I would like to write this essay trying to integrate what I’ve learned, heard and analyzed from Contemporary Mexican History, pointing out my deep feeling of sadness for realiazing that this wonderful country has been affected by rulers and leaders that weren’t prepared as they should have and didn´t had the enough courage and values to defend it.
I will try to describe brieflythe main events, people and ideologies that have shaped and constructed the Contemporary Mexico, from the Porfiriato until current date.
The period of Mexican History that goes from 1876 until 1910 is known as the Porfiariato, referring to the dictatorship of President Díaz. In spite of the social oppression and the harsh criticism that has been made about it, this was a period of greatindustrial development and scientific modernization. Mexico moved from ridicule to international pride, but in it’s way into it, just as today there was a wide social gap, the wealth was unfairly distributed between a few, while the rest of the country was dying in poverty.
Across the social movement Francisco Indalecio Madero arose with his idea of “effective suffrage Not reelection”,protesting andattacking Diaz government. Despite that Madero wasn’t really a popular leader, he managed to win the elections, but for his lack of support he was murdered by the usurper Victoriano Huerta, who was his General, turning into coup d'état.
In the Revolution and during the first governments after it, was evident the geopolitical importance of our country and the influence of The United States.
Itis necessary to mention that in this period Huerta was supported by the consul of The United States itself who later betrayed him when a conflict in Tampico's port provoked the last invasion of this country to Mexico, where later president Eisenhower, who was a fierce soldier in 2 ª world war, took part in the Punitive Expedition to catch Pancho Villa in Mexico.
Nevertheless the war of therevolution continued many years more, two of the most relevant commanders were Pancho Villa (Doroteo Arango) and Emiliano Zapata Salazar. We must understand that the principal differences between revolutionary chiefs were not only questions of political power, but also of interpretations on the different regional needs, or, of the country. Due to these diefferences and to the vast Mexican territoryof that time, two big insurrectional groups were consolidated separately, with two respective leaders; Villa in the north; Zapata in the south.
In Morelos, the communities headed by Zapata were constituted by an informal, very poor, respectful army of the Church and of the humble people. They were mainly peasants taken off unjustly of their lands, theirs for the simple fact of them workingwith their hands and to be fed with the products of it. Personally, I have a great admiration and respect for this rural leader, Zapata represents for me the value and the corage that many of our leaders lacked of. He trusted in his people, and he fought against everything and everybody for the rights of his people. In 1911 the Plan de Ayala was proclaimed, document that firmly demanded the return tothe peasantry the usurped lands, under the motto " Tierra y Libertad ” (“Land and Freedom”). For this one great man, this one word, freedom, inspired many feelings and in his arduous fight for it, he said with corage " I Want to die being a slave of the principles, not of the men ".
On the other hand, the leader of the called Division of the North, Villa, had the reputation of being abandit, but that was avocating for the poor and wanted the agrarian reform. For it, also he is considered to be a hero. It is relevant to mention that he was the only one that invaded and bombarded with his airplanes of double wing to The United States, so his head had a price.
Finally both were betrayed by the confict of power and were both murdered.
Morelos was ungovernable due to the...
Leer documento completo
Regístrate para leer el documento completo.