Compare And Contrast The Plan Of Ayala

The image of a somewhat cohesive revolutionary party working towards peace put forth by Womack draws a stark line between the “bandit” enemy described by General Huerta and the Zapatistas. Brunk, in his writings on Zapata, challenges this narrative by exploring the gray space that does not allow for easy delineation between revolutionaries and bandits. Rather than existing as an arbitrary offshoot of Zapatismo, “banditry represented the pursuit of local political (and economic) goals” (Brunk, 349). Womack does acknowledge the “insoluble village rivalries that only compromise could ease”, but does not relate them directly to feuds involving bandits (Womack, 233). The nature of local politics was arguably defined by the multiplicity of intrinsic power struggles over local democratization.

To what extent was Mexico’s independence from Spain a “full-scale assault on dependency”? This essay will investigate how the Mexican independence from Spain was only slightly a “full-scale assault on dependency”, due to several political and social conflicts. Firstly, Mexico remained a monarchy (but not under the control of Spain) after the insurgency. Secondly, there was still an official state religion in Mexico. Another reason is because social conflicts reduced the desire for independence .On the other hand, it assaulted dependency because there were some changes within the social hierarchy, and because Mexico was free from Spain.

The economic and political systems was not part of something they all came into an agreement for many years. Some of the challenges that happened was the laws over the church power and and land ownership. Benito Juarez was a assimilated Indian, took office, making changes for Indians. Over the the time the nationalist produced a strategy that came from both the Spanish and Indian traditions. This helped build the growth of nationalism. Everyone was getting along because there were threats from outsiders that made them become closer. What they did since they didn’t want war, they created borderlands, inviting non-Mexicans to join them. The reason why Mexican wanted to this was because they wanted more white people to offset the Indian influence and others just wanted a new society modeled. A lot changes and experimentation with nationalism occurred, some people didn’t agree and stood against it but other wanted to change things and wanted something new. There was always arguments because the nationalism programs wanted to grant citizenship to all the people that were in the Mexican territory. Overall this process of trying out nationalism was a disaster, Mexican leaders rushed into making new programs but they didn’t take in consideration peoples choices.

Mexico was building up to its revolution long before activists like Francisco Madero and Emiliano Zapata. From 1840 to 1910; Mexico went from a war-torn and newly freed nation to a nation on the brink of civil war. How did it get there? Through a series of wars, leaders, and policies, which proved causation politically, socially, and economically to the Mexican Revolution.

During the “Cry of Dolores” Hidalgo challenged the undermined population to rise up with all of the power that they have to fight against the dominating

Cervantes, on the other hand, has a different perception of the revolution - which seems nobler and greater - until we learn about its shortcomings on a practical level. He pointed out that the revolution, which was "bound to win", was meaningless if Mexico is going to fall again "in the cluthces of [its] eternal opressors, excecutioners, and caciques." Cervantes believes that he and Demetrio and his men are "the tools Destiny makes use of to reclaim the sacred rights of the people", and that they should be "fighting against tyranny itself" for principles and ideals. On a rhetorical level this view seems sound and virtuous. However, the foreboding dark consequences remain discernible.

The Mexican American movement for equality can be divided into two parts in the struggle for equality. First, the 1930’s-60’s can be characterized by: attempts to integrate into Anglo-American society, and earning rights via legal channels. The second part begins in 1960 (with an indefinite end point), this is the Chicano Movement, and it can be characterized by: defiance of US culture, and earning rights via direct political action. Each movement provided its own set of costs and benefits – the former being ‘low-risk, low-reward’, while the later can be seen as ‘high-risk, high reward’. This paper will explore each movement in order to better distinguish them from one another, and to analyze which, in the long run, proved to be more effective.

The people that Demetrio represent are evident in the people that comprise his army, as well as the rare souls like Luis Cervantes. Cervantes, man who was well off to begin with, but later lost his fortune to the government. He quotes “Before the revolution, I had my land all plowed, see, and just right for sowing, and if it hadn’t been for a little quarrel with Don Macio, the boss of my town, Moyahua, I’d be there in a jiffy getting the oxen ready for the sowing, see?” (pg. 48) Luis Cervantes explains his cause when he says “The triumph of our cause, which is the sublime triumph of Justice, because our ideal-to be free the noble, long suffering people of Mexico-is about to be realized and because those men who have watered the earth with their blood and tears will reap the harvest which is rightfully theirs.” (pg. 69)

However, the story of the Aztec defeat and the successful resolution of the Spanish mission against incredible odds raises many questions. Regardless of more advanced technology and weapons, the Spanish force was vastly outnumbered and began a military campaign poorly supplied within an unknown territory against an unknown enemy. This paper explores the possibility that other key factors were at play, which provided the Spanish with a several of advantages and facilitated the successful resolution of their campaign. Furthermore, these factors allowed for an incredibly quick and effective subjugation of millions of people – considering that by comparison it took hundreds of years to expel the Muslim armies from southern Spain, a war ending in 1492 and in which many conquistadores fighting in the new world took part of. This paper will argue that internal religious quarrels, unsustainable tax obligations, and continuing military conflicts weakened the Aztec social fabric by increasing resentment among subjugated towns and cities and diminishing trust among Aztec citizens in their highly centralized government.

Juarez passionate side was seen in his efforts to advocate for the poor and needy. His intention to bring about a form of social equality was his main objective. Not notably successful in his legal campaign to make the lives of the poor easier, the self-effacing attorney now realized that only structural alteration of the system could affect the changes he envisioned, and his liberalism strengthened. (330)

On January 1, 2004, over one thousand people in the mountain hamlet of Oventic, Chiapas, celebrated the 10th anniversary of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) rebellion with song and dance. Thus, it seems a fitting time to take stock of the successes and failures of the Zapatista movement in the context of its original goals. While the EZLN has been able to establish thirty eight autonomous indigenous communities in Chiapas, it has failed to weaken the Mexican government's commitment to neo-liberal economic policies. In the following pages, we will explore those factors which enabled the Zapatistas to establish regions of autonomy and extrapolate from Theotonio Dos

An interview given by Diaz in 1908 was read by Francisco I. Madero and he was inspired to gather supporters to defeat Diaz in the 1910 election. In the interview Diaz said that he thought Mexico could handle free elections by 1910 (Summary 4). Madero was a strong believer in democracy and realized that Diaz had a monopoly with the government. Madero thought that Diaz should step down from office (Consul General 1-2). By the time 1910 came around Madero had inspired many citizens and had quite a group of followers. His chances for election were very good and Diaz got scared. Right before the elections in 1910, Diaz falsely accused Madero and had him thrown in jail. Diaz is once again elected as president. Madero was soon released and, learning of Diaz’s reelection, he fled to Texas (Summary 4). While there he stated that the elections were illegitimate and that he was the President Pro-Temp until new elections could be held (Consul General 2). He also wrote a document, which called for a revolt on November 20, 1910 which marks the start of the Mexican Revolution (Summary 5).

Even after hundreds of years, the Mexican Revolution remains an important mark in Mexican politics. Adams believes Carlos Fuentes is trying to say in The Death of Artemio Cruz by saying this,

The end of the 20th century is coming to close, and all of the sudden all you here is a group called the Zapatista Movement. The movement was recognized all over the world in a matter of a day January 1st of 1994, the indigenous farmers of southern Mexico took arms and declared autonomy from the Mexican State. This radical uprising was in response to the globalization and free trade agreement, more in particular The North American Free Trade Agreement that was in effect on January 1st of 1994 as was the movement. The Zapatista Movement response to the Free Trade Agreement was the people wanted land, liberty, and the ability to alter their own future as they please. However, the Mexican Government wouldn’t allow it, which gave rise to the Zapatista

The Mexican Revolution was one of the great revolutionary upheavals of the twentieth century and had a profound impact on the development of Mexico well into the modern day. The revolutionary period itself can be split into three distinct stages: First, several factions united behind Francisco Madero in order to overthrow the dictatorial government of Porfirio Diaz. When Madero’s government appeared to maintain the status quo set forth during the Porfiriato period, however, the same forces that brought Madero to power rose up once again to remove him. Finally, the remaining factions, no longer possessing a common goal to unite them, turned on one another in a fight to establish dominance. At the end of this bloody period emerged a new triumvirate: