Upload
vernon-james-greene
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Mexican Revolution
Enduring Understandings1.International conflict often leads to domestic changes.2.In times of crisis, people often turn to strong leaders in search of stability.3.Conflicts of the 20th Century were rooted in political and ideological differences around the world.Agenda1.Core self-assessment – review articles 1-5 and the comments, review the rubric, then assess latest article. Write a list of the changes you need to make2.How have you researched? Do you have books, magazines or journals, and databases? Have you cited all phrases and content borrowed from other sources? Have you avoided wikipedia and sites like ask.com?3.Questions about India and Southwest Asia4.Mexican Revolution
1. Historiography2. Timeline and analysis
5.Level 1 and 2 activities. Begin preparing for level 3.
Historiography: How has the Revolution been studied before?
Orthodox View (ca. 1930-late 1960s): Revolution was a mass, unanimous uprising; peasant v. small
number of exploiters Regime of the 1920s was a populist, nationalist regime Despite emphasis on peasant movement, mostly Top-Down Myth of the Revolution – supported by the government, 1930 Notable purveyors of this view: Frank Tannenbaum, Robert E.
Quirk, Charles Cumberland
Historiography (cont’d)
Revisionist View (1968-1970s): There really was no revolution – it was just a political
‘shuffle’ of elites or just a ‘great rebellion’ Just a change from one dictator (Diaz) to another
(Calles/Cardenas) As revision develops, studies moved away from Top-Down
and focused on the social movements (e.g. Jean Meyer’s La Cristiada)
Development of the Microhistory (e.g. Paul Friedrich’s Agrarian Revolution in a Mexican Village and *Luiz Gonzalez’s San Jose de Gracia*)
Notable purveyors of this view: Ramon Ruiz, Jean Meyer
Historiography (cont’d)
Post-revisionist view (1980s-now) Synthesis of the orthodox and revisionist views Revolution was first and foremost a social
movement Regional perspective is key; generalisation must
be carefully constructed Continued debate over top-down (e.g. E Krauze) v
bottom-up (regional microhistorians) Notable purveyors of this perspective: Alan Knight,
Linda Hall, John Womack, DA Brading
Historiography (cont’d)
Top-Down v Bottom-up Who was more influential: the leaders or the masses? Cannot understand the revolution looking only at the
leaders – it was a social revolution Yet can still learn a lot about the revolution from the
careers of the leaders – especially leaders such as Villa, Madero, Zapata, Obregon, Cardenas
We will be looking at these leaders
Radicals/Revolutionaries v. Reformers
What is a Radical/Revolutionary? Can be divided into 2 groups:
Agraristas – groups led to revolt due primarily to agrarian grievances. Thus, main goal was agrarian reform (e.g. Zapata)
Serranos – groups led to revolt due to threats to way of life, varied based on region. Main goals included autonomy, political control, cultural independence (e.g. Pancho Villa)
Both groups have common ground: they entered into revolution due to expansion under the Porfiriato
Radicals/Revolutionaries v. Reformers (cont)
What is a Reformer? Working through governmental or legal institutions
to bring about change After the Armed Revolution, succession of
Presidents who attempted to institutionalise the revolution through reforms
Types of reforms depended on the President – e.g. Obregon – political; Calles – cultural; Cardenas – socio-economic
Can a Reformer be a Radical? Are all Revolutionaries Radical?
Causes of the Mexican Revolution
Reign of Porfirio Díaz Ruled as a dictator
“New Creoles” Modernized Mexico Masses suppressed
Working class wages declined
95% of rural population did not own any land
Mestizo population grew rapidly after 1850
Porfirio Díaz (1876-1910)
Start of the Revolution
Election of 1910 Francisco Madero ran
against Díaz Díaz had Madero
arrested on election day Madero called for Díaz to
be overthrown Movement supported by
peasants and the middle class
Díaz forced to resign in May 1911 Francisco Madero (1911-1913)
The Revolution Spreads
Madero was unprepared Lack of land reforms led to
open rebellion Emiliano Zapata
“Land and Liberty” Pancho Villa
Madero was overthrown by General Victoriano Huerta in February 1913 Madero was eventually
assassinated
Pancho Villa Emiliano Zapata
Mural to Zapata in Cuba
The Revolution Continues
Huerta was opposed by a coalition led by Venustiano Carranza (top), Alvaro Obregón (bottom), Villa, Zapata, etc.
Huerta was overthrown in 1914 Carranza appealed to masses
Mexican Constitution of 1917 Villa and Zapata continued to rebel
until 1919 and 1920 Carranza was overthrown in 1920
Replaced by Obregon (1920-1924)
Women in the Revolution
Intellectuals Called for equal rights, women’s suffrage, and
other reforms Often endured threats, imprisonment, etc.
Soldaderas Served as nurses, cooks, foraged for food,
washed clothes and other services Served in the rebel army and the federal army
Women Soldiers
Aftermath of Revolution
Over one million people died Revolution lacked a plan, a philosophy,
intellectual leadership, or political parties Farming, ranching, and mining economies
were destroyed Oil industry improved during revolution
No major bank or newspaper survived
Constitution of 1917
Conferred strong powers to the president Laid basis for land reform
No major redistribution until 1934 Government ownership of mineral and water
resources New labor laws
No major labor laws until 1931 Placed restrictions on the church and clergy
Church went on strike in 1926
Aftermath Continued
Alvaro Obregón (1920-1924) Built schools and encouraged nationalism
Diego Rivera
Mexico becomes a single-party system Party of Revolutionary Institutions (PRI)
Dominated politics until 2000
Lázaro Cárdenas (1934-1940) Redistributed 45 million acres of land
253 million would be redistributed by 1984 Promoted economic nationalism
Nationalized railroads (1937) and oil (1938)