This is a response to the recent critique of my book The Mexican Revolution: Federal Expenditure and Social Change Since 1910, 2nd ed. (Berkeley, 1970) by Felix G. Boni and Mitchell A. Seligson. Their factor analysis of my data on poverty suggests, first, that their methodology is more “sensitive” than mine; second, that they have confirmed the thrust of an earlier analysis by Thomas E. Skidmore and Peter H. Smith; and third, that the task of quantitative history is to reduce data of “unwieldy proportions” so that it is subject to greater understanding.

Over the past two years, the editor of LARR has received several inquiries from scholars as to the procedures for acquiring permission to travel to Cuba. To his certain knowledge several scholars have made successful trips. For the benefit of those who may not know about the regulations, we are inserting a letter from the State Department to Dr. Howard Cline which he has kindly turned over to LARR and which clearly outlines the procedures to be followed.

Currently, Western Europe is experiencing a novel type of Marxism. The Communist movement is no longer viewed by most observers as a cohesive monolith waiting for directions from the East, and communism in Italy, France, and Spain has shown an increasing level of autonomy and national resourcefulness. Indeed, the “Eurocommunism” of Santiago Carrillo (head of the Spanish Communist party) is frequently attacked by his Soviet comrades in Party Congress and press alike. In that this new European communism pays a great deal of attention to specific national conditions, the importance of autonomy, and flexible strategies to win support, it is not always understood by orthodox Communists or ardent anti-Marxists. The latter group is convinced that all Communists are the same and will show their true color once in power, while the former is greatly concerned that their once revolutionary parties will evolve into revisionist Social Democratic groupings far afield from Lenin's prototypical Bolshevik party. Neither, then, is happy with this innovative approach to Western European Marxist-Leninist praxis.

The striking racial heterogeneity of contemporary latin america has obviously evolved in the course of a historical process that started in 1492. There would perhaps be a temptation to interpret the whole of Latin American history in terms of race relations. Though we believe that such an approach would be absurd, race relations have admittedly colored many aspects of Latin American history. Their role is by no means easily defined.

German scholarly concern with Latin America has a long and interesting tradition that began before Alexander von Humboldt's famous journey to Latin America at the beginning of the 19th century.

Well-known research in entomology, for example, was carried out by Maria Sybilla Merian, who was active in 1699 in Surinam. Similarly, a long and protracted cooperation exists between German and Latin American mining research on the major mining centers of the colonial Latin American world: the Bolivian highlands and Mexico. Alexander von Humboldt was able to build directly on these established and generally accepted contacts, especially in Mexico, where he found old college friends from Freiberg (Saxony) in decisive positions in Mexican mining affairs.

De la revisión crítica de los componentes que integran el fenómeno folklórico, tal como ha sido formulado por autores hispanoamericanos, surgen similitudes y discordancias en los planteos teóricos. Procuraré sintetizar estos distintos enfoques, contrastándolos con la posición prevaleciente en la Argentina.

El denominado folk, o sector del pueblo portador del hecho folklórico, ha sido uno de los puntos cruciales de discrepancias entre los estudiosos. Dejo de lado quienes sustentan que el folklore es producto del “pueblo” sin especificar el significado que le atribuyen a este vocablo. Queda, en ese caso, como un término indefinido pues como se sabe esta voz no es unívoca. Mientras no se precise la acepción con que se la emplea, no contribuye a esclarecer conceptos en esta ciencia.

The historiography of the nineteenth-century political process in latin America is in trouble. With the burgeoning of Latin American history as a professional activity, historians are increasingly “moving beyond” past politics to study social and economic themes. The traditional treatments of the nineteenth century, dedicated to glorifying or debunking heroic leaders, to perpetuating old partisan and ideological struggles, or even to presenting in a more detached way a minutely-detailed political narrative, have lost their allure. It is true, to the obvious consternation of the editors of the Handbook of Latin American Studies, that items in the traditional mold still abound. In Mexico, for example, the celebration of the centennial and sesquicentennial of the two heroic ages of liberalism, the Revolution for Independence and the Reforma, gave great impetus to political writing. Analogous historiographical stimulants can be found in other countries, sometimes where the heroism of the anniversaries is less clear. Yet the value of even the best of such work is increasingly called into question by professional historians.

The Institute of International Studies (IIS) of the University of Chile was founded in 1966 by professor Claudio Véliz, with the cooperation of the Royal Institute of International Affairs of London. The IIS has been affected by the changes that have occurred in both the domestic and international contexts, but, despite some temporary crises, the Institute has been able to maintain the generally high level of scholarship and objectivity that typically characterized it. Today, the IIS is a research and teaching center in the field of international relations, covering the political, juridical, economic, social and historical dimensions.