This research note is based on data collected from nineteenth-century manuscript census returns for San Antonio, Texas. It is part of a larger project to study the urban family history of four Southwestern towns: Los Angeles, California; Tucson, Arizona; Sante Fe, New Mexico; and San Antonio, Texas. Founded as Spanish pueblos, they were the largest Mexican settlements in the borderlands before the Anglo-American conquest, and they developed into important trading and commercial centers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Moreover, these towns have become important urban magnets for the Spanish-speaking people of the Southwest. Since World War II the barrios of Los Angeles and San Antonio have been especially influential in the cultural and political development of the Chicano movement, yet little is known about the early social history of these ethnic enclaves.

Land reform as a subject of investigation in latin america post-dates its appearance as a political measure, and although its appearance as a plank in programs of liberal and leftist parties and movements has been in vogue since the Twenties, few serious studies that can be properly referred to as land reform investigation took place until the Thirties. Many of the early studies that may be cited as pioneer works in this field are fact-finding land use studies by the geographers (e.g., McBride in Bolivia and Chile), and some early rural sociological studies in the same vein (e.g., Carl Taylor in Argentina and the Consejo de Bienestar Rural study on the Venezuelan Andes). In many cases these types of studies have continued into the past decade (DeYoung in Haiti, Ford in Peru, and Fals Borda in Colombia). The wave of anthropological community studies (mostly rural) were microcosmic, pioneer type research on land tenure. There were few agricultural censuses upon which any sort of nationwide study would need to have been based and in general the basic reference material for land reform until 1950 was most spotty and conjectural.

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars was created by an act of the U.S. Congress in 1968 as a “living memorial” to the twenty-eighth president of the United States. Its aims are to support advanced research and writing on national and international issues by scholars and practitioners from all over the world, and to bring together the realms of scholarship and of public affairs, which Wilson himself combined.

Este ensayo reseña las siguientes películas:

Ciro y yo. Dir. Miguel Salazar. Prod. La Esperanza. Colombia, 2018, 117 min. Distribuido por Pragda (pragda.com).

Fragmentos. Dir. Mayte Carrasco. Prod. Photoholic y Big Story Films. Colombia, Canadá, Reino Unido, 2019, 23 min. Disponible a través del Canal de YouTube del Museo Nacional de Colombia, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7rAb2O0JV8.

Limbo. Dir. Alex Fattal. Prod. Break the Frame Films y Casatarántula. Colombia-EEUU, 2020. Distribuido por Cinema Guild (cinemaguild.com).

El silencio de los fusiles. Dir. Natalia Orozco. Prod. NCN Televisión, Pulso Mundo y Arte Francia. Colombia, Francia, 2017, 120 min. DVD. Disponible en www.silenciofusiles.com.

El testigo: Caín y Abel. Dir. Kate Horne. Prod. Pacha Films, Horne Productions y Ronachan Films. Colombia, Reino Unido, 2018, 72 min. Disponible en Netflix.

So-called development projects in rural Mexico are heavily contested. Changes in institutional design have had little effect in mediating the exclusivity of the political decision-making processes defining such projects. Why, and how, has the Mexican state been able to maintain a developmentalist agenda, despite growing pressures to incorporate participatory development institutions and consult Indigenous peoples about development projects? This article introduces the geographic concept of scale and the concept of the state’s heterogeneous selectivities into debates on participation to study the politics of development projects. It analyzes the potential and existing obstacles to political participation for Indigenous networks and activists in the corresponding planning processes across institutional scales, examining protest against wind energy development in the state of Oaxaca and the project of “rural cities” in the state of Chiapas. Rather than two separate cases for comparison, both examples represent different planning processes involving the same heterogeneous state and the same promise of progress.