Revolution and Ideology: Images of the Mexican Revolution in the United States.

1997 ◽  
Vol 102 (1) ◽  
pp. 204
Author(s):  
Paul J. Vanderwood ◽  
John A. Britton
Author(s):  
Ramón J. Guerra

This chapter examines the development of Latino literature in the United States during the time when realism emerged as a dominant aesthetic representation. Beginning with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) and including the migrations resulting from the Spanish-American War (1898) and the Mexican Revolution (1910), Latinos in the United States began to realistically craft an identity served by a sense of displacement. Latinos living in the United States as a result of migration or exile were concerned with similar issues, including but not limited to their predominant status as working-class, loss of homeland and culture, social justice, and racial/ethnic profiling or discrimination. The literature produced during the latter part of the nineteenth century by some Latinos began to merge the influence of romantic style with a more socially conscious manner to reproduce the lives of ordinary men and women, draw out the specifics of their existence, characterize their dialects, and connect larger issues to the concerns of the common man, among other realist techniques.


Author(s):  
Tony Smith

This chapter examines Woodrow Wilson's efforts, first as an academic, later as president of the United States, to promote democracy through “progressive imperialism.” A first step for Wilson was to embrace America's democratizing mission in the Philippines. Later, he would continue in this fashion after he became president and faced the challenge of providing stability in the Western Hemisphere during the Mexican Revolution and with the opening of the Panama Canal in 1914—the same year that war broke out in Europe. Wilson's driving concern now became focused: how to provide for a stable peace based on freedom. His answer: through protecting, indeed if possible expanding, democratic government the world around as the best way to end violence among states and provide freedom to peoples.


1982 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 495
Author(s):  
Mark T. Gilderhus ◽  
Fredrich Katz ◽  
Loren Goldner

1976 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 298-310
Author(s):  
Mark T. Gilderhus

Venustiano Carranza occupied a place of conspicuous importance in Mexican history. He achieved ascendancy in the crusade against Victoriano Huerta in 1913 and maintained it against all challengers until the spring of 1920. During this time he also resisted efforts by the United States to influence the course of events and undertook to reconstruct Mexico after years of devastation and turmoil. Yet in spite of his prominence, surprisingly few scholars have attempted a sustained or systematic examination of his role in the Mexican Revolution. No altogether satisfactory biography exists. He has appeared as a principal protagonist in several studies of factional disputes and diplomatic controversies during the Constitutionalist period, but often such accounts have projected an opaque, contradictory image of him. He has seemed either larger than life or lifeless and has been portrayed alternatively as a selfness champion of progressive reform or as a self-serving traditionalist who stood against the forces of meaningful change.


Author(s):  
Alejandro Bendaña

Augusto C. Sandino (1895–1934) led a peasant rebellion against the armed forces of the United States which occupied Nicaragua between 1926 and 1932. While much has been written about Sandino’s military prowess in this 20th-century guerrilla warfare, less is known about the development of his political thought and intellectual formation. That issue necessarily takes historians to the Mexican Revolution, and specifically to the period between 1923 and 1926 when Sandino was an immigrant worker in the oil fields of the larger Tampico area. Radical labor unionism and anarcho-syndicalism were the principal currents that Sandino encountered, and that helped shape his outlook and subsequent political manifestos. Because Sandino did not directly refer in any detail to this period of his life in subsequent interviews and statements, an examination is made of the cultural and social roots of working-class formations in which he immersed himself. Fortunately, historians have explored the social aspect, labor union activity, economics, and politics of the oil fields in depth (Adleson, Alafita-Mendez, Alcayaga Sasso); Dospital and Hodges were among the first to point to Sandino’s early experience in Mexico including his encounters with the metaphysical schools and mentors who shaped the idealism underpinning his anti-imperialism economic, political, military, and cultural thinking. During a military campaign and at the peak of his fame, Sandino returned to Mexico (1929–1930) expecting that the “revolutionary” government, on the one side, and the Communist Party of Mexico, on the other side, as representative of the international communist movement (Comintern) would lend political, financial, and military support for the war in Nicaragua. Cerdas Cruz told that story well, although without the benefit of primary sources. But Sandino was mistaken and eventually felt betrayed by both sides that laid claim to the revolution. He returned to Nicaragua where he fought successfully until the US Marines’ withdrawal at the end of 1932. Months after signing a peace treaty, Sandino was assassinated (February 1934) in Managua by the leaders of the proxy military constabulary or Guardia Nacional left behind by the United States in Nicaragua. At that time, he was establishing communes in northern Nicaragua according to the teachings of his first intellectual and spiritual mentors.


1963 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 574-586 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Freeman Smith

The International Bankers Committee on Mexico has been generally ignored by American diplomatic historians, and those who have mentioned it have missed the basic significance of its organization and operation. The writer of the leading text dealing with the Latin American policy of the United States devotes less than a paragraph to the Committee and says, “The United States did not even demand arbitration. It left the bondholders to their own representations to the Mexican Government.” This statement can be compared to a description of an iceberg which deals only with that part showing above the surface of the water. The heart of this presentation will be the analysis of that part of the Committee's activities which lay beneath the surface—a study in the interaction of government, business, and revolution. The basic thesis involved is that the Committee was an unofficial instrument of the United States government, as it attempted to influence certain aspects of the Mexican Revolution.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document