This section on Historical Statistics is designed as one of the first steps in a process that would make it possible to assemble, for Latin America, a reference work comparable to the Historical Statistics of the United States. This volume assumed that its readers would be composed of those with some knowledge of how statistics were compiled and used. It saw itself as fulfilling two functions, collecting and referring. “The collecting function consists of assembling, selecting, and arranging data from hundreds of sources and making them available within a single source. The referring function consists of text annotations to the data which act as a guide to sources of greater detail. The annotations also define terms used in the tables and include essential qualifying statements.” The volume contains abundant statistics on economic, political, and social aspects of the United States, divided into twenty-six categories of data, and makes it easy to test many hypotheses about American historical development. Similarly, a Historical Statistics of Latin America would provide the statistical basis for the evaluation of many hypotheses about Latin American history, the evaluation of which currently rests upon qualitative evidence.

Although the study of international relations is among the oldest fields of Latin American history, historians have not fully exploited the diplomatic archives of that region. No doubt the main obstacle has been the restrictive policies of the Latin American chancelleries, which have tended to view all diplomatic correspondence as inherently sensitive, particularly since boundary disputes have survived in many cases until the present moment. For this and other reasons, the study of Latin American foreign relations has lagged far behind that of Europe and the United States. Among Latin Americans, ex-ambassadors seem more prolific than professional historians in the field of diplomatic history; their works vary tremendously in quality, from the valuable studies of Cardozo (1961) and Herrera (1908-1927, 1930) to a host of mediocre treatments. European and North American historians have tended to focus on diplomatic contacts with the Great Powers, whose archives are more easily accessible, and to see Latin American foreign relations from the vantage point of the Great Powers. Such products include the classic works of Manchester (1933) and Robertson (1939) and the more recent studies of Burns (1966) and Wood (1966). Some works dealing with inter-American relations—e.g., Tulchin (1971) and Wood (1961, 1966)—define their topics so as to use no Latin American archival materials at all; others, such as Parks (1935) define their topics more broadly but still use United States or British archives exclusively.

Since the early 1960s there has been increasing interest in Caribbean life and affairs; consequently, the discovery of new sources of materials and centers for research on the region are of particular importance to the growing number of Caribbeanists. The Moorland-Spingarn Research Center at Howard University in Washington, D.C. is funded by the university and receives additional finances annually from numerous donors; it is a vital part of the university's library system and operates under the supervision of the office of the Vice-President for Academic Affairs. Among the thousands of books, articles, manuscripts, newspapers, photographs, prints, and recordings on the black diaspora are myriad materials on the Caribbean. This Caribbean collection is as extensive and important an investigative tool as many of the better-known repositories in the United States or Canada; but this century-old holding is hardly known. Probably one of the main reasons for this oversight is that Caribbean source material may appear to be outside the academic scope of Howard University; hence, Caribbeanists frequent traditional centers such as the Institute of Jamaica in Kingston and the Bodleian and West India Committee Libraries in Britain.

until just recently it would have been both futile and absurd to speak of American Philosophy, especially if that implied a reference to philosophy in Latin America. However, the subject was introduced and those concerned with whether or not such a philosophy existed have become even more vocal in the past few years. The nature of their preoccupation implicitly raised another, broader question: Is it possible to speak in terms of an American culture—where “American” is not simply a geographical indication but an expression of the presence of something basic to Latin American thought? Is there something “American” in a sense which would correspond to the significance this word for Bolívar, San Martín, Hidalgo, Morelos, Sucre, O'Higgins and many other notable leaders since who continually referred to America —her culture, her people and her philosophy?

Fundamental issues are raised in Sigmund's attack on our book, concerns that pertain to what has probably become one of the most controversial policy debates in recent times: the role of the U.S. in the overthrow of the Allende government. Measured by the amount of time and space devoted to the issue by Congress, the media, and academia, this question certainly requires careful consideration. Unfortunately, Sigmund presently and in the past has not dealt adequately with either the pertinent questions or the relevant data. The numerous errors and distortions require a thorough response.

The Mexican collection of the International Institute of Social History is substantially smaller than that of Argentina or Brazil. Of this, the collection of periodicals constitutes the principal part. This latter collection (Sections A and B) covers the period ±1880-1940. Although many items represent only a single or limited number of issues of a given publication, the total amount of information is considerable. The pre-revolution period is represented by only a restricted number of literary and positivist magazines, besides a few copies of workers' magazines from Mexico City, Orizaba, and Monterrey. The more important part of the collection, however, is formed by the periodicals of local chapters of the Casa del Obrero Mundial from the years 1912-18, such as Ariete, Redención Obrera, Revolución Social, El Sindicalista, and Tribuna Roja. In addition, there is some material relating to the I.W. W., the C.R.O.M., and the later C.T.M.

During the past decade—more precisely during the last five to seven years—the increased use of urban guerrilla warfare and terrorism have characterized the activities of many revolutionary groups in the less developed world. High-lighted by the olympic assassinations of 1972, this phenomenon has also been evident in various African and Asian states. It is in Latin America, however, that the change from the traditional rural base for guerrilla operations to an urban environment has been most pronounced. The years from 1962 to 1967 saw many Latin American insurgents copying the Cuban revolutionary model, with its emphasis on rural guerrilla operations and the peasantry as the ultimate motive force, but recent years have seen an equally strong pull toward either purely urban insurgency or a more balanced strategy according equal importance to both rural and urban activities. In either case, the identifiable shift away from a totally rural guerrilla strategy for most Latin American revolutionary groups seems an established fact.