Category: Mexican

Films and movies are incredible creations that can inspire people, make people laugh, make people cry, and change peoples lives. That is because movies reflect everyday life, and people. However, Mexican people have always gotten the short end of the stick when it comes to representation and portrayal in Hollywood. When Hollywood first made films about Mexican people, in the 1940s and 50s, Hollywood directors created the Mexican stereotypes by grouping together different cultures in Mexico to create “Mexican culture” in films, and this stuck with Mexicans forever.

Mexicans in films are commonly reduced to “The Latin Lover,” “The Angry Latina,” “The Gangster,” “The Gardener,” “The Maid,” “The Rural Worker,” and “The Drug Lord.” These portrayals and stereotypes reduce Mexicans, and Mexican culture, in ways that are just not true. For example, the classic portrayal of Mexican women today is “the maid.” That every Mexican woman is a cleaning lady. There are many examples of this in movies and television. For example, in Family Guy, the character Consuela is a maid that does nothing but clean and speak Spanish.

Why are there so many bad stereotypes of Mexicans in the media? And why are they so harmful to the community? Stereotypes are repetitive and can be harmful in many ways. Hollywood does not capture the diversity in Mexico. Hollywood puts all Mexicans in a box, and we are all seen as the same person with the same intentions.

An example of someone who uses stereotypes in a harmful way is Donald Trump. Trump uses those portrayals and stereotypes as a way to make people scared of Mexican immigrants. Trump has gone on record saying that Mexicans are, “drug dealers, criminals and rapists.” Which are just some ways that Mexicans are portrayed in movies, television, and, now, presidential elections.

Even when television has a Latino/a actor, they are usually fair-skinned and have traces of European descent. But that is not always the case. In the movie, “Viva Zapata” (1952), a white person played the lead role of the historical figure, Emiliano Zapata. The actor was named Marlon Brando, and he did “brown-face” to play the role. However, the film was made a long time ago, and things have kind of changed, but we still see stereotypes from the 40’s and 50’s today. Danny Trejo is a perfect example. In most of the movies he has been in, he plays the role of a crazy killer or a bad guy who is very violent. He a law breaking badass in basically every role.

Hollywood has also created stereotypes for Mexican communities in America. Urban movies show poor Mexican neighborhoods that are filled with crime where kids are in gangs, always get in trouble, and struggle in school and are always getting in trouble with the law. Other times, movies will show Mexican culture as having large catholic families or are “illegals” who only speak Spanish.

Why are there so many bad stereotypes of Mexicans in the media? The only good Mexican stereotypes are that Mexican food is good, and Mexicans like to party and dance. Although times are changing, the change is very slow. Negative stereotypes are constantly being spread, while positive stereotypes are non-existent. Mexicans need to be more critical of Mexican portrayal in movies and television, because some people might think those stereotypes in the movie are true. Mexican portrayal fails to show the real side of Mexican culture. Mexicans need to be aware of how harmful these stereotypes can be because they don’t acknowledge diversity and are disrespectful to Mexican culture.

The 20th century marked turning points for many nations in terms of governance and governmental structure. Two nations that were no exception include Russia and Mexico. Both of these nations went through a revolution; Mexico in 1910 and Russia in 1917, which led to vast changes in their governments. Although the Mexican revolution resulted in a constitution and and outline for democratic principles, the nation quickly became a one party state. After the 1917 revolution in Russia, the Soviet Union was established and was structured to be run under single party rule via the communist party. Through new governmental set-ups, an authoritarian acting single party state emerged in both nations. The impact of authoritarian rule trickled down and had a vast impact on nationalism in both countries.

During times of authoritarian rule, leaders consolidate state control and focus on the larger function of government in the process. Until the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union in Russia, and until the year 2000 in Mexico, there was a single political authoritarian party in central control of each of these governments. In both of these nations, the government controlled most aspects of daily life, including, but not limited to, authority over food, military dominance and all branches of local governments. Each area of the government being so saturated with one party led to little opposition to the single party in these nations for decades. The Mexican and Russian people came to know no other government than the one under a single party and posed little resistance to their rule. Once the citizens of these nations got used to, and comfortable with, these parties and their over dominance in everyday life, they did not have the understanding that would lead to a desire for a more democratic system of government. For decades, the government took control, and the people did not worry about who would rule next or laws that should or should not be proposed. This complacency led to a cycle of nationalism within Mexico and Russia that advanced under authoritarian single party governments. The cycle kept occurring, and due to the authoritarian governments of both Mexico and the Soviet Union during the 20th century, nationalism rose sharply and led to further support of these authoritarian governments.

Some might think the Mexican government would be a complete democracy based on how it was laid out in the constitution of 1917. It would shock most people to hear that Mexico is not considered completely free, but only “partly free,” due to high levels of corruption within the government (Freedom in the World 2019). During the height of the 20th century, the Mexican state was developing through state-led development and an ISI model of trade in order to reduce dependence on other nations within their market. The Mexican government essentially controlled all aspects of the nation and did so under a single party rule. From the central government all the way down to local governments, almost every elected official was of the PRI party, and each was typically chosen as the sole candidate by the federal government. Due to this, local states were weak and relied on the central government for stability. There was little violence around elections, as the people were ignorantly content at this time with single-party rule and the circulation of elites taking power. As a result, military intervention becoming rare and was not often needed for internal conflict in Mexico. Regular presidential elections occurred every six years, and presidents could only serve one term, making elections seem fair and democratic.

Mexico spiraled more deeply into nationalism due to voting public that feared change.The PRI party kept getting elected at high margins until the 1990s, and they did not lose a single election between the revolution of 1910 and 1997. The people and the government were used to single-party rule, and when this changed in 1997, it permanently changed Mexican politics and government. Meanwhile, across the world in the Soviet Union of the 20th century, similar authoritarian trends in government were occurring.

Starting in 1922, when the Soviet Union was constructed, and continuing until 1990, the government was under a single party socialist rule. The government and the economy within the Soviet Union were highly centralized and under government control. For many years during the 20th century, the country was under the control of Joseph Stalin, and he further consolidated authoritarian rule. Even more so than Mexico, the central government of the Soviet Union during this time period was completely in charge of the economy. In relation to the economy, all aspects relied on the function of the central government (O’Neil 2018). The authoritarian one party state being so in control, and the Soviet people were, for the most part, completely reliant on authoritarian rule. This utter dependence on the government led to increased support, as the people within the nation saw that the stability of their lives was tied to the stability of the government. It was not until 1990 that the Soviet Union switched to a federal semi-presidential form of governance and attempted to transition to a less authoritarian regime (O’Neil 2018). During this time, the economy plummeted, and people’s standards of living, including life expectancy, decreased at an alarming rate (Mandelbaum 2019). The people feared a loss of stability within their nation and their lives. Causing great backlash, an increase in nationalism and vehement backing of the previous single party government.

Within all societies there is an ultimate justification of how the general welfare of the values and beliefs of the people should be maintained. Some governments are more actively involved with the direct lives of their citizens while others prefer to let lives play out with little government interference. One-party states emerge in societies in which traditional authority has been seriously weakened (Rothman 1967, 682). One-party states are those that are very actively involved in the welfare of their citizens and typically have a large role to play in constructing what their society will look like. When citizens of any nation revolt against the government, many times it will result in a change of governmental structure, this happened in the case with both Mexico and Russia.

A social revolution is more likely to result in a single party state at the end than a political revolution. This plays a large part in fact because when people of a nation are wanting social change, the government then gets more actively involved with society and the well being of their people. Thus, this creates a more authoritarian leadership style and begins to evolve around one party that shapes the society into what they believe is best for the people. When the citizens of Russia and Mexico in the early 20th century revolted for social change, it resulted in a single party authoritarian state, at an attempt to control and manage the ever disruptive societies. When recently coming out of a revolution as Mexico and the Soviet Union had experienced, a single party state can bring about stability. The stability comes about as the people of that nation no longer have to worry about who will be in power, what is being controlled by the government, and it is all simply controlled by one party. This leads to an increase in reliance on the single party, but also in increase in stability whereas the people know who and what makes up their central government.What typically follows these revolutions in addition to nationalism is modernization.

Modernization has always been seen as something to strive for within a society with limitless potential. This also depends on the forces that are present within a nation, “The forces of modernity could not have created modern nations unless there had been something there for them to act on, some ground in history on the one hand and human nature on the other,” thus, modernization alone is not what drives the nations forward that are seen today, but several key pieces. When people within a given society feel compelled to act upon something, bring about change, etc. they are usually pushing for a cause that they believe to be worth stepping forward for. The cause in which is uniting people brings forth nationalism and unity within a society followed by modernization. Thus, an increase in modernization does lead to a higher rate of nationalism typically as stated by Nodia. However, scholars typically down play nationalism and express that it mainly has negative connotations. Scholars state that nationalism clashes with modernity even though the two typically coincide with one another. However, this increase in nationalism and increase in modernity leads to more modern nations which also tend to have increased nationalism and more centralized governments.

With greater modernization occurring in Mexico and the Soviet Union after their revolutions, it condensed the central government into a stronger more centralized authority. When a nation is recovering from a time after a revolution they typically rely on stability and unity within the nation to prevent a similar instance from happening again. People grow attached to a strong national government and become okay with them controlling more aspects of their lives as it makes people feel comfortable and more at ease in their nation. However, the more reliant people come on their central government, the more power it gives to these authoritarian regimes. This increased reliance, also leads to the increased nationalism that is seen in both Mexico and the Soviet Union. This creates a cycle that allows for authoritarian governments to stay in power for decades as their support does not falter and the nationalism within the nation stays high. Especially in the Soviet Union, the cycle of authoritarian rule is still working today.

In 1991 when the Soviet Union fell and was replaced by the Russian Federation, there was the goal of a more democratic form of government. However, in 1999 starting with the reign of Vladimir Putin, the nation again went into their authoritarian cycle. Putin had a key goal of restoring the Russian state both at home and abroad, thus increasing nationalism within the nation as a result (Lanskoy, Myles-Primakoff 2018, 76). The nation evolved into a state where Putin’s party was the leading party in every election on almost all local and national levels. This increased the power that Putin’s party had within Russia and consolidated the authoritarian rule that began to re-evolve. Russian’s rallied around Putin and re-elected him at high margins multiple times, because they enjoy the united Russian presence that Putin pushes so hard to achieve. On the other hand, the cycle may have been broken within Mexico.

When Mexico began to elect political leaders on the national stage with a different political party than the reigning PRI, it chipped away at the authoritarian rule that had been in place for so long. The Mexican people still had large amounts of nationalism, however, they were now uniting together in hopes to have change and get out of their previously complacent government. One president since 1997 has been of the PRI party, however, he was democratically elected and not essentially chosen from a pool of political elites as the party had done for the majority of the 20th century. The Mexican people were no longer under the single party rule that they had fought to get out of and in 2018 elected their newest president in hopes of a new age of Mexican populism. Authoritarian rule it seems has left the central Mexican government, however, there is still large amounts of nationalism within the people and how they view their own democratic principles.

Lastly, both Russia and Mexico have seen their fair share of authoritarian governments and it changed their nations in many ways. The rise in authoritarianism that became ever so present in the 20th century within these nations resulted in higher nationalism in the countries and allowed for continued rule of single party authoritarian leaders. Although, this cycle continued for decades, it at least temporarily was toppled in both Mexico and Russia, giving hope that the harsh reign of authoritarian single party states can be changed around the globe.

A Maquiladora is a Mexican assembly plant that imports materials and equipment on a duty-free and tariff-free basis. Maquiladoras receive raw materials from companies in the U.S. to assemble and export back as finished products. Maquiladoras are generally owned by U.S. companies that are incentivized to build Maquilas in Mexican border towns in return for low-cost labor and savings .

The free trade agreement (NAFTA) was entered in 1993. This allowed Mexico and the US to import goods duty free processing and exported without tariffs. This is also similar to transport regulation policies have been followed in Canada and the US, later adopted in Mexico. Encouraging open and competitive markets in transport has enabled more efficient and better integrated services between countries.

In recent days, after Donald Trump was elected the President of the United States NAFT was under review and rumors of change flooded the media. Now importing and exporting is no longer duty free and exposed to tariffs which has decreased transportation between Mexico and the US. The combination of free trade agreement, inexpensive skilled labor, low landed cost and expeditious shipping once made Mexico a more enticing place to do business. Now more organizations are look to China for goods.

The new trade agreement called USMCA has encouraged Mexico to commit to recognize workers rights to collectively bargain and Canada, US and Mexico agreed to enforce rights recognized by the International Labor Organization. Tariffs still needs to be resolved for steel and aluminum imports from Canada and Mexico. The tariffs imposed on Canada has created issues in my 9-5 job when I am buying wire and cable for distribution to our customers. Organizations dealing with metals are forced to resource this material from the US or China in order to maintain market pricing and cost of transportation.

Maquiladoras trap clutches workers tightly. Some earned the same wages for years. The government subsidizes credit allowing purchases of appliances and simple houses. But the credit sinks them into debt they can never hope to repay. Teenage children don’t stay in school but are rushed into factories or join criminal gangs. Mexico will not build a middle class that’s big enough to grow to faster economic growth. Workers in Maquiladoras said it was like living in hell. One Mexican lady by the name of Alma Molina lived in Juarez Mexico gave a testimony explaining the conditions of her job at Clarostat. She made only $4.50 per 9 hour day. They were exposed to dangerous chemicals including phenol and epoxy resin with no masks provided. The chemicals irritated the skin. Her and few other people tried to form a union to help improve the working conditions but they were fired shortly after for trying to organize a union. She later started another job at Electro Components, a US company with a plant in Juarez, a General Electric Company. She was also fired from there because she was a part of a union at her job at Clarostat. Workers are often denied labor rights.

Many Maquiladoras workers have tried to escape the poverty of rural life in Southern Mexico by crossing into the USA. President Trump plans to build a wall which make it impossible for them to escape. Today the patrol on the US border has stepped up security to ensure they do not get in which forces the Mexican people right back to Maquiladoras jobs.

Corporation’s only priority is profit and this has caused numerous environmental catastrophes such as battery recycling operation in 1993. 6000 tons was left on the top of a hill, when it rained the poisons leaked into their drinking water which caused birth defects, learning disabilities and illnesses.

The working conditions in Maquiladoras is very unhealthy. The way people are treated in these factories is unacceptable. Sacrificing people’s health for low wages for company profitability is criminal. These factories need to be regulated and employees be protected and treated fairly. The Mexican people are not making enough money to live properly, the code of ethics needs to be instilled in these factories. Re-organization, regulation and workers rights need to be put in place in order for changes to occur in Mexico.

References:

1. https://maquiladoras-educateyourself.weebly.com/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquiladora#Globalization
3. https://socialistworker.org/2011/11/18/misery-of-the-maquiladoras
4. https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article24730981.html
5. https://books.google.ca/books?id=0I7CASWT9_QC&pg=PT132&lpg=PT132&dq=mexicans+opinion+on+maquilodoras&source=bl&ots=aqUFRXnltO&sig=ACfU3U368xA6OdDzY9oCkk8_PVDTeMykZA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHyZT8nfjgAhVI5YMKHbaVBeoQ6AEwCnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=mexicans%20opinion%20on%20maquilodoras&f=false
6. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/01/politics/nafta-usmca-differences/index.html

The term “family’ can hold a varying amount of significance and meaning to each of us. Personally, the term symbolizes the strong bond that I hold within my immediate and extended family and will continue to hold for as long as possible. My father migrated to this country to present his future family with opportunities that citizens are guaranteed, and for that, I am forever grateful. What my family has taught and given me is immense and irreplaceable. The love and support that I received as a child, it has aided me in the path on which I am currently on.

Our identities are comprised of diverse factors. These may include our national origin, ethnic origin, religion, race, and even nationality. My father was born and raised in Jalisco, Mexico on a ranch named Ojo De Agua. He grew up in a household of 11 members, the males tending to the farm (manual labor) and the females to the house (cleaning/cooking, etc). My mother was born in Reedley, California to Mexican parents and lived in a farming community. She grew up in a traditional Mexican household as my father did, just more Americanized. Growing up in a traditional Mexican household was quite an experience. My cultural traditions, religious beliefs, and even my ideologies were strongly influenced by my ethnic and racial origin. On my behalf, my ethnic and racial origin would be labeled as Mexican, my social race would be Mexican-American, and my religious affiliation would be Catholic. As a child, my family attended Spanish mass every Sunday. My parents were involved with our local parish and my siblings and I would attend bible study sessions after mass. When I was 3 months old I was baptized, at 10 I completed my First Communion, and at 16 I completed my Confirmation. The catholic church held an integral position of power in our household. My mother would always refer to the bible in times of stress or need and pray with us at bedtime. Socially I would classify my race as Mexican-American or Latina. Mexican shaped my identity and continues to this day. The history, traditions, language, music, and food create a vast culture in which

My father conveyed a strong sense of pride for his home country, yet he was so grateful for the chance to immigrate to the U.S. and live in California. This created a mixture of Mexican-American nationalism within myself and my siblings. I was so amazed at the country that my father had originated from and was immersed in everything that was tied to it. Yet, I was still a typical American child. Although my true Nationality is American, I do acknowledge the Mexican nationalism I hold within myself as well. I am conscious of the opportunities that being a citizen of the United States has given me, These include but are not limited to; free education, the right to vote, obtaining a driver’s license, the ability to receive aid from my university, and even the ability to live a life with no fear of immigration services deporting me.

Within the United States, Mexican people have been labeled as a minority group and equality has long been a foreign concept. Minority groups are usually at a disadvantage when it comes to living in our society. Whether it is our race, gender, or social class, minority groups are not seen favorably by the majority. Racism towards this group is rampant, especially in areas of the world where the white racial frame persists. I have overtly witnessed and experienced discrimination due to the fact of being Mexican. As a child, I saw my father be racially profiled, told derogatory slurs, and seen as less than for being of a darker complexion. In some instances, my mother told us to not speak Spanish and “act” as white children did. Discrimination and marginalization can serve as a hindrance to upward mobility and this has impacted my family tremendously.

However, as much as I can state that I am of Mexican background I do realize that my lighter skin color has given me more privilege than opposed to some of my family members, community, and even culture. I am white-passing and acknowledge that I have not blatantly been discriminated against. At times I feel like I am intruding on my own culture. I feel most at home with my Mexican family, but I don’t always feel connected to the greater Mexican culture. You have to speak perfect English or Americans think less of you. You also have to speak flawless Spanish or Mexicans will label you a ‘Pocho’, a white “washed” Mexican. No matter what I do/say, I might not please either side of the cultural divide. Nonetheless, the idea of race is simply a social construct and I must remind myself that the Mexican culture is my background and life.

When my father first arrived in America, his customs and traditions were easily maintained. However, after he got married to my mother, cultural assimilation soon began. They formed a blend of both Mexican and American cultures. We celebrate most American holidays such as the Fourth of July by enjoying hot dogs and fireworks, as well as Thanksgiving with a bountiful meal for all. We also celebrate Mexican Holidays such as Mexico’s Independence Day, Dia de Los Muertos, and Dia de Los Santos Reyes. My mother continues to cook traditional dishes that have been passed down through generations. Overall, My family’s assimilation would be more addictive than substitutive. Immigrants are expected, over an undefined period, to become like other Americans. Yet, my family continues to celebrate and focus on our existing culture as well as introduce and participate in the new culture which we welcome in.

In Mexican culture, sexism envelops a problem that is deeply rooted within our historical narrative. Machismo can be loosely defined as the attitude or conception that men are, by nature, superior to women. Women are expected to be submissive and cater to male figures. On the other hand, men are to be dominant and always keep the women figures in “place”. This rampant sexism in Mexican culture creates an atmosphere in which relations are based on power and ultimately reflects gender inequalities in our society. As young as I can remember, I was always told I had to learn how to be a good housewife for my future husband. I was taught how to cook basic dishes, do/fold laundry, iron clothes, and even keep quiet when male figures were around. This machismo culture is extremely detrimental to young women. It normalizes sexist remarks/behaviors, slut-shaming, homophobia, and a lack of emotional sensitivity.

When my father was only 16 years old, he and three of his brothers paid for a ticket to the trunk of a smuggler’s truck and were smuggled over the Mexican border. He was coming to this country to achieve financial success, as many immigrants do, as well as experience the “American dream” that many spoke of. He migrated to the central valley to live with a cousin of his and they both worked in the manual labor sector; sorting fruit in packing houses, harvesting produce/fruit, and working in construction. Through the years, the Hispanic immigrant population in the U.S. has increased tremendously. According to the Pew Research center, There were 56.5 million Hispanics in the United States in 2015, accounting for 17.6% of the total U.S. population (Hispanic Population in the United States, pg 3). This brings in the fact that many minority groups might soon be the majority within our country. Personally, this fact makes me and my family optimistic. Minority groups will finally have representation within our society and create a social/economic shift that better the lives of all.

Overall, the process of writing this has opened my eyes to the vast culture that I belong to. Being a Mexican woman is one of the main attributes that I am proud of. My parents allowed me to be immersed and loved by the colorful and immersive experiences that being Mexican has to offer. I learned so much about my family’s background and I feel as if my appreciation for them has grown.

The people fought through the revolution from 1910-1920, to earn their rights. The Revolution was increasingly corrupt, inflexible, and had a violent dictatorship. President Diaz oversaw the broadcast and most rapid period of economic expansion which led to mass loss of land. Porfirio Diaz (Background) Although the Mexican Revolution officially started in 1910, you have to go back a few decades to understand why the Revolution happened. During that time, former military general Porfirio Diaz was viewed by some as a national hero because he had helped expel French soldiers who were attacking Mexico. But don’t be fooled! In today’s Mexico, Diaz is far from being considered a national hero. In 1870, Diaz ran for president of Mexico. He used a no-re-election slogan during the campaign that said no president should serve more than one term. In 1876, Diaz assumed the presidency. Although he stepped down after one term, Diaz maintained complete control over his successor, Manuel Gonzales Flores. It was as if Diaz was a puppeteer controlling Flores’ commands as president.

After Flores was president for four years, Diaz decided to forget his no-re-election policy. Diaz had the country’s constitution amended to remove all restrictions on re-elections. Diaz said, ‘I lied. I’m going to be president from now on.’ Diaz continued to be president for 35 years. The 35-year era from 1876-1911, in which Diaz led the government as President, is known as the Porfiriato in Mexico. Diaz brought about economic improvement and was able to draw foreign investors to Mexico to help build the nation’s railroad infrastructure, mining industry, and overall economy. Under Diaz, the economy grew at an average rate of 2.5%. Diaz also made improvements to the Mexican military, giving Mexicans a sense of pride nationwide. But as I said earlier, Diaz is not known as a national hero these days in Mexico. That is because the growth experienced under Diaz was not shared by all. Mexican Indians, in particular, were most hurt under Diaz, who took over native lands, divided them up, and sold them to private companies. So, while Mexico experienced significant growth overall, Mexican Indians – who made up a significant portion of the Mexican population – were hurt under Diaz.

Today, Diaz’s presidency is known as a dictatorship because the country was ruled by one person with total power. Diaz went to great lengths to ensure that he was re-elected every term. He used violence and intimidation to get his desired election results. People who criticized the government were viciously beaten. When that didn’t work, he would just lie and make up the election results. Generally, the combination of this ruthless dictatorship and the high levels of inequality in the country is cited by scholars as the main long-term causes of the Mexican Revolution. (Britanica – “Porfirio Diaz”) Challenger Suddenly, Mexicans began to think that Diaz’s reign was coming to an end and challengers began to appear. Mexico became a pot of boiling water. Diaz tried to put a lid on the revolutionary fever, but doing that increased the pressure leading to massive boiling over. Mexico was ready for a revolution.

By 1910, a clear challenger came to Diaz in the form of Fransisco Madero. Madero organized and led the Anti-Re-election Party, essentially promising to never let a dictator like Diaz gain re-election. To try and control Madero, Diaz had him jailed and created a mock election, in which, not surprisingly, Diaz won re-election. Many Mexicans were furious about how fake this election was! Madero was released from jail and exiled to San Antonio in the United States. There, Madero wrote the “Plan de San Luis Potosi”, a political document that called for an end to Diaz’s reign and the re-institution of democracy in Mexico. He called for all Mexicans to rebel against on November 20th, 1910, against Diaz’s government. Madero’s plot didn’t work as planned, but it did lead to a rise of a new group of revolutionaries in Mexico. A common proverb says that “an enemy of my enemy is my friend”. And this was the truth in the Mexican Revolution. Porfirio Diaz became so unpopular that a new set of characters united together in their mutual hate of Diaz. Learning about the leaders of the Mexican Revolution, in many ways, is like learning about the cast of a tv show. I say this because the Mexican Revolution is full of a bunch of bizarre and intriguing characters.

Two revolutionaries from the north of Mexico for their ruthless style of fighting: were Pancho Villa and Pascual Orozco. In one famous instance, Villa and Orozco defeated soldiers loyal to President Diaz. Orozco ordered the dead soldiers of Diaz’s army to be stripped. Orozco sent the uniforms to Diaz with a note, “Here are the wrappers, now send me more tamales.” As for Pancho Villa, he became known as the Mexican Robin Hood. He was legendary for robbing trains, seizing land from rich businessmen, and redistributing wealth to poor peasants. In the south, the Mexican Revolution was led by Emiliano Zapata. Zapata represented the several Native Americans who suffered under Diaz’s policy of allowing a small elite group of landowners to control Mexican peasants. Zapata led the peasants in the South against the Diaz regime. Zapata’s group railed along with the slogan, “Justicia, Tierra, Libertad”, which translates as Justice, Land, Liberty: the three main cries of the Native Americans in Southern Mexico. Between the armies of Madero, Zapata, Villa, and Orozco, the group was able to rally around their hatred of Porfirio Diaz. After a series of military victories, they were finally able to expel Diaz, who fled to Europe in exile, ending his dictatorship of 35 years. (Britannica – “Mexican Revolution”) Causes and Effects Social/Economic Mexico created resentment among the lower/working classes who began to call for a revolution. Diaz’s land alliances with non-Mexican foreigners that took land away from the Mexican people led to distrust towards foreign investments. Anger towards the government about working conditions. Wealth and power were concentrated in the hands of the few.

The people of Mexico were getting tired of the dictatorial rule of president Porfirio Diaz. The middle and upper class were tired of the president’s way and the lower class was tired of poor working conditions and low wages. The Mexican Revolution destroyed the old government and army of the dictator Porfirio Diaz, and eventually changed the country’s economic and social system. Within the classes, everyone was fighting for their freedom from Diaz. A new, less-traditional party was emerging (democracy). Political Before the Mexican Revolution, the president was Porfirio Diaz. He industrialized and modernized Mexico, and angered his people by not improving conditions. Francisco Madero tried to run against Diaz. Diaz imprisoned Madero before the election. Mexicans felt their government was extremely oppressive. Madero became president and tried to please everyone. Madero was murdered by Victoriano Huerta soon after becoming president, despite Diaz’s attempts to industrialize and modernize. (History.com – “Mexican Revolution”) Is it a Revolution?

Works Cited

1. Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Mexican Revolution.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/event/Mexican-Revolution.
2. Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Porfirio Díaz.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 11 Sept. 2019, www.britannica.com/biography/Porfirio-Diaz.
3. Greenspan, Jesse. “6 Things You May Not Know About the Mexican Revolution.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 20 Nov. 2012, www.history.com/news/6-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-Mexican-revolution.
4. History.com Editors. “Mexican Revolution.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 9 Nov. 2009, www.history.com/topics/mexico/mexican-revolution.
5. “Mexican Revolution.” New Articles RSS, encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/mexican_revolution.
6. “Mexican Revolution.” Revolutionary Movements in World History: from 1750 to Present, pp. 560-569, by James DeFronzo, ABC-CLIO, 2006. https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj31b38gbPlAhVBjp4KHcaiD1wQjRx6BAgBEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.britannica.com%2Fevent%2FMexican-Revolution&psig=AOvVaw32pqXXuu5xt6lzvSjOvGuO&ust=1571941857781451