Professional Notes

On the morning of Dec. 28 Enrique Florescano, Colegio de México, presented a paper on the “Economic History of Latin America: Achievement and Potential, a detailed analysis distinguished by broad scope, logical organization and comprehensive bibliography, giving a summary of what has been done in Latin American colonial economic history as a point of departure for future investigation. Stanley Stein, Princeton University, was chairman of the session.

After briefly indicating the characteristics of recent economic history—readiness to borrow from other disciplines, use of new methodology and foci—Floroscano pinpointed factors accounting for growing interest in colonial economic history: new educational institutions, Marxist-Leninist influence following the Russian Revolution and the Great Depression, the pioneering work of Earl Hamilton and of the French “school” of quantitative and multi-disciplinary studies and, since 1945, the interest of economists in exploring the historical structural roots of economic backwardness. Major attention was then devoted, first, to the broad gauged general and interpretative studies and, second, to a sectoral review of the literature, to which North Americans have contributed volume and the French school methodological innovation: the colonial policy of the metropolises and foreign trade, historical demography, mining enclaves, hacienda and plantation agriculture, land and labor systems, transport and urbanization, artisan industry. Here themes for further research were suggested, e. g., causative factors in the sustained growth of the hacienda, the significance of artisanal development, the possibility of fruitful cross-regional comparison of the function rather than the institutional framework of economic structures. In subsequent commentaries, it was agreed that Florescano had presented a masterly, balanced survey; that further linkage was needed to suggest continuities between colonial and post-colonial economic trends; and that institutional analyses may still play a significant role in examining the economic history of colonial Latin America.

At the Conference on Latin American History Luncheon on Dec. 28, Chairman William Griffith presiding, the annual prizes were announced. The Bolton Prize was awarded to John D. Wirth for The Politics of Brazilian Development, 1930-1954, with Honorable Mention to J. R. Fisher, Government and Society in Colonial Peru: The Intendant System, 1784-1814, and to John Hemming, The Conquest of the. Incas. The winner of the Robertson Prize was Brian R. Hamnett for his article, “Dye Production, Food Supply and the Laboring Population of Oaxaca, 1750-1820,” (HAHR, 51: 1, Feb. 1971). The Conference on Latin American History Prize went to Joseph Love, for “Political Participation in Brazil,” (Luso-Brazilian Review, 7: 2, Winter, 1970).

A portion of the luncheon meeting was set aside by Chairman Griffith for a tribute to the late Howard F. Cline. John Finan, of the Conference on Latin American History, briefly reviewed Dr. Cline’s important contributions to the growth of the Conference.

In a witty, and thoughtful luncheon address, on “The International Relations of the Conference on Latin American History,” Lewis Hanke, University of Massachusetts, reviewed some of his personal experiences in confronting the problem of the advancement of scholarship in politically delicate international situations. He cited his work in Guatemala when it was under the dictatorship of Ubico, his visit in 1946 to Franco Spain, attempts to organize a meeting between Mexican and U. S. historians when Mexicans were commemorating the war with the United States, the organization in 1950 of the International Colloquium on Luso-Brazilian Studies, and his more recent efforts to visit Cuba and advance Cuban-U. S. scholarly exchange. He called for a renewal of the Conference’s invitation to Soviet historians to visit the United States, sponsorship by the Conference of a publication in English of representative Soviet writings on Latin American history, and a formal request to the A. H. A. that a portion of the planned Soviet-U. S. historical meeting in 1974 be devoted to Latin American history.

Two papers were presented at the session “Immigration and Radicalism in Brazil” on the afternoon of Dec. 28, with Richard Morse, Yale University, in the chair. In the first, “Portuguese and Radicals in Rio de Janeiro,” June E. Hahner, State University of New York, Albany, examined the connections between immigrants and radicalism in the early years of the Republic from the viewpoint of Brazilian radicals who were bitter enemies of the Portuguese arrivals. Unlike São Paulo, where Italians predominated, Rio’s most numerous immigrants were the Portuguese. Their economic position, especially in retail commerce, and their supposed involvement in the Naval Revolt of 1893-94 helped define popular attitudes toward them, intensifying traditional Lusophobia and growing nationalistic sentiments. The Jacobinos, the most vehement of the nationalists, fomented anti-Portuguese activities at the same time as they spoke out in favor of the urban workers. In the 1890s they were one of the most vocal groups in the politics of a changing urban society. The failure of their program would render later struggles more difficult and mark yet another stage in the history of the political manipulation of urban radicalism in Brazil.

In “The Italians in São Paulo, 1880-1920,” Michael M. Hall, Tulane University, set out to demonstrate that the masses of Italian immigrants to coffee plantations in the late-nineteenth century were heavily exploited by a planter class that united capitalistic techniques with feudal attitudes. The immigrants’ diet was better in Brazil than in Italy, but housing and health were unimproved. Real wages declined from 1884 to 1914, and land ownership by workers was discouraged. São Paulo immigration policies responded more to a reluctance to pay high wages than to the questionable existence of a labor shortage. Plantation management inhibited the growth of labor solidarity, and workers who migrated to São Paulo city found little in the way of a militant, class-based labor movement. Mass immigration did not create a new Brazil, but shored up the weakened structure of the old.

Commentaries by Professor Clara Lida of Wesleyan University and Professor Hobart Spalding of Brooklyn College placed the two papers in a comparative international context.

Also on the afternoon of Dec. 28 there was a session on “Rural Police in North America: A Comparative View,” which consisted of papers on three quite distinct yet related topics and a comment, and was chaired by Thomas F. McGann, University of Texas. The first paper, “The Rural Police that Wouldn’t Be: The Northwest Mounted Police, 1873-1919,” by Roderick L. Macleod, University of Alberta, showed that attempts by the Canadian government to confine the Mounted Police to rural areas were unsuccessful because “the town dwellers of the North-West Territories preferred the impartiality of the Mounted Police to the dubious virtues of local control.” The second paper, The Texas Rangers, a Tarnished Image: 1910-1935,” by Ben Procter, Texas Christian University, described the misconduct of Rangers on the border and other flaws in the force, which was absorbed in 1935 into the state Department of Public Safety. The third paper, “The ‘Rurales’ of Porfirian Mexico,” by Paul J. Vanderwood, San Diego State College, demonstrated that the Mexican Rural Police Force was neither large, efficient, nor elite, but that it did make an important contribution to modernizing Mexico. The comment, by Jack M. Holl, University of Washington, centered on the theoretical difficulties in presenting three such disparate historical experiences as “comparative history, but argued strongly for wider and deeper investigation of police forces in their regional or national contexts, so as to work toward a firm comparative analysis.

On the morning of Dec. 29, Peter H. Smith, University of Wisconsin, and Richard N. Sinkin, University of Texas, read papers at the session on “Computers and Conventions: Statistical Analysis of Two Mexican Constitutional Congresses.” Michael C. Meyer, University of Nebraska, chaired the session and commentaries were offered by Ramón Ruiz, University of California, San Diego, John Womack, Harvard University, and Robert Zemsky, University of Pennsylvania. Both Smith and Sinkin employed the analytical technique called factor analysis to the study of voting patterns at two constitutional congresses, the Congress of 1856-1857 and the Congress of 1916-1917. In conclusions that were remarkably similar, they both argued that patterns of conflict within the congresses were not nearly as clear cut as they have been portrayed. The commentaries were both substantive and methodological in nature, and while none of the commentators disagreed with the conclusions offered, they all urged caution and restraint in the application of quantitative analysis to various kinds of historical problems. A lively discussion from the floor followed the formal presentations and the commentaries.

“Laissez-Faire Imperialism: Britain and Latin America in the Nineteenth Century” was the topic of a session on the afternoon of Dec. 29. Chairman Stephen Koss, Columbia University, introduced the two speakers, H. S. Fems, University of Birmingham, England, and Laura Randall, Hunter College, City University of New York. Fems, delivering a paper in which he analysed British capital investment in Latin American markets, emphasized the informality of arrangements and the absence of British political control in the area, as evidenced by the refusal of successive British Governments, even in the face of financial crisis, to “call out the marines.” Randall, who disputed Fern’s definition of imperial control, argued that Britain dominated Latin American markets, and to their disadvantage, by restrictions on tariffs, monetary standards, and labor supply.

Two commentators then followed. Dr. D. C. M. Platt, Queen’s College, Cambridge, England thought that Fems’s definition of imperialism was workmanlike, but unduly narrow. On the other hand, he took strong exception to Randall’s theories and the economic variables upon which they were based. Richard Graham, University of Texas, Austin, the second commentator, was more inclined than Ferns to credit a degree of informal control, if only as a result of the economic imbalance between the two sides. He, too, was reluctant to accept some of Randall’s assertions, and questioned whether certain developments—the decline of Latin American craft industries, labor shortages, and education expenses—were as much dependent upon British controls, direct or indirect, as she suggested.

On the same afternoon was a session on “The Mexican-American: Cultural Identity and the United States Ethos,” with Manuel A. Machado, Jr., University of Montana, Chairman. A paper on “Chicano Socialization and the Liberal Ethos,” by David Garza, Richmond College, City University of New York, and Armando Gutiérrez and Herbert Hirsch, University of Texas, Austin, concluded that the difference between chicano and Mexican-American was one of political awareness. The chicano was more conscious politically than the person classifying himself as a Mexican-American. Implicitly, the chicano had a greater degree of ethnic esteem than did the so-called “Mexican-American.” In this analysis, the "Mexican-American” sought integration into the Anglo ethos while the chicano strove for a cultural identity of his own. A statistical sample showed no vast objective differences between the two groups.

Three meetings of the conference’s Area Committees met on the evening of Dec. 28, and two on Dec. 29. The session devoted to Brazilian Studies was chaired by Warren Dean, 1972 Chairman-elect, in the absence of Robert Levine. Sub-committee reports were presented and approved by the members present. It was decided to invite the Institute of Brazilian Studies at the University of São Paulo to become the repository for all published materials, dissertations, microfilm and other data produced by Brazilianists in the United States. A subcommittee on academic affairs was formed to enlarge cooperation between American and Brazilian historians. A panel discussion was held on the topic “Historical Research in Brazil: The Next Ten Years.” Jaime Reis discussed several new directions for Brazilian studies, including the necessity of setting Brazilian history in the wider context of Portuguese expansion, the necessity for quantification, and the need to produce broad studies of commodities and other exports. Margaret Todaro presented a strong case for the validity and applicability of psychohistory to Brazilian studies. Haim Avni discussed the need of further studies of immigrant groups in Brazil, especially questions of acculturation, social mobility, and institutional and economic frameworks.

The non-business portion of the Gran Colombian Committee session, chaired by David Bushnell, University of Florida, was devoted to a round-table discussion of recent historiographical trends for Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela. Maurice Brungardt of Loyola University at New Orleans first spoke on Colombia, commenting principally on the work of the promising younger group of university-affiliated historians who have made significant contributions above all in the field of colonial social and economic history. Best known of this group is the prolific Germán Colmenares, although it was pointed out that some of his demographic analysis has been seriously questioned by one of the other young historians, Hermes Tovar.

Ecuadorian historiography was discussed by Prof. Michael Hamerly of Northern Colorado University. He observed that little has changed since the survey article by Adam Szászdi that appeared in HAHR. The established Ecuadorian historians are mostly quite elderly, and it does not seem clear who will replace them. However, some useful contributions have been made by nonhistorians; and there has been some increase in the attention given to Ecuadorian history by foreigners, as evidenced by, among other things, the speaker's own dissertation on social and economic history of the province of Guayaquil.

John Lombardi of Indiana University then offered a review of the last five years’ work in the field of Venezuelan history. He summarized a statistical analysis of publications that he had made, from which he concluded that there was little evidence of any significant trends currently underway. The distribution of interest between colonial, independence, and post-independence topics was about the same as always, though independence publications had perhaps suffered a slight relative decline since the great outburst of the 1960 sesquicentennial. Venezuelans continue to show their special enthusiasm for publishing documents. Some very good work, Lombardi noted, as being done in the Venezuelan field by both Venezuelans and foreign scholars, but there remain major gaps in which work is needed. There followed a general discussion among the speakers and others who attended.

The meeting of the Committee on Mexican Studies, chaired by Charles A. Hale of the University of Iowa, included a panel on “Nineteenth Century Elites.” Short papers were presented by Harold D. Sims of the University of Pittsburgh on the Spaniards in the 1820s, and by Alan Kovac of the University of Florida on the Conservatives of the 1840 to 1867 period. Alanson J. Sumner of Western Reserve University, who was to talk on the social origins of the Científicos, was ill and could not attend the meeting. Sims' paper focused on a sociological portrait of the Spanish community, drawn from his extensive research in the Ramo de Expulsiones in the Archivo General de la Nación. Kovac emphasized conservative political and social ideas and noted influences from Spain and France. The session was reasonably well attended, despite its most unfortunate scheduling to follow the traditional CLAH cocktail party. In the brief business session the main item was the announcement of Richard E. Greenleaf of Tulane University as chairman-elect for 1972.

About 15 members of the Committee on Caribbean Studies met on Dec. 30. R. Michael Malek, Executive Secretary, presided in lieu of the chairman-elect, Dr. Harry Hoetink, University of Puerto Rico. The group discussed various projects, including a Directory of Caribbean Scholars and Project “Domlib,” through which unwanted copies of history and political science books would be sent to the new National Library of the Dominican Republic.

An annual report was presented to the Andean Studies Committee by Leon G. Campbell, University of California, Riverside, Executive Secretary. Plans are being made to hold a meeting of the Committee either in conjunction with the Southern Historical Association meeting in Miami in November 1972, or at the A. H. A. meeting in New Orleans in December.

On the morning of Dec. 30 was a session on “Labor in the Third World, the Latin American Case and Comparative Comments” with Samuel L. Baily, Rutgers University, chairman. The purpose of the session was to move beyond the traditional anti-labor and anti-left presentations of most North American scholars in order to evaluate the revolutionary potential of labor in a dependency context, and to begin a comparative evaluation of Latin American and other Third World labor movements.

The paper of Hobart Spalding, Brooklyn College, “The Parameters of Labor History in Hispanic America,” divided the subject into three chronological periods: 1) the formative period, 1850-1914, 2) the expansive and explosive period, 1914-1933, and 3) the cooptive period, 1929 to the present. He concludes that: “organized labor in Hispanic America can be viewed as a process in which labor has evolved from a group totally outside the system to one controlled by the state and /or by elites and political parties. While waging great struggles at times, organized labor has not formed as an independent or revolutionary force. Despite this fact, under certain conditions, workers have played a progressive role. Given the structural contradictions of international capitalism, the dependent states of Latin America will find it increasingly difficult, except in the case of a small minority of highly skilled workers, to meet even the economic demands now espoused by organized labor. Thus it would appear that the working class, whether through labor organizations or outside them, will become an increasingly progressive and revolutionary force in Latin America.” Timothy Harding, in his paper “The Politics of Labor and Dependency in Brazil: An Historical Approach,” traced the evolution of labor from its establishment in the early twentieth century, through the Vargas period, to the advent of the current military regime. He concluded that: “Brazilian labor has not lacked militancy and has become increasingly radical since emerging from the Estado Novo dictatorship despite government controls. Brazil has lacked a revolutionary party, since the Communist Party since 1945 has oriented workers toward supporting the capitalist class, and even in its most radical phase during 1963-64 led workers to trust Goulart and the military. Without a revolutionary organization, there is no way Brazilian workers could succeed in transforming their society, since the trade union vehicle by itself is not a revolutionary organization. Nevertheless, workers became radical enough under the CGT to bring about the military coup which overthrew the government in 1964 and intervened in the unions. The gradual process of labor radicalization in Brazil was a result of experiencing Brazil’s dependent and distorted development. Workers moved from reformism, through radicalism toward a demand for revolutionary change. Just as that evolution was a reaction to foreign capital investment and control, it was also influenced by revolutionary developments in the Soviet Union, Cuba, and China, and today Bolivia and Chile as well. A large number of revolutionary organizations today, most of them with a middle class base but all of them oriented toward labor, are preparing the next stage of labor’s development. While they disagree on tactics, the ideology of these movements is revolutionary socialism and they are essentially international in their outlook. They see the Brazilian revolution as part of a Latin American revolution, in fact a world wide revolution.” In the comments, similarities in the development of Latin American labor movements and those elsewhere, as in North Africa and China, were noted.

The session on Dec. 30, “Imbecilitas sexus: The Female in Ibero-America,” was introduced by the Chairman, Lois Wienman, California State College, Long Beach, as the first on Latin American women ever to be held at an annual meeting of the American Historical Association. The paper of Ann Pescatello, Washington University, St. Louis, “Dona e prostitute: Growing up Female in Brazil” argued first that we cannot yet formulate a general thesis about females in Brazilian society and secondly that we cannot accept the old myths and legends, such as that which would classify all females in Brazil as good or bad, dona or prostituta. The behavioral categories within which women have functioned in Brazil are as varied and as complex as the society itself. Even the classic picture of women in colonial Brazilian society changes. A regular matriarch emerges with vital social and economic prerogatives, especially if she is a widow. The woman’s role varies considerably in northern and southern plantation society, in upper class urban society, among the middle sectors, and among the masses of peasant and proletariat wherein the amazia and partial family are so common. The degree of her sexual freedom at all levels is contrasted to that provided for in law and custom. Diversity of role and image in society are exemplified. In sum, generalizations from Anglo-cultures cannot be applied wholesale to Brazilian society.

“Women in Argentine Politics and Social Life,” presented by Nancy Hollander, California State College, San Diego, presented women as the most exploited group within the Argentine paid work force. Desirable because they were cheaper, more subordinate, and had lower rates of absence from work than men, women constituted 33 per cent of the industrial workers of Buenos Aires in 1935-39. Women workers came from abroad in increasing numbers, as well as from the interior of Argentina. Husbands maintained their right to dispose of their wife’s earnings because legally the adult married woman was reduced to the status of a minor. The paper takes us through the various feminist movements and the legislation they promoted. Laws were passed to protect the working women, but most were unenforced. The female’s role in labor caused economists and intellectuals to publish articles on the vulnerability of the family and decline in paternal authority. Anti-feminist sentiments of the GOU presidents stood in sharp contrast to those of Juan Perón and his wife, Eva. They not only gave women the right to vote, but implemented existing protective legislation, passed new laws, and established the women’s right to equal pay for equal work. The women, exploited and isolated, identified with the charismatic couple, saw a woman elected vice-president of the national Congress, and joined the Peronist Feminist Party. Since Peronism did not fundamentally change the socioeconomic structure of Argentina, women’s gains were curtailed after 1955. This study leaves no doubt that women will play a vital role in future Argentine politics.

Ann Macias, Ohio Wesleyan University, introduced her paper, “Mexican Women in the Social Revolution,” with a description of women in both Pre-Columbian and Iberian societies. The Conquest reinforced the existing pattern of male-dominated society where women were thought to be biologically and intellectually inferior. Mid-century reforms produced a small group of women educated beyond primary school, and their demands received limited attention from Carranza. It was left to Salvador Alvarado, revolutionary governor of Yucatán, to introduce legislation to ameliorate the conditions of women and call Mexico’s first feminist congress. The congress, held in Mérida in November 1916, alerted national leadership to the sections of the Civil Code of 1884 which discriminated against women. As a result Carranza issued the Law of Domestic Relations intended to end the treatment of married women as imbecilitas sexus. Alvarado’s efforts and the Law stand as landmarks in the struggle for sexual equality in Mexico.

Notes on the Latin American sessions were prepared by Dr. John Finan of the Conference on Latin American History, with the assistance of the session chairmen.

* * * * *

The Ford Foundation announced the award of $1, 227, 000 to the American Council of Learned Societies for advanced study, professional internships, and postdoctoral research in Latin America and the Caribbean. The University of California at Berkeley received $518, 000 over three years for support of South and Southeast Asian studies, a Latin American Center, Middle Eastern studies, and international legal research. The Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil) was awarded $90, 000 for graduate teaching and research in political science. The Federal University of Rio de Janeiro was granted $149, 000 for postgraduate training in linguistics and the University of São Paulo, $308, 750 for visiting faculty, overseas training, and scholarships at the Institute for Economic Research. The National University of San Marcos (Peru) received $82, 000 for the training of linguists in support of the literacy program for Indians and for research on local dialects.

* * * * *

The University of Massachusetts, Amherst will be the site of the Seventeenth Seminar on the Acquisition of Latin American Library Materials, June 11-14, 1972. Special attention will be given at the conference to the education and training of librarians for work in Latin American collections. In addition a series of workshops will take up matters relating to gifts and exchanges, government publications, the book trade, acquiring current serials from Latin America, a Latin American Acquisitions Clearinghouse, Library service to Spanish and Portuguese speaking minorities in the United States, financial support for library service to area studies programs, and the problems associated with selection and acquisition of Latin American, and Spanish and Portuguese language materials in libraries that lack the services of an area specialist.

Information on the content of the program and working papers may be procured from Mr. Glenn Read, Jr., Latin American Librarian, 110 Olin Library, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 14850.

For other information, refer to the Executive Secretary, Mrs. Marietta Daniels Shepard, Organization of American States, Washington, D. C. 20006.

* * * * *

La Secretaría del Concurso en Homenaje a José Enrique Rodó del Departmento de Asuntos Culturales de la Secretaría General de la Organización de los Estados Americanos, anuncia la convocatoria del Concurso en Homenaje a José Enrique Rodó.

El Concurso estará abierto del 1 de febrero de 1972 al 31 de enero de 1973. Para obtener mayores detalles sírvase escribir a la Secretaría del Concurso en Homenaje a José Enrique Rodó, Secretaría General de la OEA, Washington, D. C. 20006.