III.1.7 DIGITAL ARCHIVE 807793

http://icaadocs.mfah.org/icaadocs/THEARCHIVE/FullRecord/tabid/88/
doc/807793/language/en-US/Default.aspx

THE LATIN AMERICAN ESSAYS: NEWTON FREITAS

Mário de Andrade, 1944


This text by Mário de Andrade, author of the early experimental novel Macunaíma (1928), is the preface to Ensaios americanos, a book by the Buenos Aires–based Brazilian writer and journalist Newton Freitas (1906–1996). A staunch Latin Americanist who dismantled many prevailing Brazilian biases asserting the “uniqueness” of Brazil, Freitas sought political asylum in Argentina in 1938 at the onset of Getúlio Vargas’s repressive Estado Novo (1937–45). Freitas first introduced de Andrade and his work to the intellectual circles of Buenos Aires. Like many of their modernist colleagues, de Andrade and Freitas opposed Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbor Policy” (in force from approximately 1933 to 1945) and—departing from Brazil’s official position—they both also defended Paraguay’s sovereignty. This text, the translation of which is based on the original edition of Ensaios americanos [(Rio de Janeiro: Zélio Valverde Editor, 1945), 197–200], is an adaptation of the article “Um sul-americano,” which de Andrade had published in Diário de S. Paulo the previous year (January 8, 1944). Both texts are identical except for the first paragraph, which the author completely rewrote for the version published in Ensaios americanos.


. . .

I CANNOT FIND A MORE ACCURATE WORD to describe the creativity of Newton Freitas’s critiques and his innermost nature than one that is seldom used authentically: affection. The secret and most subtle originality of these critical essays render the book’s seductive charm. Newton Freitas is very devoted [to his writing]! At times it could be said that he is not sufficiently devoted, in such a way that his admirations crystallize into less profound appeal. And this is admirable; but with those he prefers and considers superior, Newton Freitas never resigns himself to the hollow and always reductive mirror of acute intellectual reverence, nor does he become intoxicated with distortive love.

. . .

Hence his ongoing impatience with aggressive forms of passion, demagogy, pragmatism, or “societal” art: an impatience with which I have never been able to agree. This causes his disappointment with Chile, despite the luminescent grandeur of Pablo Neruda and the incomparable Gabriela Mistral. Nevertheless [Freitas] achieves something remarkable approaching [Brazilian art critic] Sérgio Milliet and [Argentinean writer] Eduardo Mallea, and an even more delicate Argentinean-ization of G.H. Hudson, which is one of the most accomplished studies in the book. Among them all, the two best are, in my view, “Paraguai” and “Eterno” [Paraguay and The Eternal] and that stupendous essay on [Afonso Henrique] Lima Barreto; they are uniquely original and of a profound understanding; yet his esteem does not [cause him to] shrink from the truth, so much so that the study almost distresses us. There is no false compassion or luster. It is gorgeous.

Due to the intrinsic nature of Newton Freitas’s criticism, the benefit we receive from it is not merely spiritual. There is more. Putting aside any theories and preliminary intentions, there is in Freitas an actuality, an affectionate truth, a [Latin] American identity that imbues this book—the most profound of all his books—as well as all his work, his background, [and] his entire life. Here, he overcame the tumultuous political era of his youth.

I have spoken of that quality: Newton Freitas’s capacity for originality that makes him so unique and exemplary in the [Latin] American intellectual milieu. It existed independent of any theory or preliminary intention. For me, this is the great success of the Argentinean activism [promoted by] Newton Freitas, and of his works on Brazil that were published there, especially Ensaios americanos [Latin American Essays]. In all this, there is a free man—one impossible to summarize—who is still very much alive. He is incapable of concealing differences or of replacing them with niceties because he ignores, or better yet, transcends continental doctrines [and] diplomatic motives. In all this, there is a man who is truly alive, freely putting aside all that is not essential. It is for these [reasons] that Newton Freitas—in this book in particular—lacks even a hint of “interchangeability” theory;1 moreover, he does not smother us with any of those tiresome commemorative preliminaries.

My friends, have your eyes ever been affronted by a lot of pompous fuss over interchangeability? Have your lips ever been saturated by the synthetic sweetness of “good neighbors”? In a supreme delusion of misunderstanding, indeed, it would be extreme arrogance to ignore psychological traits and differences; complexities are diminished and the inner self is trampled upon. In coining the term “good neighbor” (a term that should never be uttered), the most aggressive form of “exchange” is achieved. For being tough and pitiless, such grotesque hubris could not foresee that this new character—[Pan Americanism,] though having been born of a possible ideal and goodwill—was at the same time a mere mask. . . .

How tragic, my friends, is the pigeonholed world in which we live. . . . Indeed, we have just arrived in an American manner to this moment of friendly conviviality. We will perhaps experience an encounter of love in this dense wood. With no theories, with no exchanges, we already began to feel that mutual knowledge was needed, because curiosity is born of no doctrine whatsoever and due to its predisposition for that knowledge. The shameful notion of the good neighbor explodes in a grisly manner and builds a stronghold so fortified that it alienates your closest neighbors for being miles away in terms of both understanding and interests. Thus, our human fulfillment is obviated.

Instead of practicing a good neighbor [policy], we need to be simply neighbors. . . . In any society, to be solely neighbors involves solidarity and collaboration. Though this would be scandalous, it seems that to be neighbors would require that principles be put aside so that the neighborhood might sleep peacefully. It would be preferable to practice the “good neighbor” [policy]—the policy promoted in a grand show of generosity—by using the telephone or sharing recipes for sweets. These sweets are made in a mold, invitations are made by telephone, and, in a single night lacking in spontaneity, people dance the fandango of interchangeability. But this is frighteningly tragic, my friends…! “And here we are the Latin Americans of purest race!” bellow today’s Hispanists by means of the corn, the llama, and macumba [voodoo]. Do you buy this attempt to disguise Fascism through the beating of drums and castanets? It is a horror, and in an instant the political entourage of ideas warp any sort of human sympathy into a shadow; likewise, nascent love is defeated by means of a premature divorce.

Newton Freitas is incapable of dancing this fandango. If we attempt to follow his line of thinking, we see that there is nothing doctrinaire in the life of this South American man. [I stress,] South American. Only a Brazilian could dwell within this spirit of Hispanic Americanism. In his study of [Peruvian writer] Luis Alberto Sánchez, Newton Freitas becomes impatient about the isolation of our Latin America, subtly hinting at the unexpected problem of mutual influences.

The gist of what is South America makes pitiful the human situation of Brazil. We are not alone because people contemplate us a great deal. But the worst part is that we are confined. Disregarded is a feeling that sweeps across the heart very strongly. I have never been afraid of a hypothetical grandeur or annoyed about a nonexistent superiority. Instead, only our differences prevail. There is no doubt that in addition to our Hispanic heritage—so united and quite superior—we also inherited a share of that cat/dog mentality, making enemies of Spain and Portugal. This is because [Latin American countries] are many, and we are only one. That is our curse. However, do not the land, different climates, and the requirements of our continent, imply [the need] to forget that shameful heritage. . . ? The fullest destiny of humanity can be realized only through the glory of living simply; that means, without doctrinaire exchanges, without the phoniness of good neighbor rituals, without the Monroe Doctrine [SEE DOCUMENT III.1.1], [moreover,] without fascist-like Hispanic-ness.

It is this sense that I contemplate the admirable example of Newton Freitas. Indeed, he is purely a South American who by necessity lives within [the spirit] of South Americanism. It is enough to observe his Ensaios americanos through the useful and free manner in which he strives to capture indigenous Brazil within the Spanish language. . . .

1
Mário de Andrade stresses his disagreement with Pan Americanism, objecting to the idea of gathering the continent together en bloc. This concept was intensively promoted during World War II by what he calls the “teoria do intercâmbio” (theory of interchange).—Ed.