The Successes and Failures of the Zapatista Movement Essay

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.

The Mexican American War began on April 25, 1846. The war lasted two years losing many men on both sides. The Mexican war was the third major fought by the United States. In 1810, Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla triggers the beginning of Mexico’s fight for independence from Spain. Mexico gained its independence in 1821 after a long and bloody revolution against Spain. For Mexico, the war between them and the United States was a fight to keep their institutions and national integrity intact, to protect themselves from present and future aggressions by the Americans, but more than anything else, the war was a struggle for land. In the early days of the republic, most Americans made their living by farming, so in 1803

The Mexican American war was greatly beneficial to the U.S., but was it worth the cost of nearly 38,000 lives? The war lasted two years, with America emerging victorious and taking more than half of Mexico’s land. Although the conflict resulted in the U.S. gaining her most valuable land, nevertheless the war itself was unjust due to a multitude of reasons, such as the unwarranted Texas revolution, the selfish belief of Manifest Destiny, and the illegitimate intentions of President Polk.

After the age of enlightenment, colonies and nations around the world began questioning their rulers and ruling nations. Liberal and nationalist ideas spread across Europe and the world, especially after the French Revolution. When these beliefs spread to the colonies of America, independence movements and revolts occurred. The Latin American revolution and Haitian revolution were both significant events during the 19th century that affected both their respective nations and the world. While both revolutions resulted similarly such that a social hierarchy based on race existed after independence, they differ in that while the Latin American revolutions placed an emphasis on ending the Spanish casta system, Haitian revolution was based on freeing slaves.

The Mexican Revolution was the culmination of a mass of political, economic, and social tension that accompanied the regime of the dictator Porfirio Diaz. The Revolution began with the aims to overthrow Diaz, but the Revolution had a pronounced effect on the organization of Mexico's government, economy, and society.

With Madero’s efforts he was able to become president but was assassinated by a team put together by Victoriano Huerta. “Two Mexico’s” was addressed when the Revolution was sparked and taken control by Venustiano Carranza part of the constitutionalist army and Emiliano Zapata which whom will be under credited for their efforts in the future. They took Huerta out of power in 1914.

During the Mexican Revolution there were many prominent figures that emerged during the long struggle. Some of the figures had a positive impact on the region, and some others a very negative impact on the people of Mexico and their quest for an uncorrupted government. One figure that stands out in the border region between Mexico and The United States during this time is General Francisco “Pancho” Villa. To understand Pancho Villa’s significant role during this uprising it is important to understand who Villa was prior to the revolution, and what acts lead to his rise to power.

The Mexican government were seen as not knowing what they were doing, especially after them gaining independence from Spain in 1821 because the Mexican leaders lacked experience in politics, on top of being a nation that had deep-rooted connection to Spain’s ideologies rather than that of their own. While the United States thrived from the time of its colonial origins, for Mexico to modernize after gaining independence meant breaking its structures, destroying old institutions and building new ones whilst juggling an aggressive neighbor who eagerly sought more land. By putting into context the origin of the soon-to-be-at-war states, it is easier to comprehend why holding aggressive nationalistic behavior was the norm with the United States when they decided to take on its southern neighbor as the state’s population started to expand increasingly. The origins of the United States shows the attitude of “us versus them”, where Mexico’s top officials and administration were seen as incompetent and trickled down to its

     The factors that started the Mexican War lay heavily on American shoulders. Whether if the factors were created by social, political or economical needs, they have all become the center of attention for the question of being a national interest or disgrace. However, the Americans felt that they existed for “…spreading the blessings of peace.” according to Andrew Jackson. There will always be controversy between the two sides of this matter, the Americans who feel that it had to be done, to the Mexicans who felt that it was an injustice done to their nation.

Dr. Henderson’s purpose for writing A Glorious Defeat: Mexico and its War with the United States is to explain the causes of Mexico going to war with the United States in 1846, and the reasons Mexico suffered severely from it. Dr. Henderson’s focus throughout the book is not solely on the military tactics, but rather on the political and diplomatic maneuvering. This approach to the book is to provide to the reader the conflict’s real significance, as to the how and why the United States and Mexico went to war. This book does not point blame at either side, but tells the war from the Mexican point of view. Furthermore, Dr. Henderson explores Mexico’s weaknesses at the time and how those weaknesses led to the war with the United States.

Models for post-revolutionary Latin American government are born of the complex economic and social realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. From the momentum of the Enlightenment came major political rebellions of the elite class against entrenched national monarchies and systems of power. Within this time period of elitist revolt and intensive political restructuring, the fundamental basis for both liberal and conservative ideology was driven deep into Latin American soil. However, as neither ideology sought to fulfill or even recognize the needs or rights of mestizo people under government rule, the initial liberal doctrine pervading Latin American nations perpetuated

Diaz used this philosophy to make reasons for his policies. Diaz kept his old slogan "liberty, order, progress", but, the word liberty was removed from the slogan. Another slogan "few politics, much administration” also became common and popular. Foreign firms began to invest in Mexico because it became more structurally and economically stable. These investments gave Diaz the money he needed to construct highways, railroads, telegraph lines, and new industries. The city of Veracruz used the money to create oil fields, and elsewhere the mining industry was brought back. Mexico, fifty years before was seen as a third-world nation, became the standard for developing countries because of its high tech industry and technology. Although these were all big steps for Mexico's economy, in the end it was responsible for the bringing down of Diaz. (Encarta 98, www.eh.net.htm)

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.

Throughout its history Mexico has had many revolutions. The most famous perhaps is the Mexican Revolution from 1910-1920. The people of Mexico were getting tired of the dictator rule of President Porfino Diaz. People of all classes were fighting in the revolution. The middle and upper classes were dissatisfied with the President’s ways. The lower and working class people had many factors such as poor working conditions, inflation, inferior housing, low wages, and deficient social services. Within the classes everyone was fighting; men, women, and children all contributed to the fight for freedom from Diaz (Baxman 2). This revolution proved to be the rise and fall of many leaders.

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: