At the beginning of the 20th century, Mexico was a state of unease, high tension and resentment due to land exhaustion, political unrest and economic and social inequalities. There is still some unease about the validity of the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920. As various aspects led to the formation of three main factions; middle-class individuals (educated professionals), urban workers, and campesinos (rural agricultural residents), protesting the social, economic, and political inequalities resulting from the tyrannical dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz. Far too often, it is the middle-class perspective that is the center of attention (most academic work is focused, contextually analyzed, reinterpreted and celebrated). Most fail to see that it was the poverty in which these rural farmers were oppressed that was the most decisive factor in the outcome of the Revolution and would later influence other Mexican political and social efforts. For most of Mexico's history, it was these rural agricultural populations who endured lasting hardship and oppression. This demographic group consisted of low-skilled, barely educated (mostly illiterate), and indigenous individuals. Even before the Díaz regime, peasants were kept in a permanent second-class status, from which they could not escape. The Diaz regime has only intensified their suffering. “Diaz tried to keep him in a servile and obedient state so that others could contribute to the economic development of Mexico.” Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayMexico and the United States experienced very similar revolutions and, as such, many of the mistakes and achievements of each revolution are also the same, but there were also several differences in the revolutions. They were different when it came to social and financial structures. Each faced a tyrannical ruler across an ocean trying to rule them and use them only for natural resources. These tyrannies eventually led to revolutions in both colonies, and ultimately to the freedom of each colony. But financially, the United States was much more advanced than Mexico and was capable of becoming more independent, while Mexico was incapable of doing so. Another similarity between the two revolutions, both comparable and unique, is how each new country set up its government and governing structures. The form of government of the United States has always been a republic governed by a written document that gave powers to all forms of government. Unlike the Mexican forms of government, both of which were a monarchy. For the middle class; Educated, property owners and wealthy individuals (lawyers, educators, employees and civil servants), the Revolution was a simple opposition movement of protest against the Mexican bourgeoisie (close friends of Diaz) whose continued domination of wealth (issue major in the agricultural industry) and the political arena (continuation of the Diaz regime). They still received their share of wealth and political influence, but they simply did not get what they believed to be the sufficient share they deserved. Motivated by greed and anger, they masked their true intentions with superficial and meaningful social and political reform. They demanded that the government respect the Constitution, comply with reform laws (which included theseparation of Church and State and the suppression of religious education) and restore democracy. » The lower class, with the few resources they had, had the most to lose, unlike the middle class who were in a relatively good position, but simply wanted more. Although Diaz is often portrayed as an authoritarian and evil commander. It is crucial to emphasize that during his reign, Mexico experienced substantial economic and progressive development: “railroads stretched across the country, mines and export crops flourished; cities have paved streets, electric lights, trams and sewers. A progression that even the middle class who revolted against him won (they just wanted more). However, all this came at a price and it was the rural class that had to bear the cost of development. In order for Mexico to sustain its modernization and ensure the smooth functioning of its local and foreign economies, it has developed largely dependent on its agricultural industry; cash crops, manual labor of rural workers and land were sold to foreign investors (oil industry). To meet the demands of production, these rural workers endured hardship; overworked, their own land was owned by corporations and politicians (who made them work for them) and unfair wages 3 made the situation so dire that the very people who produced these products could not even afford them "the wages of base of an unskilled worker in Juarez.” cost four pesos...a plate of food cost one peso. It is this overproduction aimed at modernization that has led to barren lands. “Many lands were severely degraded after decades of intensive use...requiring rehabilitation...crops 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 would say that the Mexican Revolution would not have happened if the middle class had not officially revolted and mobilized first. After their leader, Francisco I. Madero, was wrongly thrown into prison and Diaz won his re-election campaign through corruption and coercion. Although they may have fired the first shots, it was these rural agricultural workers who led and preserved the revolution. Without their passion and the convictions that guided them (equitable distribution of land, freedom and control of the means of production), the revolution might not have been possible; change regimes, workers' rights, implement 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 demanding State and contest jurisdiction over natural resources. “It was this faction of the lower classes that spread their influence widest and motivated others to join their cause. Rural rebel leaders like 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 well-liked and respected figures . Their popular reputation as a caudillo of defiance in the face of impossible odds, good deeds and ideologies struck a chord with those they encountered and inspired others to join their cause. "Zapata led 4 villagers from Morelos to recover land lost to sugar plantations... Zapata himself isremained a man of the people, indifferent to formal ideologies, content with traditional Catholicism, fiercely loyal to his followers in Morelos as they were to him. Later, their biographies would become of great interest to folk tales and film production. “The Zapatista Revolution, 1914, for example, was presented as a “sentimental and interesting” film about the horrors of war. These movements also brought about a change in gender roles and relations. Specifically, for women, as they no longer were, they were no longer isolated in a single gender role (as caretakers) or considered secondary 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 at this time which offered women of the twenties and thirties a space for sexual redefinition. » The fight for gender equality will not be an easy battle, as men still dominate this area. However, the role played by rural women in the Revolution would pave the way for other women. It should be noted that these forces, although well-intentioned and courageous, had their flaws. For example, the vulnerability of children at the time was exploited (poverty, orphans). If their parents were poor, their situation was not much better and with some of them becoming orphans after losing their parents, their situation became even more dire. Rural rebels took advantage of these conditions to encourage children to enlist, because as a means of living “food shortage was endemic, adolescents attached themselves to soldiers to avoid starvation” (Leyva 428). These factions also held mandatory drafts of “la lleva,” “long used in the Mexican state-building process.” Poor men and boys...were conscripted...all factions, revolutionary and federal, resorted to compulsory service to fill their ranks. And then there were those young people who simply enlisted based on their own commitment and inspiration to do the right thing, emulate 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 locally idealized for their behaviors (as heroes of the revolution), but some perceived their approaches as unorthodox. , radical and were therefore considered dangerous for modern society which wanted to move away from primitive violence. Take for example, when rebel forces were stationed in particular regions, there would be little consideration for environmental protection or maintenance, especially if the area was removed from federal control (the rebels decimated the areas as a symbolic gesture). “Hordes of Zapatistas from areas south of Texcoco stole and allowed their horses to eat seedlings and deer. » In fact, later financial efforts were directed towards repairing much of the damage caused by the rural rebels. The rural forces' inability to assimilate into contemporary Mexican society proved to be their downfall. “Dreaded revolutionaries” and guerrillas often disqualified them from later political careers; they were provincial, poorly educated, attached to a traditional, rural way of life that in many ways was disappearing. » Although grateful for the strengthening, the middle class was not so attracted to the ideologies of the rural working poor or to their demands (distributionequitable land tenure, freedom and control of the means of production). Because they felt this was too narrow and locally focused a policy, they "turned their backs on land reform and socialist education...pursued macroeconomic policies that favored business and worsened inequalities. They were much more interested in large-scale solutions that would benefit all of Mexico. . A political change that relied on strong intellectual and economic support. That Mexico in turn can maintain its sovereignty and compete with the United States. For rural agricultural workers, the revolution was more than a change in cultural and political connections. But an effort to; empower communities (self-governance), control their means of production and equitable distribution of land. The demands of rural residents were reflected in the solutions resulting from the Revolution. The Treaty of Ciudad Juarez of 1911 exiled Diaz, but its provision which preserved Diaz's congress and army would prove fatal to Madero who would later be killed and overthrown by military general Victoriano Huerta who would then be eliminated by Venustiano Carranza who was more conservative than Villa and Zapata and later wage a civil war against them. as well as rural rebels who will later be reduced. Historian Ramon Ruiz argues that the peasant revolution should be seen as a revolution rather than a rebellion. Building on the Russian, Chinese and Cuban revolutions which led to changes in the fundamental structure of society, wealth and income. For Ruiz, all this revolution accomplished was implementing six-year mandates, overthrowing Díaz, land reforms, and somewhat altering societal and economic ideologies: "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 could have been more powerful than before, since it kept the congress and the army of Díaz alongside its leaders. new radical change. Zapata and Villa may not have been Leon Trotsky or anything resembling him, they were rightfully crucial figureheads and much more than inspirations. In fact, ideologies like Zapatismo were born from the success of rural rebels in terms of mobilization and passionate determination "of a similar type, fought for the implementation of an alternative vision, which could arouse fierce popular allegiance" (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 . “The research reinforces the notion of a popular peasant revolution not only by virtue of simply counting inhabitants, but also by analyzing the modes, continuities and discourse of peasant protest. » Historian Alan Knight argues that even if rural rebels are unable to seize formal power, their ability to mobilize and lead protest against a powerful regime is something that will have a lasting impact. Despite their defeat, their rural demands persisted and later influenced various Mexican initiatives. Various land reforms were implemented as the government began to realize what an asset these agricultural industries represented: "agricultural production was a key site for the institution of new social forms." They constituted the foundation of their economy and to enable them to maintain a.