The Latin Issue in Global Historiography 

Introducing the debate: 

Mei Duanmu proposed including a round table on the north/ south historiographical relationships for the Second Conference ‘History under Debate'(HuDII). We did not follow his suggestion and now we regret it, because it is an important debate, which we would like to relaunch on the Internet by encouraging both members of the mailing list and visitors to our website to give their opinions on the current role of Latin historiography within the international community of historians. 

We have been able to read reviews showing slightly different points of view on the issue. 

Francisco Vazquez, a member of the organisation committee of both HuD I and HuDII, wrote for Historiar : ‘In 1993, the conference still had strong Eurocentric slant, where French and Anglo-Saxon historiographies had pride of place, along with very important presence of Spanish speakers. In 1999, Latin American historians have made themselves feel both in their number and their enthusiasm - which is perhaps the greatest innovation of the conference. Likewise, historiographic communities such as those from China, India, Japan and Africa, which are still greatly unknown for us- have made their voice heard'. 

Teófilo F. Ruiz, a member of the scientific committee of both HuD I and HuD II writing for the American Historical Review :"With the exception of Jacques Revel, the president of the École des Hautes Études, History Under Debate II featured no superstars. Most participants were younger, and Western Europeans, including Spaniards, were fewer in number. More to the point, a strong showing of Latin American scholars, mainly from Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, Mexico, joined by counterparts from India, New Zealand, China, North Africa, and Slovenia, brought into evidence a more heterogeneous representation of historians. Their papers, concerns, and debates signaled a dramatic change in how we talk and think about history".

Irma Antognazzi, from the group ‘Hacer la historia' from Rosario, for Prohistoria: ‘Despite the economic difficulties faced by Latin American historians, speakers from Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico and Argentina attended the conference as well as, of course, those from Spain, France, Italy, Britain, the USA, Canada and Germany among many others (...). There was no unanimity, that is true. I could even say that the majority subscribed to fashionable approaches and points of view. But there was discussion. . .' 

Jerôme Baschet, from the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris for the history journal of Chiapas: ‘ History under Debate is a privileged venue for international  historiographic  discussion, where Latinamerica historians ( undoubtedly the most numerous delegations) may feel at ease . But history under Debate is something more . . .' 

Well, actually the most numerous delegation, also as regards the number of speakers, was the Spanish one. Latin Amerian historians accounted for slightly over a third of the speakers (although they made themselves heard as if they were many more), who, in actual fact, represented in equal parts the ‘first' and the'third' world ( more than 35 countries where represented). Such was our objective: a global conference as remarked aboved by Francisco Vazquez. Another objective was that colleagues spoke freely, regardless of their race, nationality, beliefs, ideology or historiographic school, an open conference, within the themes of the conference, which were never surpassed. 

But the dialogue between Nothern and Southern,  Eastern and Western Historiographies is not easy , given their profoundly different historical and social realities. There is a lack of habits and bridges. History under Debate will strive for promoting the former and span the latter. 

We propose, therefore, a debate whose starting point may be questions like the following: What was the role of Latin American historians in HuD II? What do Latin historiographies offer or may offer -or for that matter Southern or Eastern historiographies - to international historiographies? What kind of relationship should be established among so-called ‘ peripheral' and ‘central' Euroamerican historiographies? Is still valid the theory of dependency , a sort of classification of developed and developing countries applied to the international community of historians? What kind of historiographical globalisation awaits us , or which one do we wish to come ? Which role  do play - or should play - great personalities in historiography ? Can these personalities be -or should they be- Latin ? What has all this to do with the North American debate about ‘Latin power' and the ‘ñ generation'? And with the fact that Spanish comes second , after English, in the pecking order of Western languages ? 

We are looking forward to receiving your e-mails.

Let us be able to say publicly what we have said privately on these issues. 

Historical and global greetings to you all! 

Carlos Barros
Coordinator