Mexico in the early 20th century was a state of unease, high tension, and resentment due to land depletion, political unrest, and economic and social inequality . There is still some unease about the validity of the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920. As there were various aspects that led to the formation of three main factions; middle-class individuals (educated professionals), urban workers, and campesinos (rural agricultural residents), protesting against the social, economic, and political inequalities resulting from the tyrannical dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz. Too often it is the middle class perspective that takes center stage (most academic work is focused on, contextually analysed, reinterpreted and celebrated). Most fail to see that it was the poverty by which these rural farmers were burdened that was the most decisive factor in the outcome of the Revolution and would later influence other Mexican political and social endeavors. For much of Mexico's history, it was this rural agricultural population that endured enduring hardship and oppression. This demographic group consisted of low-skilled, low-educated (mostly illiterate), and indigenous individuals. Even before the Diaz regime the campesinos were perpetuated in a permanent second-class status, from which they could not escape. The Diaz regime has only intensified their suffering. “Diaz sought to keep him in a servile and obedient state so that others could further the economic development of Mexico.” Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Mexico and the United States had very similar revolutions and because of this many of the mistakes and results of each revolution are also the same, but they exist There were many differences in the revolutions as well. They were different in both social and financial structures. Each of them faced a tyrannical ruler across the ocean who sought to rule them and use them only for natural resources. These tyrannies eventually led to revolutions in both colonies, and ultimately led to the freedom of each colony. But financially the United States was much more advanced than Mexico and was able to become more independent, while Mexico was unable to do so. Another similarity between the two revolutions, both comparable and unique, is the way each new country established its own governments and government structures. The United States form of government has always been a republic governed by a written document, which empowered all forms of government. Unlike the Mexican forms of government, which were both monarchical. For the middle class; educated, propertied and wealthy individuals (lawyers, educators, employees and officials) the Revolution was a simple opposition movement of protest against the Mexican bourgeoisie (close friends of Diaz) whose continued dominance in wealth (important participation in the agricultural sector) and the political arena (Diaz regime continued). They were still getting their share of wealth and political influence, they just weren't getting what they believed was the sufficient portion they deserved. Motivated by greed and anger, they hid their true intentions with superficial and significant social and political reforms “they called on the government to respect the Constitution, to respect the reform laws (which included the separation of Church and State and the suppression of religious education) and to restore democracy. "The lower class, with the few resources it had, had the most respect to loseto the middle class who were in relatively good positions, but simply wanted more. Although Diaz is often depicted as a malevolent authoritarian commander. It is crucial to point out that during his reign, Mexico saw substantial and progressive economic development: “railroads crisscrossed the country, mines and export crops flourished; the cities acquired asphalted roads, electric lights, trams and drainage systems”. Progress that also gained the same middle class that had rebelled against him (they just wanted more). However, all this came at a price and it was the rural class that was burdened with development costs. In order for Mexico to sustain its modernization and keep its local and foreign economies running smoothly, its growth depended largely on its agricultural industry; cash crops, manual labor of rural workers and land had been sold to foreign investors (oil industry). To meet the needs of production these rural workers endured hardship; overworked, their land was owned by multinationals and politicians (who made them work for them) and the unfair pay 3 made the situation so disastrous that the same people who produced the products could not even afford "the minimum wage for a unskilled worker in Juarez cost four pesos…a plate of food cost one peso.” It was this overproduction for modernization that led to barren land: many lands were severely degraded after decades of intensive use... they required rehabilitation... the yields in the area... were so paltry that they could no longer cover the cost of seeds for planting”. Despite all this, Diaz still demanded his tribute. Some argue that the Mexican Revolution would not have happened if the middle class had not formally rebelled and mobilized first. After their leader, Francisco I. Madero, was wrongly imprisoned and Diaz won his re-election campaign through bribery and coercion. While they may have fired the first shot, it was these rural agricultural workers who led and preserved the revolution. Without the passion and beliefs that guided them (fair distribution of land, freedom and control over the means of production) the revolution perhaps would not have been possible; changing regimes, workers' rights, implementing social, economic and political reforms “energized by years of social upheaval and brought together in institutions such as ejidos, unions, cooperatives and political organizations capable of making claims on the state and challenging jurisdiction over natural resources. “It was this faction of the lower classes that created the largest network of influence and motivated others to join their causes. Rural rebel leaders such as Emiliano Zapata who led the Southern Liberation Army (made up mainly of rural residents of the city of Morelos) and Francisco "Pancho" Villa commander of the Northern Division, who became loved and respected figures. Their popular reputation as caudillos of defiance against impossible odds, good deeds and ideologies impressed those they met and inspired others to join their cause" Zapata led 4 Morelos villagers to reclaim land lost to sugar plantations. ..Zapata himself remained a man of the people, indifferent to formal ideologies, content with a traditional Catholicism, as fiercely loyal to his followers of Morelos as they were to him. Their biographies would later become of great interest in folk tales and the film production. “Zapatista Revolution, 1914, for example, was advertised as a “sentimental and interesting” film about the horrors of war.”changing gender roles and relations. Specifically, for women, as they were, they were no longer isolated in a single gender role (as caregivers) or seen as second to men. Rather they were seen as valuable assets and allies of the Revolution, who could be just as resourceful as men “there was a real awakening in that period that provided the women of the 1920s and 1930s with the space for sexual redefinition.” The fight for gender equality would not be an easy battle, as men still dominated this industry. However, the role rural women played for the Revolution would prove to be one of paving the way for other women. It should be noted that these forces, while well-intentioned and courageous, had their flaws. For example, the vulnerability of children in that period was exploited (poverty, orphans). If their parents were poor, their position was not much better. Some of them became orphans after losing their parents, their situation even became dire. Rural rebels took advantage of these conditions to encourage children to enlist, as a way of life “food shortages were rampant, adolescents joining soldiers to avoid starvation” (Leyva 428). These factions also held the obligatory “la lleva” drafts “long used in the Mexican state-building process. Poor men and boys...were drafted...all factions, Revolutionary and Federal, used compulsory service to fill their ranks." And then there were those young men who simply enlisted on inspiration-based recognition to do the right thing, imitate their heroes Villa and Zapata, and serve their country. The story of Juan Soldado was a popular tale distributed publicly, to incite young people to revolt as this protagonist did. Zapata and Villa were idealized locally for the their behavior (as heroes of the revolution), however there were those who perceived their approaches as unorthodox, radical and therefore considered dangerous for modern society that wanted to move away from primitive violence rebels were stationed in particular regions, there would be little consideration for protecting or maintaining the environment, especially if the area were removed from federal control (the rebels decimated the areas as a symbolic gesture). “Hordes of Zapatistas from areas south of Texcoco stole supplies and allowed their horses to eat young plants and reers.” Indeed, subsequent financial efforts were directed at repairing much of the damage caused by the rural rebels. The inability of rural forces to assimilate into contemporary Mexican society would prove to be their undoing: “formidable revolutionaries” and guerrillas often disqualified them from subsequent political careers; they were provincial, poorly educated, linked to a traditional and rural lifestyle that in many respects was in danger of extinction". Although grateful for the empowerment, the middle class was not as attracted to the ideologies of the poor rural workers or their demands (equal distribution of land, freedom and control over the means of production). Because they believed it to be a narrow, locally focused approach, they “turned their backs on land reform and socialist education…pursued macroeconomic policies that favored business and exacerbated inequality.” They were much more interested in broad-based solutions that would be beneficial to all of Mexico. . Political change that was based on strong intellectual and economic support. That Mexico in turn could maintain its sovereignty and compete with the United States. For rural agricultural workers, the revolution was more than achange in cultural and political ties. But an effort to; empower communities (self-government), control their means of production and equitable distribution of land. The demands of rural residents were reflected in the solutions that came from the Revolution. The 1911 Treaty of Ciudad Juarez exiled Diaz, however its provision preserving Diaz's congress and army would prove fatal for Madero who would later be killed and overthrown by military general Victoriano Huerta who would then be eliminated by Venustiano Carranza who was conservative of Villa and Zapata and will subsequently wage civil war against them. as well as the rural rebels who would later be reduced. Historian Ramon Ruiz argues that the peasant revolution should be seen as a revolution but rather as a rebellion. Drawing on the revolutions of Russia, China and Cuba which brought changes to the basic structure of society, wealth and income. For Ruiz all this revolution accomplished was the implementation of a six-year mandate, the overthrow of Diaz, land reforms and the alteration of social and economic ideologies in some way: “a failed proletarian/socialist revolution, which challenged, but could not defeat, an established bourgeois order, and which left a legacy of “intense class conflict”. The regime after the Revolution may have been more powerful than before, as it maintained together with the congress and the army Diaznew radical change. Zapata and Villa may not have been Leon Trotsky or anything resembling him, they were in their right crucial form and much more than inspirations. Indeed, ideologies such as Zapatismo were born from the success of rural rebels in passionate mobilization and determination “of a similar kind, fought for the implementation of an alternative vision, which could elicit fierce popular loyalty” (8). Rural rebels may have lacked formal education and ideological composure compared to the middle class, but they were more aware of inequality and instability in Mexico and fought for social justice and equality “research reinforces the notion of a popular peasant revolution not only by virtue of simple people-counting actions, but also by analyzing the manner, continuity and discourse of peasant protest." Historian Alan Knight argues that although rural rebels are unable to take formal power , their ability to mobilize and lead a protest against a powerful regime is something that will make a lasting impression. Despite the defeat, their rural grievances continued to persist and would later influence various Mexican initiatives. Various agrarian reforms were implemented when the government began to realize how these agricultural industries represented a resource: “agricultural production was a key site for the establishment of new social forms”. They were the foundation of their economy and in order for them to remain stable and profitable the workers had to have a say in their production "Carranza for example distributed 292,000 acres of land, the six subsequent administrations distributed 16,575,000 acres of mostly marginal lands... Cardenas in 1934 that the pace quickened: 39,558,000 acres…more than double the amount under previous administrations.” Not only was the land distributed, but the government began federally funding land education and conservation. agriculture “A 1946 Department of Education circular declared that trade unions, agricultural collectives, cultural groups, civic centers and women's clubs should all be active sites of soil and water conservation activities with an eye towards to.