View the h-diplo Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-diplo's April 2001 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in h-diplo's April 2001 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the h-diplo home page.
____________________________________________________________ H-DIPLO ROUNDTABLE David Pletcher. _The Diplomacy of Trade and Investment: U.S. Economic Expansion in the Western Hemisphere, 1865-1900_ . Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1998 Roundtable Editor: Thomas Schoonover Reviewers: John Belohlavek, Jurgen Buchenau, Paul Dosal, Seth Fein, David Healy, Aissatou-Sy-Wonyu ________________________________________________________________ Seth Fein <firstname.lastname@example.org Assistant Professor of History Georgia State University At the outset, I feel compelled to mention that my own research on inter-American relations is squarely situated in the twentieth century. This is not _only_ a commentator's typically defensive prolepsis but an opportunity to underline how essential I found _The Diplomacy of Trade and Investment_ for my (comparative and causal) thinking about later developments on which I write. It has also invigorated a desire to ignore further than I do now the false divide of 1900 in my teaching of U.S. foreign relations. David Pletcher's book cannot, as all good books cannot, be easily characterized; it is part analytic survey, part historiographical essay, part archival investigation. Despite its panoramic perspective, it is a book that will reward the informed reader more than the neophyte. Its density (in the term's good sense) offers a feast for those familiar with this cuisine but might overwhelm the uninitiated palate. Although presented in three chronologically marked parts--1865-85 (chapters 1-6), 1885-95 (chapters 7-11), 1895-1900 (chapters 12-14)--this book can also be divided in two, along thematic and methodological lines. Chapters 1-9 investigate the interplay of U.S. diplomacy and economic interests throughout the Americas, culminating in coherent (if unfulfilled) Pan American visions and initiatives towards the 19th century's end. Chapters 10-13 revisit well-known conflictual diplomatic episodes preceding and emerging from the Spanish-American War. Chapter 14 is both conclusion and epilogue, extending the story by previewing the 1898-1914 period. (The "Parts" referred to below are the author's.) Part I portrays U.S. economic involvements as chaotic and the inchoate development of diplomatic support of those interests as equally unplanned. Following a foundational chapter about "The Export Trade and the Tariff," the analysis proceeds chapter- by-chapter according to area case studies: "Canada," "Mexico," "Central America," "The Caribbean," "South America." Pletcher shows his protagonists--U.S. consuls and government officials, entrepreneurs and corporate managers, industry and trade boosters,congressmen and journalists--searching for opportunities for economic expansion with little coordination of their efforts and without a coherent hemispheric vision. Its polychromatic rendering of the quotidian development of U.S. interests and interactions covers a vast geographical field. Empirically, Pletcher's deep excavation of still-too-under-consulted U.S. consular records vitally contributes to an ongoing reconfiguration of the state (from a wide variety of methodological positions) in international histories (including two by contributors to this roundtable) that views the operation of U.S. power beyond capital cities and seeks to probe links between international and transnational relations. (1) Beyond their explicit contribution to our understanding of economic relations and diplomacy, these chapters also implicitly demonstrate the dispersed development of late-19th-century Pan American discourse, how that rhetorical movement which coalesced around Blaine's frustrated attempt to forge commercial union and political integration at the end of the 1880s developed as much out of the widely (but unevenly) disseminated material practices of mid-19th-century inter-American commerce, investment, and diplomacy as it did from earlier tropes of hemispheric exceptionalism articulated by the Monroe Doctrine. This research is very suggestive, opening new scholarly terrain for interdisciplinary cultivation. A crucial recent example of such work is Emily Rosenberg's pathbreaking study of dollar diplomacy that purposefully demonstrates the invaluable insights produced by the creative pursuit of the connectivity of cultural, ideological, economic, and political fields in the historical study of U.S. foreign relations. (2) One of _Diplomacy of Trade and Investment_'s key conceptual virtues is its asymmetrical organization. Its first half or so focuses on various national situations and U.S. economic initiatives; the second on foreign policies, episodes of conflict, ideological expressions, and particular business plans and projects. This juxtaposition emphasizes how the maturation of U.S. economic engagement crystalized as a movement advocating diplomatic intervention at the turn of the century. This structure does not succumb to, in fact it radically revises, the still-dominant narrative of late-19th-century U.S. diplomatic history which too-often seems to represent all of the post-Civil War epoch as teleologically determined by the Spanish-American War, both as final scene in the 19th-century drama of diplomatic provincialism and overture to the 20th-century tragic-comedy, heroic epic, something in between (take your pick) of global power. Pletcher's story strives to create a sense of how inter-American relations developed over time for those living throughout the Americas in the late-19th century who had no idea, of course, that the Spanish-American War and its particular aftermath were on their way. This last point is central to the rest of _Diplomacy of Trade and Investment_ since it undergirds Pletcher's conclusions about the development of more muscular diplomatic and military initiatives analyzed in the book's latter chapters. From the middle of Part II (i.e., from chapter 10) forward, Pletcher more directly joins the debate overmotivation for _fin de sièècle_ expansion. His conclusion that "improvisation and lack of planning" (p. 395) characterized the entire 1865-1900 period rests to a large degree on his early chapters' innovative and meticulous research about economic expansion. He then mobilizes this analysis of U.S. relations "out there," in the pre-1890s Americas, to support his re-interpretation of foreign policy and diplomacy developed "back here," in Washington in the century's final years. As have others, Pletcher takes Open Door/New Empire interpretations to task for overstating the intentionality of policymakers and the clarity of the business sector in leading the nation to war and empire. It is, however, unclear if Pletcher's assertions of a more moderate, in his view more plausible, alternative is all that convincing or all that new. Most of the interpretive questions, in fact, adhere to the contours established by the seminal works of Ernest May and Walter LaFeber published almost 40 years ago. (3) Pletcher's postrevisionist (my redeployment of the term) stance basically sides with May, _inter alios_, about the causality of 1895-1900 events but is more hemispherically centered and grounds its conclusions about end-of-the-century diplomacy in his earlier chapters' readjustment of the entire 1865-1900 period's rendering by LaFeber, _inter alios_. Here the book departs from the less-predictable (and in my view more enlightening) approach to U.S. economic engagements pursued in Part I to follow a more worn path through the established episodic history of U.S. diplomatic conflicts and near-conflicts with Latin American and European states culminating in war with Spain and the establishment of formal and informal U.S. imperialism. The irony here, of course, is that _Diplomacy of Trade and Investment_'s first nine chapters are far more effective at deepening our understanding of the everyday international relationship between U.S. diplomacy and business interests than the final five are at disclaiming clear connections between economic expansion and U.S. foreign policy. That is, this book's demonstration of how U.S. economic and political relations expanded without a master plan suggests much about the systemic impulses projected in the late-19th century which led, if not inevitably, then, inexorably to more assertive U.S. foreign policies and to an expanded self-conscious international economic and political presence in the 20th century. Take for example the Spanish-American War (and its immediate aftermath). As mentioned, Pletcher criticizes revisionists for overstating the consensus for war among leading business interests as well as exaggerating the McKinley administration's predisposition to intervene in Cuba. His own conclusion, though, ultimately supports more than it undermines the revisionist point of view about the war's meaning even as it diverges from a materialist explanation of its causes: "Although economic factors were not the primary, positive cause of the Spanish-American War, the conflict had a far-reaching effect on American foreign trade and investment." (p. 383). More important, though, for understanding how some of this work's conclusions seem to defy its research is to note the persistent (if, as Pletcher shows, often frustrated) call for greater diplomatic support by those searching for economic opportunity in the Americas. The fact that not all U.S. political and business elites shared the visions of the likesof Blaine, Mahan, and (Brooks) Adams may finally be less significant than the "on the ground" conditions for an expansionist foreign policy created during the 19th century's final third by less-famous folk, whose efforts Professor Pletcher has painstakingly recovered for us. These are long-standing battles. They are important ones but no longer produce, perhaps, the most enlightening research about 1898. Two books published just after _Diplomacy of Trade and Investment_ show how new sources and methods have reinvigorated the historiography of 1898 in ways that build upon past approaches while bending our perspective to see new things. Kristin Hoganson's work about gender and the war contributes--in fundamentally new ways--to the eminent extant literature about the domestic forces which drove U.S. intervention. (4) Ada Ferrer's recent study builds upon the work of those, most notably Louis Péérez, who center the story of 1898 in Cuba, by radically transforming our conceptualization of the interplay of race and national identity in the movement for independence. (5) As the book's focus moves away from the everyday to the episodic, Mexico virtually disappears from its final two parts covering the post-1885 period. Arguably the American nation most transformed by its late-19th-century engagement with the U.S. economy receives only one paragraph, in the conclusion's discussion of the 1900-14 period. (p. 388) The revolution which began in 1910, and which historians, in various ways, have connected to Mexico's late-19th-century economic development gets one less-than-superficial sentence. (6) This notable lacuna underlines how the book shifts in its final chapters to conform with the established historiography's dominant narrative which positions 1898 as _the_ "turning point" in the history of U.S. foreign relations. Pletcher's epilogue further conforms to that story's usual retelling as he describes the post-1898, pre-World War I U.S. search for order in the circum-Caribbean through experiments with government-led economic initiatives, protectorates, and military interventions. It seems that as Professor Pletcher's story moves ahead chronologically it becomes increasingly entangled amidst historiographical overgrowth; the author seemed freer to roam in the earlier years' more-open, less-congested scholarly terrain. Mexico's disappearance is particularly unfortunate given Pletcher's own expertise, on display in his book's early chapter concentrated on U.S.-Mexican economic engagement during the Porfiriato's first decade. Expanding this coverage to the later Porfiriato and Mexico's revolution (too often treated as a _sui generis_ topic in U.S. foreign relations) might have compelled welcomed reconceptualization of the conventional periodization and employment of late-19th-century U.S. foreign relations (which of course did not end with the year 1900, no matter how convenient the timing of the war with Spain is for survey writers and instructors). Although the revolution's Constitutionalist "winners" had cautious U.S. support, the postrevolutionary state presented a paradigmatic dilemma for twentieth-century U.S. foreign relations: how to contend with constitutional regimes whose laws do not comply with U.S. interests. Furthermore, the example of revolutionary Mexico demonstrates how thediversity of political economies, states, national identities, and security considerations encountered by the United States determine differences in the goals and outcomes of U.S. foreign policy and diplomacy. If 1898, commonly invoked as the watershed in the emergence of the United States as a great power, marks the end of 19th-century U.S. diplomatic history, perhaps the United States' inability to foresee, comprehend, and control the Mexican revolution marks the true beginning of 20th-century U.S. diplomatic history (by demonstrating the substantial limits the world's newest power experienced in contending with complex disorder even, sometimes especially, generated from within its own self-proclaimed sphere of influence). No doubt in part a Mexicanist's self-indulgent diatribe, this call for reformulation also expresses the desire of a historian of U.S. foreign relations to see calcified stories dissolved, not simply for the thrill of the new but to offer provocative and enlightening broad re-interpretations that disturb our sometimes overly soporific complacency toward the master narratives of U.S. diplomatic history. _Diplomacy of Trade and Investment_ foreshadows contemporary difficulties faced by U.S. foreign policy in its attempts to forge international consensus about economic policy. Pletcher explores significant precursors to current disunities. In his discussion of Blaine's 1889-90 Inter-American Conference, for example, he observes "that the greatest obstacle to unified action would be the chronic dissension between U.S. and Argentine delegations." (p. 243) In terms of U.S.-Argentine relations, this friction expressed the illogic of economic union with the United States for the southern cone's leading wheat and beef producer and previewed later diplomatic disputes between Buenos Aires and Washington stretching from the Second World War until the Malvinas/Falkland War. In the broader realm of inter-American history, it suggests how the dilemma of Latin American liberals c.1900 resembles that of neoliberals c.2000: how to emulate the U.S. model while resisting U.S. domination. Such centrist ambivalence towards the United States has challenged U.S. foreign policy's pursuit of an "inter-American system" in ways as palpable as the more inflammatory responses of rightist and leftist regimes which often are said to emulate extra-hemispheric models. With some irony, the present-day coalition of diverse national and transnational interest groups that share the _bete noir_ of neoliberal free trade appear at times more united in their dissent than do the nation-states which espouse commitment to lower tariffs and less regulation. These days "free trade" seems more a movement to regulate competitive relations among regional, supranational economic blocs within the GATT than to implement universal principles. Moreover, harmony is problematic within such blocs as nations seek advantage over their putative partners and states must respond to domestic interest groups seeking protection at odds with the international free-trade regime. Current inter-American events underline this pattern. MERCOSUR (South America's southern cone common market) strives to maintain its internal integrity and external independence by seeking ties to the European Union with which to counter U.S. influence viewed by regionalists as a threat to their area's development and autonomy. Most recently U.S. efforts toextend the NAFTA model to Chile have irritated MERCOSUR's leader, Brazil. (7) Even between the ostensibly _simpáático_ Bush and Fox administrations--their closeness signaled by the new U.S. president's foregoing the customary initial foreign visit to Ottawa in favor of Guanajuato--there are likely to be difficulties ahead (perhaps another reason to go south first). Fox, unlike his PRI predecessors (who negotiated and implemented NAFTA with neither an electoral mandate nor a meaningfully independent press), must respond to new civic and legislative pressures. These will no doubt compel (and allow) his administration to amplify its call for expanded legal liberalization of Mexico's second-most controversial and arguably most-in-demand export to the United States, labor. The new power and limits democratization has brought the Mexican state might make anti-Yankeeism a less-important feature of official rhetoric but make collaborative relations more difficult for the United States. In fact, the present moment in U.S.-Mexico relations resembles the early postrevolutionary period, when the fall of an authoritarian regime, conducive to U.S. interests brought to power new elites whose vision for national development more closely resembled that of their U.S. counterparts than had those of the old regime, but whose goal of more independent national development reinforced by greater mass participation in politics (if not electoral democracy), produced significant clashes with the United States in the 1920s. Protestations have not been limited to the view north. As Professor Pletcher notes in his discussion of U.S. plans for economic expansion in the late 1880s, "Canadian opponents of Commercial Union set out to strengthen transatlantic economic ties and thus counteract the pull from the south." (p. 227) This reminds us too that one hundred years later, the Canadian debate over free trade with the United States produced similar sounding concern about U.S. cultural as well as economic control. Canada's inclusion adds to this study's sense of geographical comprehensiveness which is rare in inter-American scholarship (but also notably produced by the important multivolume series _The United States and the Americas_, edited by Lester Langley). (8) Indeed Canada's presence makes it possible to call this work a study of the western hemisphere. To problematize that rendering, then, is _not_ to detract from its inclusiveness, but _is_ to recognize that all geographical frameworks are cultural constructions that carry political significances that impose a particular way of seeing and thinking. They therefore must be themselves contextualized in order to comprehend how they interact with the historical environment in which they are produced and consumed. The trope of the western hemisphere, is (in world historical terms) a fairly recent one, which took hold among American elites c.1800 trying to locate their anticolonial and later postcolonial projects as part of "civilization" but distance them from European powers that viewed the "Americas" (itself an early-modern European invention) as _their_ New World. (9) To observe how scholarship about international relations is part of (orreproduces) international relations is to note the importance of the trenchant and controversial contributions of Mark Berger and Arturo Escobar, among others, to our consideration of the material implications of discursive practice. (10) _Diplomacy of Trade and Investment_'s conjunction with the regime of NAFTA means that its reception not only by scholars and students who consult its pages directly but also its indirect dissemination--through reviews (including internet roundtables!), bibliographies, classroom lectures, assimilation of its research by various types of writers--reinforces a notion about political geography that has as much power in its subtlety as do its more explicit insights and conclusions (many of which point to the difficulty expansionists encountered in forging a hemispheric system). That the nations of what we call the western hemisphere share a political history and determining geography, have common security and economic interests, have greater differences with the rest of the world than among themselves have been the central suppositions of Pan American discourse--which posits the United States as hemispheric model and leader--supported and contested by inter-American elites, in different ways at different times, since the early-19th century. As Gaddis Smith has shown in the case of Cold War anticommunism's appropriation of the Monroe Doctrine, it has transmuted over time. (11) And it has reemerged c.1990 not only in neoliberal economic rhetoric but also within official antinarcotics discourse (which focuses almost exclusively on international supply rather than the arguably more significant question of domestic demand) to justify military and economic aid (some would say intervention) in the name of hemispheric security (most notably today in Colombia). As Professor Pletcher's work shows, the interests and interactions of the United States in the Americas varied from region to region, nation to nation. Moreover, the degree to which foreign states shaped--through resistance and collaboration--the interaction of U.S. forces has varied from country to country as has the quality of the U.S. presence. The book's first half's comparative framework makes this diversity of engagements explicit, while at the same time less explicitly but, for this reader, very plainly demonstrating how the notion of the entire western hemisphere as a region of common origin and development is a U.S.-centric one. The uses made of the two most pervasive secular icons produced by (opposite ends of) 19th-century inter-American history--Bolíívar and Martíí--exemplify this ongoing contest waged about the naturalness of U.S. leadership within a hemispheric system. Each of these heroic figures has been invested at different moments with contradictory significances by intellectuals and politicians--from throughout the Americas--who have striven to unite the hemisphere either against or in support of U.S. power. That narrative's development, as Pletcher's study subtly evokes, has been dialectically linked to the political and economic relations more explicitly explored in his work. That is, the representations of material relations--propaganda promoting inter-American trade and investment, the compilation and publication of statistical information and economic intelligence, the expansion of U.S. government and private-sector foreignrepresentation, _inter alia_--contributed as much to Pan Americanism's discursive formation as did more explicit statements about the hemisphere's shared heritage and future. For example, its presentation of the proliferation of U.S.-generated numbers about trade and investment suggests how collectively these figures formed a new grammar, if you will, of inter-American relations and source of hemispheric identities (in relation to the United States). Their significance as parts of a system of signification marking national identities, mapping international relationships, propagating a hemispheric idea might be as important as their intended individual meanings, as conveyors of specific economic information, for comprehending the transformation of late-19th-century inter-American relations. (12) In this way, this book's research implicitly demonstrates the material power of signs and the symbolic power of international relations. A note about this book's prodigious collection of sources is necessary. Its depth renders notable lapses in its breadth, especially regarding secondary sources. While exhaustive, in ways invaluable to the contemporary scholar, in its survey of research thru the late 1970s, this study draws too little on significant scholarship published over the last two decades. "Recent works" mentioned in the text turn out (upon consultation of the copious bibliography) to be published before 1980. (And frequent consultation is necessary, because although _Diplomacy of Trade and Investment_'s footnotes admirably appear at the bottom of each page, references to secondary sources frustratingly lack publication dates, even in initial citations.) More important, over-dependence on pre-1980 sources reduces the author's ability to actualize fully his research agenda, since so much of the work by area specialists, particularly relevant to the international framework aspired to here, has appeared in the last 15 years or so. This is not a matter of scholarly nitpicking. A work as wide-ranging as this one is necessarily synthetic, and its utility to students and scholars is to a large degree derivative of its engagement with available scholarship. While a list of such missing works would be prolix, not to mention gratuitous, fairness calls for some examples of the types of studies about which I am thinking. Among more-or-less recent ones by Latin Americanists are Jonathan Brown's about Mexico and foreign petroleum investment, Paul Gootenberg's on mid-19th century Peru's international political economy, and Steven Topik's dissection of Brazil-U.S. relations in the 1890s. (13) This study also under-utilizes Latin American primary and secondary sources. In the first case this is understandable, no single scholar could make systematic use of multiarchival research over such a broad historical field. However, the omission of much relevant non-U.S. scholarship is less easily ignored. This is not to fetishize foreign-language secondary (or even primary) sources; too often they are ineffectively used in an overly self-congratulatory manner that reduces international research to the quantity of foreign sources consulted. The very citation too often is asserted as innovation itself. Nor is it to essentialize other national perspectives--e.g., by invoking the too-common sophism that a given work, by virtue of being written by a non-U.S. scholar, represents _the_ foreign perspective rather than simply anotherscholarly contribution (one that can be identified in many different ways, including, but not exclusively, by an author's nationality). The value of any source, of course, depends on its use. However, in the hands of a scholar possessing Professor Pletcher's area expertise and international perspective, more Latin American scholarship--across empirical fields, theoretical orientations, and methodological approaches--could have been creatively interpolated. Such inclusion would have strengthened this work not only as scholarly synthesis but also deepened its empirical excursions, since Pletcher could have effectively mined research in foreign archives for his own investigations. The immanent connections between culture and international relations is no better represented than in the figure of the scholar not only as producer of knowledge, re/producer of discourse, but also as signifier. Several months ago, while at work in the archives, I came across the following: "Dr. David M. Pletcher., Hamline College. Specialist in 19th-century economic history of Mexico, his articles and books have won wide professional acclaim." (14) It is an excerpt from an annotated list of 25 U.S. scholars of Mexico compiled for the State Department in 1963 by Howard Cline, distinguished historian of U.S.-Mexico relations and, at the time, director of the Library of Congress' Hispanic Foundation. The State Department requested this interdisciplinary prosopography of prominent Mexicanists (in which Cline included himself) to provide the Mexican government guidance in its deliberations to award an important prize to a U.S. academic. Hence, the selection of the Mexican honor's recipient was (behind the scenes) an international collaboration. Cline's criteria were mid-career academics ("general age group of 40, 45, or older, and general academic rank of full Professor, or its equivalent") who had made notable recent contributions (by publishing either an article or book in the preceding five years) and were likely to produce significant future work. He excluded senior scholars who seemed past their prime, younger ones "who were getting established," prior recipients of Mexican awards, and "a number of quite able North Americans who are permanent residents of Mexico." (15) For the State Department, Mexico's recognition of this type of U.S. achievement served its mission of Pan Americanism, which, in 1963, was in revival, as the Kennedy administration implemented its Alliance for Progress (following the postwar devolution of Good Neighbor policies and rhetoric). As Cline combed bibliographies (and, no doubt, his personal address book), he selected individuals who could serve the interests of U.S. foreign policy as a symbol from across the border of interest in and respect for Mexico's history and future. It is impossible for me to read _Diplomacy of Trade and Investment_ and not think of David Pletcher's own position in inter-American relations. Thinking of the book and the document together allows me to see each differently. It reminds me of the power of scholarly discourse to shape international relations by influencing how we view not only the past but also the present and of the unexpected ways and unanticipated places where international exchange takes place. Most of all, though, the book and the memo together underline for me Professor Pletcher's impressively long and distinguished career as interpreter of the history of the Americas. Cline knew of whom he wrote. NOTES 1. A prime recent example is Thomas F. O'Brien, _The Revolutionary Mission: American Enterprise in Latin America, 1900-1945_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). See also, Thomas D. Schoonover, _The United States and Central America, 1860-1911: Episodes of Social Imperialism and Imperial Rivalry in the World System_ (Durham: Duke University Press, 1991); David Healy, _Drive to Hegemony: The United States in the Caribbean, 1898-1917_ (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988). 2.Emily Rosenberg, _Financial Missionaries to the World: The Politics and Culture of Dollar Diplomacy, 1900-1930_ (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999). A recent anthology compiled of entries seeking similar connections, often in a transnational context, is Gilbert Joseph, Catherine LeGrand, Ricardo Salvatore, eds. _Close Encounters of Empire: Writing the Cultural History of U.S.-Latin American Relations_ (Durham: Duke University Press, 1998). 3. Ernest R. May, _Imperial Democracy: America's Emergence as a Great Power_ (New York: Harper and Row, 1961); Walter LaFeber, _The New Empire: An Interpretation of American Expansion, 1860- 1898_ (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1963). 4. Kristin Hoganson, _Fighting for American Manhood: How Gender Politics Provoked the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999). 5. Ada Ferrer, _Insurgent Cuba: Race, Nation, and Revolution, 1868-1898_ (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999); Louis A. Péérez Jr.'s most recent contribution is his interpretive centennial meditation on the literature of the Spanish-American War, _The War of 1898: The United States and Cuba in History and Historiography_ (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998). 6. For exemplary differing interpretations of how U.S.-Mexican relations contributed to the Mexican revolution, see John Hart, _Revolutionary Mexico: The Coming and Process of the Mexican Revolution_ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987); Friedrich Katz, _The Secret War in Mexico: Europe, the United States, and the Mexican Revolution_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981); Alan Knight, _The Mexican Revolution_ 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); and, for the way in which the revolution also affected U.S.-Mexican relations, see idem, _U.S.-Mexican Relations, 1910-1940: An Interpretation_ (La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego, 1987). 7. See, for example, "Brazil Miffed As Chile Shifts Trade Focus Toward U.S.," _New York Times_, 3 December 2000. 8. Langley's introductory volume articulates the series's approach, _America and the Americas: The United States in the Western Hemisphere_ (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1989). 9. There are many recent works which contribute vitally to our understanding of postcolonial identity formation in the Americas, one of the most important for questions about conceptions of space, is Walter D. Mignolo, _The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy, Territoriality, and Colonization_ (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995), see especially chapter 6. 10. Mark T. Berger, _Under Northern Eyes: Latin American Studies and U.S. Hegemony in the Americas, 1898-1990_ (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1995); Arturo Escobar, _Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995). 11. Gaddis Smith, _The Last Years of the Monroe Doctrine, 1945-1953_ (New York: Hill and Wang, 1994). 12. I am thinking of processes similar to those described by Benedict Anderson about the cultural sources of national identity in _Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism_ rev. ed. (London: Verso, 1991), see especially chapter 10. 13. Jonathan C. Brown, _Oil and Revolution in Mexico_ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993); Paul Gootenberg, _Imagining Development: Economic Ideas in Peru's "Fictitious Prosperity" of Guano, 1840-1880_ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993); Steven C. Topik, _Trade and Gunboats: The United States and Brazil in the Age of Empire_ (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996). 14. "North American Scholars specializing in Mexico," Dr. Howard F. Cline, Director, Hispanic Foundation, Library of Congress to Dr. Arturo Morales Carrióón, Deputy Under-Secretary of State for Latin America, ARA, State Department, 9 September 1963, p. 4; enclosed with Cline to Morales, 10 September 1963, Office Files of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Inter-American Affairs, Bureau of Inter-American Affairs, Box 22, Folder: Mexico, Lot Files 64D369, Record Group 59, National Archives II, College Park, Maryland. 15. Ibid., p. 1. Copyright (c) 2000 by H-Net, all rights reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit educational use if proper credit is given to the author and the list. For other permission, please contact H-Net@h-net.msu.edu or H-Diplo@h-net.msu.edu.