What do you think was the true meaning of the Mexican Revolution? Consider the goals of different leaders - Madero, Carranza, Obregon vs Zapata and Villa. Were their interests aligned or not? Given your knowledge of the history of Mexico, to what extent was this Revolution rooted in the methods and policies of Spanish Colonial rule? What does the Revolution tell you about the relationship between the US and Mexico? Please write a thoughtful response. You do not have to respond to others, but please take time to read others' responses.
16 Comments
Cassis Schafer
10/18/2015 05:37:18 pm
The purpose of the Mexican Revolution was to establish a legitimate government and an overarching umbrella of ideas and values that both Mexico’s citizens and figures in power could agree upon for their government. Creating a “legitimate” government signified moving away from dictatorships, such as Diaz’s. The misaligned interests and goals of the various leaders inhibited the country from uniting peacefully and creating a standardized set of parameters for the government. Francisco Madero and Francisco “Pancho” Villa are two historical figures that further exemplify this idea. Madero was born into a wealthy landowning family in northern Mexico. His privileged background proved to be a barrier in gaining support and connecting with the lower class, as he was “unwilling to agree to any expropriation of people from his class” (The Storm that Swept Mexico). Conversely, Francisco “Pancho” Villa came from social violence and geared his resistance of the government through militarized tactics. Although both Madero and Villa originated from the north, Villa was characterized as one who “embodied the spirit of the northern states” (The Storm that Swept Mexico). In other words, Villa’s less than privileged background enabled him to connect with the people more so than Madero was able to. The different backgrounds of these two leaders informed which demographic their main goals and ideals were geared to; for the most part, neither Madero nor Villa were fully successful in transcending socioeconomic barriers that were so prevalent in Mexican society. In addition, the United States was a major influencer during the Mexican Revolution. They used their ability to give economic and military aid as an “in” to Mexican politics and foreign policy. Consequently, the U.S. channeled their influence and power through the various leaders that they backed up financially and military wise; the U.S. used their power as an “invisible hand” in maintaining control in the neighboring country. Many historians state that this historical time period initiated the codependent relationship between Mexico and the United States that still exists today.
Reply
Bella R.
10/19/2015 03:20:07 am
The purpose of the Mexican revolution was to establish a government that steered away from the dictatorial style leadership practiced by Diaz. The ultimate goal was to create a powerful government that meet the needs of all the people, but unaligned interests of leaders made it difficult for the desires of everyone to be fulfilled. For example, Emiliano Zapata (governor of Chihuahua and friend of Pancho Villa), cared a lot about his town, and fought to protect the rights of the indigenous people and their culture. He wanted to protect the interests of the people in his region whose land had been robbed in order to build haciendas where they were forced to work. As a result, he was a regionalist, or someone who did not believe in a central government. Obregon, in contrast, wanted to do little to advance the poor people of his country, both economically and socially. He strongly believed that the lower-class citizens where the cause of many issues in Mexico, and he desired power in the government solely for his own social gain. He was a constitutionalist along with Venustiano Carranza, in which the old hierarchical systems thrived and little improvements with taking back Mexican industry were made. Given such differing views of government, it was hard for these leaders to resolve the existing social and economic issues that Mexico faced.
Reply
Sara Muñoz Ledo
10/19/2015 12:07:10 pm
The Mexican Revolution was an attempt to end the repression under which lower classes had been living for almost a century. After fighting alongside criollos and mestizos for independence for eleven years, people who belonged in lower castas were forgotten. Though the casta system was removed, social hierarchies and inequalities remained. Thus began a poorly functioning government that failed to adhere to the ideals they preached. Very few people held riches, and the vast majority of those who did had lighter skin. People in power were corrupt and were only interested in benefitting the elite. This wasn’t always the case, there were good politicians like Benito Juarez as well. Nevertheless, the lower classes were rarely politician’s main interests. Even if they were, new reforms and laws weren’t always enforced. So, when they were given leaders like Zapata or Villa they jumped at the chance of being able to regain their lands. One of the men who were interviewed in the movie said the revolution sprung from need, not from courage and bravery. Unfortunately, the leaders of the revolution did not have the same interests. Zapata and Villa were similar, they came from the people and wanted to give their lands back to them. Madero and Carranza however, came from wealthy families and did not understand the needs of indians and people in the lower classes. Carranza was only interested in advancing his own career, and Madero refused to “betray his own kind”. The revolution illustrates the unbalanced relationship between the US and Mexico. It is astonishing how much power Wilson had over the Mexican government. He decided the country’s future based solely on things that would benefit the United States. When he decided that “removing Madero was better for US interest” he allied with Victoriano Huerta and killed Madero. However, Mexican economy was so dependent upon the US that little could be done.
Reply
nayelli
10/19/2015 12:46:06 pm
The Mexican Revolution was an attempt to establish a government that compromised all different views of the citizens and leaders in Mexico and that was tailored to the needs of all the citizens of Mexico. The recognition that the dictatorship under Diaz was not promoting the well-being of Mexico instigated the Revolution. In order to achieve this goal the leaders of the country would have to be willing to work together to form a conclusion for the government that was in the best interest of the country and the citizens. Their differing views instead created conflict that interfered with establishing a stable government. During this time, 2 different factions existed: the first alliance consisted of Carranza and Obregon who called themselves constitutionalists and the second alliance consisted of Villa and Zapata. While Villa and Zapata were loyal to the people, represented better circumstances for the poor and working class, and fought for ancestral claims to the land, Carranza and Obregon were unpopular with the citizens and were mostly concerned with the power leading Mexico would give them. These differing ideals and goals led to competition and prevented necessary reforms from being made. Carranza and Obregon were willing to do anything for this power which is how they gained the support of the US who ultimately tipped the scales towards them beating Zapata and Villa. The revolution is further evidence that the relationship between the US and Mexico is very one-sided. The main concern of the US in Mexico is how the US can benefit from Mexico’s resources. The US’s alliance with Carranza and Obregon against Zapata and Villa shows the disregard of the Mexican people and their opposition to a hierarchical Mexico. The revolution represented to newest development in the ongoing fight against the social pyramid that has existed in different forms since the time of the Spanish Colonial rule and in favor of better treatment for all Mexican citizens.
Reply
Max Gallivan
10/19/2015 01:22:44 pm
The Mexican Revolution was an attempt to create a more unified Mexico with a government that valued the needs of all of its peoples. Unfortunately, this was a very ambitious goal and Mexico did not know how to properly complete this task. This goal was so ambitious because of the centuries the caste system made it so there was an unavoidable division and each class had different visions of how Mexico should change, or not change. Additionally, every leader of Mexico had different opinions on how this goal should be executed. For example, Zapata was very eager to implement an immediate land reallocation, while Madero was hesitant to change the system that was already in place. This created internal conflict in Mexico because of how opposite certain leaders opinions were to each other. Zapata and Villa were far more concerned with creating better lives for the poor and the disenfranchised groups of Mexico. Carranza and Obregon cared more about obtaining power for themselves and for the overall power of Mexico as an independent nation. It was impossible to keep a stable and constant government when the views on how the country should be run were so different. Mexico’s relationship with the US was very unstable. Many Mexicans blamed the difficulties that Mexico was facing on the US taking a lot of their land. The US was a great nation to trade with, but the US cared more about trading possibilities with Mexico rather than the Mexican people. This is evident in America’s relationship with diaz. The US knew that Diaz was a dictator to the Mexican people, but the US ignored that and continued to trade with him. The idea of trading with the US was very controversial and created rifts between those who wanted to trade with the US and those who were against the idea. The Spanish colonies greatest impact on the future of Mexico was the creation of the caste system. Although the revolution abolished the idea of the system it was still very prevalent. The poor were still the Indians and the darker skinned, while the rich were the light skinned elite. The Mexican revolution was a necessary step towards a better Mexico, but the ideas of how it should be implemented were so different that it actually caused a tremendous amount of conflict.
Reply
Sammy Sklarin
10/19/2015 04:39:34 pm
The Mexican Revolution was a way for Mexico to try to get over what was done to their country during Diaz’s presidency. To do this, they would need to create a new, more stable government. However for Mexico, this was a very ambitious goal. After generations of an unstable, monarchical government system it was hard for Mexico to turn away from this. On top of this struggle, there was another struggle between individuals trying to lead Mexico to what they believed were better governmental systems. While Zapata and Villa were more interested in bettering the lower or working class, Carranza and Obregon were more interested in personal power and control. The fight between these groups instead of working on bettering the country turned out to be a big problem. Also, there was still a large discrepancy between the classes in Mexico. Ever since the Spanish colonial rule, Mexico was not able to pull the lower class out of the gutter. Instead, the higher class of landowners and Haciendados kept getting richer and gained more and more of a monopoly on the land as the years went by, forcing the lower class to work on their Haciendas in terrible conditions. Contributing to the instability of the country was the US who seemed to be taking advantage of Mexico for the good of the US only. The US had big influence in who would become the next leader of Mexico, and used this power for their own benefit. For example, when the US and Woodrow Wilson supported Villa for the presidency, he gained more traction and constituents, and later when the US turns against Villa and supports Carranza, the same happens for him. All of these factors combined made Mexico largely unsuccessful in creating a better government for the country.
Reply
Matt Kingsley
10/19/2015 07:14:02 pm
The meaning behind the leading forces of the Mexican Revolution was one common goal and that was to unify Mexico through a government institution. All of these powerful leaders, Diaz, Madero, Carranza, Obregon and Zappata, and Villa, disagreed on many points, some of which led to their downfall. The issue was that the legacy of colonialism and the caste system was too strong. For Diaz, he was dictator that appeased other countries like the US and France opening Mexico up for industrialization and foreign business, as called neo-colonialism. Foreigners gained huge influence in Mexico. Diaz also surrounded himself with cientificos, or his educated advisors, many of which were very rich. The cientificos had control over the economic policies of Mexico, ensuring their economic prosperity and diminishing the possible prosperity of non-European, non-elite classes. The primary economic issue in Mexico was land. As the revolution came reform was expected and many hoped the land would be returned to some of the original owners, however, the land and therefore the riches moved from the church to rich. The rich created a semi-feudal system called the Hacienda system. The poor worked on these vast areas of land and the owners felt most of the profit, not the workers. Even worse for Mexico, the US owned more valuable land in Mexico than the Mexicans. Madero, an opponent of Diaz, and the next leader, was brought into power wanting reform without a revolution. On key land reform, Madero did not want to move forward immediately, which lost him public support. Behind the scenes, the US’s power comes into play again. The Ambassador of Mexico, Wilson, did not see Madero as a fit leader and with the help of some domestic power pulled off a coup, putting Victoriano Huerta into power. He lost the power quickly with World War I, as his war partner Villa sided with the Germans. Villa and Zappata eventually won a Civil War after World War I, putting them in power, but neither of them wanted to lead Mexico. Carranza their opposition in the Civil War came to power and was backed by the US because the US wanted a stable and safe Mexico, being its neighbor.
Reply
Hugo Anaya
10/19/2015 07:21:36 pm
The purpose of the Mexican Revolution was to establish unity within the country by displaying a form of government that would exercise ideas and values that both Mexican citizens and high officials can agree on. This idea stemmed from the oppression of the Diaz's presidency that had run Mexico for thirty years and was perceived as a dictatorship. Because of Diaz, Mexico was unable to create a democratic government that would unify the people as a whole. Two historical figures that wanted to overthrow Diaz was Emiliano Zapata and Francisco Madero. Although they had different backgrounds they both wanted to end Diaz's dictatorship and implement a government that would benefit everyone. Madero, coming from a wealthy background, disliked the government run by Diaz and wanted to change it. Fortunately he lacked support from the lower class because of his different background that did not allow him to connect with the people. On the other hand Emiliano Zapata was a true representation of his people. He wanted to protect the rights of his people and bring back the land that was once stolen from them from the haciendas. When Madero became president of Mexico after overthrowing Diaz there was hope for a democratic country. Sadly Madero continued to oppress the lower class because of his unwillingness to support agrarian reforms that would give back the land to the peasants. Zapata was displeased by this because there was still some sort of dictatorship in the government. Mexico still endure socioeconomic and politic problems. At this time when Mexico was most vulnerable the US tried to interfere by supporting military and financial aid to groups that benefited them. The US ignorant of Mexico's problems wanted personal gain by controlling Mexico with an "invisible hand". This was said to be one of the main problems between the US and Mexico that would be kept with them till today.
Reply
Julia Nazario
10/19/2015 09:37:06 pm
The purpose of the revolution was to create a new, unified government in Mexico that had the peoples best interests in mind. The revolution was inevitable because Diaz ruled with "an iron fist" (The Storm that Swept Mexico) and many people in the country wanted him removed from power, however they went about this in different ways. This led to many different power shifts throughout the revolution. The revolution began in 1910 when Profirio Diaz's presidency was declared illegitimate, and Francisco Madero took his place. Unlike Diaz who ruled Mexico as a dictatorship, Madero wanted a democracy. However, Madero was overthrown by a conservative general named Victoriano Huerta who wanted to return Mexico to a system of order as it had been during the Porfiriato. After being forced to resign, Huerta was replaced by Venustiano Carranza. At the time, Mexico was very divided and so there two different leaders in Mexico; Carranza, and a peasant named Emiliano Zapata. Zapata allied with Pancho Villa who was a constitutionalist military leader, but they were ultimately defeated by Carranza. Carranza put military general Obregon in power as his minister of war, but Obregon revolted against Carranza which ended in Carranza's death, and Obregon's presidency. The United States had a lot of influence over Mexico and a lot of say as to who would be in power. For example, Woodrow Wilson supported Huerta and killed Madero in order to benefit the United States regardless of how this power shift affected Mexicans. Mexico depended on the US since the US economy was much stronger, and the US wanted to manipulate the Mexican government for profit. I think that the revolution was inevitable because Spanish rule in Mexico left a legacy of racial hierarchy which divided the country and left a large percent of the population underrepresented. The lower classes were willing to rally together and fight in support of Zapata and Villa because they saw an opportunity for their voices to finally be heard in society.
Reply
Reid Snyder
10/19/2015 09:40:47 pm
The goal of the Mexican Revolution essentially was to get rid of the effects and policies implemented during Diaz's regime. His was a dictatorial regime, and Mexico was therefore unable to create a truly unified country. The goal of the revolution was ultimately to attain some form of democracy, though there were different ideas on how this would come about. The two original claims to power were those of Madero and Zapata; the former being an upper class man, and the latter being a lower class man. Madero ultimately gained control, but didn't quite achieve the level of democracy that Mexico wanted due to his disconnection from the lower class in the country. The U.S. began interfering shortly afterward, when Wilson removed Madero and put Huerta in power. Villa and Zapata removed Huerta by means of a civil war, but did not want power, so the U.S. once again took action and implemented Carranza as the leader of Mexico, as his ideas were the most linear with what the U.S. wanted. Mexico's future was consistently guided by the U.S., creating a somewhat strenuous relationship between the two countries, as the U.S. kept trying to put up puppet rulers to best benefit itself.
Reply
Grace
10/19/2015 09:43:22 pm
Reply
Spencer
10/19/2015 10:08:50 pm
Mexico was still going through developments as a country and the Mexican revolution created a space for different groups and leaders to express their opinions on what their country needed. All of the leaders of the revolution would agree that it was time for Diaz to step down. The fight for power among each leader resembled high school drama; it included lies, backstabbing, and other disagreements. Each leader had their own opinions on what changes should be made and on the future of the Mexican government. Madero wanted free elections and wanted away with Diaz, but came from a prominent family and was not a man of the people. Although Zapata and Villa supported and followed Madero, they both came from the lower class. They both represented the needs of their people well, fighting for agrarian reform. Although they agreed on things like agrarian reform and a centralized government, their views on land reform differed resulting from their different traditions. Leaders like Huerta, Carranza, and Obregon did not think of the lower class and wanted to perpetuate the strict social hierarchy implemented by the Spanish colonialists. Although Carranza created new constitution that would aid the lower class, these reforms were never carried out. The Mexican revolution gave light to the differences between different groups of Mexicans and also how easy corruption could take place in the government. The revolution tells us a lot about the Mexican-American relationship. Due to Diaz, foreign investment was huge. Some might describe Mexico as a economic colony of the United States. The only reason why the US wanted to be involved in Mexican affairs was to protect their investments. It did not care about facilitating a healthy government that cared for its people, it just wanted a government that would do what was in the US's interest. The United States seems to have placed itself above Mexico and has promoted an unequal relationship that has lasted until today.
Reply
Seiichiro Nakai
10/19/2015 10:22:24 pm
The Mexican Revolution was an attempt to create a unified country with a strong government that was far different than the dictatorship that was created by Diaz. The revolution was a necessity for the people in order to gain power and remove Diaz from Mexican power. Diaz prevented the creation of a democratic government, which in turn made it difficult for the people of Mexico to be unified. Due to the impact of Diaz’s monarchical government, the idea of a new government was merely an idea, and never a possibility. Every leader of Mexico had differing visions on government, which made it difficult to create unity. For example, Zapata and Villa were focused on improving the lower classes, Carranza and Obregon were interested in personal power. Another prevalent problem in Mexico during the time was the difference in social classes. Even without the Systema de Castas, there was a clear difference in class and power. The powerful people were in the upper class and only interested in their classes well-being. It was difficult for the lower class to obtain power, which caused upper-class to gain more and more power. Carranza and Obregon came from upper-class, and didn’t understand what the lower-class needed to better their position in the social hierarchy. They were only focused on improving and empowering their own class. Another factor that caused the instability of the Mexican government was the relationship with the United States. The U.S. had a large amount of influence on who would become the next leader, and used this tremendous influence to benefit themselves. All of these contributing factors illustrate Mexico’s unstable government and show how the revolution for a better government was difficult.
Reply
Jesse R
10/19/2015 11:41:17 pm
Technically, the Mexican Revolution began to end the political turbulence and oppressive social hierarchy, but the results were a far cry from a solution. Despite the seemingly heroic intentions of each revolutionary leader, the lack of experience, understanding of, or commitment to the Mexican’s needs only prolonged the power struggle and corruption from the beginning of colonization. Especially with people like Diaz, Madero, Carranza, and Huerta, their backgrounds hindered their ability to bring about actual change. A few main themes re-occurred—racist and classist struggles, sensitivity to the US, and patronage politics. Of all the leaders, Zapata and Villa were the only two who appeared to consistently represent the people. In the other cases, the newly elected leader would ignore his previous stances on aggressive reform and instead maintain power and order. The cycle of corruption and power continued for an alarming amount of time. In the more ineffective regimes, the ancient castas system resurfaced. Meanwhile, the United States cared only about its economic opportunities in Mexico, as evidenced by Henry Lane Wilson’s support of Huerta’s coup. Ultimately, the revolution was a failure.
Reply
Kyndelle
10/20/2015 12:13:33 am
The overall goal and motivation for the Mexican Revolution was to topple the restrictive, oppressive Spanish (Peninsulare) hierarchy. The original message of Dolores to the small village was: “Will you free yourselves? Will you recover the lands stolen three hundred years ago from your forefathers by the hated Spaniards? We must act at once... Will you defend your religion and your rights as true patriots? Long live Our Lady of Guadalupe! Death to bad government! Death to the gachupines. ” The meaning of the revolution that was outline by Dolores in 1810 was announced to Mexicans in the midst of utter disarray. From that point, various leading men of Mexico took it upon themselves to execute what was told in El Grito de Dolores.
Reply
Jesse G
10/21/2015 11:19:35 pm
The goal of the Mexican Revolution was to escape the oppressive rule that had controlled Mexico for generations, and in its place to create a government that served the all the people of Mexico, regardless of race or class. However, this was very idealistic, and was not accomplished. One of the main causes of this discontinuity is the lack of uniformity and agreement among leaders of the revolution. While many leaders were passionate about reform and creating a "new" Mexico, few of them were on the same page. These conflicting visions led to a sense of disarray that blocked progress from being made. The attitude of a social hierarchy instilled during Spanish colonial rule was still ingrained into the minds of these Mexican leaders. They were separated mainly by their class; wealthy leaders such as Madero, Carranza, and Obregon did not see economic reform as a priority and therefore became disconnected from the public. Zapata and Villa, on the other hand, fought hard for economic reform and were the only leaders whose views seemed to closely align with those of the Mexican people. Even so, the chaos and disconnect between the leaders caused the revolution to be a failure. The classist roots of Spanish rule were too engrained into Mexico society for progress to be made so quickly. The United States benefitted greatly from Mexico's vulnerability. The U.S. used its power to influence the decisions of Mexican leaders to benefit their own nation. They manipulated Mexico in its compromised state in order to get resources and land for themselves.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorThis blog is a place for all of you to share, discuss and debate issues that emerge in this course Archives
October 2015
Categories |