In Venezuela, Colombia and Mexico, a recent book tour by historian José I. García Hamilton, the author of Simón -- a critical biography of Bolívar, the ''liberator'' of Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia -- has sparked a major historical debate in the media.

What is going on? Why are historical books drawing so much interest in Latin America, when today's crises in the region are as dramatic -- if not more so -- as many of the distant past? During a recent visit to Miami and in a subsequent telephone interview, I asked these questions of García Hamilton, an Argentine academic who had previously written a bestselling biography of San Martín.

''There are two reasons for this sudden interest in history,'' he answered. ``First, people are disheartened by the lack of progress in our countries, and for Latin America's relative backwardness in the 20th century. So people try to dig into their roots, to find out what is the reason behind our stagnation. The second reason is that, at a time of globalization, when we hear around the clock what is happening everywhere, people want to know what has happened in their own village.''

Question: But didn't they already learn that in school?

Answer: They feel that the history they learned in school was very childish. We got mythology, rather than history, in our schools. Latin American textbooks talk about the heroes of the 19th century as if they had been semi-gods. In Argentina's elementary schools, we used to learn that all the clocks suddenly stopped ticking when San Martín [the liberator of Argentina, Chile and Peru] died. In Santa Marta, Colombia, I heard the same story told about Bolívar's death.

Q: Why has history been taught that way?

A: In many cases, it was part of a ''patriotic education'' campaign that started in the early 20th century, and was aimed at integrating the children of immigrants. So, in our textbooks, the generals of the independence wars were turned into model citizens. Virtually all these military men are presented as generals who died poor.

Q: Didn't they? Did corruption start back then?

A: San Martín died much richer than he had been born. In fact, he died very rich, because the governments of Buenos Aires, Mendoza and Chile gave him big properties, and Peru gave him a life pension. [Chile's liberator] O'Higgins got two big ranches in Peru as a present from San Martín. And Bolívar, who was born rich, died rich. He may not have died richer than he was born, but he didn't die shirtless, as the myth says. Perhaps somebody gave him a shirt as a present, but he certainly could afford buying a shirt.

Q: Were these independence heroes democrats, or dictators?

A: All of them were democrats in their youth. They were republicans, followers of the principles of the French Revolution, and most of them were Franc Masons, who believed in science, philanthropy, tolerance and progress. But later, after they liberated their countries, all three became dictators.

Q: Bolívar, too? Didn't he once criticize San Martín, O'Higgins and Mexico's Agustín de Iturbide for becoming dictators?

A: Yes, that was in 1823. But in 1827, Bolívar will follow their steps. When Bolívar goes to Bolivia, he writes a constitution and proclaims himself ''president for life.'' Later, when he wants to become ''president for life'' of Greater Colombia, and Vice President Francisco de Paula Santander tells him that that wouldn't be legal, Bolívar responds in a letter that ''this may not be legal, but it is popular, and thus appropriate for an eminently democratic republic.'' And he turns himself into a dictator in 1827.

Q: Were these independence heroes different from U.S. independence heroes?

A: There was a big difference. In part, it had to do with religion. The Catholic religion made people more submissive [in Latin America]. The Protestant religions tended to place a greater emphasis on individualism. The British colonies of North America had a democratic tradition since 1620. The British governor had a veto power on economic issues, but most other decisions were made by local assemblies. In Latin America, we had assemblies named Cabildos, too, but they were less democratic. Their members were not elected by the people, but by departing members.

Q: When exactly did Latin America's authoritarian tradition start?

A: Latin America was settled at a time when the power of the Spanish crown was at its zenith. By comparison, the British pilgrims arrived in the Mayflower at a time when the British monarchs had been steadily losing power to the British Parliament for four centuries.

Q: Does that mean that Latin America is condemned by history to have an authoritarian streak?

A: Not at all. Argentina between 1853 and 1930 showed that it could be a wealthy and democratic nation. Costa Rica has been enjoying growth and democracy for 50 years. And postwar Spain and Italy have shown the same thing. Countries can change, and they often do.