The Mexican Revolution has always been a very interesting topic for me to study, as I have studied it in the past in high school. We often debated who was essentially the father of the Mexican Revolution, if it was Madero since he was originally the moving force behind it, if it was Pancho Villa or Emiliano Zapata since they essentially lead the revolution after they realized that Madero was not going to follow through on his previous promise to uphold the Treaty of San Luis Potosi. Maybe it was none of them and the father of the Mexican revolution was the people of Mexico itself who so desperately wanted the land that they believed was theirs.
Madero can be seen as the father of the revolution in that he was one of the orginial people who started the movement, and was the one who took the step to over throw Porfirio Diaz and his dictatorial regime, and become the new leader of Mexico. However he was far to moderate to be considered a revolutionary leader, as can be seen in the Plan de Ayala multiple times. In Article 1 “President of the Republic Fransisco I. Madero has made the Effective Sufferage bloody trick on the people already against the will of the same people… [he] follows the pattern of a new dictatorship more shameful and more terrible than Porfirio Diaz.” Madero can be seen as the first step towards the revolution but it seems unlikely that he was the father of it since he did not follow through and change anything drastically in regards to laws.
People more commonly see Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa as fathers of the Mexican revolution. They were the ones who continued the fight after Madero became a corrupt official who failed to keep his promise to the people. However it can be argued that they were not fathers to the entire Mexican revolution. Often Villa focused more on social reform within his own region in the north. Giving the land he won back from Maderos government to the soldiers in his own army. Zapata had a similar mind set but within the south, however he did attempt to expand out of his own region more so than Villa ever did. The two of the combined can indeed be seen as the leaders of the Revolution undoubtedly.
Perhaps it was the people who were the fathers and mothers of the Mexican Revolution, for it was their passion and yearning for justice in regards to land ownership that the revolution was originally brought about. It’s hard to exactly say who the father of the revolution was.
Hi there,
I was very happy to read that you had taken Mexican history before. I’m not sure how common is for students in North America to do so but it’s great! I have taken History of Mexico at university level and it was quite intriguing, I must say. We went over so many times about the different heroic names and times that lead to the revolution of Mexico that I was very confused in the end. I think that our book did a better job at telling the story. I also agree with you in the sense that it was the people who played a very important role in leading to the actual revolution in Mexico. The ‘campesinos’, middle class people, indigenous people, and excluded cowboys who felt that their voices were not heart. There is where the real movements come from.
I like your final thought where you say that the idea of finding a single “father of the revolution” might not be the best way to approach such a complicated series of events. It seems a much better idea that the revolution did not come from the mind of one or two men, but from general dissatisfaction among entires groups of people.
I, as well, like how you focus on who the “father” of the Mexican revolution may be. I believe that the people of Mexico had huge influence on the revolution: people who were excluded and treated unfair. I think that the term Nayid uses to label these people (“campesinos”) are exactly the people who we are referring to.
Nice job!
I enjoyed reading your response and what you wrote actually helped me understand the relationship between all of these leaders much more. So thank you for that! I also liked your thought that perhaps the Mexican people themselves should be considered the mothers and fathers of the Mexican Revolution!
Although the Revolution did emerge from the dissatisfaction of many people, I do think it is important for every Revolution to have a “face”. It is one of the key aspects that leads to the coalition required for the success of the Revolution.