Do Regime Militar No Brasil

The lyrics of the song "No Woman, No Cry" by Gilberto Gil are a reference to the "anos de chumbo" (years of lead) in Brazil, which refers to the period of military dictatorship from 1964 to 1985. During this time, the regime implemented a violent repression against its opponents, leading to widespread human rights abuses and censorship. This answer correctly identifies the historical context of the song and the reference to the repressive actions of the military government.

The correct answer explains that the period of the military regime in Brazil consisted of three phases of institutionalization of the State. The first phase, which included the governments of Castello Branco and Costa e Silva, laid the foundations of the National Security State. The second phase, during the Medici government, focused on the development of the economic model and the intensification of the repressive apparatus. The third phase, under the governments of Geisel and Figueiredo, saw the adoption of political practices known as "dissension".

The phrases and slogans mentioned in the question, such as "Ninguém segura este país, Ame-o ou deixe-o, o Brasil é feito por nós" and the use of the song "Pra frente, Brasil" during the World Cup, were part of a campaign promoted by the military dictatorship in Brazil during the period known as the "miracle economic." This campaign aimed to promote national integration and support for the military regime's economic policies. The phrase "milagre econômico" refers to the period of rapid economic growth experienced by Brazil during the dictatorship.

During the Vargas dictatorship (1937-1945) and the military dictatorship (1964-1985), one of the human rights that was violated was the freedom of expression through the media. Both of these authoritarian regimes imposed strict censorship and control over the media, suppressing any dissenting voices and limiting the freedom of the press. This violation of the freedom of expression through the media was a common feature of these periods in Brazilian history.

The correct answer states that the end of the military period in Brazil occurred in a slow and gradual manner as desired by certain sectors of the Armed Forces. This suggests that there were internal divisions within the military regarding the transition to civilian rule, with some factions advocating for a gradual process rather than an abrupt or conflictive one.

The correct answer is I. The "economic miracle" during the Medici government relied on the interrelation of interests between state capital, national private capital, and international capital. This suggests that the economic growth and development during that period were facilitated by the collaboration and cooperation of these different forms of capital.

The given statement from the Manifesto dos ministros militares suggests that the military officials justified the possibility of armed intervention in a democratic regime. This implies that they believed that if João Goulart became the president, it would lead to chaos, anarchy, and civil strife. Therefore, they saw the need for military intervention to prevent such a scenario from happening.

The correct answer is "rejeitada pela Câmara dos Deputados, levando à posterior formação da Aliança Democrática e à candidatura de Tancredo Neves." This means that the Constitutional Amendment for direct election of the president and vice-president of the Republic was rejected by the Chamber of Deputies, which led to the formation of the Democratic Alliance and the candidacy of Tancredo Neves.

The correct answer states that the recent Brazilian military period (from 1964 to 1985) occurred simultaneously with the presence of military dictatorships in other Latin American countries, such as Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. This indicates a militaristic phase in Latin American history. This explanation highlights the regional context of military regimes and their impact on the political landscape of Latin America during that time period.

During the military regime in Brazil (1964-1985), the government decreed several institutional acts, which led to a growing process of arbitrariness, authoritarianism, and disrespect for human rights. The correct answer states that the choice of a military regime symbolized the path chosen by political elites, allied with international interests, to confront the social, political, and economic crisis in the face of the increasing organization of segments of civil society demanding citizenship rights. This explanation highlights the reasons behind the establishment of the military regime and its implications for the country.