Tuesdays Class 4/8/14 Tensions & Revolution

During Tuesday’s class we talked about Becker’s book and the reasons for the revolution, some of the tensions that Becker talks about as well. A few reasons why there were tensions were because it was hard for Cardenas to govern the peasants and another was that the revolutionaries wanted to remove the Catholic religion. There were a few goals that the revolution hoped to accomplish and that was to create “one” Mexico and to have a common vision of what it means to be Mexican. While the revolutionaries were trying to remove the Catholic religion, the people of Mexico at the same time adopted the religion, so right there is major conflict between two groups of people and that is cause for revolution right there.

The La Perisima is something the poor people used; it was an image that provided comfort and moral purity to the poor. The Cristero Rebellion lasted three years from 1926 to 1929. The rebellion was a clash of world views, it was fought to separate the church from everything, and it resulted in the persecution of Catholics and the Catholic churches. The Revolution was divided into four different parts; land reform, secularized education, anticlerical, and modernizing Mexico. There was a true Mexican identity and that was the Indigenismo. Indigenismo was this idea of a nationalist ideology.

Calles wasn’t the president but he called the shots, him and his “Maximato”.  They had this idea of projecting popular culture onto the Mexican people, he struggled making it a legit project because the people that the project was supposed to help actually pushed back against the project and didn’t want it.

I found it interesting how one group of people was so opposite from another group of people and that they couldn’t come to a compromise. They’re all Mexicans but they don’t know what it means to be Mexican, it just shows how much Mexico and Mexicans have really struggled to make something of themselves. The people didn’t really have a choice of starting a revolution, the government tried forcing things on them that they didn’t want and I believe the people did what they had to do. 

Soldiers and Soldaderas During the Mexican Revolution

The documents that our group was assigned with was reading and learning from the perspective of the soldiers and the soldaderas, Chapter 3 of Mark Wasserman's The Mexican Revolution A Brief History with Documents. Throughout all the documents there is a general theme that emerges from them; the soldiers didn’t want to be there and without the soldaderas they wouldn’t have any will left in them to fight. It was very evident that after reading these documents the soldiers were miserable. It seemed like the soldiers themselves didn’t even want to be soldiers during the Revolution. The soldiers’ lives were very harsh. They didn’t have proper clothing, they didn’t have enough food or supplies, they were short on ammo supplies, and didn’t have proper shelter. Troops were also unreliable and very undisciplined, desertion was always a problem (pg. 69).  For the soldiers, the women played a very important role as the men needed the women both domestically and emotionally. The women did what they were told to do by the men because that was what they were expected to do.

The Mexican Revolution: At War

Austin Bittner
Mike Cortez

The Mexican Revolution lasted from 1911 to 1915, with guerrilla warfare - led by Pancho Villa - lasting up to 1920. In chapter two of Wasserman’s The Mexican Revolution: A Brief History with Documents, the phases of the Revolution are explained and the brutal forms of warfare are expounded.

The Mexican Revolution is divided into four stages, the vast majority of which consisted of primarily non traditional guerrilla warfare. The first stage of the war began in Chihuahua in Northern Mexico in 1911 and ended with the capitulation of Ciudad Juarez in May of that year. This was followed by a period of continued guerrilla warfare across the country, leading up to 1913 and the third phase of the war. 1913-1915 was marked by large scale battles and more conventional European style warfare. This phase lasted until Alvaro Obregon destroyed Villa’s army at Celaya. The final phase was marked by continued armed resistance and guerrilla tactics lasting until 1920 (Wasserman, 50).

A famous quote thrown around in the gaming community goes: "War. War never changes." History bursts at the seam with figures in revolutionary or militaristic movements that have the uncanny ability to not only lead men in battle, but have the skills as a general to achieve victory. Pancho Villa was among the many who stood out in the revolutionary period of Mexico during the 1910's. He was certainly a charismatic leader that used unconventional tactics to launch a series of campaigns.

Pacificos: Accounts from the everyday citizen

Los Pacificos

Emily Blackford and Stephanie Smith

            Most often when reading stories of the Mexican Revolution, one would find the documents from the perspective of soldiers, political leaders, or third party outsiders. Often overlooked are the citizens of Mexico, the ones who were the most heavily affected by this violent revolution. Pacificos refers to the people who were not involved in the revolution but paid dearly for it. The following documents are accounts, both fictional and nonfictional, of the everyday trials experienced throughout the revolution. In López Y Fuentes’ El Indio, is a fictional account of the Mexican Indians’ experience armed intruder. Batalla’s My Village during the Revolution, is a nonfictional document accounting three separate Mexicans’ experiences during the revolution including violence, robbery, and mass paranoia. Henry’s the Death of Frank Henry, which talks about violences between the Zapatistas and Carrancistas and how the Zapatistas looted the village. Gaván’s Escaping the Revolution, tells a tale of a family escaping Mexico and the revolution and making their way to freedom in America.

Though a work of fiction, El Indio is a powerful narrative on the situation before, during and after the Mexican Revolution. The village chronicled in the novel faces a band of armed men who overthrow the current authorities and kill the military leaders. The Indians seemed indifferent to these people, guided by a personal liking or by fear of consequences. The Indians were required to give these soldiers fodder and tortillas as a sort of tax levied against the village. Though surely frightening, their experience details far less violence than many other faced.

In the case of several native Mexicans, the violence inflicted upon them by the Revolutionaries amounted to a far greater scale. In My Village during the Revolution, three different Mexican natives recount their experiences during the Revolution. Manuel Massieu discusses the violence that appeared and left suddenly and without warning. Often, hunger was linked to these arrivals and departures. With hunger widespread throughout the community, many members became suspicious of those who seemed to be more prosperous than them, often rioting against them and attacking them violently. Antonio Casas describes the Constitutionalists who would come and ransack their village. In return, the soldiers would give them shining paper money that was useless. Nefi Acosta and María Martínez described the anxiety amongst the people, living daily in fear of being tortured or killed by one of the factions.

This next narrative recounts the death of Frank Henry from the view of one of his family members. This sad tale tells of Frank Henry of San Miguel, a place Frank had always hoped to leave. The Zapatistas made this impossible, they took all the animals that were able to carry a human. The camp did however find a slight liberation from the Carrancistas, who ran the Zapatistas out of the camp. These Carrancistas told grand stories about the successes of their armed forces, bringing a small hope to the camp’s residents. Not long after, a Spaniard warned the residents that the Carrancistas were saddling up to leave the camp, much to everyone’s dismay. After the Carrancistas had left, a small band of Zapatistas invaded the camp and started looting houses. As the drunk and gun-heavy Zapatistas approached Frank’s house, he stood outside to meet them in a valiant effort to save his home. Frank was shot and killed immediately. His house was then looted and left, leaving Frank Henry’s family with an empty home and his dead body at the front.

In this final narrative Escaping the Revolution, Gaván tells the tale of a family hoping not to be another victim of the revolution; their only way to achieve this is to leave Mexico behind them. This penniless and poverty-stricken family was forced to rent out one of their rooms just to make ends meet. After living like this for so long, the family decided they could not bare it a single moment longer and decided to flee from revolutionary Mexico. They made their way to a federal train taking citizen passengers to Juaréz. Along the way the train was machine-gunned and stopped frequently to fight off revolutionary forces. At every stop, the train lost two to three freight cars, sometimes bearing passengers. Even worse, the train had exhausted all provisions and along the way, vital bridges had been burnt forcing passengers to help build makeshift bridges in order to pass. Through all the struggles of the journey, the family managed to make it to Juarez before making their way to the American station of Santa Fe and their eventual freedom.

Marissa Kimmel-Kendrick and Karmen Buchanan- for our post we had chapter 7 on international ramifications. We decided to do our narratives as if it had been written by a reporter in Mexico, who had spent years observing the Mexican government during the revolution. The narrative is written as if the reporter was doing a story that reflected the past several years of the revolution and the countries' relations with foreign powers.

 

The revolution within Mexico’s borders was meant to be a conflict that was to be resolved among the people of Mexico, but the division and unrest within our countries borders has caused unrest and problems with the neighboring nation, the United States. The U.S. being the great industrious nation that it is, has been in a state of tug of war, wanting to become involved in Mexican affairs. Nonetheless in spite of the debate over whether or not to officially interfere with the disarray in Mexico, Americans have nonetheless found ways to get involved in the concerns and issues going on in Mexico.

The Revolution

In October 1910, Madero would issue is Plan of San Luis Potosi from American soil in Texas. His plan declared the Mexican people had been offered peace, but a shameful one to him that was based on force and not law. He believed the goal of Mexico’s leaders was for the enrichment of a small group of the population and not the betterment nor prosperity of the homeland. Madero’s Plan called for a revolt against the Diaz regime on November 20, 1910 (pg. 296, Russell). He wanted free elections, and a legal review of the previous land thefts.

Revolutionary Politics

Chapter five in The Mexican Revolution: A Brief History with Documents portrays the many different sides of the Mexican Revolution between 1912 and 1928. The documents in this chapter are written by members of varying factions within the time period. Below are the different viewpoints of the men and women involved in the Mexican Revolution.

In 1912 a prominent family resisted Zapata’s forces in Morelos. Luis Garcia Pimentel documented his reasoning’s regarding the anarchy in the state of Morelos to the Secretary of Development, Colonization and Industry. His two main principles focused on the criminals freed by rebels in the beginning of the Maderista revolution. He believed that the cause of disturbances and anarchy stemmed from their unwillingness to return to prison and fulfill their pending terms. The Zapatistas believed in agrarian socialism which would divide up the land making it available for the use of their people. Pimentel claimed that some land was already divided and they did already own some small properties and he believed that the residents of Morelos had shown they did not know how to properly conserve the land. This made the haciendas owners feel that redistribution of the land was unjust and that their mass ownership of the land was legitimate.

Eduardo Iturbide, a wealthy landowner from Michoacan was a Governor of the Federal District appointed by Huerta in 1914. Iturbide’s document illustrates the corruption within Huerta’s government and the bullying tactics Huerta attempted and many times got away with during his political reign. Iturbide portrays himself in this document as an honorable law abiding Governor who did not give into the normal corruption and bribery that came along with holding a governmental post during the Mexican Revolution.

A primary document in Chapter 5 written by Venustiano Carranza addresses The Agrarian Law and how he intended to carry out and enforce the law in everyday Mexican society. The document was supposed to prove Carranza’s promise of giving back land to the rural population. However we now know even though he mapped out his plan in this document he didn’t end up carrying out the plan as promised. He basically used the document to gain support in the civil war against Villa and Zapata. He promised to create national, local and executive committees to “enforce” the Agrarian Laws.

During the Mexican civil war Carranza had to counter the widespread support for Villa and Zapata in the countryside by wooing urban workers in his favor. He did this by teaming up with the Casa del Obrero Mundial which was the leading union federation in Mexico. The document shown in this excerpt of Chapter 5 shows the reader the document used by Carranza to gain support and prove his loyalty to the union workers. In the document he offered the workers semiofficial status, allowed them to organize themselves and sided with their union over foreign employers. The men who signed the document became known as members of the Red Battalions. An interesting factor of the Red Battalions was that the men were not divided up into any formal group such as companies, regiments, brigades or divisions. The men were all designated as one unified group known as “reds”.

The document on page 117 is actually a speech given by Francisca Garcia Ortiz. Women from all over Mexico were invited to the convention who supported or wanted to hear more about the women’s rights movement. The speech address the women at the convention to “no longer think with nineteenth-century minds”, Ortiz says to change the status quo they needed to educate those who form society. For her men form society and by educating men it would then allow the women of society to be educated as well. It was the mother’s job in the home to mold the young man’s thought process and raise him with a more open mind to women’s rights to education and work outside of the home. 

Martin Luis Guzman was a part of Carranza’s inner circle and shows the reader a uniquely “cynical view of the maneuvering within the Constitutionalist ranks to enrich and empower their leaders.” The document illustrates a scene in which Carranza is addressing his political and governmental advisors. As he finishes his speech Angeles, his Minister of War makes a statement saying he believes that the art of warfare is something that can be learned and taught and better exercised the more an individual has studied it. Carranza counter’s his statement saying the only thing that is necessary or useful is goodwill in leading and governing men. The interesting part of this document is the thought process of Guzman as he sits around a table of Carranza’s men and no one is willing to speak out against the outspoken leader. Until Guzman speaks up it seems as though all the men do disagree with Carranza but refuse to speak out against him in fear of punishment or falling out of favor of the political leader. Guzman goes on to speak about his lack of interest in becoming a Mexican general in Carranza’s military and disrespect for Carranza as a political leader. He describes Carranza as an old stubborn man who would never change and continue to respond to flattery from his followers and servitude rather than actual ability by the men he put in governmental and military power. 

Paulino Gomez

Max Smith

Great online sources for the Mexican Revolution

Check this site out; there's some interesting stuff here!
(Some great resources here for teachers and future teachers also)

edsitement.neh.gov/feature/mexican-revolution-november-20th-1910

For this week Dr. Gannon allowed us to teach the class and to dissect the different areas of the Porfirian government. We divided up and covered economy, relations with the United States and other foreign powers, politics under Diaz, and Mexico’s indigenous peoples during the Porfiriato.

Porfirian Society in the early 20th Century

I think part of the more interesting part of our reading this week (the last portion of Chapter 12) was the outlining of the different aspects of society, especially during the Porfirian era. This era lasted from 1876 until 1911 when Porfirio Diaz took the presidency. The main part I’ll be focusing on is his decent from 1901 until 1911. During this time, the gap between the upper elite and the rest of the population, which included the Middle Class and the Working Class, was gallingly apparent. Only about 1% of the population formed the upper class elites while the middle class formed only about 8%, leaving 92% of the population in the poor, underpaid or unemployed range (Russell, 239). The mass poverty that took place amongst the working class was attributed to many things, but mostly the natural development of the country was to blame. Those who were already wealthy became even more so along with this trend. America went through much the same thing during the Industrial Revolution.

Juarez and Diaz 1856-1909

Once Santa Anna was overthrown in 1855, Mexico was dominated by liberals who gained their fortunes from the export of minerals and agriculture goods.  The main issue that they had to deal with was the uniting of the country, but there was also division between the liberals including Puros and Moderados.  The puros or “pure ones” believed the poor should participate in the political process, whereas the moderados were reluctant to give significant power to the lower class.

Juan Alveraz was chosen by radical liberals on October 4^th 1835, to lead the country and resigned in December of the same year.  Although he wasn’t in power for long, he was able to implement the Juarez law, which forced priest and military personnel charged with common crimes and civil suites to be tried in ordinary courts. The Lerdo Law was another one that hurt the church by prohibiting the Church and Indian villages from owning land. During this time the Church owned one-fifth of the land, as well as half the houses in Mexico City.   I understand that they wanted to take away the power of the church while increasing the amount of land on the market, but they failed one of their main goals of converting peasants into yeoman farmers.  It’s always a little suspicious when the wealthy landowners, including some of the legislators who voted for the law, end up with most of the land that was auctioned.

The 1857 Constitution didn’t help the tension between liberals and conservatives, due to the fact that conservatives were underrepresented in the constitutional congress.  I find it very interesting that they removed the prohibition against religions other than Roman Catholicism, by neglecting a declaration that Catholicism was to be the religion of the land.  This constitution also guaranteed the freedom of press, of association, and right to bear arms.  Although the constitution created a stronger central government as well as pushed civil liberties, it failed to help with the inequalities in land ownership as well as wealth.

                The inability of the moderate and the radical liberals to find a happy medium, led to the coup against President Comonfort, leaving General Felix Zuloaga and Benito Juarez both claiming to be president.  The civil war between 1857 and 1860 is also known as the War of the Reform. The conservatives had support from the Church, military officers, and Indian villages. The liberals had the support of lawyers, doctors, and journalists. They also had miners, merchants and cattlemen on their side looking for a political voice.

                I find the War of the Reform interesting because it never saw more than 25,000 people under arms at one time in a country of 8 million people.  Liberals were able to use the money they gained from selling the land from the church against conservatives. They also gained the support of the people who bought this land because if the liberals lost, the church would return, wanting their land back.  Although liberal forces were able to regain Mexico City December 25^th, 1860, there were still uprisings in central Mexico.

                Mexico was unable to bounce back after the war because there was so much unrest and destruction. “The Mexican congress suspended payments on foreign and domestic debts for two years, but did not repudiate the debts.”(Russell 223) Hindsight helps a lot in this case but I believe since they accepted the fact that they had debts, France shouldn’t have attempted their occupation of Mexico. They had signed the Tripartite Convention of London with Spain and England, stating they would occupy Mexico’s customs houses to collect funds.  The British and Spanish both gave up occupation once they came down with yellow fever and Mexico promised to pay back the debts as soon as possible.  On the other hand we have the French to thank for Cinco De Mayo.  The Battle of Puebla on May 5^th 1862 united indigenous people with mestizos and remains an outstanding military victory in the history of Mexico.

                Once the French eventually take Mexico City, conservatives creating the interim government believed a foreign Catholic monarch would help unite the country.  They asked for and received, Ferdinand Maximilian. Surprisingly, he showed  moderate European liberalism by abolishing corporal punishment, as well as guaranteed a minimum wage for agricultural workers. (225) These moves lost the support of conservatives, while appointing moderate liberals pushed away the more radical liberals.  

                Its frustrating to read about the amount of destruction and death that happened during this period for very small victories. There were some advancements but  the major issues were still intact. When Diaz was elected, "he faced the challenge of establishing peace and stability in a nation plagued by poverty, illiteracy, social inequality, political turmoil, financial penury, and woefully inadequate infrastructure- the same problems Juarez and Lerdo de Tejada had faced. "(231)

Liberals Strive for Separation

I thought the most interesting part of the reading in Russell was learning about Juarez' quest to separate the church from the government. Since Santa Anna was overthrown, liberals now had an opportunity to separate the government from the church and allow more focus on modernizing Mexico. Like most countries, a push to modernize and industrialize will help the country become a global power. I don't think that is necessarily what liberals wanted but the fact that the US to the north was having success in their Industrial Revolution was something to compete with. While Alvarez was president in 1855, he implemented two important laws that would help with the push for separation. Russell describes the Juarez Law and the Lerdo Law on page 217. The Juarez Law got rid of the special courts that were for the military and clergy, and the Lerdo Law prohibited the Church and Indian villages from owning the land. I thought it was interesting that these laws offended the clergy members. Prior to this time, they were practically treated like royalty, given complete immunity and now that they were forced to be tried with common crimes in ordinary courts was appalling to them. The fact that the bishop also wanted Juarez' Law to be suspended until the pope's opinion was heard does not make sense to me logically. Clergy members are respected in today's society but they aren't held above us and I think this shows the shear corruption that was occurring in Mexico prior to the 1850's. 

The Dawn of Industrialization

As we talked about in class Mexico was now independent, but what how good is independence if Mexico has to rely on other countries to invest in its industries? Mexico looked like a chance for European countries to make significant profits if they invested in it. Mexico was independent, but many factors created a state that couldn’t be totally self-sufficient.

Russell Chapter 6

I chose to recap Chapter 6 of Russell, specifically the section of Democracy, Spanish Style. I found this area to be especially interesting from this chapter because not only was it showing political instability in Spain, but it showed new ideas and plans in order for Mexico to be liberated. I even found some similarities in their plans and actions to those of early Americans before the Revolution. After Fernando was jailed when the French invasion of Spain occurred in 1808, it was up to the people of Spain to form juntas and eventually their own parliament, Cortes. Members of New Spain were also allowed to participate in the Cortes because the Junta Central needed their support. These groups of juntas were more liberal than the royalty had been before. I find this idea fascinating. The fact that there is no one-ruler anymore and it is now up to the people to organize for their country is truly amazing. Russell explains that the Cortes sought reform yet also wanted to keep the colonies loyal. Since the Cortes was composed of many different Spanish individuals, it is no wonder that they sought to reform their country. These are the people who have had to receive their orders from one king with hardly any say in their government, they knew what was and wasn't working within their country. The progress of the new Cortes was also interesting to read. In only two years from when they started they had not only brought the people of the New World to have a voice in their government but they also drafted a constitution that included more rights for the people of the New World and even granting most adult males the right to vote within the Spanish Empire. Though there were still limitations on who specifically could vote, I think this was beneficial in their progress and goal for a more unified Spain. After the elections when the New World took over at a municipal level, it was clear that their concerns specifically were going to be heard. Though there were problems within this new form of government of the people, I think some of their efforts and ideas would have benefited the Spanish Empire. But as historians, we can see a trend with these kinds of governments and how they don't really work out after a while. There comes a sense of superiority  within the new government causing concern and most likely an uprising.

Russell Ch. 7

Reading Chapter 7 in Russell I was amazed by the instability within Mexico between 1821-1855. The beginning of the chapter is divided up by introducing the immediate structure of Mexico after they gained independence from Spain. The chapter highlights three key Mexico leaders of the time in this first section. In these three sections the reader is shown the different leadership roles each ruler played and how the government was set up at the time. The only thing consistent about this time period and the authority within it was the ever changing laws, political parties, and always increasing debt.  The chapter basically describes a constant cycle of trial and error; if one law or system wasn’t working the people of Mexico simply overthrew that government at the time. No leader in that time period was able to successfully unify or control Mexico. As much as the citizens of Mexico were fighting for their individual freedoms, wants, and independence from a centralized Mexico it seems to me as though they held the power all along. Their constant struggle and will allowed at least one group or another to successfully overthrow the government all through this time period. Page 146 stated, “In 1826 President Victoria completed his term, an event that would not occur again for decades.” This is shown throughout the chapter time and time again as each President is exiled, killed, or decides to resign. The statement on page 155, “One has the strongest sense that it mattered very little who occupied the National Palace and that brief sojourns in office should not be counted as ‘regimes’ … It is not clear if any president could get his orders obeyed beyond the outer patio of the palace”, shows just how little control the President and government really had.

Tuesdays Class and the Bourbon Reforms

           During Tuesdays class we talked a lot on the Spanish rule and basically domination over the native populations. The Spanish basically forced their will upon the Indians and took over. They built Mexico City right on top of Tenochtitlan, which shows how dominant the Spanish actually were. The Indians were forced to adopt Spanish religion, way of life, and economic status. They had classifications for many different types of people. The amount of wealth one person had played a big role on their "classification".

            In this society, there was also this idea of something called Coverture, which meant when women got married their possessions belonged to the man now, and women were not really involved as, it was a civilization dominated by men. A new type of economic growth came to life with mining and the miners, the merchants also called the "consulados", and the landowning class also called the "hacendados".

            I thought it was very strange how a society that was flourishing and had many thousands of people, just got wiped out by the Spanish and some other tribes, I mean the Indians were so vast in numbers and power, it's a difficult fact to grasp, you think a stronghold like Tenochtitlan would be able to withstand any attack and live on for many, many years.

           
             In the reading it talks about Charles II, who at age four was dying, he was also the heir to the Spanish throne which raised concern for Spain, He was the last of the Hapsburgs and he had to choose a successor and he chose Phillip of Anjou. the Hapsburgs dynasty died off, and new a new dynasty began with Philip, the Bourbon dynasty. He inherited a Spain that was decimated by wars and revolts. He focused on the Colonies and their economies, mainly the mining industry, he brought back a lot of Silver to Spain and in 130 years Spain minted almost 1.5 billion worth of pesos in silver. That is quite a bit of cash for this time period.

          Their was also church reforms in the colonies because the Jesuits were accused of starting riots against Spain's Prime Minister and without warning they were kicked out and they were took over by the crown. 

          The Bourbon Reforms were basically the Spanish crowns way of taking over New Spain and they basically drained it of its resources, especially silver. Towards the end of it all Spain was consumed by the debts they owed and were swallowed up by their European affairs.

         I thought it was interesting how Spain and New Spain were doing so well, Spain was considered the greatest power at one point, and then it just went south from there on, I think greed by the Spanish crown played a big role in Spain collapsing.

Pueblo Revolt of 1680

    In chapter three and four of Russel, as well as in the in-class discussion, it was denoted that their was a growing change in Spanish rule over New World and the emergence of different social classes from the seventeenth century extending into the eighteenth century (Russel 43-44, 100). This change in social classes came as a direct result to Spanish colonial influence over the peoples of the Americas. With strict and rigged taxing and forced labor exhorted from the native communities, many natives in the 1700's chose to move closer to Spanish settlement, creating a racial mixing. Among the other results of this, was the creation of a new form of society with natives having varying levels of social and economic status depending on how "indian" there blood was. Yet, in the northern regions of Spanish control, the dominant position of the Spanish was much looser. The Pueblos of New Mexico were far removed from the central mandates coming from Mexico City.

     As Max pointed out in a post from last week, the Spanish were heavily dependent on the natives through much of the colonial period. Yet, they also demanded much from the natives in this period. This plays a major role in the Pueblo Revolt in 1680.

Three Centuries of Colonial Rule

I'll begin my recap  where max left off at on page 46 under the heading of African Slaves.

I guess  I shouldn't be surprised that Cortes and Narvaez established hereditary slavery early on when they both brought African slaves to Mexico.  Of course the residents of New Spain were ok with it since there was a decrease in native workers and the African slaves had been captured in just wars, making them legally enslaved.  I think it goes to show that the Spaniards messed up  the whole thing due to the fact that it was such a beautiful civilization before, yet now it would be in "absolute ruin" (47) if it wasn't for the slaves they are shipping in.  I also find it fascinating that the church owned and financed the purchase of slaves. The number of slaves in Mexico was much smaller than that seen in the US later on. Surprisingly, New Spain imported more African slaves than any other locale in the Americas between 1521 through 1594. Slaves had the right to get married which caused many male slaves to have children with and/or marry Indian women. When there was an increase in mixed race populations it became cheaper to pay low wages rather than import and house slaves.  The fact that the creoles opposed the emergence of an Afro-Mexican elite competing for jobs  shows the same fear many had in the united states towards their own minorities.

Russell, Chapter 3: Three Centuries of Colonial Rule

*I chose to highlight the readings starting on page 27 ("From Conquistador to Administrator") to the middle of page 46 (ending right before "African Slaves")

A mental cheer went through my head as I was reading on page 28 about how the Mayans were able to successfully oppose the Spaniards for almost 20 years. I found myself repulsed and continuously cheering against the Spanish as if the fight for "Indian" independence were still going on today.

Throughout this chapter I was saddened to read about the destruction of indigenous land, culture and people. The colonial administration seemed surprisingly weak and unorganized for something that was able to carry on as long as it did. The intricate structure of the administration including the Council of the Indies and Viceroyalty described on page 29 shows just how vulnerable the colonial administration was. Each of these branches was put in to place to enforce rules administered by the Crown, but with the King and country so far away the administrators in the colonies were not ever held accountable for their actions or lack of enforcement of the rules set in place. "The phrase 'Obedezco perl no cumplo' ('I obey but I do not comply') summarized this attitude." Control was hard to keep as illustrated throughout this chapter. The King's literal sale office of positions to the highest bidder is one example of how the quality of persons in charge was not an important factor. Money was seen as the most important factor in colonial office. This form of colonial administration lasted until 1700. Even after 1700 the battle for control, whether on a royal or common level, was in a constant state of change. The economic and social structure was poor and always on a trial and error basis. Reading the seemingly endless forms of social structure and family influence in Chapter 3, I was amazed at the many different types of governance that existed.

The Beginnings Of A Conquest

As we last left off in my previous blog post, the Aztec Empire had just experienced contact with the Spanish with Hernan Cortes at the helm. However, as was to be expected in the end, said contact was very hostile and downright savage because of the scores of natives that were being killed by diseases such as small pox and intimidation through the use of steel weapons, cavalry, guns, and war dogs. It was a conquest that both inspired awe as well as disgust and downright cruelty. From gazing upon the brilliance of Tenochtitlan to the savage massacre and overworking of hundreds of thousands of native inhabitants. 

A Clash of Cultures and Lack of Diplomatic Leadership

Being someone who has studied culture most of their life, especially Latino culture being a Spanish minor and all, I tended to focused on the cultural aspects of these readings and how the misinterpretations and lack of understanding caused the massacre of the Aztec peoples by the Spanish.

"The entry of the Spaniards into Tenochtitlan on November 8, 1519 was one of the quintessential moments of world history. It represents the encounter and clash of worlds that until that moment had developed in ignorance of each other" (Schwartz, 127).

Contact: A Holocaust and Exposure to Greed

Chinampas in practice

As we last left off in class, we learned that the Aztec Empire was at the height of it's power and had hegemony over a number of city-states in Central Mexico. Russell notes on page 12 that by 1519, the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan "was the largest city that had ever existed in the New World." Yet, the most compelling invention of Aztec design were the chinampas. If you recall from the lecture on Tuesday, these were artificial islands located on the lakeshores and with soil that was piled on these chinampas, Aztec agriculture was particularly productive. To transport the grain, canoes were utilized and could move 10 times the amount of grain compared to the system in Spain with mules. This was no savage culture. This was the height of a civilization because the engineering required to not only devise the chinampa system but also maintain it until the arrival of the Spanish is in a word: stunning. The Aztecs were basking in the riches of their prosperity. However, as was the case with any enterprising white man European, the rumors of a wealthy power in the center of Mexico became too great to ignore.

Civilization

A civilization to me, is a community of people living together peacefully, it could be millions of people or just hundreds of people, they're still a civilization. There could be different ways that each civilization functions, of course no two groups of people operate the same way. Each civilization could have their own religion, their own form of government, their own currency, and their own lifestyles. One civilization could have freedoms and another civilization could not. People could define civilization as being advanced or superior, but just because people live differently it doesn't make them "savages" or "uncivilized". When you look at the American Revolution for example, the British defined the Indians as savages, but what made them savages? Was it the color of their skin or the way they lived? The Indians and the British had completely different outlooks on life, but they were both civilizations. I don't think anyone is in a position where they can term a civilization "uncivilized". Everybody is different but, we are all humans.

 

 



What is a "Civilization"?

Civilization refers to when a group of people have a formal gathering place, a system of writing, and a city. The Aztecs were an ancient civilization that once controlled the heart of Mexico. The Aztec language was Nahuatl and they formally gathered at Aztec temple pyramids. The Aztecs did many things that today people would think was vary savage like. One of those savage attributes they had was human sacrifice during religious ceremonies. The question for me is would a civilization like this be looked at as a "Civilization" in todays world? 

What is a "Civilization"

According to dictionary.com, "civilization" is an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.

To me, this definition seems a bit grandiose or possibly pretentious.

The definition says, "high level of culture, science, industry, and government" but what of those societies with moderate or low levels of these characteristics? Are they to be placed in the same category as savage and uncivilized populations?

Personally, I think having a moderate or low level of culture, science, industry, and government are incredible feats and should be granted the name of civilized, especially if a society has all of these characteristics.

You may speculate that my standards for a civilization are rather low, but if we go off the definition given to us by dictionary.com, and perhaps other dictionary sources, then we have inadvertently labeled more than half of human societies in the world as savage or barbaric. Which I find a rather ostentatious display of self importance. 

A civilization should be any human society that displays any level of culture, science, industry, and government.

A Term Left To Be Debated: Civilization

Civilization and to be civilized is such a loose term that to answer it completely would result in a manuscript of rambling blather. Perhaps we should think of civilization as a society that organizes by the ideals of culture, religion, and government. For example, we consider the Gauls barbarians but before the intrusion and invasion of the late Roman Republic, they were certainly a civilized society as they were already minting coins (see image to the right).

Civilization

Civilization is the advancement of life including intellectual and materials for human society. Civilization creates a complex way of life including arts, sciences, politics, and institutions. A civilization forces its members to work together to create a better life.  A civilized society creates a more convenient life but creates new things to worry about.

Civilization

What is a "Civilization"?

A civilization is a group of people who seem to abide by some higher code in which makes them function as a whole and allow their society to progress. The code is usually a form of laws; these laws allow a person to understand the right and wrong thing to do within their community. We have seen that civilizations can work together in order to achieve a higher goal that we could in-turn consider making them "more civilized." By working as groups or communities, more ideas are being generated for progress. Uncivilized people could either be those who choose not to abide by the higher codes or may not have access to progression within their groups. I found some interesting requirements for early cultures to be considered civilized here.

What is a "civilization"?

       Civilization is a movement and not a condition, a voyage and not a harbor.

        - Arnold J. Toynbee

The word "civilization" is a broad term, which is often associated with a group of people that have come together to form an operational society. It encompasses the process and continuation of forming a stable society, community (and urban sectors), government, laws, technological advancements, and culture.

Yet, the term "civilization" often comes with the connotation that one group of people is civilized and another group is not. The difference between the two, I think, is marginal. It is often decided by one group that has more cultural and technological sway in a particular region. This is what makes the term to carry such a broad definition, as it can be interpreted many different ways, depending on which group of people decides the meaning of the word.

What is a "Civilization"?

A dictionary definition of the word "civilization" describes it as

the stage of human social development and organization that is considered most advanced.

Using this definition of a civilization, I would say that a civilization  has some form of government, whether that form of government works or not is another story. Within this government there should be a person or peoples in charge of the day to day government of the civilization. They have means of feeding themselves, whether it be through advanced agricultural farming or through hunting and gathering. They have a heritage of sorts, something that they can all trace their personal history back to and identify with that connects them. And I also think that they should have some kind of distribution of work, such as certain people farming, others protecting the civilization, others still that focus on building infrastructures and things that the civilization needs.

What is a civilization?

Civilization is when people join together in an community or for a certain reason. A civilization allows people to grow as a society through advancements in different skills. Civilizations show that specific groups culture and the way that they work together for their common interest.

What is a civilization?

Simply stated a civilization is the most advanced and progressed form of society. Civilizations are built when people come together from different towns, areas, communities and form one big group. Within the giant group are small subgroups of people, places and things that when all combined make a "productive" society. Even though society may not seem productive all the time in order to have a successful civilization the people within it need to be able to work and produce together, communicate, be able to get along and live by the rules or laws created by the group. When this happens it makes a working and growing civilization possible.

Broad Definition of Civilization

A civilization is a group of people living within an area, be it country, town, or city, in which they have a more advanced organized system on how they function. A civilization is when a group of people can have an organized environment, in which there are established rules or laws, and some sort of system on how the people are educated or how they trade, as well as how their leadership is set up. The key word to civilization is having some time of order.

Welcome

Welcome to the HIST 337 course blog for Spring, 2014!