Mexico’s Once and Future Revolution by Gilbert Joseph and Jürgen Buchenau.
A terse commentary on my Facebook landed on May 5, 2023: “Cinco de Mayo is NOT independence day in Mexico.”
I knew that.
The independence of Mexico from Spain occurred in the early 1800’s and a few icons come to me: the Virgin of Guadalupe and Father Hidalgo. I knew who Santa Ana was and I have had since childhood a romantic historical appreciation for Benito Juarez who was the iconic head of the Mexican Government in conflict with the invading French during the 1860’s. He was the only president of Mexico with brown skin, reflecting his indigenous roots. These people pre date the Revolution. When Mexicans talk about their Revolution, they are talking about something that started in 1910. We Americans know virtually nothing of this and so…..here goes!
The Mexican Revolution was and is incredibly complicated and does not lend itself to an easy understanding or time line. In fact, my Spanish teacher (Maeve who lives in Merida) confessed that she could not follow it when in school. It was a mess.
I have impressions which follow after long slow read.
Mexican culture from the beginning has been very different than that in the USA. Two reasons stand out: the Spanish brought Feudalism to the New World and the native population, traumatized after the conquest, lived with this political/social/economic system for centuries. Indigenous culture survived in Mexico amongst much of the population in a manner that finds no real parallel in the United States unless you consider the state of non-integrated blacks who while not indigenous, lived their own versions of serfdom as an underclass on the periphery that has obvious repercussions (as they do for the indigenous and poor in Mexico) to this day. The Spanish abused the native population but did not attempt genocide or keep them ostracized from the general society of the nation as we did with our own indigenous people in the United States.
Mexico, like most Latin nations in the Americas, upon getting independence from Spain had conflicting ideologies that see-sawed their way through the decades —and now centuries: a “liberal” philosophy along the lines of those formed by the French Revolution and definitely influenced by their neighbors to the North and those of a “conservative” outlook characterized by the concentration of wealth in landowners, other wealthy or titled citizens, linked with the Catholic Church, an inherently conservative social force in Mexico. We in the US have always had conservatives and liberals, but the wealth distribution has mingled amongst them. There was never a dominant church to throw in with. In the mid 18th century, the catholic church owned half the land in Mexico!
With an eye on our current political situation—-the power grabs and conflict between liberals and conservatives caused great upheaval and conflict which came to a close with the ascension of a powerful leader, Porfirio Diaz. He was a “benign” dictator who helped develop the infrastructure of Mexico along the lines of those found in countries of the first world. Business was nurtured. Railroads brought the country together. “Order and Progress” was the over-arching theme to his focus and in schools, the physical sciences were emphasized while the humanities mostly ignored. The country’s resources were mobilized. The middle class grew as did the influence of large developing cities. The political machine helped reinforce the rule of Diaz and with time, it became a gerontocracy that did not always consider evolving trends: while the middle class grew, its wages were constantly eroding. People with degrees could not find employment as foreign experts were often brought in to help with development. Discontent was rife and with an economic downturn starting in 1905, a disunited and heterogenous group of society’s members organized and ousted Diaz who fled to France.
Mexico’s revolution is unusual in that there was no Che, Lenin, Mao, or Washington leading the charge. This revolution was fragmented with many groups knowing they wanted change and who constantly negotiating and renegotiating alliances. For example, the educated class had leadership that conceptualized the revolution as a means to assume national power on the foundations of the modernized state Porfirio Diaz had helped develop. Consistently found and unrelated was unrest among the poor —a majority— mostly subsistence farmers proclaiming their need for a better life. They were suddenly connected to a modern world they could not relate to and their revolt(s) were in effect, striving to be left alone with the pattern of life they had grown with. That got complicated: liberals wanting land reform would, for example, want to expropriate land from large landowners and give it to poor people. Many poor people had a relationship with the church and landownders which in turn allowed them to farm as serfs. The change proposed was not trusted (with good reason as such efforts over time have found large companies mostly owning farmland in Mexico). Names familiar with us in the US were in conflict and mostly died violently, sometimes fighting each other. Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata are most iconic and while celebrated nationally now, at the time, they were regional players.
The disaffected all had their own needs and proposals. The poor of the South (Zapata) and North (Villa) were not aligned nor were the disaffected middle class and intellectuals from the cities. The international political efforts found socialists and communists gaining traction but these never truly took in Mexico, just as they did not in the United States. This stew of people wanting change but with no consistent view of exactly what they wanted in essence showed that Mexicans still did not think of themselves as such—they thought locally —not unlike the USA before the Civil War (after which we stopped thinking of “these United States” and spoke of “the United States”. More conflict evolved with well intended people getting in the way of each other. Liberals intending to help bring campesinos up out of poverty through education outlawed religious schools and put restrictions on the power of the church. 80,000 deaths would flow from the Cristero rebellion in Southern Mexico which found rural Mexicans fighting for Christ against the “atheists” in the national government. The Mexican Revolution (along with the world wide flu epidemic) would see one million dead out of a base of 15 million population (6.5%). This compares to a 2% loss of life in our civil war. This left its mark.
An old phrase: “Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States.” Woodrow Wilson in the setting of World War I would land troops in Mexico twice. His was an effort to save Mexico from the Mexicans. His effort did help provide a basis for unity among the disparate war lords and political elements in this fragmented country. Of interest, the United States would later, when things stabilized, react economically to the nationalization of the oil industry. This was rhetorically blended with fears about creeping socialism, but the events tell a different story. The American interests that owned the oil companies resisted a labor union effort (guaranteed in the Mexican Constitution of 1917) to raise wages and their legal fight over this went to the Mexican Supreme Court which sided with the Unions. The companies refused to comply and the nationalization was on as an issue of sovereignty. It remains a unifying and popular measure in Mexican History. The American businessmen perhaps thought the US Government would intervene militarily as it had in the past, but it did not. Economic warfare, however, did and the revolution moved on. The Peso was devalued and the world wide depression bit even further in Mexico.
The Revolution consolidated itself through attrition. More leaders were shot down. There was a more radical group that negotiated a few things for a new constitution: limited power of the church—-the state was the ultimate owner of all land and could use it for public utility—and from this breaking up haciendas and only allowing Mexicans by birth or naturalization to own land. The eventual constitution enshrined the right to organize, bargain, and go on strike. The eight hour day and a mandatory day off a week were enshrined nationally as was a minimum wage, overtime pay, equal pay for equal work, and safeguards to prevent the exploitation of minors. Nice principles, but did these right actually take hold? As in the USA, not always (the 13th and 14th amendments in the US constitution followed the Civil War but despite the clarity of the outlined rights, were often ignored locally as well as nationally). The president overseeing this constitution would be assassinated by his main general (Obregon) who would assume leadership of Mexico. With this, a measure of stability came and the Revolution was no longer an active scene of warfare.
Mexico would have its own Roosevelt who is still admired to this day: President Cardenas: Cardenas adopted Roosevelt-like approaches to communication in the 30’s with radio chats. He addressed the poor with efforts like state sponsored telegrams for everyone once a week. He positioned young loyal officers in the army as old officers retired stepped down; his voice was associated rhetorically with revisiting the revolution for the oppressed and poor. He spoke the language of social liberalism while managing a right of center economy. He was in conflict with previous administrations who tended to follow conservative business lines but would tolerate strikes so long as they were non violent. He could lever this against political enemies. Like Roosevelt, he consolidated power and communicated effectively with the masses —he remains larger than life with a cult status that approaches that of the soldiers Zapata and Villa. His personality and genuine commitment to social reform helped the nation even as time and the world economy along with Mexico’s, struggled. Cardenas’ political party became the PRI —a party system/political machine that dominated for decades.
Today there is a national Mexican identity that did not exist in 1910. And typical of this country’s history, there is a powerful undercurrent of culture that is not middle class —as we know it —and which has emotional attachment to sentiments and feelings that are often fragmented while being unified by the images and beliefs of that revolution. The Mexican Revolution remains unique in Latin America where “every major social transformation has been inextricably linked to popular [mostly] rural upheavals.”
Comments