Book Review

Caribbean and Latin America

William H. Beezley and David E. Lorey's edited collection of ten essays on independence celebrations in Mexico from the 1820s to the 1940s makes an important contribution to the global consideration of nation and nationality building. The editors have compiled this book to explore the nature of mass celebration in Mexico prior to the establishment of mass communications in the late 1930s. They argue that such public commemorations reached thousands of people at one time and functioned like public theater, open to all regardless of education. At the same time, the content and style of such secular festivities both shaped and mirrored the worlds of nineteenth and early twentieth-century Mexicans. The editors have added to the global discussion by including several translated articles, originally written in Spanish, that would otherwise remain out of reach to scholars unfamiliar with that language. They have also exercised great creativity in selecting essays that look at the independence holiday from a wide range of perspectives and that use a variety of different techniques.

1

The first essay by Isabel Fernández Tejedo and Carmen Nava Nava lays out the basic historical facts surrounding the dramatic events of September 15 and 16, 1810, when Father Miguel Hidalgo proclaimed "Viva la Independencia," a cry known as the "Grito de Dolores." That dramatic act launched a popular insurrection against Spanish rule that lasted until September 27, 1821, when Mexico actually achieved independence under the leadership of General Agustín de Iturbide. Although the essay suffices for such a volume, some may wonder how such a synthesis could be written without reference to the work of Christon I. Archer, Virginia Guedea, and Jaime E. Rodríguez. Michael P. Costeloe then builds on the historical foundation by studying the junta patriótico in Mexico City responsible for guiding independence celebrations in the capital. He supplies lists of a remarkable group of volunteers from all political stripes over a relatively unbroken thirty-year period that challenges commonly held views concerning the furious political instability during that time.

. . .