As is an increasingly frequent custom of our times, a baker’s dozen of contributors and a brace of editors combine their talents to produce this volume. In the Preface the hope is stated that a result of the collective efforts will be to stimulate new thoughts and encourage new perspectives. That hope, unfortunately, is not realized. Four contributors (Richard Morse, Stanley Ross, Richard Weatherhead, and Arthur Whitaker) are historians; three (Robert Alexander, Daniel Cosío Villegas, and Víctor Urquidi) are economists; two (Anthony Leeds and Charles Wagley) are anthropologists; two (Gilberto Freyre and Joseph Maier) are sociologists; one (Germán Arciniegas) is a journalist, and one (Arturo Uslar-Pietri) is a political scientist. Eight are citizens of the United States, two of Mexico, and one each of Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela.
The Introduction by the two editors states that for Latin America the nineteenth century was the twilight of the Middle Ages; her role in the external world was one of isolation, and internally, of stagnation. The twentieth century is marked by change, for which the focus is the city: “the only place where there is light . . . the city conflicts with the siesta . . . the city means the breakdown of the traditional, patriarchial family . . . the city has been the birthplace of democracy.” The Introduction also offers the editors’ advice: Latin Americans must forswear their pantheon of demons and moderate their tirades against the gringo. Americans must abandon their terminology of absolutes: communism or democracy, progress or explosion, evolution or revolution. The hacendado and the military caste are noted as having been slow to accept the twentieth century, but although “the long shadow of the church is still upon the land” it has become the advocate of change.
“Nationalism and Social Change in Latin America,” a chapter written by Arthur Whitaker, is a synthesis of his book Nationalism in Latin America, Past and Present. He estimates that submerged groups in Latin America, speeded by the Alliance for Progress, will become nationalists, perhaps rabidly so, of the extreme left or right. They “seem to prefer almost any other type of nationalism to the benign and reasonable and democratic one that we in the United States would like to see them choose.” A chapter on political parties by Robert Alexander presents an overview of that subject. But the Latin American’s sympathy may be lost by his conclusions embodying the Yankee characteristic of moral superiority so unpalatable to our southern neighbours, as at page 124, where he writes: “Latin Americans must learn how to lose an election, must succeed in bringing about the social revolution; must conduct their opposition to an elected regime by democratic means.”
Daniel Cosío Villegas, in “The Mexican Left,” is refreshingly candid in conceding that the great majority of Mexican leftists live from public or semi-public employment. He believes the Mexican left to be weak because it is irrational, capricious, and superficial, and erroneously preaches Mao’s, Castro’s, or Krushchev’s solution to problems that call for essentially Mexican solutions. Arturo Uslar-Pietri, professor of political science at the University of Caracas, in his chapter “No panacea for Latin America,” follows a well trodden path of geographic, racial, historical and economic differences to the unsurprising conclusion that there is no single or simple solution to Latin American problems. (This is demolishing a straw man. Who said that there is a simple panacea?)
As is usual in compilations, there is duplication. Nationalism, historical differences, the Mexican revolution, and Brazilian family life are some of the subjects treated repeatedly. The Alliance for Progress is a target at which nearly every author aims some darts. That the editors found it necessary to add an eight-page glossary of terms ranging from “abrazo” through “gaucho ” to “ peon” in indicative that the audience for which the collection of essays is intended is one that is unsophisticated in Latin American matters. For such an audience the book brings useful information and evaluations. But there is little here for the specialist interested in new data, fresh insights, or value judgments departing from accepted norms or the commonplace.
An exception to the comments above is Professor of Anthropology, Anthony Leeds, of the University of Texas, in his chapter, “Brazil and the Myth of Francisco Julião. ” Julião is described in realistic but not cynical terms as a member of the controlling class in his country, who manipulates the landless and the impoverished. The chapter is vigorous in style, specific regarding individuals, and its appraisal of Brazilian society is highly believable.
