It occurred to me that I have watched a lot of movies about the early 20th Century Mexican Revolution (or maybe I've just watched Duck, You Sucker a lot), but I don't really understand what was going on. So I asked my dad, and he got me a couple of books, starting with this.
It is, as the subtitle says, a very short intro. Knight has apparently written a two-volume set about the Mexican Revolution, but each one runs about 800 pages, so my dad figured that might be beyond my endurance. Depends on the author, but that's fine.
This is only about 120, counting the "Further Reading" section, so Knight doesn't waste time. He starts with the years prior, the Porfiriato, under the lengthy presidency of Porfirio Diaz, who had done his best to improve the economic standing of the country. But as often happens, this ended up being quite lucrative for a few people, and really shitty for a lot of other people.
Knight goes into what were really three revolutions within a half-dozen years. The aborted one that ended with Madero becoming president, but facing considerable resistance from more conservative forces. The usual ones: the military, the wealthy, the Catholic Church. Not all the different from the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s, or the struggles the left coalitions in France faced during the '30s.
There's eventually a military coup, which leads to the revolution most people think of, with Huerta running the country and local pockets of resistance led by people like Obregon, Zapata, and Pancho Villa gradually becoming full-fledged armies. They win eventually, but then there's a falling out between the sides, ultimately won by Obregon and Carranza. Knight then goes on to touch on the next 15-20 years after the Revolution, as the government alternately pursues and ignores the ideals the revolution was originally said to be driven by.
Knight hits it all pretty fast, but has enough time to discuss where popular conceptions and propaganda of all sides miss the mark, and the way very different interests could intersect. He also discusses what might have happened if Villa's side had won the "revolution of the winners", or how successful Madero might have been if he had more time. Overall, it's good for a quick hit on the topic, enough to give me an idea of what I might want to read more about later.
'Madero, increasingly seen as an effete civilian, appeared unable to control the deteriorating situation; and many of his erstwhile middle-class supporters, who had hailed the new dawn of democracy in 1910, now gravitated to the Right, lamenting the breakdown of 'order and progress' and fearing for their own lives and livelihoods.'
No comments:
Post a Comment