Nathan Kendrick 1

Nathan Kendrick
Dr. Dinius
HIS 393
October 18, 2013
Social Revolution?
There have been several disagreements over the affects of the Mexican Revolution.
Some scholars like Alan Knight will argue that the revolution was definitely a social revolution
based on their statistics. Other historians will disagree and say that the revolution was hardly
based on social change. Artists like Diego Rivera painted murals of what he thought would
occur after the revolution where he seen great social change. Mariano Azuela, on the other
hand, had different feelings about what the end of the revolution had in store. The truth is that
in Mexico there was much revolution within politics and maybe there were some small changes
socially, but not enough changes to call the Mexican Revolution a social revolution by any
means. Throughout the texts there is just not enough evidence to call what happened a social
revolution.
Many scholars, writers, and directors agree that the Mexican Revolution was just not a
social revolution. Throughout the film Lets Join Pancho Villa it is made clear that the main
characters were not fighting for a social revolution. The characters in the movie just want to be
a part of what is happening. These men go out and join this militia of rebels to fight against the
Federales although none of them had much experience fighting. Most of the men who joined in
the film just seem to be there for the fame and the comradery. These men never really cared
Nathan Kendrick 2

why they were fighting they just did it to prove that they were not cowards. This was also
stated in Mariano Azuelas book The Undergogs: A Novel of the Mexican Revolution when he
states that he loves the Revolution because its the Revolution (MA, 131). In this statement he
compares the revolution to a volcano about to erupt. He like many other revolutionaries seen it
like this volcano about to erupt as new and exciting. These men did not care what the fight was
all about, they were just excited about being there and to get to be involved in this huge event.
Even in the movie Lets Join Pancho Villa the main characters which are militia men go into
several dialogues about how they just did not want to look like cowards to their families. These
two sources definitely show that these mens reasons for being there was probably not social
change.
Further evidence that the Mexican Revolution was not a social revolution is shown
within the pages of John Womacks The Mexican Revolution, 1910-1920. John Womack stated
that peasants and workers actually benefited after the revolution less than they had before the
revolution (JW, 127). Alan Knight presented evidence within his article that the political elite
had changed and had become darker showing that more of the middle class was showing up
in politics (AK, 519). In defense of this statement, John Womack said that the revolution did not
really deal with social issues, but political management (JW, 129). John Womack was stating
that maybe different people had shown up in politics, but this was still not much of a social
issue. Alan Knight even states that there were many farmer uprisings that were attempted later
on in 1923, 1927, and 1929 (AK, 521). These farmers also joined in the Cristero War from the
year 1926 to the year 1929 (AK, 521). These uprisings by these farmers just a decade or two
after the Mexican Revolution just seems to be great evidence that there could not have been
Nathan Kendrick 3

much social change within the Mexican Agrarian society. There had to be much unhappiness
with the new Mexico after the revolution to cause these farmers to organize and riot to try
and achieve reform. These farmers along with many lower class peasants were the ones who
revolted in the first place to begin the Mexican Revolution, but it is apparent that they were not
rewarded with much social change after the war. In Mariano Azuelas book it seems that social
change was what most of the peasants and lower-class citizens wanted to begin with, but as the
war dragged on it seems that many just wanted to go back home and wanted the fighting to
end. Like was stated earlier in the essay these warriors just did not want to be thought of as
cowards. This lack of social change may have been lack of follow through on the goals of these
rebels or it may have been another cause, but whatever it was it did not bring about social
change. Like Alan Knight stated within his text there was a lot of political change. New faces
appeared within politics and among the bourgeoisie, but many of the prior political leaders and
members of the bourgeoisie still kept their high-class positions and status as they were able to
find good jobs with their prior education and expertise (AK, 525). This indicates that even
though there were some subtle changes in leadership and political positions, there was still not
much change in the social classes. The peasants remained peasants and the rich remained rich.
John Womack also stated that big business after the Mexican Revolution still remained the
same if it had not gotten better (JW, 200). This shows that the high-class businessmen in
Mexico retained their positions and much of their wealth after the Revolution. John Womack
was easily able to put these theories of the Mexican Revolution being a social revolution to rest.
Diego Rivera also painted several murals of the Mexican Revolution showing what he thought
the social classes would look like after the war was over. He painted one mural which he named
Nathan Kendrick 4

Contradictions Between Rich and Poor. This mural showed the rich and poor separated by an
archway and it could clearly be seen the differences of the wealthy from the poor. This seemed
to show most accurately of all of his paintings what the social constructs actually looked like
following the Mexican Revolution which coincidentally did not look much different than it had
prior to the Revolution.
The Mexican Revolution did turn out to be an actual revolution in that it led to new
political leaders and subtle differences among the government and policies within Mexico, but
it should not have been considered a social revolution due to the evidence listed above. The
evidence presented by Alan Knight and others was just not solid enough to prove the point that
the Mexican Revolution could be considered a social revolution. Like was stated earlier many of
the businesses remained in place and so did most of the bourgeoisie. There were a few new
faces that entered into these groups but not near enough to be considered a social revolution.
Many of the farmers and peasants also continued to revolt after the Revolution had ended
indicating that there was still much social unrest and not much change. There were some small
changes that Alan Knight was able to research to try and prove his point but John Womack was
able to quickly point out the reasons that these facts did not equal what could be called a social
revolution. All of these points just reiterate the reason for not calling the Mexican Revolution a
social revolution.



Nathan Kendrick 5