Interpretations of Juan Domingo Perón and his movement have been and will continue to be a recurring and highly controversial theme in Argentine history. Studies of the nature of Peronism indicate that there is a wide diversity of viewpoints regarding its origin, its structure, its grassroots appeal and its mode of recruiting. Peronism has been analyzed within the framework of Argentine national developments, and it has been compared with foreign models—Fascism, Bonapartism, Nasserism—with which it shares some important characteristics. An analysis of Peronism and the reality of Argentina under Perón from a comparative viewpoint, is useful. But the search for the causes that brought Perón and Peronism to power in 1946 and shaped them until 1955, should be focused primarily on Argentina's own historical experience. Eldon Kenworthy has aptly questioned the approach followed by some American scholars in explaining Peronism, because in general, Kenworthy notes, they “have tended to interpret Peronism in terms of global trends salient to the United States rather than as a stage in Argentina's historical evolution.”

No abstract

No abstract

structure structure (solids and liquids) D 2000 -004Crystal Structure and Intercalation Properties of γ-Zr(AsO 4 ) (H 2 AsO 4 )·2H 2 O.-Powder XRD of the title compound leads to a monoclinic structure, space group P2 1 , Z = 2. The layered structure is built up from AsO 4 tetrahedra and ZrO 6 octahedra stacked along the (001) direction. The layered nature of the compound is confirmed by the intercalation of n-alkylamines as well as cyclic amines.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. This content downloaded from 155.247.166.234 on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:53:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BOOK REVIEWS 143 bases his work on four countries only-Chile, Cuba, Mexico, and Venezuela. He explains his reasons, but it remains an arbitrary choice nonetheless since to incorporate a major viceroyalty, some peripheral dependencies, and a colony that remained loyal (his criteria of choice) he might as well have chosen Quito, Peru, Buenos Aires, and Puerto Rico. His illustrative examples and comparisons are frequently chosen for no apparent reason. He seems to confuse the consulados with the elite as a whole. Examples of comparability are sometimes dubious, as when he compares the views of forty-nine Mexican Cortes deputies with three Cuban deputies. He does not satisfactorily define "modernization" or other social science terms that are subject to a variety of meanings and which have rarely been employed in this particular context. The author's tendency to declaim what sound like "laws of history" is very offputting (especially when he appears to wish us to see similarities in Latin American independence with such far-flung experiences as 19th century Zanzibar, the Viet Minh in Vietnam, or Malaya after World War II). There are many such cavils that may legitimately be raised. The main problem that he does not address (as is true with most of the literature extant) is how to account for the actions of Spain. It was a metropolitan empire, after all, in which local royal officials were constrained by imperial directives.