justice of a great social rebellion is no guarantee of its ultimate success, and the Mexican Revolution is an example
war over a war
In any war, particularly on civilians, when it stops the fire starts another fight, bloodless but no end: its interpretation. That happened with the French Revolution, the American Civil War or the Mexican Revolution, especially when we are about to celebrate its centenary. Relative
Every so often reconstructs and interprets the past to the concerns of the present. And within each time judgments are found because in reality everyday interests are conflicting objectives. In the preparation of any story should try the "fairness" and "certainty." But it is impossible goals. No one can recreate "what really happened" and less judgmental "without anger and to study" an event as controversial as a civil war. The simple addition or rejection of the story leans data and interpretation in one direction or another.
A sharp response
Around what to do with the Mexican Revolution, Roger Bartra advised that it is best to bury it and put the energy in the future in building a modern democracy and a vibrant economy (La Jornada, 21 November). Hector Aguilar Camin and Jorge Castañeda, in an essay on the future of Mexico, asserting that: "The history accumulated in the head and the feelings of the nation ... blocked his path to the future" (Nexus, November 2009) .
But there are other proposals. U.S. surrounds each of its future projects in the struggles of the past: Barack Obama, for example, was inspired by Lincoln's north-south war to join his cabinet and the second of the Roosevelt-in 1930 - for address the great economic crisis that erupted last year. Another interesting response is occurring in Russia. That Andrei Zubov and 45 historians have published Russia in the twentieth century. For information International press know that this book in two volumes has already caused a stir because it attempts to give a view from the here and now of the last stage of the Tsars, the Bolshevik revolution and Soviet rule that followed. How significant is to rethink the Russian revolutionary history? According to Aleksandr Arkhangelsky, a television host and columnist, "society is not satisfied and looking at the future answer to the question who we were? And past response to who are going to be?". To the commentator, "serious times ahead of us, as Russia's collective historical consciousness is sharpened on the eve of substantive changes" (The New York Times, November 24, 2009).
try to send is valid to neglect our great civil war 100 years ago, but that does not mean ignore the past and leave. The alternative is to re-examine the Mexican Revolution, which is not nothing but examine ourselves in the here and now. Individuals, as communities, can only fully understand their situation and future options if they are aware of what we already went and did that experience positively and treated to make it part of your road map for the future.
reviews
The attempt to reflect on our civil wars has been continuous. Unlike what happened in the USSR, in Mexico judgments about the past is an example of pluralism. In the field of history of the Mexican Revolution have always been multiple versions and contrasting. José Vasconcelos, for example, produced one from his frustration and from the right. Jesus Silva Herzog made another, critical but positive. The list is long, Daniel Cosio Villegas in 1947 published "The crisis in Mexico" where substantiate why the Mexican Revolution had failed in his latest effort: to make Mexico a country fair, but would succeed if he could reverse the trend and return to the spirit original. And that discussion continues to this day.
Yesterday and today
In The Civic Culture (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University, 1963), teachers Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba examined the attitudes and political values \u200b\u200bin five countries, one of Mexico. Among its many findings is one that matters here: the majority of Mexicans were proud of the great moments in political history, including the movement of 1910. In contrast, almost half a century later, a survey by Consulta Mitofsky released Nov. 15 found that only 11% of Mexicans believe it important to celebrate the Mexican Revolution. In a statistical sense, Bartra, Castaneda and Aguilar Camin launched to give great Moorish dead attitude today as the dominant over the movement of 1910 is one of indifference. If Mexico is going wrong, and it is-not because he is a "prisoner of history" but for other reasons. From here
Since 2009, civil war began a century ago should be seen first as a result of an egregious failure of the power elite of that time, his inability to change, their abuse of power and corruption, all paid dearly. The movement of 1910 was left, but triggered by the failure of the right.
the extent that the struggle begun by Madero ended a soft dictatorship dictatorship to today's standards "and an oligarchical system, the movement expanded degrees of freedom of Mexican society, but ultimately did not reach its 1940 target and from the right, they are several, were the beneficiaries and not the majority.
If the Mexican Revolution should be remembered today is to draw lessons from the mistakes of the elite that motivated it. If it must be held, should be only for the spirit that animated at its best: the spirit of justice. In a society designed almost five centuries as a colony of exploitation, as inherently unequal society, the civil war of 1910-1920 led to an expansion of consciousness of the right to equality. Land reform was the major instrument of change, but had a very limited effect, because just as was done during the Cardenas, Mexico began to stop being the rural society of centuries to become urban. On the other hand, the entrenched nationalism that then constituted the only defense for a poor country and neighbor of a superpower, the United States, which was and still is, aggressively nationalistic.
dark side
The "effective suffrage," the initial motive of the rebellion, never had a chance to be effective and the process culminated in the construction of one of the most successful authoritarian systems of the twentieth century. In the end the civil war failed Porfiriato destruction but simply its modernization. The new system of power no longer depended on a dictator but a party that was no longer supported only by a social base oligarchy always precarious, but rose, subordinates, workers, peasants, middle class and the new bourgeoisie and controlled the Army. The co-option was the most important weapon of control, but when triggered the repression, it had no limit to the presidential will.
The new regime strengthened civic culture based on simulation, of contempt for the rule of law and respect for the unwritten rule. Impunity and accountability should not be on the negative side of the Revolution Mexicana. Finally, the corruption that characterizes Mexico today did not originate in what happened after 1910, but then fell deeper roots. The oligarchy Porfirista
disappeared, but there was another, equally or more voracious than the last. The subordination of the new oligarchy to authoritarian presidency was one of its limits, but at the end of the last century that presidential disappeared, Mexican society at the mercy of the current "powers" which are equally or more damaging than the past.
A balance always provisional
The rebellion of 1910 came from the demand for justice in a society long humiliated time. The blast was born a utopia that for a time revived the present. However, the promise exhausted, the country led to an institutional arrangement as unfair as corrupt. The pursuit of individual salvation was again the only motivation for both the majority and for the elites. Today, the legacy of this great civil war is ambivalent and can be summarized as follows: tolerance of society to the irresponsibility and corruption of their leaders is limited, but the justice of a rebellion is not sufficient guarantee of its ultimate success.
0 comments:
Post a Comment