Zapatista History

They fought with the Mexican government and won their independence but the Mexican government didn’t

The revolution in 1836, “introduced new ways of doing things, a new language, and a new socioeconomic and political order” (p. 169). Americans always believing in their white race superiority, brought with them a clear racism sentiment, seeing dark skinned people as inferior.As a consequence of these racist ideas, “Harassment and persecution appeared as daily occurrence” for Tejanos people simple because, “they were Mexicans” (p. 170). The abuse was extreme that many Texans decided to flee with their families to other states in Mexico. Then, Squatter occupied the land left behind, invading Texas and the Anglos increasingly invaded the state of Texas until arriving at a point of consider “banishing Tejanos form the Republic” (170). Another conflict point was that Mexican-Tejanos were always against slavery, but for the Americans, slavery was an essential part of their economy. Tejanos frequently help slaves to scape to Mexico; then, as a way to avoid this situation, “The town of Seguin drafted resolutions prohibiting Mexican peons from entering the country and forbidding Mexicans to associate with blacks” (p. 171). In other words, Mexicans would not have the right stay in the land, which for years, belonged to Mexico. Discrimination was getting worse, and Tejanos continued to lose their land, persecuted for crimes they did not commit, and often executed without a reason. The truth was, “These violent attacks were but an extreme form of racism that frequently surfaced in every day affairs”

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 people got tired of it so they had the U.S. Military to respond with action the people New Mexico thinks the tribe should be punished for their actions.(smallbone)

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.

The Mexican revolution was a long and costly battle among several factions for agrarian reforms that ultimately radically transformed Mexican politics and society.

Mexican American struggles in the United States date back to the Spanish discovery of the New World in 1492. For over five hundred years, Mexicans have endured social injustices and inequalities at the hands of their superiors. The mistreatment of the native people of this land is constantly overlooked for "…the

Mexico’s problems originally began upon the arrival of the Spanish in 1492, as illustrated in Major Problems in Mexican American History by Zaragosa Vargas as well as in the video documentary, Chicano!. The sequence of events which date back to the precolonial Spanish days and take place in Mexico’s history eventually provoke the national movement that called for social justice and equality, especially after the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Then came the question of group and individual identity. Those of Mexican heritage were broken up into the groups "Chicanos," which were the ‘Americanized’ Mexicans or the Mexicans born in the United States, and the actual

In the Shadow of the Mexican Revolution by Hector Aquilar Camin and Lorenzo Meyer tells a chronological story of contemporary Mexico from the fall of Porfirio Diaz in 1910 to the July elections in 1989. The time period that Camin and Meyer portray in Mexico is one of corruption, civil war, and failure. While Mexico would undergo an era described as the “Mexican Miracle” where the Mexican country would begin to see a positive output in the country, it would be short-lived and Mexico would continue to fall behind as other countries progressed. While In the Shadow of the Mexican Revolution is comprised of facts throughout history, one cannot help but feel a sense of sympathy for Mexico. While their corruption, political, and economical,

Mexican Americans took movement, defined and took pride in their own identity, asserted their civil rights, worked toward self-determination by improving their financial, social, and political circumstances. “Similar to other movements of this period promoting civil rights, the Chicano movement made society aware of the injustices suffered by Mexican Americans in the United States and spurred social change”(Ramirez, 2011). “The Chicano movement, also known by Chicanos as El Movimiento, was a cultural and political movement that raised awareness of the history of Mexicans and/or Chicanos in North America. The origin of the term “Chicano” is not known, and its definition varies, yet it has been proudly reclaimed by Americans of Mexican ancestry to emphasize their descent from colonial projects. The movement has been analyzed in three parts: the struggle for restoration of land grants, the appeal for Mexican American farmworkers’ rights, and the demand for equal access to empowerment via education and politics”(Ramirez, 2011). A group of Mexican Americans attempted to reclaim federal land during the 1960’s in the United States. Mexican Americans based their actions on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Which was signed in 1843 by the United States and Mexico to end the

One of the first things that Cárdenas did after his successful campaign was to cut his own presidential salary in half, and this was only the beginning. After he had successfully developed his presidential role he turned against Calles completely and had him and many of his cronies deported to the US, at great popular support of many in the Mexican population who had been victim and seen the destruction that this long held post revolutionary cronyism had upon their once hopeful nation. (Knight 1990) Cárdenas also eradicated capital punishment, becoming one of the first nations in the world to do so and certainly one of the first in North and South America. Cárdenas successful presidency, elimination of much of the political cronyism as well as social policy changes also created a reasonable end to the revolutionary skirmishes that were still taking place more than 20 years after the beginning of the Mexican revolution in 1910. His partnership with the dominant political party, PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional) helped end a substantial amount of violence and social confusion, almost absent of revolutionary bloodshed. (Bantjes 1996, 62-64, 69, 96, 192)

Despite the fact that government’s announcement to amend the constitution came in 1992 which was a big issue for the indigenous population, and that they had been experiencing other hardships throughout history, the EZLN did not explicitly make indigenous rights a part of their platform until a year later (Hayden 12). Part of the reason that the Zapatistas adopted this movement could be to gain a stronger support base. The 1990s had already proven to have put emphasis back on questions of indigenous rights back in the minds of people. In 1992 a movement in Latin America took place called the ‘500 Years of Resistance” and author Rigoberta Menchú, who came from an indigenous working-class background, being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize that same year (Ross 146). It makes sense then that the EZLN would adopt indigenous rights as one of their objectives. The EZLN did not shed their aims of wanting democracy and their nationalistic tone, but instead started to frame some of these sentiments from an indigenous viewpoint.

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

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.

In the mid 20th century, Colombian politics were dominated by the Liberal and Conservative parties with fierce supporters that carried out the ideological and social differences into violence. Jorge Eliecer Gaitan, a popular leader of the liberal party in Colombia launched social, economic, and political modernising reforms in the 1930’s. Gaitan was in the process of converting Colombia into a left-wing country when he was assassinated right before an upcoming presidential election. Gaitan was the favorite to represent the Liberal Party and was going to implement a more Liberal system in Colombia. The reaction to this assassination produced an uncontrollable clash between