The authors of this work leave little doubt that they consider Puerto Rico ‘an anomaly’, ‘an exceptional case’, ‘an exception to the rule’, even ‘doubly exceptional’ (p. 1). It is a case of such ‘complexity’ and ‘perplexity’ that Puerto Rican (and, by extension, US) decision makers are seldom presented with anything other than cruel dilemmas. In addition, the authors argue, the stridency and partisanship of much of Puerto Rico's historiography over the past century have only added to the difficulty of unravelling the island's true past and the designing of its future. It is their decided intent to avoid such distortions. Their goal, they say, is to provide a more ‘nuanced’ interpretation of the historical record, albeit without making any concessions as to what they invariably regard as a hundred years of an asymmetrical ‘colonial relationship’.
So much for good intentions. What we are presented with is an overarching and indiscriminate conceptualisation of colonialism and capitalist domination which makes the attempts at nuance and dispassionate interpretation appear contrived. Ayala and Bernabé's consistent ‘anti-imperialist’, ‘anti-neoliberal’ interpretations (never operationally defined) seem to go well beyond their evident nationalist and independentista proclivities. Not surprisingly, those who praise forms of accommodation with the US, either as an associated commonwealth, an associated republic or a state of the Union, are ‘apologists’, and those who praise the nationalist movements are ‘patriots’. This leads to some disturbing imbalances in the historical treatment. To cite a significant one: Ricardo Alegría, founder and director of the Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña, whose multifaceted work in fields ranging from archaeology to musicology contributed so mightily to the development of an independent Puerto Rican sense of culture and identity, receives a two-sentence mention (p. 210), while promoters of what the authors call ‘oppositional culture’ are described in depth and at length. Similarly, Gordon K. Lewis' monumentally influential 1963 work Puerto Rico, Freedom and Power in the Caribbean, which advocated independence under a Fabian-style socialism, is quickly disposed of as ‘politically ambiguous’, while a critical review of Lewis' book by an obscure American Marxist biologist who called for ‘a Puerto Rican revolution’ is discussed at some length (pp. 250–1). The point is that even if one conceded the authors' determination to provide ‘the forgotten voices’ of Puerto Rican history with a hearing, one has to wonder how the unearthing of frankly marginal writings and the minute tracing of the many splits and purges in what have been small and short-lived left-wing groups can help us understand the major watersheds and decision-making dilemmas of the past century. Merely repeating that their influence should not be underestimated is not sufficient. It is fair enough, even necessary, to describe a lamentable colonial relationship, but quite another thing to explain why the vast majority of Puerto Ricans see little that is lamentable about it.
As distinct from Cuba and the Philippines, where the Spanish and then American presence was deeply resented and combated, or even Panama, where a century of resistance preceded the ceding of the Canal, no significant resistance movements have existed in Puerto Rico. The authors dedicate considerable space to describing the movement led by nationalist leader Pedro Albizu Campos. They seem particularly concerned with debunking the interpretation that he was an early admirer of fascist movements. It is good to recall, however, that in 1932 his Nationalist Party received 5,257 of the 383,722 votes cast, and that this is probably what led him to abandon electoral politics. From then on his politics were evident in the marches of his black-shirted ‘cadets’ and the violence that the authors tell us ‘brings to mind some strands of Irish nationalism, with which Albizu Campos had contact’ (p. 105). There have been other flare-ups of nationalist violence since, but nothing with any significant popular support. In fact, there is some historical evidence that Puerto Ricans find something close to consensus in only two areas: their rejection of violence as a political tactic, and their lukewarm attitude towards political independence. The vote in the most recent plebiscite (in 1993, with 73.6 per cent of the electorate voting), gave the statehood option 49.1 per cent, commonwealth 46.5 per cent, and independence 4.4 per cent. The very data presented by the authors provide a partial explanation. ‘Between 1970 and 1990’, they note, ‘federal transfers to individuals in Puerto Rico – through food stamps and other programs – rose from $500 million to $6 billion’ (p. 267). During that same period, the ‘empire's’ share of Puerto Rican personal income went from 15 to 30 per cent. Noting the impressive rise in pro-statehood voting, the authors quite correctly understand that it is ‘logical’ that this tends ‘to make statehood a more viable option than independence’ (p. 280). Is it any surprise that even independentista political platforms insist that US citizenship should be retained for a reasonable period after independence?
Certainly, the international community has not shown itself disposed to pick a fight with the choices Puerto Ricans have made. We are told that in 1953 the UN General Assembly voted 26 to 16 in favour of removing the island from the list of non-self-governing territories (p. 173). We are not told that in 1971 the vote was 57 to 26, and in 1982, 70 to 30.
If the independence option the authors favour does not have popular support, how then to achieve the desired political goal? On this the authors end with a note of despair that a native Puerto Rican solution might be in the offing. Only a ‘broad movement’ of the anti-capitalist working class in the US and the world, they conclude, can help Puerto Rico achieve real independence (pp. 315, 339, 340). They end by professing their Marxism (without the teleology, they tell us) and anticipate ‘a radical transformation of existing political, social and economic structures as part of a global anti-capitalist project’ which will eliminate ‘capitalist competition and private control of productive assets’ (p. 332).
It is strange indeed that nowhere is there any discussion of the fact that Cuba, Puerto Rico's Caribbean neighbour, has done precisely that. Without such, or other, comparative perspectives, the authors' radical strategy for their island's future appears as pure ideological wishful thinking. One can only hope that the many who understand that the present associated commonwealth arrangement cannot continue forever and who are unenthusiastic at the thought of the island being the 51st state of the Union will not simply sit around waiting for the day of global deliverance the authors wish for.
