Guy Pierre, La Crise de 1929 et le développement du capitalisme en Haïti: Une perspective de longue durée et une conjoncture perdue (Montreal: Les Éditions du CIDIHCA, 2015), pp. 548, pb.

Gillingham and Smith’s recent Dictablanda is mentioned, but there is no reference to the crucial political changes initiated by Alemán – not least in his home state of Veracruz – by way of eliminating internal (PRI) primaries and imposing central executive control. Indeed, throughout the book, grassroots politics figures very little and the Church not at all; while the political schmoozing of the PRI elite – often as recalled and recounted by that elite – takes centre stage. In short, while this book offers some useful information about a key political figure – and the cronies who surrounded him – and, in doing so, sheds light on postwar Mexican politics, its unbalanced and often uncritical use of sources, coupled with its oddly charitable take on Alemán himself, and its neglect of political economy, all detract from the cogency of the interpretation. Finally, while the style is clear and jargon-free, it is often wordy and inelegant. Organised labour viewed the post- scenario ‘as an aperture into renewed activity’ – later, it becomes ‘an aperture which spurred the working class’ (p. , ). The official party ‘expanded into an expansive corporatist entity’; Alemán ‘did attempt some half-hearted attempt to reform the tax system’ (pp. , ). Several minor queries arise. ‘Pacifist’ does not mean ‘peaceful’ (here applied to a street demonstration) (p. ). Alemán in  was hardly ‘the undisputed figurehead of national politics’: his authority was disputed – which is why he purged the Left – and he was certainly no ‘figurehead’ (p. ). The students who blew up Alemán’s statue in the UNAM campus in  did not wantonly ‘vandalise’ it (, ); they were making a reasonable political protest. Mexico has never been a ‘single-party’ state (pp.  , ). The place where Alemán’s father was killed – Mata de Aguacatillo – derives from ‘mata’ (a ‘bush’), not ‘the slaughter [matanza?] at Aguacatillo’ (p. ). As students, Alemán and his cronies did not name their magazine ‘Eureka’ because of ‘their desire to discover new possibilities’ (p. ), but by pure accident (Alemán himself tells us). Uruchurto should be Uruchurtu, Hueyapam de Ocampos should be Hueyapan de Ocampo (pp. , ). ‘Proscribe’ is the opposite of ‘prescribe’ (p. ). Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz (b. ) was not a ‘sixteenth century’ nun (p. ). The author refers to ‘two maritime invasions’ of revolutionary Mexico launched by the United States (p. ), but I am aware of only one (Veracruz, ). Several footnotes, citing archive and date but not document number, are plainly inadequate, as are references to entire books when a single quote is involved (e.g., p.  n. , p.  n. ). Lastly, the author insists on parading his sensitivity: economic ‘developments’, when they are not ‘disturbing’, are recurrently ‘troubling’ (pp. , , , ); as are the Cold War and Alemán’s labour policy (pp. , ). On the other hand, aspects of PRIísta policy are ‘appealing’, ‘laudable’, and ‘admirable’ (pp. –, ). Pace Lord Acton, I hardly think such authorial finger-wagging and backslapping enhance our historical understanding.

Field of study: Political science