The Mexican Revolution

1571 Words7 Pages
The significance of the Mexican revolution lies not in the repercussions this insurrection exerted on the international level, but rather in the way it served as a precursor to the direction the 20th century would follow. For while Mexico had gained significance internationally by being a leading exporter of raw material under Porfioro Diaz, it was not the only Latin American, or Luso-American country to follow this route. One must also bear in mind that the materials being exported out of Mexico were not exclusive to the region. Even within it’s geographic hemisphere, the Mexican revolution did not lead to the massive changes that the American Revolution had caused. Yet that is not to say that the Mexican revolution is not a significant event, for it established the rebellious pattern the 20th century would take. Disparities in classification of the revolution arise from the numerous factions and ideological assumptions advocated for the overthrow of Diaz’s rule, hence one can argue that it was a political, social, or economical revolution. Carlos Fuentes argued in his book, The Death of Artemio Cruz, that the form Mexico’s revolution can best be described as social. A social revolution advocates a complete transformation of all characteristic aspects of society, encompassing the political structure, economically distribution, and social hierarchy. Disparities over the definition of this revolution results from the interdependent relationship social status has with the economic and political realm. For a higher social status correlates with a higher economic foundation, and political power, creating a model of tri-dependency in which each of the three is reliant upon the other. Hence in evaluation of the social revolution one must examine the changes exerted in all three of these categories, where with a political and economic revolution the realm of implacability falls exclusively within their own grouping. The social structure during the waning era of Porfirio Diaz’s reign can best be described as a highly rigid hierarchical establishment, with the elite being reluctant to cede power in any sense to the growing middle class, which consequentially lead to a complete alienation of the lower classes and a growing anti-Diaz sentiment. For the reasoning behind this reluctance to embrace the new intelligentsia and middle class on... ... middle of paper ... ...ocial elitism, the one cannot be achieved without the other. In conclusion, Carlos Fuentes describes the Mexican revolution as being social, and looking over the aspects one must agree. The intentions of the revolution were to complexly change the structure of Mexico, and whether or not the revolution succeeded in this aspirated goal is irrelevant. The other point that needs to be address is the failure of the author to examine the political aspect, the overthrowing of the old regime, and whether this holds any bearing on the classification of the revolution. To that one must remember that while it is true that not all aspects of the social revolution was discussed in the book, the political aspect is complimentary to the social revolution, not necessary. The social revolution is a broad extension of rebellious tendencies, enveloping numerous aspects. The act of doing this is unique attribute, and all one needs to do to prove that a revolution is indeed social is show that more than one feature of the society was changed willfully, in which the author did. For the political revolution calls for a change in the political realm, and the same holds true to it’s economic counterpart.

More about The Mexican Revolution

Open Document