Lecture 6:
What I learned in lecture 6 was the revolution era and what had happened. To begin, in the early 20th century (1900’s) a new way of nationalism had become a part of Latin America. The nationalists were often urban middle-class people, immigrants, mixed heritage, and those who were benefited less in the liberal reforms of the Porfiriato. Most middle-class citizens began to embrace the local lifestyle of Mexico rather than in Europe. By 1910 Portifirio Diaz has controlled Mexico for over 30 years. Most people were getting tired of Porfirio Diaz and that’s when Fransisco Madero came into the picture. Madero was supported by the members of the Mexican elite but not by Diaz because Diaz had jailed him and exiled him because of his idea of sharing power with the member of the Mexican elite instead of the middle class. Afterward, Madero had changed his way of thought and made a movement to return to the land of indengionous people which Diaz had done. a lot of Mexican was done with Diaz’s policies. A rebellion was made to overthrow Diaz and many groups of different backgrounds and goals were in with throwing him out. They as well-formed a rebellion led by Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa. The constitutionalist movement emerged at this time where the urban middle class with a struggle with power created a new revolutionary constitution and inspired the constitution of 1917.
An article that stuck with me was Article 27 where the natural resources (water and minerals) of Mexico were not for foreign businesses but were only for the Mexicans who could own and use theyre natural resources in their own factories unless the Mexican nation agrees to share, it also prohibited religious institutions for requiring, owning, or administrating land in the defined place of public worship as the property of the nation. The article also gave ejidos to the indigenous people to work and live. Many moderates and conservatives viewed article 27 to be “radical” the reasoning behind this land reforms program made several critical points.
True elastin pacer could not be made from superficial changes, propaganda, and repression and only through deep and substantive change to Mexicos politics, land, and economy
Returning land to the villages to the people who owned them was just and should be returned to them
Large landowners did not use their lands efficiently meanwhile villagers used most of the land
In “The constitution of 1917: Articles 27 and 123” it mentions “Article 27, paves the way for one of the most sweeping agrarian reforms in the history of Latin Amerca ( one that remained on the books in the early 1990s) as well for the expropriation of foreign-owned properties in 1938. Article 27 also attacked the right of the catholic church to own real property, becoming a factor in a religious civil war of the late 1920s”.
Do you think that Article 27 helped the people of Mexico improve their economy? If so why or why not?
