Essay on Zapatista Movement in Mexcio

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.

In this paper, I will be summarizing the following chapters: Chapter 3: "A Legacy of Hate: The Conquest of Mexico’s Northwest”; Chapter 4: “Remember the Alamo: The Colonization of Texas”; and Chapter 5: “Freedom in a Cage: The Colonization of New Mexico. All three chapters are from the book, “Occupied America, A History of Chicanos” by Rodolfo F. Acuna. In chapter three, Acuna explains the causes of the war between Mexico and North America. In chapter four, Acuna explains the colonization of Texas and how Mexicans migrated from Mexico to Texas. In chapter five, Acuna explains the colonization of New Mexico and the economic changes that the people had to go through.

The logos used in this book are through politics. Urrea makes clear that it’s Mexico's blame for putting people on the "devil's highway" through corruption and dense politics. But he also shows how misguided the United States policy has been. The author describes the conditions and historic events that lead to the beginning of the illegal immigration into the United States and draws a clear parallelism with our times, when there are several tasks in the United States that Americans are

Agricultural subsidies is a very complex and controversial economic topic today. It will continue to be a hot topic as government continues it. It is largely debated in the United States as well as in other countries. The reason it is so largely debated is because it literally have an effect on the entire world market. Not to mention that the farm has been booming the last 5 to 10 years. This topic also tends to draw strong opinions in our area in particular due to the large agricultural community in our region. However, even within different states there are many supporters as well as opponents to these government subsidies.

In Harvest of Empire’s “Mexicans: Pioneers of a Different Type” Juan Gonzalez outlines how Mexican descendants contributed to U.S. prosperity and culture. Gonzalez’s assertion is that the Mexicans and their culture have been in the United States long before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the establishment of settlements and trade along the Rio Grande by Mexican pioneers, and the important factor Mexican-American workforce had in the nation. He supports his argument using historical records, individual’s stories and local papers. Respectively, Gonzales provides information that Mexicans greatly affected the economic uprising and culture of United States across the border.

Since labor unions in Mexico were originally formed in the early 1900s, they have maintained a unique system of collaboration and collusion with the government of Mexico. Though many may refer to their system as one of “corruption,” it is a system that has become so deeply imbedded in the relationship between labor unions and the government, that it is now a well-understood unofficial network. Over the past 20 years in Mexico, a great deal of progress has been made toward the liberalization of the Mexican markets. Previously government-owned companies have been privatized, foreign investment has boomed, and a once one-party system has just recently

Mario García’s study of this era could also be considered prophetic to many Mexicans in the mid-nineties as the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed, it sank México’s economy, lands that the Mexican revolution had provided for farmers were gone, and as México was now obliged with treaty to buy produce from the United States. Mexican farmers unable to compete fled México once again in search for a better life to the United States.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which came into effect on 2 February 1848, ended the Mexican-American war and formally resolved territorial disputes resulting from that conflict. The treaty required the U.S. government to pay the Mexican government $15 million dollars, this in return for an expanse of territory that later became the states of Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of Utah, Nevada, and Colorado. I intend to argue that the treaty benefitted the people who inhabited, and later came to inhabit, that territory. I also propose that, as a result of the transfer of territory from a dictatorial regime to one that was based on democratic principles, both Mexico and the United States ultimately benefitted in several ways.

The defeat of the Native Mexicans (or Aztecs) can be believed to have verified the Spanish that they had political and social superiority over all Indigenous Americans. However, the idea of superiority is subjective and the views of both parties involved about the colonisation of New Mexico will be noted. Although the Aztecs of Tenochtitlan were conquered by Hernando Cortes and his Spanish army there is a great amount of evidence to support the idea that it was not a simple feat. In the case of Cortes’ conquest we are offered the opinion that the Spanish were justified in colonizing and dominating Mexico. In saying that, the views of the Aztecs of Tenochtitlan and other surrounding Aztec societies should be taken into consideration when assessing the validity of the previous statement.

The book chosen for this analytical report is A Glorious Defeat: Mexico and its War with the United States by Dr. Timothy J. Henderson. Dr. Henderson is currently the Department Chair, for the Department of History at Auburn University Montgomery. Dr. Henderson’s specialization is in Latin American History, concentrating heavily on Mexican and U.S. – Latin American relations. Dr. Henderson has majored in Latin American Studies for both his Master of Arts degree and Ph.D. studies, and has eight different awards and honors throughout his career. He has written over 10 publications, with his latest being released in 2011. Dr. Henderson is currently researching the several aspects of Mexican migration to the United States.

Mexican immigration has impacted many important components here in the United States of America (U.S.) and in its major institutions of society. In the following paper I will be focusing on the nature of social policies (or the lack thereof) that Americans had developed with respect to Mexican immigration by 1960. Specifically this paper will be detailing six different areas: the Mexican American War, Anti-Mexican American violence, Texas, the Great Depression, the Bracero program, and documented versus undocumented status. Each of these areas will be explaining the mistreatment that Mexicans encountered because of the nature of policy enactments by

The first elements Zuloaga points out is that “the protection of the Mexican cultural industry never came up”. (Zuolaga,2001) Indeed, the NAFTA agreements made between major world powers, it is expected that many will question the validity of these agreements on an equality scale for Mexico, known as a weak country on many levels.

The article, “Displaced People: NAFTA’s Most Important Product”, written by David Bacon for North American Congress on Latin America, discusses how economic crises have caused Mexicans to be displaced. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has caused the price of crops in Mexico to lower so much that there are no economic benefits from planting them. There are around 500,000 indigenous Mexicans from the state of Oaxaca now living in the United States as farmworkers. The article states that between 2000 and 2005, the countryside in Mexico has lost a million and a half jobs. This causes indigenous Mexicans who relied on planting crops to make money to migrate to the United States. Families that cannot migrate to the United States and are now jobless will go hungry as they search for buyers to buy the crops they grow. While the crops they grow continue to lose money value, the price of the food that they need to survive keeps increasing. After Mexico adopted NAFTA, the price of tortillas has more than doubled and companies continue to monopolize tortilla production. Poor Mexicans are left with no ability to make money and

Patel concludes that these systems favor the consumers rather than the producers. He uses Mexican corn as an example. The price of corn in the Mexican market collapsed due to U.S imports. The U.S corn farmers were significantly subsidized by their government, and the poor Mexican farmers had no way to compete. Patel accuses America of using its economic and political power to strong-arm Mexico and other countries under the guise of free trade agreements. With all of the evidence Patel presents on this topic, any reader would have a difficult time disagreeing with this assertion.

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