Margaret M. Power traces the development of the Partido Nacionalista Puertorriqueño (Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, PNPR), from its founding in 1922 to its decline in the 1960s. As the United States continued to exert political control, with no Puerto Rican seated as governor until 1946, and instituted economic policies designed to disrupt the country's culture and heritage, the PNPR formed to gain Puerto Rican independence. Though weakened by the armed assaults against the US government, including an assassination attempt on US President Harry S. Truman and an attack on the US Congress, it was not until the mid 1960s, with the death of Pedro Albizu Campos, that the PNPR split into factions and essentially became ineffective.
Power argues that the PNPR was more than the work of solely Albizu, who many credit with its success (if short of victory), and that rank-and-file members, who came from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds, had a considerable impact on the group. She also asserts that nationalism and nationalist movements have often been associated with fascism and authoritarianism. Although she does not deny that PNPR tactics such as the use of violence against enemies were similar to those of European fascists, Power contends that the nationalist ideology and strategies employed were defenses against a colonial invader. They were not xenophobic or aimed at manipulating people but to break the imperial chokehold of the powerful US overlord. Even more important, according to Power, the PNPR sought and achieved hemispheric solidarity, operating in “multiple trans-American, anti-imperialist networks of individuals, organizations, parties . . . committed to ending U.S. rule in Latin America” (14).
The book can be divided roughly into three sections. The first situates Puerto Rico in its geopolitical context in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. In the first three chapters, Power provides background on transnational connections in the Caribbean, looks at the ways that the United States colonized and Americanized Puerto Rico, and outlines the founding of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party.
The second section focuses on how Albizu turned the PNPR into a political force that the United States could not ignore. Chapters 4 through 7 cover changes in PNPR leadership, membership, and tactics, with Power delving into the rise of Albizu to its presidency in 1930. She illustrates convincingly that under his guidance the party shifted from attempting to work with the United States to bring about independence to directly confronting and denouncing US rule. To widen its appeal, she shows that the PNPR put on a concerted effort to recruit members from different classes and races, and to a degree, women. She further demonstrates that through Albizu's hemispheric travels, his emphasis on Puerto Rico as culturally and historically Latin American, his aggressive strategies, and the time he spent in US federal prison, he greatly helped to build and strengthen transnational unity.
The final two chapters explore the dwindling importance of the PNPR in Puerto Rico's fight for sovereignty. In Chapters 8 and 9, Power examines the impact of the Cold War, the ascent of US crony Luis Muñoz Marín to the Puerto Rican governorship, the assaults on the US president and Congress, and the death of Albizu, arguing that all contributed to diminishing the power and stature of the PNPR, which, however, still exists today.
Relying on archival documents, printed sources, and oral history interviews, Power paints a broad picture of the evolution of the PNPR and its multistranded networks of support. While acknowledging Albizu as the central figure in shaping the group, she digs into the organization's national and hemispheric relationships with government officials, political allies, and individuals. Her study makes a strong case for rethinking nationalism, not as inevitably xenophobic but as having a liberating effect to construct revolutionary bonds. Power provides a comprehensive account of the development and significance of the PNPR. More historical context on Latin American women's status and activities and on transnationalism in general would have deepened her first-rate analysis.
