Zapatismo was more of a reactionary than a revolutionary movement. Discuss in the context of the Mexican Revolution up to 1920
'Zapatismo was more of a reactionary than a
revolutionary movement.' Discuss in the context of
the Mexican Revolution up to 1920
Emiliano Zapata, an almost pure-blooded Tlahuican, was born in Morelos at a time when
caudillismo politics were giving way to predominantly liberal systems in Latin America. He
was by no means rich but his birth-right of a share in a small rancho made him considerably
better off than many of his neighbours whose own livelihood was rid of nearly all its
independence when the ejidos, common-land which had been 'granted' to the natives by
the conquistadores some 300 years earlier and which were used as pasture by the peones,
were 'de-nationalised' under the Ley Lerdo of 1856 and sold-off, mainly to wealthy
hacendados. This law was conceived of mainly as an attack on the church but also served
as an assertion of liberal non-state-interventionism and an attack on privilege. That it won
many hacendados over to the liberal cause by 'freeing-up' previously unavailable arable
land was a bonus for the incumbent regime. That it disinherited the Indians and weakened
the role of the military was met with approval by cientificos who saw them as obstacles to
progress. That it would, half a century later, be the catalyst that would mobilise millions of
Mexicans to more than a decade of violent struggle could not have been foreseen.
One not insignificant faction in this mobilisation were the Morelenses who, inspired by
Pablo Torres Burgos' eloquence at the meetings in his Villa de Ayala home, began to
embrace revolutionary ideas. However, Burgos was a pen-pusher and thinker and, though
he was popular, he wasn't really a machete-wielding land-worker's idea of the man at the
vanguard of a battle-charge. Emiliano Zapata, on the other hand, was. Charismatic and
personable, known for his amorous exploits and expert horsemanship and belonging to an
indígena family recognised for their courage in past wars, he assumed, in true Latin
American, anti-state style, the role of revolutionary caudillo. This is the way it had been
before the scourge of state-liberalism had stolen the common-lands, punished the army
which had won them independence and attacked the Church in which they invested their
faith. And, as Alan knight asserts, this was the way of the Revolution: "Traditional village
leaders served as the mentors of popular rebellion, village 'intellectuals' as ideological
spokesmen."
Once again there was an identifiable figure to fill the vast void between themselves and the
faceless bureaucracy which oppressed them. By early 1911 Zapatismo, the cult based
around the man, was born and the job in hand, the removal of Díaz, was quickly underway.
Zapata was everything his followers hoped he would be. His military acumen was astute, as
a "dispenser of justice and disburser of booty" he was the model caudillo and his loyalty
to the cause was second to none. It was no more than the matter of a few months before
the combined revolutionary forces behind Madero saw Díaz exiled and a 'revolutionary'
government installed. It was no more than a couple of weeks after Madero's inauguration
that Zapata, now with the help of another 'intellectual', Otilio Montaño, drew up his seminal
document, the Plan de Ayala. This manifesto, the tone of which ("... almost a scripture...")
reflected the traditional Catholicism its prospective readership, the style of which (almost a
tabloid) spoke to them in their own language and the of the tenets of which (almost utopian)
neither he nor most of his followers would ever compromise, demanded - among other
things - the return of the ancestral lands. In many ways it was the most 'revolutionary' of the
revolutionary plans. But was it referring to the same revolution?
It is pertinent here to address the different interpretations of the 'Revolution' itself. Research
...
This is a preview of the whole essay
reflected the traditional Catholicism its prospective readership, the style of which (almost a
tabloid) spoke to them in their own language and the of the tenets of which (almost utopian)
neither he nor most of his followers would ever compromise, demanded - among other
things - the return of the ancestral lands. In many ways it was the most 'revolutionary' of the
revolutionary plans. But was it referring to the same revolution?
It is pertinent here to address the different interpretations of the 'Revolution' itself. Research
quickly reveals a dichotomy of historical perspectives. On the one hand there is the view of
those who, essentially, 'were there' and witnessed the unfolding of events first-hand, or at
least were imbued with a feel for the time and 'witnessed' the events via the airwaves and
press. Challenging the validity of their views are those who, in recent decades, are, they
think, the beneficiaries of hindsight and who see the events in the context of what followed
as well as what preceded. But that is not to say the 'traditionalist' view is held exclusively
by those of a certain age and the 'revisionist' perspective is the domain only of the young
buck.
Traditionalists argue that the revolution was fuelled by a popular, essentially rural and
regional, movement which, although unable to drive the revolution toward the hoped-for
destination of the peones and peasants who represented its footsoldiers, "profoundly
affected Mexican society and its subsequent evolution," into a national centralised state. It
is this notion 'evolution' which divides the two schools.
Revisionists identify these same facets of the revolution as two diametrically opposite
ambitions. The "one which failed... a radical, popular, and nationalist transformation of
Mexican society aimed toward transmuting the changes wrought by the Porfiriato and in
eliminating the vestiges of the old order," which was typified by the efforts exerted by the
Zapatistas, and the triumphant force which, mindful of the outside world, principally the US,
and the role its liberal economic policies were bound to play in Mexico's future, aped the
centralised state-building of Juárez and, particularly, Díaz and formed a "Revolutionary
State," which deliberately and cynically "crushed regional autonomy and established a neo-
Porfirian State."
Somewhere within these two opinions lies the 'truth'. The insurgents of the Mexican
Revolution did hope for and fight for profound social change based on notions of
egalitarianism (however vague) . They did end up with a centralised state. But what was
the role of the Zapatistas in this?
It is adventurous even to claim that the destitute, illiterate peon, was ever, subjectively,
involved in a revolutionary process. As Knight puts it "the Mexican Revolution... was the
work of diverse, localised, backward-looking rebels, who were themselves not
revolutionary." For him, the rebel, the situation was simple; the local hacendado had stolen
his land and he wanted it back. If he held a macrocosmic vision at all, it was that the Indians
and mestizos in the neighbouring pueblo were suffering the same injustice at the hand of a
similar tyrant to his own; usually pitiless, usually a Creole. He knew that any hope of
reclaiming the ejidos was obstructed by the ruthless Guardia Rurale, the Federals, the
hacendado's own, equally merciless, private army or the combined forces of all three. In
the meantime, however, he had to work to try to scrape together what living he could; he
and his family had to eat and attempt to clothe themselves, living quarters had to be
provided and there were, for the lucky ones, farm animals to rear. Life was a desperate
struggle. This was the reality of Porfirian Mexico for the debt-peones and peasants and it
was a reality they would take with them into the theatre of armed insurrection for, as Mark
Wasserman describes it, the Mexican Revolution "was no more than a series of regional
struggles."
This was the nature of Zapatismo. Although there is much evidence to suggest that the
peasantry was politicised and conscious of the wider perspective it was the Zapatistas'
essential regionalism and preoccupation with the agrarian issue which precluded any
possibility of successfully broadening their political ambitions beyond the South and Centre,
beyond Morelos, even, as far as the grass-roots activists were concerned, beyond the
patria chica. Knight says they were "... steeped in liberal patriotic tradition, politically
articulate, and nationally aware (if not nationally effective)." and that "revolutionary
movements like Zapata's were pursuing their own local objectives without much regard for
Madero's national political preoccupations."
They did employ political mechanisms, though. Newell describes how the 'Consultation
Centre For Revolutionary Propaganda and Unification' was set up to advise the pueblos on
matters such as organising juntas and the 'mutual obligations of the armed Zapatistas' and
to mediate in feuds between individual chiefs but, underlying all these endeavours was
Zapatistas' reluctance to institutionalise their philosophy and thus be associated with the
dictators, cientificos and hacendados who had conceived of the unbearable lives they were
enduring and who they so naturally despised and mistrusted. So, while autonomous groups
such as 'Associations for the Defence of Revolutionary Principles,' were promoted and
policies like the Plan de Ayala and the Manifesto to the Mexican People were espoused
"they did not however, attempt - or even wish - to organise a political party." This is the
sticking point. Knight again:
"Arnaldo Córdova denies Zapatismo revolutionary status, arguing that revolutionaries
cannot assume a parochial, retrospective stance, but must look forwards, to the seizure
of state power and the implementation of a 'national project of development.' Now
'revolution,' and 'revolutionary,' are what you make of them. They can refer to any
armed movement directed against an established regime."
Another dichotomy. Zapatismo had no national project and was therefore, according to
Córdova, not revolutionary. But it was an armed movement bent on toppling the established
order, says Knight, so 'revolutionary' is a tag that can easily be attached to it. To Edwin
Williamson Zapatismo is able to be both a reaction by backward-looking (we can assume
to some, likely imagined, Edad de Oro) peasants and a conscious assault on what it saw as
an objectionable philosophy: "The insurgence led by Zapata was as much a defence of
traditional communities imbued with Catholicism as a revolutionary attack on capitalism."
Zapatismos's contribution to the Revolution was clearly enormous; the rapidity of
Madero's ascendancy would have been seriously retarded, or may have petered out
altogether were it not for the Zapatistas, and even if he did manage to oust Díaz, the cause
of the 'common man' could arguably have been forgotten amid the power-broking
thereafter.
In terms of the movement, the question of whether it was 'reactionary' or 'revolutionary' is
almost impossible to resolve, based as it is on interpretation and semantics. A portrait of
Zapata himself based on all the anecdotes, personal accounts, press clippings and historical
analysis that form the 'myth' (for, with the charismatic caudillo that is almost as important as
the actuality) is, perhaps, more telling.
Unlike the career-politician who would never imagine that there would come a time when
the job would be done and the house could keep itself, Emiliano Zapata wanted just that.
He was happiest in Morelos, philandering with the señoritas or showing-off at the rodeo.
He had no liking for the high-life of Mexico city nor for the haciendas and promises of
wealth Madero and his agents and then Carranza and his would periodically offer him. His
personal wants were very humble and what he could not provide for himself he was little
interested in. He was a Morelense and was contented to remain in his home state among his
own people and build, with his own hands, a life for himself and his family... and if only the
hacendados would leave his people in peace and return the land that was rightfully theirs, if
only the rurales would not be so cruel to the poor indefensible peones, if only a just and fair
future could be secured for the poor and downtrodden, then he could hang up his political
boots and walk the walk of a free, honest, hardworking ranchero lifestyle only nominally
augmented by the few perquisites afforded to his caudillo status. If only.
So, if Zapatismo was the embodiment of Emiliano Zapata then, yes, it was a reactionary
movement. If its contribution to the Mexican Revolution of Madero, Villa and Carranza
(and, it must be conceeded that that was the revolution that 'happened to happen,') then,
yes, it was a reactionary's contribution. If the Plan de Ayala, with its immovable utopian
goal-posts in an ever-expanding, ever-liberalising, ever-capitalising international field of play,
was its primary offering to a national project, then yes,
Zapatismo was indeed reactionary. But even though these conditions are fulfilled, Knight's
argument that "it would be wrong to deny 'reactive' peasant movements revolutionary
status," is valid. Zapatismo's contribution to the Revolution was invaluable. As for the
activists behind the man, myth and movement, their status should not be belittled. As Knight
says of them: "The Zapatistas were revolutionaries, even if they were not winners in the
'success story' of history."
"... peasant protest was generally backward-looking, and 'traditional' (though not
'apolitical,' and still less 'spontaneous,' as often alleged. The ideology of protest,
furthermore, was often vague, ostensibly inconsistent and inarticulate." (Kn 161)
"Zapatismo, though later tinged by anarcho-sindicalism, drew principally upon traditional
liberal and patriotic ideas, and had no difficulty in reconciling these with rural Catholicism."
(Kn 163)
"Revolution... generally implies a violent political conflict in which, at the very least, more
than a government re-shuffle is at stake." (Kn 314)
Bibliography
Williamson, Edwin. The Penguin History of Latin America, Penguin. (London, 1992).
Benjamin, Thomas & Wasserman, Mark (Eds.). Provinces of the Revolution : essays on
regional Mexican history, 1910 - 1929, University of New Mexico Press (US, 1990).
Dunn, H.H. The Crimson Jester - Zapata of Mexico, Harrap & Co. (London, 1934).
Newell, Peter E. Zapata of Mexico, Cienfuegos Press. (UK, 1979).
Knight, Alan. The Mexican Revolution - Volume 1, Cambridge University Press.
(Cambridge, 1986).
Distant anscestors were said to have "rode with Cortes against Cuauhtemoc". Their role in the wars
of independence was the stuff of local lore and when Emiliano was young there were living relatives
who remembered and had fought against the French in the 1860's. Newell, Peter E. Zapata of Mexico,
Cienfuegos Press. (UK, 1979). (p. 14).
Knight, Alan. The Mexican Revolution - Volume 1, Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge, 1986).
Voss, Stuart F. Nationalizing the Revolution, Culmination and Circumstance, in Benjamin, Thomas &
Wasserman, Mark (Eds.). Provinces of the Revolution : essays on regional Mexican history, 1910 -
929, University of New Mexico Press (US, 1990). (p. 279).
Knight. Op.Cit. (p. 309).
Wasserman, Mark. Provinces of the Revolution: An Introduction, in Benjamin & Wasserman. Op.Cit.
(p. 3).
Voss. Op.Cit. (p. 273).
Wasserman. Op.Cit. (p. 3).
Knight. Op.Cit. (p. 313).
There were of course exceptions. Alan Knight "the hacienda of San Felipe del Progresso, for example,
run by conscientious landlords who combined profit-maximisation with the maintenance of 'traditional
obligations' towards their peons, survived the Revolution without internal upheaval." Knight. Op.Cit.
(p. 168). But one wonders if, had these haciendas been the rule rather than the exception, there would
have been a revolution at all.
Wasserman. Op.Cit. (p. 7). Zapatismo was arguably the most active and widespread of these but the
'reaction' provoked by the Porfiriato took on an almost universal character among peasant movements
in rural Mexico. As Alan Knight puts it. "The story of Zapata... is too often considered unique, when in
fact it was typical." In Knight. Op.Cit. (p. 263)
Knight Op.Cit.
'Liberalism' was able to appeal to many, apparently conflicting, factions in post-independence Latin
America. "Liberalism, which sanctioned attacks on peasant rights in the name of progress, and the
market, also legitimised consequent peasant protest with the invocation of liberal traditions, and
liberal principles of constitutional rule." (Knight, 163)
Knight. Op.Cit. (p. 6).
ibid.(p. 218).
Newell. Op.Cit. (p. 135).
Knight. Op.Cit. (p. 313).
Williamson, Edwin. The Penguin History of Latin America, Penguin. (London, 1992). (p.360).
Knight. Op.Cit. I refer to Knight's assertion that history can only deal with that which 'happened to
happen,' and not that which we hoped would have happened.
Ibid. (p. 161).