Interest and Ideology in the Study of Agrarian Politics
Guatemala or Cuba in the 1950s; to Vietnam or the Dominican Republic in the 1960s; or to Iran or Nicaragua in the 1970s. Broken into its component parts, the quotation elucidates several interesting themes. The U S. will trouble a landed class, if trouble means the midwifery necessary to bring forth a capitalist baby from a feudal womb, especially when the alternative is a Communist caesarian. A peasant is conservative not because of some inherent predisposition, but because of the interests that motivate him: small-holding farmer interests beget conservatism. Last, a land system controlled almost exclusively by fourteen families (as in El Salvador) begets revolution of the wrong kind. The U. S. is in the business of fomenting revolution of the right kind: breeding capitalists like little bunnies. The case happens to have been El Salvador, and this case also happens to have certain interesting characteristics. In addition to those mentioned above, it possesses a very poor and largely illiterate peasantry that until recently seemed caught up in a web of patronclient ties that hamstrung peasants and defeated radical organizers.
Book Review: Rethinking the Revolution
ever, attempt to systematically integrate class structure, the organizational capacities of agricultural producers and the consequences of these for class struggle in the countryside. Jeffery Paige’s Agrarian Revolution does precisely this. In this work Paige advances a theory to explain the consequences of agricultural class structures for social movements in less developed nations. His analysis explains why some class structures are subject to revolt or revolution, while others produce only reform. He elaborates his theory with a statistical analysis of social movements in 135 &dquo;export sectors&dquo; in seventy less developed nations and with detailed case studies of rural revolution in Angola, Peru and Viet Nam.
Cambodian refugee health care beliefs and practices.
Since 1975, when refugees from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia first began coming to the United States, many articles have been written about Southeast Asian or Indochinese refugees and health care. A careful review of the literature shows that most of these articles have one thing in common: they are written primarily about Vietnamese and do not address the unique health care beliefs and practices of Lao or Cambodian refugees.1 Although some beliefs and practices are common to most Southeast Asians, many are not. Understanding at least that differences exist, and hopefully what some specific differences are, will allow nurses and others to give better care to the various people commonly grouped together as Southeast Asians. This article will introduce readers to some Cambodian beliefs and practices related to health care. Of the principle refugee groups admitted to the U.S. since 1975, the Cambodians are presenting the greatest challenges to health care providers. Cambodians are usually poorly understood by Americans, their health status statistics are hidden among the broad category of "Asian-Pacific Islanders" or "Indochinese Refugees," and cultural and institutional barriers combine to make access to care an overwhelming problem. The end results, of course, are more problems and more expense for the Cambodians, increased stress placed on an already terribly overstressed people, and ultimately greater demands and expense placed on the health care system. One of the most common misunderstandings about Cambodians is that they (and Lao) are basically the same as the Vietnamese. "They speak the same dialect don't they?" There are some similarities, but there are also very significant differences.