A COLONY, RIO GRANDE.
Vol. II. To face p. 132.
Now Brazil—and the same has taken place in Chile—has abolished the doctorate as being "undemocratic," has abolished the universities and all their ceremonies and the cap and gown, regarding them as too aristocratic-seeming, and, in their place, a simple certificate of knowledge is given from the "professional school."
This may seem destructive, but perhaps there is a measure of wisdom in it, for apart from a measure of danger in too marked social distinctions, the system tended among the youth of the country towards too great an aspiration for academic honours, and not enough towards the more practical and productive walks of life.
The aristocratic society of Brazil naturally centred around the monarch, for, as we have not forgotten, Brazil was the only self-contained empire in the New World, except for Mexico's short-lived monarchical regime. We may not here trespass much upon the field of history, but we shall recollect that, in 1808, the fugitive Portuguese Court, under the regent, Dom Joâo VI, sought Rio de Janeiro as his refuge. This advent gave a stimulus to the growth of the capital, which was opened to foreign commerce with the removal of industrial restrictions, printing was introduced and medicine and literature established. In 1822 Brazil declared its independence, with Dom Pedro I as its emperor. The expulsion of royalty in 1889, by a military revolt, was accomplished without bloodshed, but under subsequent presidents revolution reared its head.
Brazil is a land that has depended largely for its prosperity upon the system of what may be termed "monoculture," that is, the exploitation of one principal crop or product. In earlier times this was sugar; more recently it has been coffee. This policy, whilst it had advantages, and, indeed, may have been inevitable, has also serious disadvantages. Such products are bound for foreign markets and susceptible to the rise and fall of exchange. The producers may be enriched or impoverished by such fluctuations.
Moreover, "monoculture," as pointed out elsewhere, tends to the sacrifice or neglect of other interests, those of smaller and more varied industries, which go to make up the life of a nation, to increase its happiness, prosperity, knowledge—indeed, to feed it and supply it. There is a tendency to draw off labour under monocultural systems from smaller occupations, from local food supply and local industry, to herd labour into barracks or congested places, to discourage individual initiative and peasant proprietorship, concentrating industry into too few hands. This condition is of easy growth in such countries as Spanish America, where raw materials, rather than finished articles, are produced.
There are evidences, however, that Brazilian Governments are awakening to these matters and encouraging the implantation of a wider variety of industry. Along such paths undoubtedly lies greater national prosperity and stability.