Suchergebnisse

Our preoccupation with the role of the United States in Latin American affairs has obscured the important part played by Canada and the nonhemispheric nations, e.g., the Soviet Union, Japan, and Israel. To compensate for this neglect, Herbert Goldhamer examines the interests and activities of the foreign powers in Latin America, focusing on the decade of the Alliance for Progress (1961-1971). Adopting an analytical and topical rather than a country-by-country approach, Mr. Goldhamer presents a comparative picture of the foreign powers' objectives (territorial, national security, economic, political) and of the means and resources (the migrant presence, affinities, advocacy, models, cultural programs, aid, diplomacy) they have used in pursuit of these ends. In conclusion he evaluates the extent to which they have achieved their ends and sets forth the principles of interstate behavior—and the lessons in statecraft these principles suggest—that seem to have been involved.Originally published in 1972.The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905

Benutzerkommentar

Social science writings have one thing in common with products of the artistic spirit—they readily lend themselves to dating by their "stylistic" traits. This is not a preferred manner for dating scientific products. Science, like technology, is generally regarded as cumulative in its development. To the extent that this is so, it is possible to place a scientific work in its historical position by examining the stage of knowledge that it reveals. However, the store of social science knowledge grows very slowly indeed. The result is that much of social science impresses one as being modern more by virtue of various stylistic traits than by demonstrable additions to, or modifications of, our stock of substantive (or methodological) knowledge.