). Westport: Greenwood Press, 2000.
• SILVA, André Felipe Cândido da. Dimensões Históricas da Internacionalização: o papel da diplomacia cultural alemã na mobilidade acadêmica transnacional (1919-1945). Política & Sociedade, vol. 17, n. 38, p.256-303, 2018.
• SMITH, Richard Cándida. Improvised continent Pan-Americanism and cultural exchange. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017.
• SOUZA, Marquilandes Borges. Rádio e propaganda política Brasil e México sob a mira norte-americana durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial. São Paulo: Annablume, 2004.
• SUPPO, Hugo Rogelio; LESSA, Mônia Leite (orgs.). A quarta dimensão das relações internacionais: a dimensão cultural. Rio de Janeiro: Contra capa, 2012.
• THELIN, John R. A history of American higher education Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011.
• TOTA, Antonio Pedro. O imperialismo sedutor: a americanização do Brasil na época da Segunda Guerra. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2000.
• VALIM, Alexandre Busko. O triunfo da persuasão Brasil, Estados Unidos e o cinema da Política da Boa Vizinhança durante a segunda guerra mundial. São Paulo: Alameda, 2017.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  03 June 2020
• Date of issue
  May-Aug 2020

History

• Received
  10 Dec 2019
• Reviewed
  13 Mar 2020
• Accepted
  13 Apr 2020