Quelqu’un nous a dit:
Lund’s thesis is interesting, but its has some flaws because it understands liberalism in a XX century way. The contradiction between capitalism vs. liberalism (popular sovereignty vs. capitalist expansion) is just too reductive. During all the XIX century there were debates about popular sovereign and the legitimacy of politics and violent state actions (the Porfiriato is no exception). The other chapters of the book are really pertinent to understand Mexican state during XX century.
I am not sure I understand this — what contradiction is there between liberalism and capitalism — I thought they went together? But, it is good to have a comment on these matters and good to have a reminder that one should question everything, especially when you are not in field and the person you are reading is not actually a historian, either.
I am attracted to Lund’s work, though, as it is some of the work I would have done had I been able. I am so glad somebody got these things done. Look:
His recent publications include The Impure Imagination: Toward a Critical Hybridity in Latin American Writing (2006) and Gilberto Freyre e os estudos latino-americanos (2006, co-edited and introduced with Malcolm McNee). Recent essays appear in PMLA, Hispanic Issues On-Line, and The Colorado Review of Hispanic Studies.
Axé.
coldhearted scientist وداد 