For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222
Call 1-800-351-0222
Revolutions in Mexico & Cuba
Term Paper ID:27916
Essay Subject:
Comparison of revolutions in Cuba & Mexico through analysis of events before, during, & after revolutionary periods. Examines US involvement in each revolution.... More...
14 Pages / 3150 Words
6 sources, 18 Citations,
TURABIAN Format
$56.00
More Papers on This Topic
Paper Abstract:
Comparison of revolutions in Cuba & Mexico through analysis of events before, during, & after revolutionary periods. Examines US involvement in each revolution.
Paper Introduction:
THE REVOLUTIONS IN MEXICO AND CUBA
Introduction
The intent in this paper is to compare and contrast the revolutions in Mexico and Cuba by examining the events of the pre-revolutionary period, the revolutionary period, and the post-revolutionary period in both countries. At the present time, these countries are in very different positions internationally, and in relationship to the United States. Mexico itself is experiencing a new surge of revolutionary activity led by members of the indigenous native population. From what we know of Cuba, although there is tension, there is no active revolutionary activity, or even widespread dissent.
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
M. Perez(1988) noted that some of the things in Cuba have been totally changed,while others have remained the same. (1993). In addition, the church clerical elite washarassed, or driven out, of both countries, with believers prevented fromassociating in their congregations. Instead, Hart (1988) notes, whatthe Mexican government has been best at achieving is finding "successfulmechanisms of elite social control over historically restless andrevolutionary segments of society" (p. In assessing the post-revolution status of the two countries, it isinteresting to contrast these two differing relationships with the U.S., aswell as look at the way in which the two countries control ideology.Castro, of course, directly controls ideology by locating the nationalmythos in himself; he is the country and the revolution and those who wishto be in accord with revolutionary ideology simply need to listen to him. Ruiz (1968), similarly to Leuchsenring, noted that Cubans had twoattitudes toward the United States and their relationship to that country.First, Cubans believed that the citizens of the United States weresupportive of their struggle for freedom and democracy, both in the 19thcentury and throughout the early part of the 2 th century. He noted, in particular, the proximity ofthe United States, which constantly provided the people of Cuba with avision of economic prosperity which was not available to them. Ruiz (1968) and others noted that the last few years of Batista verymuch mirrored the last few years of Machado. Batista, who ruled for much of the period between 194 and 1959, wassimply the most efficient manipulator of the political process, but did notrepresent any significant break from the earlier caudillos. In addition, Mexico has managed to co-optthe ideology of revolution without remaining revolutionary, and gain thesupport of the United States in addition. Ruiznoted that both countries benefited from the pact, but that the perceptionin Cuba was that the United States was the major beneficiary and the Cubanpeople had been victimized. Yet, the decisive influence in the Mexican revolution, according toHart (1987), was the United States. In Mexico, the inequalities have divided nativepeoples and their European conquerors, and through the centuries, theIndian and the individual of Spanish descent. In Cuba, on the other hand, the results are quite different. Essentiallythose agreements meant that the Cuban economy was almost completelydependent on United States suppliers for imports of much of its food. Hodges and Gandy (1983) try to assess the current situation of Mexicoin terms of several theses regarding bureaucratic power and theinterrelationship of elites and the masses. Leuchsenring (1966) noted that theUnited States has historically been viewed as assisting the Cubans in theirstruggle for independence from Spain, but that this is not a particularlyaccurate statement of the situation. In his view, the United States had continually supportedthe Spaniards, even supplying them with money and goods, and was never as astate in support of Cuban independence for its own sake. (1983). In other words, he operated much as dictators always have, ofwhatever persuasion. 18). One of the things that Cuba attemptedto change, but was unable to do, was its reliance on sugar production tostabilize its economy. Zapata and the city boys: In search of a piece of the revolution. Although Mexican societywas an elite-controlled, hierarchical,and essentially non-egalitarian one,much of the anger of the peasantry was directed toward U.S. London: Zed Press.Perez, L. Hebelieved, instead, that the United States, led by its business interests,would eventually reverse any successes of a genuine Cuban socialrevolution. First, the United States was a primaryinfluence as a causal factor in the revolution. As a consequence, the shape of the Mexicanrevolution was at least partly supplied by the United States from the verybeginning. First, he indicated, Castro did not trust the United States. THE REVOLUTIONS IN MEXICO AND CUBAIntroduction The intent in this paper is to compare and contrast the revolutionsin Mexico and Cuba by examining the events of the pre-revolutionary period,the revolutionary period, and the post-revolutionary period in bothcountries. and otherforeign investors who controlled more than 2 percent of Mexican territoryin 191 . The regional nature of the original uprisings meant that there weredifficulties in making any of the groups the keystone of a nationalmovement. However, the composition of that army, and the movementtoward a more popular uprising, changed with Castro's adoption of aCommunist platform. Machado's power was centered in the economic travails of the GreatDepression. Both had large populationsthat were restive and sought to improve their situation by emigrating tothe United States, mostly for economic reasons, but also for politicalreasons in the case of Cuba. This was followed by aconsolidation of a new elite and a sociopolitical reorganization, therewere significant gains for the masses, with the elimination of much of thecast system, but dissident groups were essentially isolated, destroyed, andcoopted to ensure that the revolution consolidated around the pequenabuguesa.The Post-Revolutionary System The post-revolutionary systems of the two countries represent perhapsthe widest divergence between their revolutionary courses. It isnot the uprising in particular which is the challenge, but the failures ofthe party to address equally long-standing social, political, and economicinequities in the country. New York: Oxford University Press.Ruiz, R. The displaced peasantry, which was already accustomed to variousstruggles, began a series of attacks against these foreign "imperialists". On the other hand, Cuba continues to face economic challenges whichare fueled by the decline of the Soviet Union and the resurgence ofinternational capitalism. The population changedwith the interrelationship of the Spanish and both the Indians and Africanslaves. While both process and post-revolution were quite different for thesetwo countries, there are some similar elements. Finally, it appeared as though Castro believed that the Communistprogram provided solutions to the vast socioeconomic problems of the Cubannation and society. There are some significantparallels between the process of that revolution in Mexico and the one inthe Soviet Union, although the outcomes were quite dissimilar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Henderson, P. As Ruiz (1968) noted about the Cuban revolution, while it hadmuch to do with the internal history of that country, American policy-makers and business interests also played a major role. Both have also been impacted in a continuing way by racism and itsbyproducts of inequality. Cuba: Between reform and revolution. embargo, the attempt to reduce sugar dependencedrastically went in tandem with falling exports and earnings, andconsequent falls in imports, including food and other consumer goods. Of the major players, the most importantwere the Carrancistas, the part of the right or the elites, the Zapatistas,and the Villistas, both of the lest revolutionary and the lower classes. W. While Castro remains in power, and witheffective challengers, there is little doubt that at least some of therevolutionary changes will be rolled back upon his death. Instead, Mexicoremained a country in which a sizeable percentage of its people live inunremitting poverty, with no real government interest in addressing thatsystematically. While the intervention of theUnited States during the Great Depression enabled the Cuban economy toavoid total devastation, the results of the Sugar Act of 1934 and the tradeagreement that transpired were disastrous over the long term. Mexico had atleast some of the trappings of democracy, including freedom of speech andthough, while Cuba became more authoritarian. From what we know of Cuba,although there is tension, there is no active revolutionary activity, oreven widespread dissent.Background to Revolution With both Cuba and Mexico, roots of nationalism, and revolution,stretch back several centuries in time, essentially to their colonization.The colonization of the Americas--with its beginnings in 1492 and themilitary conquests of the 15 s--began a pattern of rule of the indigenouspopulations first by European conquerors and then by European settlers.This pattern, particularly in South and Central America, was extended intorule of the majority of the population, joined in Cuba and elsewhere byindividuals descended from African slaves. The Ortodoxos, to whose creed Fidel Castro adhered as auniversity student, included provisions demanding economic and politicalindependence, the diversification of the economy, dispersal of thelatifundia, redistribution of land, and equality for the Negro. In looking back to the Mexican revolution, there are somesimilarities, although it should be emphasized that the Mexican revolutionpredated the revolution in the Soviet Union. Theselong-term struggles created alliances between different groupings includingIndians and mestizos, peasants, workers, and the nascent middle class,which were to undergird the Mexican revolution. To him, Zapata's necessary involvement with the urbanintellectuals led to an eventual loss of influence and power within therevolutionary movement. Nutrition,health, education and other services became cornerstones of Cuban society,along with an intense work ethic in which all citizens were expected tocontribute to the economic recovery and well-being of the country. Inaddition, he indicated that the economic downturn of the late 195 s meantthat many individuals were not employed, income was low, and the socialconditions of inequality which led land to stand fallow became more gallingto the people. Cuba attempted to create both a socialist and communist state at thesame time, aiming toward vast economic and social changes. Hispanic American Historical Review, 73(1), 33-66.Hart, J. This he was able to gain in the labor movement by his supportof Communism. He noted that the Cuban struggle forindependence began in the early 17 s and was followed by innumerableuprisings and martyrdoms during the 18 s, culminating with the thirty yearstruggle with the Spaniards that ended with American betrayal of the Cubaninterest in 1898. V. (1988). Thus, the struggle againstdictators, such as Machado in the 193 s, was also a struggle against theimperialist power of the United States.The Revolutionary Process The beginning of the revolution, in both countries then, wasaffected, although not caused, by U.S. Hodges and Gandy (1983) even more clearly assert that the Mexicanrevolution was even more a struggle against the new colonization by theUnited States externally than it was against oppression. Hodges and Gandy (1983) noted that theMexican revolution, which provided the model for much of the revolutionaryactivity in South and Central America (although not Cuba) may be partiallyexplained by this early history. conservatives, and utilized terror as a toolof state. There were differences between the two countries, however, and thesebecame more significant over time, partly explaining the history that waslived out during the 2 th century. Yet, Roman Catholicism remains a majorinfluence on Mexican society, while Cuban religiosity has, if it stillexists, gone underground and been more embodied in movements like santeria,voudou, and yoruba practices. Ruiz (1968) noted that while Castro's adoption of Communism seemed tosurprise many in both United States and Cuba, it was consistent with Cubanpolitical tradition and had at least three very practical foundations. According to Hart (1987),there were a number of regional uprisings, led by different groups, ofdifferent political affiliations. The situation in Mexico is more complex, however, the ruling party,the PRI, which has claimed for itself the ideology of revolution, ofongoing or continuing revolution, is also the party that has recentlyconcluded NAFTA with the United States. This continues as thegovernment today attempts to exercise social control over the new uprising,without, however, addressing the problems that undergird revolutionaryrestlessness systemically.Conclusions Both revolutions see to be facing challenges currently, although fromdifferent ends of the political spectrum. He indicated that the intellectuals, led by ManuelPalafox, sabotaged Zapata's efforts to negotiate with theConstitutionalists under Carranza. They note that the history of Mexico ischaracterized by extreme violence, starting with the massacre and rape ofthe population by the Spanish, and followed in the 19th century by the waragainst Mexico led by the United States, which cost Mexico half of itsentire territory. He remained inthe lineage of the corrupt, compromising, and cooperative with Washingtonrulers who attempted to respond positively to the Korean War, when it wasover, political upheaval in Cuba became more and more intense, with Batistaresponding to it in such a way as to exacerbate the problems. As a consequence, although therewas aspects of the provisional constitution, and of the constitution of194 , which supported progressive legislation, the impact on the actualconducts of politics in Cuba was minimal. Both overturned the influenceof the Roman Catholic church within the society by altering the legalstatus of that institution. In Cuba, the differenceshave been more clearly based on race, distinguishing those primarily ofSpanish descent from those descendants of African slaves, and to a lesserdegree, of native peoples. E. The revolutionaries who came to power during the 193 s wereunable to follow-through with their reforms because of the economic crisisthat had such an intense impact on Cuba. In Mexico, the situation was complex. A. BibliographyBrunks, S. Cuba: The making of a revolution. While therevolution in Cuba did represent a revolutionary change in both the systemand the class structure, that was not the case in Mexico. This leads into the second influence that Hart (1987) named ascrucial in the Mexican revolution. Cubareturned to sugar production. This phase lastedapproximately between 191 and 1914 , with the critical alteration in thesituation the open support of the U.S. N. Revolutionary Mexico. Interestingly enough, however, it is that area of Mexico,among others, which has been in the news lately regarding recent uprisings. While Zapata's political inexperiencemight equally have limited his chances for success, the urbanintellectuals, who were brought on to create the identity for the movement,had their own agendas which were not compatible with the revolutionarythrust of the Zapatistas. In the meantime, the society of thecolonies was gradually changing. Again, though, there are similarities. The United States was an influence intwo different ways, he noted. economic and political involvement.Yet, there were other more local factors, and, as noted, the genesis was inthe early Spanish colonialism, rather than a British or Anglic presence. For the most part, according to Henderson (1993), scholars focus onthe ways in which the Carranza revolution impacted the debt peonage systemthat enslaved many of the Mexican peasants. (1968). (1987). They alsocondemned Communism, along with U.S. Yet, over time its development strategy hasagain altered toward greater self-sufficiency, with some of that achieved. On the other hand, emigrants form Mexico were seen as simplylower-class migrant workers taking jobs away from Americans and were givenlittle respect from any part of society. The second phase represented the direct confrontation between classesand the workers' defeat, guaranteed, according to Hart, by U.S.intervention at Veracruz in April of 1914. The result was increasing disorder, led by students and theOrtodoxos. During the first phase, there was the mass mobilization mentionedabove, along with a crisis among the elites. for the Carranza group. Thesegovernments were unstable, however, and unable to act quickly enough toalleviate the vast problems of their nations before more extensive socialrevolutions swept them aside. At the present time, these countries are in very differentpositions internationally, and in relationship to the United States.Mexico itself is experiencing a new surge of revolutionary activity led bymembers of the indigenous native population. Although intermarriage was not necessarily common, Spanish mentook mistresses from among the conquered and enslaved populations and themestizo or creole population increased rapidly. They also notethat the revolution was only partly successful in negating the colonialpresence, largely because of Mexico's isolation and weakness, while it waslocated right next to the United States. As Perez(1988) noted, the history of Cuba is, to some extend, the history of sugar. (1993). Perhaps Henderson overestimated the situation of the workers in that area,or perhaps they have not significantly advanced since that time. For instance, each was preceded by an initial popular revolutionleading to a reformist, but not revolutionary government. He brokewith the Soviet Union, outlawed Communist and Socialist parties in Cuba,sought support from the U.S. However, there remainedsignificant minority elites in both countries who traced their descent toSpain, married to their children to other Spanish or Spanish-descentindividuals, and controlled both the economic; and political life of thecolonies (Ruiz, 1968). The authors distinguish thesocial and political revolution that occurred from each other, and focus onthe development of a new bureaucratic class. The shape of the Cuban government revolution was also impacted by theUnited States, and in a similar way. That political aspect of emigration from Cubameant that Cubans were often considered to be political refugees fromCommunism, and were viewed favorably by the government, press, and othercitizens. There is no parallel in Mexico, which has not been dominated to the sameextent by one product, although certainly the market of the United Stateshas been a hovering influence. In other words, popular or folk religion hasmore generally replace the formal system. This was immediately followed by the conquest of Mexicoby France and a new type of rule by the Emperor Maximilian. Hart (1987) discussed the revolution in terms of three distinctphases. Modernization and change in Mexico: La Zacualpa rubber plant, 189 -192 .Hodges, D., & Gandy, R. Yet, there are significant differences in their histories. Both continue to beovershadowed by the United States and its economic and politicalnecessities. Mexico 191 -1982: Reform or revolution? The essential revolutionary army, eventually led by Castro, includedstudents, intellectuals, and unhappy professionals as its coreconstituents. Both were dictators who werepropped up by American economic interests, and both ruled over countriesthat were almost totally dependent on those same American economicinterests. However, Cubansalso believed that the United States government was essentially the enemyof its struggle for independence, preferring to support the business ownersand elites of both the United States and Cuba in order to maintain its owneconomic and political interests in the region. While part of the problem economically certainlywas caused by the U.S. Brunk (1993) discussed what that meant in terms of theZapatistas. The relationship between the colonies in both Mexico and Cuba and therulers in mainland Spain varied over the centuries, with both countriesbeing the focus of interest at different periods and the focus of benignneglect at other periods of time. As was the case with the United States, descendants of the originalEuropean conquerors and settlers began to associate themselves more closelywith their new lands than with the Old Country. Norton and Company, Inc.----------------------- 15 According to them, the mostlikely hypothesis is that the post-revolutionary period was marked bycreation of a new elite in which corrupt politicians, professionals, andbig business interests combine with the bureaucracy to exploit and oppressthe workers and other lower classes. He noted, however, that inareas, such as La Zacualpa in Chiaps, Mexico, workers had sufficientbargaining power to gain economic security and a certain degree ofautonomy. Seers (1966) noted that the rapid collapse of Batista's army was tobe expected for many reasons. imperialism, decrying the OAS, butpledging cooperation with the United Nations. They, he believed, did not benefit much from the Carranzarevolution, although they did gain some intangibles in the area of autonomyand dignity. Second, Castro also needed more popular support to consolidate therevolution. The struggle of the Mexican people, then, does not start with therevolution in 191 , but with the struggle for independence from theSpanish, then the battles with the United States and the French. New York: W. Whilethe Mexican state was basically centralized around one ruling party, thePRI, Cuba became centralized around one man, Fidel Castro. The long-standing"revolutionary" ruling party in Mexico is currently being challenged,primarily because of the uprising of the Mayan Indian Zapatistas. This was the involvement of the UnitedStates in that revolution, intervening with a large and secret supply ofarms in 1914 in Veracruz. Instead, theUnited States as a country operated to meet its own ends in Cuba andcontinually supported authoritarian elites, rather than democratic orrevolutionary forces. Some of these--offspringof Spanish men and Indian or African women--became part of the freebornpopulation of the two countries, owing their allegiance primarily toMexico, or to Cuba, rather than to Spain. At thatpoint in time, Carranza and his forces were arrayed against the Zapatistasand Villistas, along with other independent groupings. There is thesense of the United States simply waiting its opportunity, biding its time,until there is an opening.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
We can write a Custom Essay just for you.
Browse Essays by Subject