Great Rebellion Mexico 1905-1924

Revolutions in the Modern World

by Ramón Eduardo Ruiz

The great rebellion ignited by Francisco Madero's call to arms in 1910 was a momentous event in the turbulent history of Mexico. It is widely held that the struggle to overthrow the corrupt regime of Porfirio Diaz fundamentally transformed the structure of Mexican society, bringing social justice for downtrodden peasants and workers. Ramón Eduardo Ruíz refutes the traditional view. Drawing on numerous archival sources, he carefully examines the economic consequences of the Diaz regime and traces the growth of widespread social discontent. He describes the backgrounds and professed aims of the Revolution's colorful leaders―Madero, Venustiano Carranza, Pancho Villa, Alvaro Obregón, and Emiliano Zapata―and then sets out to discover what, behind the superficial paper changes and the rhetoric, they actually did. He concludes that the so-called Revolution was led by elements of the dissatisfied middle class whose goals were narrow and bourgeois in character. Despite important paper reforms, many of the old political, economic, and social injustices and inequalities survived.

Genres: History

544 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 1980

Reviews

[Rachel Jackson · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted to like this book; I tried really hard to like it. I've been on a Mexican Revolution kick and Ramon Eduardo Ruiz's The Great Rebellion was as a recommendation on the subject I saw on many different websites, so I checked it out of the library to get a more in-depth understanding of its events beyond just two of its most famous players, Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata, the latter of whom is especially interesting to me. In the end, however, The Great Rebellion ended up being such a slog to get through that my only strategy for getting through it was to read a chapter or two and then find something more fun to do as a reward for having made it through a section.

The book certainly has potential, but it seems to be aimed more toward people interested in the policies of the period of time between 1905 - 1924 rather than the players involved. I do enjoy learning about policies, but for me, if there are no people involved in the narrative of making the policies—to see what the stakes are and who is invested in them—then the policies become meaningless. All policy affects someone, and that was certainly true during this tumultuous period in Mexico, but you would never know that from the way Ruiz writes it. The book was heavy in explainers about the relationships between some of the people in the upper crust of society, but it was much too general and didn't explain the actual lives of the people involve.

Plus, the first third of the book was all about lead-ins and causes of the revolution, but the author kept coming back to the conclusion that no single caused with uprising—which on its own is perfectly fine, since of course these types of historical events are very complex. But then is it not worth attempting to explain all of the causes and how they are all connected? Is it not worth examining all the factors and purposefully analyzing their influence over the whole affair? Ruiz would list out the players in the revolution, not just individuals like Carranza, Obregon, Villa and Zapata, but also the different classes of people involved, like teachers, bankers, hacendados, military leaders, etc., which is good information, but Ruiz couldn't seem to take it a step further and discuss the importance and connections with all of them. It doesn't do much good to merely list them all.

So the book was useful for esoteric details, for sure, if you want to know more very specific details about Mexico's GDP or the amount of money certain industries made in the years prior to the revolution. It's helpful if you want to know about policy and the ideological beliefs of the leaders of that time period. It's not so helpful if you want to know anything about people.

Lastly, one of the most annoying things about the book was the distracting typos that were honestly just short of rampant. Some were errors I could at least look past, but often people's names were spelled blatantly wrong and it was very irritating as it became a trend as the book went on. While I recognize that these errors are not necessarily the fault of the author and some errors can slip through during the editing process, it still left a negative impression on me of the entire book because of how glaring these typos were.

[Daniel Hoppes · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had objections to the main argument that this was a rebellion and not a revolution. The first chapter, attempting to define revolution, seemed weak. Certainly, the Mexican revolution had a different character than the Russian, and it achieved nothing like the success of the Russian; but there was a revolution going on in Mexico in the 1910s despite its failure to change the basic social relations of society. As to the middle classes, for them yes, in general it may have amounted to a changing of the guards, advocating certain small but meaningful reforms. And the revolution failed to suck into its vortex large parts of the country, particularly in the south. (In 1910, perhaps as much as 30% of the population didn't speak Spanish as a first language, and this saw the happenings in the capital as a foreign matter.) Ultimately the revolution, at least until the 30s, seems to have done little to change social relations in Mexico. I don't care what it is called finally. There was though an extraordinary revolutionary moment, and the author's attempt to argue that it was a rebellion seems unnecessary in the present day. Perhaps this was a more essential point to make in the 70s when PRI and its mythology were the major barriers to progress, but today it is more interesting to look at the dynamics of the revolution itself and see what happened, both what was good and was bad in it.
The leadership, Madero, Carranza, Obregon, I do agree are moderate figures, hacendados at heart, from whom little of a radical nature could be expected. Ruiz' dismissal of Villa (who became a landowner) and Zapata irritated me, although I understand his point: the main line of the revolution and its leadership were molded by the middle class reformers. liberalism caused the revolution, and their solution was more liberalism. On this general trajectory, whatever radicalism perhaps suggested by Zapata and Villa were exceptions and sideshows, respectively.
It is interesting to look at parallels between the Russian and Mexican revolutions, an undercurrent throughout this book. In some ways the countries are a lot alike. Peasant, illiterate, small working class. I imagine, although I do not know the figures, that the proletariat in both countries are roughly of a similar size, in terms of proportion to the overall population. This did not stop the proletariat from seizing the helm in Russia, so the interesting question is why didn't it in Mexico?
One major difference is that Russia, then as today, was semi-imperial, semi-colonial, while Mexico was more or less entirely a colony of the United States and, to a lesser extent, the other imperial powers. This gave Russia a freedom Mexico lacked, as each stage of the revolution is subject to the whims of its devilish neighbor. The penultimate chapter in this book gives a very good account of how each of the leaders in the revolution must shape their programmes and legislation in such a way that it might gain the approval of Washington, which provides all the guns or bars them as the case may be. There is less space in Mexico for the radical movement to grow and a radical leadership to flex its muscles, as at every moment to every demand for greater change the disdainful reply comes, what about the Americans? How could the revolution radicalize with the United States hovering over them? Any challenge to the reformist leadership will be shot down, literally or figuratively.
I am beginning now the biography by Katz of Pancho Villa. I hope that book will answer some of my questions and give a greater sense of what actually happened in the revolution and of the various forces that threatened to radicalize it.
I did find this work fascinating though, and it gave me a very good basic map of Mexican society during this critical period, a period I am happily now not completely ignorant of.

[Sal Valdez · Rating 4 out of 5]

so far this appears to be a detailed narrative of the mexican revolution, which i enjoy reading about. upon completion, i am on pg. 24o, i shall update my review. a good basic text on the mexican revolution. even though you know the ending; pancho villa and zapata are killed. novertheless it is told like a good story and so makes gor good reading.