Meléndez’s book is very timely; besides filling a void in the historiography of the annexationist movement in Puerto Rico, it will surely be welcomed as the island’s leaders and the U.S. Congress are discussing a plebiscite on the political status question, to be held possibly in 1991.
Meléndez not only provides the most extensive and up-to-date analysis of the modern statehood movement, but does so within a historical context. He traces annexationism from the latter part of the nineteenth century and challenges existing interpretations about the nature of the movement, the forces that shaped it, and the motives that spurred its leaders to pursue specific policies and programs.
Meléndez dismisses most explanations about the growing annexationist tendency in modern Puerto Rico. He specifically takes issue with those who either attribute its rise to the growth of the modern, urban middle class (Henry Wells, 1969); to the cultural assimilation of this class to the U.S. culture (Manuel Maldonaclo-Denis, 1972); or to some “antinational” plan of an “intermediary” petty bourgeoisie, intent on maintaining its economic links to U.S. capital (Ángel Quintero-Rivera, 1976). Meléndez argues that, while the middle class supports statehood, the movement is not a middle-class phenomenon in its social basis or ideology (p. 6). It enjoys support from many sectors of the island’s social classes, while the Puerto Rican bourgeoisie has “historically” supported some form of U.S. linkage.
After examining the earlier annexationist politics and programs, Meléndez concludes that the movement’s strength today stems from changes introduced in 1967, when leaders of the local industrial bourgeoisie rose to power within the movement and formed the New Progressive party.
Meléndez rejects the cultural assimilation argument by pointing out that annexationist tendencies in Puerto Rico predated the U.S. occupation. He notes that cultural assimilation as a prerequisite for statehood has been rejected by the supporters of the statehood movement since the 1930s. He reminds us that the annexationist parties have clearly identified their goal as “estadidad jíbara,” or creole statehood.
In general, Meléndez’s work is even handed. One may not necessarily agree with his interpretations of the motives of the statehood movement, or with his analyses of the commonwealth and independence alternatives, but one must recognize that this is a serious study that should be read by anyone interested in Puerto Rico.
