Zapata and Agrarianism - Essay Example

9th June Zapata and Agrarianism Zapata was one of the leaders of Agrarian revolution. As the leader of the agrarian movement referred to as the Zapatismo, Zapata aim was to assist the peasant communities who were being oppressed by the landowning class who monopolized land and water resources for their own benefit. During his era, Porfirio Diaz was the dictator who led other landowners in oppressing the peasants. In his efforts to face off the oppressors, Zapata decided to take part in political movements against the landowning individuals resulting to the emergence of Mexican revolution in 1910. During the time of Zapata, economic system was entirely a feudal system (Womack 26). This included large estates referred to as haciendas. Through the dictatorship of Diaz, independent communities were forced into the debt slavery. During the 1910 revolution, Diaz was being threatened by many peasants as well as Zapata and Madero who aimed at achieving sustainable land reforms. As the result of corroboration between Zapata and Madero, their army captured Cuautia after fighting for six days leading to overthrew of Diaz in 1911. Zapata found himself under the leadership of Porfirio Diaz who was a dictator and thus in early days Zapata participated in political movements against Diaz. Zapata started a revolution in 1910 as a central leader of peasants and this lead to the fall of Diaz but after the revolution Francisco became the president and thus liberation army of the south being denounced. The political state of Mexico during the era of Zapata was not strong due to the inequality in land ownership as well as dictatorial government system that was adopted by Diaz. Diaz who rose to power in 1876 used a feudal system of the government. Diaz used his close allies and controlled much of the land by squeezing the independent communities and subjecting them to slavery. Due to the peasants being mistreated by Diaz, the economic state of the country was pathetic and slavery was the order of the day. Socially, the country used the chief elders who used to fight for the land reforms, since the community depended on agriculture for economic stability they valued land a lot and thus why Zapata campaigned for the rights of villagers to be issued with title deeds. The role of the peasants was to cultivate the lands and make them more productive. Zapata was fighting poor leadership under the President Diaz. The poor leadership according to Zapata and Francisco Madero was the source of land problems in Mexico. Zapata was fighting for the land reforms and this was the only issue that Zapata cared about since from the background he was a peasant farmer and majority of Mexico residents were peasant farmers. Through the help of Zapata, rebellious peasants and Madero they were able to overthrow Diaz governance in May 1911 at the battle of Ciudad Juarez. After the overthrew of the government, they formed a government and thus land reforms were made though Zapata was dissatisfied with the land reforms that were formed by Madero. On the other side, Madero did not believe on Zapata conditions of the land reforms and thus dispute arising between Madero and Zapata (Womack 19). Zapata was unjust because he disagreed with some things that were done on land reforms. Additionally, Zapata was unjust because he used confrontation method to solve a problem instead of using diplomacy. Diaz used dictatorship method to rule the people of Mexico and this displayed civil disobedience, on the other hand Madero was doing perfect and provided good things for the people of Mexico and this was the reason why Zapata did not know whether to support him completely. Madero did not show any criminal behavior in the entire leadership while Zapata displayed civil disobedience since though fighting for the Mexico people, he did not want to use dialogue or diplomacy means to settle the dispute that emanated. The basic philosophy that I can describe Zapata is that he was guided by thirst and driven by political powers since in all his endeavors he used to command what was to be done and even going to an extent of overthrowing the government. Through force means and revolutions organized by Zapata, he used to cause problems in Mexico rather than his intention to bring freedom to the peasant farmers who were enslaved during the era of Diaz. According to Zapata, he defined freedom as law and justice of the people of Mexico from enslavement and other atrocities associated with grabbing of the land that belonged to peasant farmers. According to Zapata, survival means the fact of continuing to live despite difficult circumstances for example during the revolution. Nationalism according to Zapata is an extreme form of patriotism and thus was marked by Zapata superiority over the other regions. Private property is the ownership of property through legal law by non governmental legal laws. Individualism according to Zapata is freedom of action for individual over collective control or being independent and self reliant in one endeavor. Individual ownership of property is how one controls or being independent to acquire properties while community value ownership means public control of property. Zapata could be considered as an agrarian based on his strategies to ensure that land among the residents of Mexico was equally distributed. For example, in 1915, he embarked on remodeling of Morelos including redistributing hacienda to the peasants while at the same time allowing the councils to operate their own businesses. After the peasants got their own pieces of lands, they did not engage in growing cash crops but instead they embarked on growing subsistence crops for example vegetables, corn and bean an aspect that led to increase in food production and low food prices. Another aspect that makes Zapata an agrarian was his leadership during the strategies by the villagers of Morelos in their efforts to recover the lands that were used to grow sugar canes. Through his efforts to provide assistance to the victims of agrarian revolution, Zapata played a major role in increasing food production in Mexico resulting to the improved productivity of the peasants. Despite the stiff resistance that Zapata experienced from Pablo Gonzalez Garza and his allies, I think he was successful. As initially indicated, Zapata aim was to protect the rights of the peasants against the molestation by the land owners. The humiliation of Gonzalez by Zapata attacks led to former being driven out of Morelos at the end of 1916. One of the key strategies that led to the success of Zapata was the assistance of allies from the northern region who were strong revolutionaries. Additionally, he embarked on uniting with the national anti-Carrancista movement thus making his organization to be strong. The success of Zapata was also based on his positive relationship with other peasant leaders resulting to the formation of Liberation Army of the South. As the leader of the movement, he ensured that land reforms were undertaken. Despite his death in 1919 after an ambush, the Zapatista generals implemented more land reforms that were planned by Zapata an indication that his goals remained in place even after death. According to my view, the most important limitation of Zapata as well as Liberation Army of the South was the death of Zapata in 1919. During the era of Porfiriato, rural peasants underwent a lot of suffering. This was due to the allocation of large tracts of land to foreign firms thus resulting to inadequate pieces of land. Despite the passing of land reforms law in 1883, significant amount of land was given to foreign companies and wealthy families an aspect that led to increase in the level of poverty among the peasants (Brunk 13). As the result, Zapata became focused at alienating the peasants from their poor status through the Mexican revolution. Having started in 1910, the revolution aim was to ensure that the peasant’s rights of landownership were fully implemented and the oppressions by the landowners totally eliminated. Zapata died just after nine years an aspect that was a blow to his movement. He was killed by General Pablo Gonzalez. During the ambush, Guajardo, one of his opponents pretended that he would join the Zapata’s side. However, during the meeting, Pablo men killed him. As the result, the strength that Zapata movement had was affected to some extent even though land reforms continued to be undertaken. One of the major lessons that we can take from Zapata as far as global issues of ecological justice is that if inadequate legislation and rules are not put in place, small land owners can suffer at the expense of estate owners. As the demand for food continue to increase globally due to the increase in population, it is essential that governments put in place adequate measures to curb land inequality. It is vital to note that as large land owners specialize in the production of cash crops and food targeting international market, peasants aim at providing subsistence food products that are consumed locally. By ensuring that peasants are provided with ample opportunity to cultivate their farms, the food challenges that the world is facing would be significantly reduced. In the developing countries where small land owners are many, food security locally would be enhanced if the government provides support to them in the way of subsidies such as low prices for fertilizers, loans and training. In respect to the new agrarianism in Portland or the United States, Zapata lessons teach as that land reforms are vital if the countries are focused at providing adequate food for domestic consumption as well as for export. The story of Zapata has positively impacted on my desire to advocate for land equality and ensure that small land owners are provided with legal documents that indicate they own their land. Even though Zapata used war to mitigate the oppression of large land owners, it is my view that violence should not be used to solve land issues. The conflicting parties should engage in negotiation in order to come up with a sustainable solution. In addition, Zapata story has provided me with the knowledge of land equality and government support as the key issues of attaining economic development. The current agrarian issues should be undertaken through effective legislation and policies instead on engaging in war and tribal violence especially in third world countries. Works Cited Brunk, S. The Banditry of Zapatismo in the Mexican Revolution. The American Historical Review. Washington: April 1996, Volume 100, Issue 2, Page 330. Womack, J. Zapata and the Mexican Revolution. New York: Vintage, 1968. Print. Read More