The Mexican Revolution of 1910 - Essay Example

Mexican Revolution of 1910 Part terms ‘I obey but I do not comply’ is a common phrase that was originally used in Spanish America during the time that the Latino nations were under the colonial rule of the Spanish. This phrase was used to highlight the attitude of the local people who were employed by the Spanish rules to implement their laws, regulations and policies. Though the crown may issue a directive, they are only under the obligation of obeying it but are under no pressure to follow or implement it. The first viceroy of New Spain demonstrated the application of the phrase by failing to implement a law that had been passed due to fear of a revolt within the mining industry. Cult of personality is the emergence of idolization of an individual due to the emergence of a heroic perception towards them based propaganda, flattery or even unquestionable praise. In Venezuela or Cuba, the cult of personality is predominantly witnessed on the manner in which the mainstream media highlight the leadership of the country. For example, Simon bolivar is idealized and compared to Jesus due to his accomplishments as a freedom fighter during the revolutionary movements in Latin America. The Cristero was commonly referred to as la Cristiada was a popular movement that was witnessed in Mexico in an effort to counter the anti-clericalism movements in the country. The implementation of the Mexican constitution in 1917 had a significant role in initiating the war against the then president Elias Calles. Though this revolution attempted to reduce the influence of catholic faith in the country, it has less impact as compared to the Mexican revolution of 1910 (Gonzales 129). Mexican revolution of 1910. Introduction On 20th November 1910, Mexico witnessed the genesis of one of the most significant movements in the history of the country during the 20th century and beyond. This was the first violent revolution to ever occur in the country after the invasion of the country by colonialists of European descent. Though the country witnessed a revolt during the fight for independence from 1810, the magnitude of the 1910 revolution was massive and new. The fight for independence which ended in 1821 is had minor impact on the low class, instead benefiting the ‘Criollo’ or the Spanish upper class. By 1910, more than half of the Mexican population belonged to the mestizos or low class half indigenous-Spanish Mexicans, a situation that perpetuated the revolt (Madero). Background of the revolution Despite the progress made from the independence struggle, a majority of Mexican were not satisfied with the level of resource allocation and access to economic opportunities. Instead, a few members of the ruling class controlled the resources of the country with an attitude similar to the Spanish rulers. The land and natural resources were managed in an approach similar to the feudal land system, otherwise known as the la encomienda in Spanish. The people required a modern system which granted hard working people access to the benefits of the land. One of the major immediate causes of the revolution were policies adopted by the government of Porfirio Diaz, a career general who had seized power in 1876 and gone on to rule the country for more than three decades (Johnson 69). During his presidency, he initiated a number of liberal reforms which opened up the Mexican economy to foreign investment. Among these was a restoration of order in the country after years of turmoil, although this was done in a manner which denied Mexicans their rights as well as freedoms. Investors mainly from the United States, Britain, and Germany established themselves in Mexico and this ensured that there was an increase in investment in infrastructure as well as industries (Harris and Sadler 2). However, Diaz did not put the poor people into consideration in his policies and under his rule; they had become nothing more than slaves. Mexico under Diaz was dominated by a small landowning class which kept peasants tied to its land through provision of meager wages while at the same time not allowing them to own the land that they worked. While attempts had been made under previous presidents such as Benito Juarez to towards land reform, Diaz reversed this progress and instead adopted more repressive policies towards peasants to ensure that they remained tied to the haciendas. Therefore, when he ran for president in 1910 and rigged the elections in his favor against the more popular Francisco Madero, the peasants and members of poorer classes in Mexican society rose up against him believing that ending his rule was the only way to achieve social justice (Clayton and Conniff 285). The beginning of the war can be attributed to two great figures, Francisco Villa that came from northern Mexico and Emiliano Zapata, a member of the southern revolutionary movement. Zapata believed in the introduction of social reforms into the country through the Agrarista system that was captured in the land and freedom motto. According to Zapata, the lands in Mexico should belong to those who work on them, with major benefits enjoyed by the laborers as opposed to the members of the elite class (Madero). Porfirio Diaz was president of Mexico during the Mexican revolution and was blamed for adopting non constitutional approaches in the implementation of his ideals. The uprising was thus begun on the premise of restoring constitutional rule and eliminating the dictatorial leadership of Diaz that had crippled the country for over 30 years (Creelman 27). Course of the Mexican revolution Upon receipt of Madero’s call, Zapata, southerner marshaled and brought together peasant farmers who had longed hoped for change in the land ownership system in the country. While Zapata was leading the revolution from the south, Orozco and Villa armed the people of the north, rallying over 3,000 men to rise against the rule of Diaz. Zapata began the violent revolution by castigating attacks on large haciendas owned by rich farmers and grabbed from the poor by Diaz’s friends and loyalists. The great army within the north also began their revolution by attacking federal garrisons in order to improve their arm base and skills in preparation of Diaz’s army. Though villa strongly believed in the restoration of Mexico and the creation of better and equal society, his colleague Orozco was a mere opportunist who wanted to capture the opportunity and ascend to state power (McCaaa 112). By 1911, the northern army had defeated the federal forces and this provided Madero with an opportunity to get out of exile and lead the revolution from the front. The end of May 1911 witnessed the end of Diaz rule in the hand of the three generals from the north whose strong leadership and army skills enabled them to defeat the federal forces. Following the defeat of the dictator, Madero became the president of Mexico but faced significant revolution from various quarters, including the remnants of Diaz and some of his former supporters such as Orozco. Zapata also realized that Madero was not interested in reforming the thorny land issue that affected the southerners, a situation that informed his decision to join the rebellion against Madero’s rule (Marcos 18). In the same way as Madero, Zapata penned down the plan of Ayala, in which he highlighted the need for removing Madero, implementing more effective land reforms and creating a just revolution. Madero was only left with Villa as his only supporter, though he never realized it and kept on advancing his forces against all his former allies. Though Orozco and Zapata were defeated, Huerta Victoriano decided to remove Madero from leadership, instead declaring himself the leader and executing Madero (Lets go with Pancho villa). However, the hatred that Huerta enjoyed from a majority of the Mexican did not allow him to enjoy the leadership of the country as the north teamed up and decided to overthrow his leadership. Villa and two other generals took up arms against Huerta, defeating him in 1914, giving room for Carranza to declare himself president of Mexico. However, Villa opposed his leadership from the beginning and launched a major military attack against his leadership, gaining support from Zapata. However, Zapata decided to take over Mexico and call for the formation of council to end the conflict and restore order. As a result, Eulalie Gutiérrez was named the interim president of the country and Zapata withdrawn his forces from the city to the southern states. However, the peace did not last for long as the different forces engaged each other in fierce battle, one that sucked the United States under the leadership of Woodrow Wilson to intervene (Creelman 62). End of the Mexican revolution Though the revolution came to an end in 1920, the leadership of the country was significantly shaken. The pioneers of the revolution died without making significant progress and achieving their goals. Zapata was killed in an effort to build more allies and expand his forces while Villa was driven into the wilderness after losing against Carranza. Obregon took over the leadership of the country and oversaw the first election in the country which installed him and ended the sporadic violence that characterized the country for over a decade. The election of Obregon marked the official end of the revolution though the country has continued to witness partial revolt and clashes. Despite the progress made in the development of the country and restoration of democratic rule, the army has continued to perpetuate the old age Spanish mentality of land grabbing. Today, the leadership of the country is facing criticism from the public due to widespread land grabbing and the spread of capitalism, motivated by the support from the United States leadership (Maria, Candelabra). This revolution has been viewed as a classical example of the ability of normal citizens to organize revolt against a government buoyed by the army and resources. This revolution has been equated to the drug wars that the country has witnessed in the recent past. Works Cited Clayton, Lawrence A. and Conniff, Michael L. A History of Modern Latin America. New York: Wadsworth Publishing, 2005. Print. Creelman, James. President Diaz: hero of the Americas. Texas: University of Texas. 1908. Print. Gonzales, Michael. The Mexican revolution, 1910-1940. Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press, 2002. Print. Harris, Charles H. and Sadler, Louis R. The Secret War in El Paso: Mexican Revolutionary Intrigue, 1906-1920. Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press, 2009. Print. Let’s go with Pancho villa. Dir. Fernando, de Fuentes. Revolution trilogy, 1936. Film. Madero, Francisco. Three Statements of Maderos Platform, Sept.-Nov. 1910. n.d. Web. Oct. 13, 2014. < http://college.cengage.com/history/world/keen/latin_america/8e/assets/students/sources/pdfs/54_plan_of_san_luis.pdf > Marcos, Keira. Tanged destinies: Latin America and the United States. Albuquerque, New Mexico: The University of New Mexico press, 2006. Print. McCaaa, Robert. Missing millions: the human cost of the Mexican. Minnesota: University of Minnesota population center, 2001. Print. Maria, Candelaria. Dir. Emilio Fernandez. Cannes international film festival, 1943. Film Johnson, William Weber. Heroic Mexico: The violent emergence of a modern nation. New York: Doubleday, 1968. Print. Zapata, Emiliano. Plans of Ayala. State of Morelos, 1911. n.d. Web. Oct. 13, 2014. < http://college.cengage.com/history/world/keen/latin_america/8e/assets/students/sources/pdfs/55emilianozapataplandeayala.pdf > Read More