Z.Somji, 001147-081
Plan of Investigation
To what extent does Emiliano Zapata deserve the title “Father of the Mexican Revolution?”
This paper will discuss characteristics and actions of Emiliano Zapata as a leader; in order to draw a valid conclusion as to what extent does he deserve the title “Father of the Mexican Revolution.” By drawing on the expertise of various historians, an evaluation of his character and leadership will be formed, referencing the assertions of historians in regards to the positive and negative aspects of his life. Based on the evidence, an analysis will be presented discussing the factors which result to the conclusion. In addition to examining the life of Zapata, light will be shed upon the revolutionaries Francisco Madero and Pancho Villa. This will give a comparison among the figures, and aid in extracting analysis on Zapata’s importance in the Mexican Revolution of 1910.
The sources that will be utilized in this research will mainly come from monographs and anthropologies. The methods that will lead to the conclusion will be by forming a coherent argument in relation to the evidence, documenting each source. Before finding sources and forming a structure for the research, the encyclopedia will be used to acquire background information. Thus, once the area of interest will have key factors of information, anthropologies and other sources will be used to carry out the research. The investigation will discuss the situations in Mexico, where the lowest classes were oppressed, denied liberties and exploited and how a man would soon emerge as a significant revolutionary figure in the conflict between the villagers and the haciendas (Kirkwood 63).
Summary of Evidence
Section I:
The villagers of Morelos joined a broader rebellion against the president Porfirio Diaz, fighting against haciendas who oppressively infringed land, water and local rights, struggling to recover lost resources (Brunk 11). Some important figures emerged from this revolution, including Francisco Madero, a well educated man who advocated political reform- many workers supported him because they believed that he actually “heard their complaints” (Kirkwood 134). Pancho Villa, on the other hand, portrayed the view point of the northern sector of Mexico (Brunk 15).
Emiliano Zapata was also one of the most significant figures in Mexican history (Brunk 28). Emiliano was from a very early age in opposition to the hacienda system and its “enclosure of village lands” (McLynn 42). Prior to being elected chief of his village, Zapata had been active in “village defense, signing protests, taking a junior part in delegations to the jefe politico, organizing a local campaign of an opposition candidate for governor and establishing connections with opposition politicians from all over the state” (5). An Englishwoman, Mrs. King described Zapata as the one who was “stirring up the people” (Womack 64). By winter of 1911, Zapata was the “effective authority in that part of the state” (65). The size of the area under his control was not large in size, but of “major economic value” and “strategic importance” (65). In May 1911, two days before Villa and others took Ciudad Juarez to establish Madero’s regime in the north, “Zapata successfully led 4000 guerillas against 400 federal soldiers defending Cuautla” – for Zapata, this was just the beginning; his movement required more than “military success, “it required “reform” (Adams 161). Zapata furiously stood for “the masses” who had been “brutally suppressed” during the thirty four years under Diaz’s rule, where their wages had “declined” drastically (Burns 196). Thus, the lands were usurped by the wealthy, who comprised of fewer than 1,000 families, and left ninety five percent without any (196). In 1914, Zapata introduced the Plan de Ayala, and the delegates committed to “support the welfare of the rural population” (Kirkwood 143). The Plan made Zapata “the perfect Ishmael” as it contained proposals for land reform, including “restitution of lands seized by the Hacendados” and the “expropriation of one third of all large estates” (McLynn 120). Whilst the revolution might have ended for Madero once he took power, the revolution would not end for Zapata unless “there was an agrarian reform” (120). The first task Zapata set himself, after being elected, was to study “all the historical documents relating to the village and its lands” (McLynn 49). Zapata soon realized that Madero “was not implementing any change,” when he was ordered to take no action against haciendas; Madero practiced hypocrisy and Zapata “was angry and stupefied”(108). In Morelos, Zapata’s government “overcame old antagonisms among villages” and “implemented programs beyond land reform,” suggesting a model for the whole country. (Adams 166).
