HISTORY 166D Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Rurales, Closed System, Class Consciousness
22 Oct 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Review from last class
Theories
•
Drawback is finding a theory that applies to all cases in all times
•
A lot of these theories tend to focus on European and Asian
revolutions instead of Latin American ones
Mostly because people know very little about Latin America so
they don't want to go out on a limb
○
•
Why should we study the Mexican Revolution?
1910-1920 is what the usual dates people put down for the
Mexican Revolution
But this was actually the fighting phase of it and the
social part of it would extend much longer afterwards
§
○
It was the 1st great social revolution of the 20th century
preceding the Russian Revolution by 7 years
○
Authority of the Mexican state today stems directly from the
revolution
○
It's the most studied, contested, mythologized of Mexican
history
○
•
Audio 1
Audio recording started: 12:05 PM Wednesday, October 3, 2018
3 basic historical interpretations of the Mexican Revolution
Up until the 1960s and still the official standing sees the Mexican
Revolution as a true social revolution
The people rose up against a repressive regime, seized
power, and instituted fundamental structural changes
○
Popular/progressive/patriotic
○
•
Revisionist version: 1960s and 1970s that focused on more
regional and state building aspects of the revolution
They'd point out the limited social and economic achievements
brought about by the revolution
○
See revolution in a more critical eye
○
How ruling class survived
○
How wealth wasn't redistributed in society
○
How property relations changed very little
○
No real social transformation occurred
○
Simply replacing the political leadership
○
While they'll admit it was successful as a political revolution, it
wasn't a real social revolution
○
•
More recent trend from late 1980s and 1990s: more international
context
Anti-imperialist and national aspects of the revolution
○
Revolution that targeted foreign political and economic
domination
○
Saw it as a liberal struggle against US domination
○
Argument: Mexican revolution tried but ultimately failed to
break its dependency on the US
○
•
These views depend greatly on which revolutionary heroes you
want to look at and study
Zapata
Then the revolution seems like a grassroots, peasant
revolt
§
○
Madero
Emphasis political aspects
§
Bringing democracy to Mexico
§
Focus on idea that this was a political rebellion
§
○
Carranza
Image will be nationalist in tone
§
Idea of trying to break this imperialist domination of
Mexico
§
○
Flores Magón brothers
You find emphasis on socialist-anarchist version of the
revolution
§
○
Pancho Villa
You have a little bit of everything
§
Part populist/nationalist/opportunist
§
○
Revolution is in the eye of the beholder
○
•
Why Revolution in Mexico?
Porfirio Díaz (porfiriato) 1876-1910
Long-time president of Mexico
○
In the years before the revolution, he was in power
○
He was born back in 1830 and had joined the military and had
risen in the ranks
○
In 18876, he decides to run for president
○
He's a war hero
○
Platform: "no reelection/effective suffrage"
No fraud
§
He didn't keep his promise though—>"elected" 7 more
times
§
○
Many saw him in a positive light at his time
Seen as a strong man for an immature society
§
Seen as bringing prosperity to Mexico
§
Bringing the rule of law to the country and bringing
stability
§
○
During this time, Mexico experienced rapid economic growth,
modernization, foreign investment
○
He was praised as a world figure
○
•
Personalist regime
Authority came from Díaz himself and not from the office that
he held
○
Didn't come because he was president of Mexico but they
came as a result of his name
○
He gets to make all the important decisions
○
He's the jefe máximo=supreme boss
Man in charge
§
○
This allegiance to Díaz served as the glue that held the
system together
○
•
Rurales (rural police)
In reality, instead of highly-trained people, they were made up
of peasants and artisans
○
Some of which could barely ride a horse
○
But he wanted to put out an image that they were super
powerful
○
•
But after 1920, many would depict Diaz in a super negative light
But more recent scholarship sees him in a more favorable light
○
•
Blame increasingly looks at social tensions
•
Few prior presidents had completed their terms in office
So how did he manage to stay in power for so long where his
predecessors had trouble doing that
○
•
He didn't have a formal political party he was the head of, didn't rely
on heavy democratic support base
Approach: "pan o palo"
Bread or stick
§
Use this to remove neutral or win over his political
challenge
§
Rewarded followers in patronage for their political
support
§
○
•
He also made a lot of alliances and played rival political factions
and families against each other
Prevented political rivals from moving through the political
system/hierarchy
○
•
Under him, elections were held but they were heavily controlled
List of approved candidates were circulated before the
election
"artificial democracy"
§
Closed system
§
Vast majority of Mexicans get left out of the process
§
○
•
He wanted to promote the image that he was the iron hand ruling
Mexico
Would reassure foreign economies that this would all be fine
to trade with Mexico now because they're safe and have
everything under control
○
•
Mexico would enter the global economy a little bit late but then
trade and investment capital came in
Mexico would see increasing but destabilizing economic
growth
It was dependent on others too
§
○
•
Northern part of Mexico becomes a major mining region
•
There's also now all these railroad systems that link everything
together now
•
Mexico appeared rich in natural resources
They had a bunch of natural resources that could be
exploited—>investors begin to flock into Mexico from all over
the world esp. now that it seems that Díaz has brought
stability
○
•
By 1910, US had more invested in Mexico than in the rest of Latin
America combined
•
Majority of people don't benefit from this
•
As commercial agriculture and mining operations expand, peasants
get kicked off the land
Even if you weren't in the countryside, large influxes of this
capital affects you too
○
•
•
Audio 1
Audio recording started: 12:38 PM Wednesday, October 3, 2018
Northern Mexico was basically a wasteland overtime and in central
part of Mexico, in the areas around Mexico city, the expansion of
commercial agriculture would displace peasants from their land
•
Violence would be the greatest in these rapidly developing areas
•
More than just economy, society was changing too
Population pretty much doubled between 1874 and 1910
Expanding rapidly during this time
§
○
•
Late 19th century society becoming much more modern too
Class identity increasingly replacing local loyalties
○
Elites, peasants, workers, middle class are developing a new
consciousness of themselves as a group
○
Thinking of themselves as having something in common with
workers beyond their local village/area
○
This helps to explain the national scope of the upheaval that
would hit Mexico later
Workers think of themselves as workers
§
Peasants think of themselves as peasants
§
○
•
Rather than elites seeing themselves as a rich person in this one
area, they also are now seeing themselves in class terms as well
See themselves in more national elite rather than just a local
elite
○
•
So this restlessness grows among people who possess a lot of
wealth with little political voice
Now they're thinking of themselves as a group that has money
and wealth but that they don't have a say in the political
system
○
•
So the Mexican revolution would happen very intensely in the
places where elites and state have this like split
•
For peasants, rise of commercial export and agriculture brought few
benefits for peasants
Suddenly land becomes a very valuable commodity that
becomes increasingly politicized
Ownership going to those with political connections
§
○
So if landowner wanted a field, they could claim that it's vacant
and it'd be hard for peasants and indigenous to fight that claim
So much land went from public to private hands
§
Land grab took place at expense of indigenous
§
○
•
Now everyone's working on haciendas/large estates
They control about 3/4 of land that they could cultivate on a lot
of it unproductively
○
Some of these landholdings were immense
Terrazas family in Chihuahua held a little over 10 million
acres which works out to 15,600 square miles
§
○
As peasants lost their land, they would be able to work a lot
more now but their wages were terrible
○
While this looked like Mexico was in the business of capitalist
agriculture, it wasn't based on a free and productive labor
force
○
•
So you have peasants and villagers losing their independence and
sense of security that they had before
Or they felt like they were losing their land
○
•
These peasants also started resenting the court system which
sided with foreigners and elites in these disputes
Foreigners being like the US corporations
○
•
Now we have conditions of absolute relative deprivation,
modernization pressures, international demands
•
Rise of class consciousness as well
•
So now we have a little bit of everything starting to go on
•
Day 3: Pt.1: Background to the Mexican
Revolution
Wednesday, October 3, 2018
11:52 AM
Review from last class
Theories
•
Drawback is finding a theory that applies to all cases in all times
•
A lot of these theories tend to focus on European and Asian
revolutions instead of Latin American ones
Mostly because people know very little about Latin America so
they don't want to go out on a limb
○
•
Why should we study the Mexican Revolution?
1910-1920 is what the usual dates people put down for the
Mexican Revolution
But this was actually the fighting phase of it and the
social part of it would extend much longer afterwards
§
○
It was the 1st great social revolution of the 20th century
preceding the Russian Revolution by 7 years
○
Authority of the Mexican state today stems directly from the
revolution
○
It's the most studied, contested, mythologized of Mexican
history
○
•
Audio 1
Audio recording started: 12:05 PM Wednesday, October 3, 2018
3 basic historical interpretations of the Mexican Revolution
Up until the 1960s and still the official standing sees the Mexican
Revolution as a true social revolution
The people rose up against a repressive regime, seized
power, and instituted fundamental structural changes
○
Popular/progressive/patriotic
○
•
Revisionist version: 1960s and 1970s that focused on more
regional and state building aspects of the revolution
They'd point out the limited social and economic achievements
brought about by the revolution
○
See revolution in a more critical eye
○
How ruling class survived
○
How wealth wasn't redistributed in society
○
How property relations changed very little
○
No real social transformation occurred
○
Simply replacing the political leadership
○
While they'll admit it was successful as a political revolution, it
wasn't a real social revolution
○
•
More recent trend from late 1980s and 1990s: more international
context
Anti-imperialist and national aspects of the revolution
○
Revolution that targeted foreign political and economic
domination
○
Saw it as a liberal struggle against US domination
○
Argument: Mexican revolution tried but ultimately failed to
break its dependency on the US
○
•
These views depend greatly on which revolutionary heroes you
want to look at and study
Zapata
Then the revolution seems like a grassroots, peasant
revolt
§
○
Madero
Emphasis political aspects
§
Bringing democracy to Mexico
§
Focus on idea that this was a political rebellion
§
○
Carranza
Image will be nationalist in tone
§
Idea of trying to break this imperialist domination of
Mexico
§
○
Flores Magón brothers
You find emphasis on socialist-anarchist version of the
revolution
§
○
Pancho Villa
You have a little bit of everything
§
Part populist/nationalist/opportunist
§
○
Revolution is in the eye of the beholder
○
•
Why Revolution in Mexico?
Porfirio Díaz (porfiriato) 1876-1910
Long-time president of Mexico
○
In the years before the revolution, he was in power
○
He was born back in 1830 and had joined the military and had
risen in the ranks
○
In 18876, he decides to run for president
○
He's a war hero
○
Platform: "no reelection/effective suffrage"
No fraud
§
He didn't keep his promise though—>"elected" 7 more
times
§
○
Many saw him in a positive light at his time
Seen as a strong man for an immature society
§
Seen as bringing prosperity to Mexico
§
Bringing the rule of law to the country and bringing
stability
§
○
During this time, Mexico experienced rapid economic growth,
modernization, foreign investment
○
He was praised as a world figure
○
•
Personalist regime
Authority came from Díaz himself and not from the office that
he held
○
Didn't come because he was president of Mexico but they
came as a result of his name
○
He gets to make all the important decisions
○
He's the jefe máximo=supreme boss
Man in charge
§
○
This allegiance to Díaz served as the glue that held the
system together
○
•
Rurales (rural police)
In reality, instead of highly-trained people, they were made up
of peasants and artisans
○
Some of which could barely ride a horse
○
But he wanted to put out an image that they were super
powerful
○
•
But after 1920, many would depict Diaz in a super negative light
But more recent scholarship sees him in a more favorable light
○
•
Blame increasingly looks at social tensions
•
Few prior presidents had completed their terms in office
So how did he manage to stay in power for so long where his
predecessors had trouble doing that
○
•
He didn't have a formal political party he was the head of, didn't rely
on heavy democratic support base
Approach: "pan o palo"
Bread or stick
§
Use this to remove neutral or win over his political
challenge
§
Rewarded followers in patronage for their political
support
§
○
•
He also made a lot of alliances and played rival political factions
and families against each other
Prevented political rivals from moving through the political
system/hierarchy
○
•
Under him, elections were held but they were heavily controlled
List of approved candidates were circulated before the
election
"artificial democracy"
§
Closed system
§
Vast majority of Mexicans get left out of the process
§
○
•
He wanted to promote the image that he was the iron hand ruling
Mexico
Would reassure foreign economies that this would all be fine
to trade with Mexico now because they're safe and have
everything under control
○
•
Mexico would enter the global economy a little bit late but then
trade and investment capital came in
Mexico would see increasing but destabilizing economic
growth
It was dependent on others too
§
○
•
Northern part of Mexico becomes a major mining region
•
There's also now all these railroad systems that link everything
together now
•
Mexico appeared rich in natural resources
They had a bunch of natural resources that could be
exploited—>investors begin to flock into Mexico from all over
the world esp. now that it seems that Díaz has brought
stability
○
•
By 1910, US had more invested in Mexico than in the rest of Latin
America combined
•
Majority of people don't benefit from this
•
As commercial agriculture and mining operations expand, peasants
get kicked off the land
Even if you weren't in the countryside, large influxes of this
capital affects you too
○
•
•
Audio 1
Audio recording started: 12:38 PM Wednesday, October 3, 2018
Northern Mexico was basically a wasteland overtime and in central
part of Mexico, in the areas around Mexico city, the expansion of
commercial agriculture would displace peasants from their land
•
Violence would be the greatest in these rapidly developing areas
•
More than just economy, society was changing too
Population pretty much doubled between 1874 and 1910
Expanding rapidly during this time
§
○
•
Late 19th century society becoming much more modern too
Class identity increasingly replacing local loyalties
○
Elites, peasants, workers, middle class are developing a new
consciousness of themselves as a group
○
Thinking of themselves as having something in common with
workers beyond their local village/area
○
This helps to explain the national scope of the upheaval that
would hit Mexico later
Workers think of themselves as workers
§
Peasants think of themselves as peasants
§
○
•
Rather than elites seeing themselves as a rich person in this one
area, they also are now seeing themselves in class terms as well
See themselves in more national elite rather than just a local
elite
○
•
So this restlessness grows among people who possess a lot of
wealth with little political voice
Now they're thinking of themselves as a group that has money
and wealth but that they don't have a say in the political
system
○
•
So the Mexican revolution would happen very intensely in the
places where elites and state have this like split
•
For peasants, rise of commercial export and agriculture brought few
benefits for peasants
Suddenly land becomes a very valuable commodity that
becomes increasingly politicized
Ownership going to those with political connections
§
○
So if landowner wanted a field, they could claim that it's vacant
and it'd be hard for peasants and indigenous to fight that claim
So much land went from public to private hands
§
Land grab took place at expense of indigenous
§
○
•
Now everyone's working on haciendas/large estates
They control about 3/4 of land that they could cultivate on a lot
of it unproductively
○
Some of these landholdings were immense
Terrazas family in Chihuahua held a little over 10 million
acres which works out to 15,600 square miles
§
○
As peasants lost their land, they would be able to work a lot
more now but their wages were terrible
○
While this looked like Mexico was in the business of capitalist
agriculture, it wasn't based on a free and productive labor
force
○
•
So you have peasants and villagers losing their independence and
sense of security that they had before
Or they felt like they were losing their land
○
•
These peasants also started resenting the court system which
sided with foreigners and elites in these disputes
Foreigners being like the US corporations
○
•
Now we have conditions of absolute relative deprivation,
modernization pressures, international demands
•
Rise of class consciousness as well
•
So now we have a little bit of everything starting to go on
•
Day 3: Pt.1: Background to the Mexican
Revolution
Wednesday, October 3, 2018
11:52 AM
Review from last class
Theories
•
Drawback is finding a theory that applies to all cases in all times
•
A lot of these theories tend to focus on European and Asian
revolutions instead of Latin American ones
Mostly because people know very little about Latin America so
they don't want to go out on a limb
○
•
Why should we study the Mexican Revolution?
1910-1920 is what the usual dates people put down for the
Mexican Revolution
But this was actually the fighting phase of it and the
social part of it would extend much longer afterwards
§
○
It was the 1st great social revolution of the 20th century
preceding the Russian Revolution by 7 years
○
Authority of the Mexican state today stems directly from the
revolution
○
It's the most studied, contested, mythologized of Mexican
history
○
•
Audio 1
Audio recording started: 12:05 PM Wednesday, October 3, 2018
3 basic historical interpretations of the Mexican Revolution
Up until the 1960s and still the official standing sees the Mexican
Revolution as a true social revolution
The people rose up against a repressive regime, seized
power, and instituted fundamental structural changes
○
Popular/progressive/patriotic
○
•
Revisionist version: 1960s and 1970s that focused on more
regional and state building aspects of the revolution
They'd point out the limited social and economic achievements
brought about by the revolution
○
See revolution in a more critical eye
○
How ruling class survived
○
How wealth wasn't redistributed in society
○
How property relations changed very little
○
No real social transformation occurred
○
Simply replacing the political leadership
○
While they'll admit it was successful as a political revolution, it
wasn't a real social revolution
○
•
More recent trend from late 1980s and 1990s: more international
context
Anti-imperialist and national aspects of the revolution
○
Revolution that targeted foreign political and economic
domination
○
Saw it as a liberal struggle against US domination
○
Argument: Mexican revolution tried but ultimately failed to
break its dependency on the US
○
•
These views depend greatly on which revolutionary heroes you
want to look at and study
Zapata
Then the revolution seems like a grassroots, peasant
revolt
§
○
Madero
Emphasis political aspects
§
Bringing democracy to Mexico
§
Focus on idea that this was a political rebellion
§
○
Carranza
Image will be nationalist in tone
§
Idea of trying to break this imperialist domination of
Mexico
§
○
Flores Magón brothers
You find emphasis on socialist-anarchist version of the
revolution
§
○
Pancho Villa
You have a little bit of everything
§
Part populist/nationalist/opportunist
§
○
Revolution is in the eye of the beholder
○
•
Why Revolution in Mexico?
Porfirio Díaz (porfiriato) 1876-1910
Long-time president of Mexico
○
In the years before the revolution, he was in power
○
He was born back in 1830 and had joined the military and had
risen in the ranks
○
In 18876, he decides to run for president
○
He's a war hero
○
Platform: "no reelection/effective suffrage"
No fraud
§
He didn't keep his promise though—>"elected" 7 more
times
§
○
Many saw him in a positive light at his time
Seen as a strong man for an immature society
§
Seen as bringing prosperity to Mexico
§
Bringing the rule of law to the country and bringing
stability
§
○
During this time, Mexico experienced rapid economic growth,
modernization, foreign investment
○
He was praised as a world figure
○
•
Personalist regime
Authority came from Díaz himself and not from the office that
he held
○
Didn't come because he was president of Mexico but they
came as a result of his name
○
He gets to make all the important decisions
○
He's the jefe máximo=supreme boss
Man in charge
§
○
This allegiance to Díaz served as the glue that held the
system together
○
•
Rurales (rural police)
In reality, instead of highly-trained people, they were made up
of peasants and artisans
○
Some of which could barely ride a horse
○
But he wanted to put out an image that they were super
powerful
○
•
But after 1920, many would depict Diaz in a super negative light
But more recent scholarship sees him in a more favorable light
○
•
Blame increasingly looks at social tensions
•
Few prior presidents had completed their terms in office
So how did he manage to stay in power for so long where his
predecessors had trouble doing that
○
•
He didn't have a formal political party he was the head of, didn't rely
on heavy democratic support base
Approach: "pan o palo"
Bread or stick
§
Use this to remove neutral or win over his political
challenge
§
Rewarded followers in patronage for their political
support
§
○
•
He also made a lot of alliances and played rival political factions
and families against each other
Prevented political rivals from moving through the political
system/hierarchy
○
•
Under him, elections were held but they were heavily controlled
List of approved candidates were circulated before the
election
"artificial democracy"
§
Closed system
§
Vast majority of Mexicans get left out of the process
§
○
•
He wanted to promote the image that he was the iron hand ruling
Mexico
Would reassure foreign economies that this would all be fine
to trade with Mexico now because they're safe and have
everything under control
○
•
Mexico would enter the global economy a little bit late but then
trade and investment capital came in
Mexico would see increasing but destabilizing economic
growth
It was dependent on others too
§
○
•
Northern part of Mexico becomes a major mining region
•
There's also now all these railroad systems that link everything
together now
•
Mexico appeared rich in natural resources
They had a bunch of natural resources that could be
exploited—>investors begin to flock into Mexico from all over
the world esp. now that it seems that Díaz has brought
stability
○
•
By 1910, US had more invested in Mexico than in the rest of Latin
America combined
•
Majority of people don't benefit from this
•
As commercial agriculture and mining operations expand, peasants
get kicked off the land
Even if you weren't in the countryside, large influxes of this
capital affects you too
○
•
•
Audio 1
Audio recording started: 12:38 PM Wednesday, October 3, 2018
Northern Mexico was basically a wasteland overtime and in central
part of Mexico, in the areas around Mexico city, the expansion of
commercial agriculture would displace peasants from their land
•
Violence would be the greatest in these rapidly developing areas
•
More than just economy, society was changing too
Population pretty much doubled between 1874 and 1910
Expanding rapidly during this time
§
○
•
Late 19th century society becoming much more modern too
Class identity increasingly replacing local loyalties
○
Elites, peasants, workers, middle class are developing a new
consciousness of themselves as a group
○
Thinking of themselves as having something in common with
workers beyond their local village/area
○
This helps to explain the national scope of the upheaval that
would hit Mexico later
Workers think of themselves as workers
§
Peasants think of themselves as peasants
§
○
•
Rather than elites seeing themselves as a rich person in this one
area, they also are now seeing themselves in class terms as well
See themselves in more national elite rather than just a local
elite
○
•
So this restlessness grows among people who possess a lot of
wealth with little political voice
Now they're thinking of themselves as a group that has money
and wealth but that they don't have a say in the political
system
○
•
So the Mexican revolution would happen very intensely in the
places where elites and state have this like split
•
For peasants, rise of commercial export and agriculture brought few
benefits for peasants
Suddenly land becomes a very valuable commodity that
becomes increasingly politicized
Ownership going to those with political connections
§
○
So if landowner wanted a field, they could claim that it's vacant
and it'd be hard for peasants and indigenous to fight that claim
So much land went from public to private hands
§
Land grab took place at expense of indigenous
§
○
•
Now everyone's working on haciendas/large estates
They control about 3/4 of land that they could cultivate on a lot
of it unproductively
○
Some of these landholdings were immense
Terrazas family in Chihuahua held a little over 10 million
acres which works out to 15,600 square miles
§
○
As peasants lost their land, they would be able to work a lot
more now but their wages were terrible
○
While this looked like Mexico was in the business of capitalist
agriculture, it wasn't based on a free and productive labor
force
○
•
So you have peasants and villagers losing their independence and
sense of security that they had before
Or they felt like they were losing their land
○
•
These peasants also started resenting the court system which
sided with foreigners and elites in these disputes
Foreigners being like the US corporations
○
•
Now we have conditions of absolute relative deprivation,
modernization pressures, international demands
•
Rise of class consciousness as well
•
So now we have a little bit of everything starting to go on
•
Day 3: Pt.1: Background to the Mexican
Revolution
Wednesday, October 3, 2018 11:52 AM
Document Summary
Drawback is finding a theory that applies to all cases in all times. A lot of these theories tend to focus on european and asian revolutions instead of latin american ones. Mostly because people know very little about latin america so they don"t want to go out on a limb. 1910-1920 is what the usual dates people put down for the. But this was actually the fighting phase of it and the social part of it would extend much longer afterwards. It was the 1st great social revolution of the 20th century preceding the russian revolution by 7 years. Authority of the mexican state today stems directly from the revolution. It"s the most studied, contested, mythologized of mexican history. Audio recording started: 12:05 pm wednesday, october 3, 2018. 3 basic historical interpretations of the mexican revolution. Up until the 1960s and still the official standing sees the mexican. The people rose up against a repressive regime, seized.
