Similarities and Differences between Brazil and Argentina

Racial Democracy vs. Popular Nationalism

Getúlio Vargas’s Estado Novo regime (1937–1945) promoted a centralized, authoritarian form of populism that celebrated industrialization, labour reform, and cultural nationalism while maintaining strict control over civil liberties. Central to this nationalist project was the state’s appropriation of Afro-Brazilian cultural forms, particularly samba, carnival, and capoeira, to construct a cohesive Brazilian identity under the myth of racial democracy (Skidmore, 1993). Afro-Brazilian culture was strategically incorporated into state-sponsored celebrations, radio programming, and global imagery (i.e. Carmen Miranda’s stylized representations), but this visibility masked a deeper exclusion where Black communities remained materially marginalized, especially in rural regions like Maranhão, where poverty and underdevelopment persisted (Fausto, 2017; Oliveira et al., 2014; Hanchard, 1994). The inclusion of Afro-Brazilian culture was thus conditional and curated to align with nationalist propaganda, leaving Afro-descendants celebrated symbolically but excluded institutionally, which arguably is more important (Skidmore, 1993; Rocha & Aspinall, 2020). 

Juan Domingo Perón’s populist project, beginning in 1946, focused on labour rights, state-led industrialization, and class unity, but it built on a longstanding Argentine myth of racial homogeneity. Rather than incorporating Afro-descendant identity, Peronism promoted a Eurocentric national image rooted in Spanish and Italian immigration, reinforced by educational curricula, censuses that excluded racial categories, and cultural policies that emphasized whiteness as the norm (Andrews, 2010; Solomianski, 2003). The Peronist figure of the descamisado symbolized the working-class everyman but was implicitly coded as white or mestizo, excluding Black and Indigenous Argentines from the nation (Plotkin, 2003). By denying racial difference and institutionalizing silence around Afro-Argentine history, Perón’s regime entrenched a version of national identity in which Blackness had no place statistically, culturally, or politically (Reed, 2020; Elena, 2017).

Both Vargas and Perón created ideologies that claimed to transcend class and racial divisions in the name of national renewal. Their leaderships emerged in moments of crisis, post-oligarchic stagnation in Brazil (Fausto, 2017) and postwar transformation in Argentina (Plotkin, 2003), and both deployed strong nationalist narratives to consolidate power. Each positioned themselves as leaders of the “common people,” used mass media extensively, and built personality cults around images of paternalism and modernity (Skidmore, 1993; Plotkin, 2003). Notably, both promoted visions of social unity that obscured internal hierarchies, using rhetorical inclusivity while maintaining structures of exclusion (Hanchard, 1994; Elena, 2017).

However, their differences lie in how race was managed ideologically. Vargas’s Brazil presented a multicultural image where Blackness was celebrated aesthetically but excluded institutionally (Skidmore, 1993; Hanchard, 1994). Samba, once suppressed, was elevated, but only when it aligned with state messaging and could be rebranded as part of a cohesive national identity (Fausto, 2017). Cultural performance replaced economic or political equity. In contrast, Perón’s Argentina avoided racial discourse altogether, reinforcing the fiction that Afro-Argentines had disappeared through assimilation or extinction (Solomianski, 2003; Reed, 2020). Where Vargas instrumentalized Afro-Brazilian visibility to legitimize nationalism, Perón relied on invisibility to preserve whiteness as the national norm to create less discourse (Elena, 2017).

The legacy of these ideologies shaped Afro-descendant experiences in both countries for decades. In Brazil, symbolic inclusion without power delayed serious anti-racist policy, but it preserved a space for cultural identity and eventually enabled mobilization. Black Brazilians could point to their visibility in national culture as a basis for demanding justice. In Argentina, statistical and cultural erasure made it far more difficult for Afro-Argentine communities to assert their presence or make political claims. The Peronist denial of race not only normalized whiteness, it made Blackness non-existent within the framework of national identity. That being said, Perón did open a discussion regarding social justice, which in theory, made it easier for those who were marginalized to be seen, however, most would argue that to this day this has not been successful in Argentina (Anderson & Gomes, 2021). Both regimes thus demonstrate how populism can mask and even reproduce racial hierarchies, even when it appears to speak for the marginalized.

Cultural Incorporation

During the Estado Novo (1937–1945), Getúlio Vargas made strategic use of Afro-Brazilian cultural expressions, particularly samba, carnival, and capoeira, to build a cohesive and celebratory image of the Brazilian nation. Samba, once criminalized, became the “official sound” of Brazil through state sponsorship of samba schools and radio programming, but this cultural inclusion came with conditions where artists had to conform to state messaging that emphasized national unity while omitting references to racial struggle, inequality, or Black resistance (Skidmore, 1993; Fausto, 2017). The figure of Carmen Miranda, popularized in both Brazil and the United States, epitomized this sanitized appropriation. Despite her performative embrace of Afro-Brazilian aesthetics, Miranda was white, Portuguese-born, and used by the state to project a controlled, exotic image of Brazil abroad (Fausto, 2017; Hanchard, 1994). Meanwhile, Afro-Brazilian communities who created and sustained these cultural forms remained excluded from full participation in the nation’s political or economic life, particularly in impoverished regions (Oliveira et al., 2014; Gomes, 2023). Vargas’s push of Black culture was symbolic but depoliticized, functioning as a spectacle that legitimized nationalism while obscuring ongoing racial inequalities.

In Argentina, Juan Domingo Perón’s cultural policies pursued a radically different path, not symbolic inclusion, but strategic erasure. Peronism institutionalized the whitening of national culture by elevating traditions perceived as “authentically Argentine,” primarily those rooted in Spanish and Italian immigrant culture, while excluding Afro-Argentine and Indigenous contributions (Solomianski, 2003; Elena, 2017). For example, tango, a genre with significant Afro-Argentine roots, was rebranded under Perón as a symbol of urban modernity and European sophistication (Karush, 2016). Meanwhile, cultural expressions such as candombe or oral histories tied to Afro-Argentine militias, musicians, and poets were erased from curricula, museums, and state celebrations (Geler, 2010). Even major national commemorations like Argentina’s 1951 centennial made no mention of Afro-Argentine heritage, signalling that Blackness was incompatible with the official story of Argentine progress (Reed, 2020).

In both Brazil and Argentina, state-led cultural policy was used to solidify national identity during pivotal moments of populist reform. Vargas and Perón understood culture as a unifying force and used media, performance, and state-sponsored art to shape popular understandings of what it meant to be Brazilian or Argentine. Both regimes also advanced ideologies of harmony, racial or class-based, while managing the boundaries of inclusion through careful selection and omission. Whether through carnival parades or tango concerts, cultural programming under both leaders became a political instrument that reflected their broader ideological commitments to modernization and national cohesion.

Where Vargas offered selective cultural inclusion, Perón enforced systematic cultural silence. Afro-Brazilians were hyper-visible yet depoliticized, permitted to appear in national culture only as entertainers or “colourful” symbols of diversity. Afro-Argentines, by contrast, were made invisible, excluded from official narratives and stripped of institutional recognition. Vargas's Brazil romanticized Blackness without addressing inequality while Perón's Argentina denied Blackness altogether, reinforcing whiteness as the unspoken standard of citizenship.

These cultural legacies endure. In Brazil, the symbolic inclusion of Afro-Brazilian art forms has enabled later generations to mobilize around cultural pride and challenge state narratives, contributing to movements for racial justice and policy reform (Telles, 2004). In Argentina, the long-standing absence of Black voices in national culture has made such mobilization far more difficult. Afro-Argentines continue to face barriers to visibility, recognition, and historical inclusion, and many Argentines remain unaware of the Black presence in their history. In both cases, culture served as a mirror of national identity, but what it reflected was shaped by deeply racialized power structures, embedded in the political visions of both Vargas and Perón.

Statistics

Under Vargas, Brazil’s 1940 census revived racial categories like preto and pardo, reintroducing official recognition of racial diversity after decades of inconsistent data. While this statistical visibility didn’t translate into anti-racist policy, it created a framework for future mobilization (Rocha & Aspinall, 2020; Telles, 2004). Vargas’s embrace of racial democracy framed Brazil as a harmonious, mixed society, masking persistent disparities in housing, education, and income for Afro-descendants, particularly in marginalized states like Maranhão and Bahia (Oliveira et al., 2014). The state collected data, but largely ignored the structural realities it revealed.

In contrast, Argentina eliminated racial categories from its census in 1887, and Perón upheld this silence (Otero, 2006). Afro-Argentines were rendered statistically invisible, reinforcing the national myth that Black populations had “disappeared” (Reed, 2020; Otero, 1997). By refusing to collect data on race, the state could claim unity while obscuring inequality. Without racial identifiers, disparities went unacknowledged and unaddressed. The census thus became an instrument of erasure, legitimizing the whitening narrative.

Both regimes used data, or the lack of it, to shape national narratives. Brazil retained racial categories but downplayed their significance. Argentina erased them altogether. In both cases, the state’s knowledge production supported ideological myths of racial harmony or homogeneity that excluded Afro-descendants from policy consideration. Brazil’s statistical approach acknowledged racial diversity but refused to act on it, enabling symbolic inclusion without material support. Argentina’s omission institutionalized amnesia, denying Afro-descendants the means to assert their presence or rights. Brazil’s myth said, “We are all mixed, therefore, its fair.” Argentina’s said, “We are all white.”In Brazil, racial data later became a tool for activism, helping to justify affirmative action and racial equity programs. In Argentina, the absence of official recognition hindered mobilization, forcing Afro-Argentine groups to fight first for visibility before equality. Perón’s census silence still impacts Afro-Argentine identity politics today.

Representation and Participation in Public Institutions

Despite Afro-Brazilian culture being central to Vargas-era nationalism, Afro-descendants were nearly absent from political institutions. Vargas’s corporatist state expanded labour protections for urban workers but failed to address the exclusion of Black Brazilians from policymaking, civil service, and elite sectors (Skidmore, 1993). Even as samba became a national symbol, Afro-Brazilians remained marginalized in political life, especially in rural and impoverished areas (Oliveira et al., 2014). The myth of racial democracy justified this exclusion by framing Brazil as already inclusive, thereby rendering affirmative representation unnecessary (Hanchard, 1994).

Under Perón, Afro-Argentines were entirely absent from state leadership, union hierarchies, and decision-making bodies. The Peronist political subject, the descamisado, was racially unmarked but visually and symbolically coded as white or mestizo (Plotkin, 2003; Reed, 2020). Afro-Argentine concerns were rarely directly articulated in national discourse, and political appointments reflected the state’s Eurocentric self-image. Without recognition or advocacy within public institutions, Afro-Argentines remained structurally invisible.

Both regimes promised broad inclusion but maintained political systems that excluded Afro-descendant populations. Neither leader appointed Black officials, nor did their governments incorporate race-specific concerns into institutional policy (Andrews, 2010; Reed, 2020; Hanchard, 1994). Populism served as a universalizing rhetoric that concealed unequal access to state power. In Brazil, Afro-descendants were culturally present but politically marginalized, allowed on stage, and excluded from governance. In Argentina, they were erased altogether, with no space for racial discourse. Brazil used symbolic inclusion to pacify and Argentina used absence to erase.

Afro-Brazilians later mobilized around their cultural presence to demand political rights, forming the foundation of Black activism in the 1970s–2000s (Hanchard, 1994). In Argentina, activism had to begin by challenging the myth of disappearance before even demanding representation. Perón’s legacy created a harder terrain for Afro-descendant political participation that still resonates today.