Book Reviews / National Period

615

Colombia y Panam: La metamorfosis de la nacin en el siglo XX.

Edited by heraclio bonilla and gustavo montaez. Bogot: Universdidad
Nacional de Colombia, 2004. Illustrations. Tables. Figures. Notes. Bibliographies.
463 pp. Paper.

At the turn of the twentieth century, with the collapse of the Spanish Empire, the U.S.
launched a newly aggressive geopolitical and economic agenda to establish hegemony
in Latin America. In 1898, Washington declared war on Spain and its Caribbean pos-
sessions, transforming Cuba into a protectorate and Puerto Rico into a colony. A few
years later, Panama emerged as the place that most intensively felt the aggressive U.S.
presence. Historians and social scientists alike have arguably not paid enough attention
to the very important role that Panama played in the consolidation of U.S. imperialism
throughout the Americas. This edited volumepresenting contributions from Pana-
manian, Colombian, and U.S. scholarsseeks to fill this historiographical gap by offer-
ing a variety of discussions about Colombia-Panama historical relationships within the
context of U.S. imperialism.
Heraclio Bonillas introduction contextualizes the cases of Colombia and Panama
within the Andean region. He argues for a national rupture of the Andes by exploring
the differences that have historically shaped Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. In
so doing, he calls upon historians to take into account the different historical trajecto-
riessocial (heterogeneous peasant composition), material (internal economic ordering
as well as external markets), and political (the consolidation of the labor movement or, in
some cases, the lack thereof)when analyzing the capitalistic formation of the nation
in the peripheries.
The book is organized into five sections. The first part analyzes the geographical,
social, and political antecedents that shaped Panamas separation from Colombia. The
second set of essays considers the immediate political consequences of the U.S invasion
in 1903. These two sections argue that the eventual separation of Panama was inevi-
table, either because it was historically the most isolated region of Colombia or because
it posed administrative challenges and represented a major drain for state funds. The
third part contextualizes the separation of Panama within the broader international
framework and, more specifically, within the context of U.S. imperialism. Of particular
interest is Charles Bergquists analysis of U.S. historiography on imperialism; he argues
for a more historical understanding on the connections between U.S. internal history
(particularly, the labor movement) and North American imperialism after 1898. The
fourth part in the book recapitulates the major historiographical explanations to under-
stand U.S. intervention in Panama. The final section offers suggestive readings on how
Panamas separation was depicted in political cartoons during the first decades of the
twentieth century, the impact of its political legacies on the colonization of regional
frontiers (Urab and Darin), as well as how this historical event has been remembered
during the twentieth century.
Although the books analyses touch upon region and geography, these categories
616 HAHR / August

do not play a critical role in explaining Panamas separation in 1903. Despite Marta
Herreras compelling argument that the geographic position of Panama within the
Colombia nation was not natural but rather a result of colonial history, throughout the
book geography and, certainly, region are treated as ahistorical realities. In so doing,
the volume as a whole reproduces an enduring convention in Colombian historiogra-
phy: geographic conditions and entrenched regionalism did not allow the central state
to modernize and integrate the fragmented nation. But, as Nancy Appelbaum has thor-
oughly shown, regional identities were a very powerful manner to experience the racial
hierarchization of the nation. In that vein, one wonders if a more nuanced understanding
of regionalismnot as a colonial legacy or as a timeless phenomenon but, instead, as
a process of nation-state formationcould generate new, though difficult, questions:
How was Panama imagined in the racial geography of turn-of-the-century Colombia?
How did these racial imaginings shape or confront the development of U.S. interven-
tion and its discourses on racial superiority? Perhaps by answering these questions
historians could offer a more complex analysis of the motivations, meanings, exclusions,
struggles, and dynamics that defined nation-state formation, as well as the consolidation
of U.S. imperialism in the Americas.
Throughout the book, nationalism is largely understood as an ideology created
by the national bourgeoisie. But, since historical conditions during Colombias long
nineteenth century, we are told, did not permit the consolidation of the national bour-
geoisie, there could be no development of strong nationalism. Even less, it is assumed,
was there a possibility for subaltern groups to grasp any idea of national identity. In that
historical account, popular groups merely appear as politically indifferent. At worst, they
only advanced personalistic political agendas; at best, they were preoccupied with par-
ticular political agendas based on ethnic or social ties (p. 339). If this is true, one wonders
about, first, the political participation of different social and racial groups and, second,
how their distinct or shared notions of the regional and national identities were put to
work in the context of U.S. intervention in Panama.
These questions and comments aside, this is a major historiographical contribu-
tion to the study of Colombia-Panama relations in the context of U.S. imperialism. Any
shortcomings are best seen as the price to be paid for a pathbreaking effort that will
certainly inspire future analysis.

a. ricardo lpez-pedreros, University of Maryland at College Park

doi 10.1215/00182168-2006-031