Close to Home: The Mexican Revolution

      I’d like to jump ahead a couple thousand years from the Romans and take a look at a more modern example of cultural and political upheaval. The Mexican Revolution, which took place from 1910 into the 1920’s, was the first major national revolution of the 20^th century. Its beginnings were rooted in a meticulously orchestrated uprising of peasants in Mexico, led by Pascual Orozco and Francisco “Pancho” Villa in the north and Emiliano Zapata in the south, and was inspired by individuals who questioned the President at the time, Porfirio Díaz.

The main goal of the revolution was to acquire land rights for the working poor; the people working the fields to produce the crops that the land owners capitalized on. The slogan “La tierra es para el que la trabaja”, or “the land is for those who work it”, was an expertly phrased rallying cry for the majority of the population who worked their whole lives and still struggled to get by. It seems that a pattern is emerging; people don’t like when they know that those who have power who are supposed to be using that power to work for human rights and to create methods for aiding their citizens who are in need are also those who are taking advantage of the people who are suffering. It seems so simple, and yet for thousands of years there has been loss and bloodshed due to the fact that there are people who never have to work a day in their life who live like kings and people who work every day of their lives and live in destitution, or don’t live. Many revolutions in history have been fought over this common theme, and the Mexican revolution was no different.

Yet the Mexican revolution also bears a warning in how the next president of Mexico was chosen after Díaz was overthrown. After Díaz resigned and left the country, 2 of the next 3 Presidents were assassinated, and the third also fled the country. When a revolution turns violent, there is no stopping retaliation from your opposition. Díaz left the country in 1911, yet the violence didn’t for another decade or more. I’m not saying that voicing your opinion through force is never necessary; if your people are dying due to oppressive political regimes, at that point a violent revolution would be considered self-defense in my mind. However, in this case as in many cases, violence is often reciprocated, and though people would often die for their revolution, I believe that a just cause should only ever result in violence when all other alternatives have been exhausted. I’m not saying the revolutionaries of Mexico did anything wrong, as I’m sure the wealthy land owners knew there was a general distaste for the aristocratic class. I just thought it was interesting to point out that even though there was a new, democratically elected leader there was not peace, and considerable social and political change sometimes can take a while for people to understand. Not to mention there will always be the ancestry of those whom a revolution overthrew that will harbor resentment.

Other than the moral debate regarding when to cross the line from protesting to rebelling and considering the implications of crossing that line, what can we learn from the Mexican revolution? Well, as I thought I would come to notice, the pattern of class warfare leading to revolution is beginning to show. This usually only occurs when the majority of people are in the underclass, but generally speaking that is the case. I’ve also concluded that when people are given a position of power based on their actions prior to acquiring the position and what they said they would do while they hold it often contradict what they actually do while they have the job. This was the case of Venustiano Carranza, who was elected president after taking part in the revolution. However, he was a wealthy landowner who supported the revolution, and for some reason when he took office his actions didn’t align with the new Constitution of Mexico. This led to his assassination, but also inspired curiosity and perplexity as to what changed from the time he was elected to the time he was killed. Was there a genuine lack of ability on his end to surmount the old system and design a satisfying new system, or was there a genuine lack of desire and will? I suppose I will continue to wonder, but one thing is for sure; history has taught us that a leader will almost certainly disappoint at least half of the population they are leading, and sometimes they will disappoint a much larger percentage when they don’t seem to stand for the principles that they were elected because of.

Bibliography

"The Mexican Revolution: November 20th, 1910 | EDSITEment." The Mexican Revolution: November 20th, 1910 | EDSITEment. Edsitement!, n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2013.