What do you think?
Rate this book
Trilogía Histórica de México #2
Mexico: Biography of Power
A magisterial history The Wall Street Journal this sweeping volume tells Mexico s story through the fascinating and sometimes volatile personalities that have shaped it 47 illustrations 4 maps Tells the story of Mexico through the fascinating and sometimes volatile personalities that have shaped it from the insurgent priests of the 19th century to the presidents of the 20th century This text presents an in depth portrait of Mexico s religion culture and politics The concentration of power in the caudillo leader is as much a formative element of Mexican culture and politics as the historical legacy of the Aztec emperors Cortez the Spanish Crown the Mother Church and the mixing of the Spanish and Indian population into a mestizo culture Krauze shows how history becomes biography during the century of caudillos from the insurgent priests in 1810 to Porfirio and the Revolution in 1910 The Revolutionary era ending in 1940 was dominated by the lives of seven presidents Madero Zapata Villa Carranza Obregon Calles and Cardenas Since 1940 the dominant power of the presidency has continued through years of boom and bust and crisis A major question for the modern state with today s president Zedillo is whether that power can be decentralized to end the cycles of history as biographies of power
896 pages, Library Binding
First published December 1, 1997
About the author
Enrique Krauze
138 books142 followersWriter, historian and editor, director of Editorial Clío and the cultural magazine Letras Libres.
He studied Industrial engineering at UNAM in México city and then made a PhD in History at El Colegio de México from 1969 to 1974. He has been a professor at Centro de estudios historicos at El colegio de México (1977), guest professor at St. Anthony’s College in Oxford (1981-1983), and also at The Wilson center (1987).
He was a colaborator of Octavio Paz at the magazine Vuelta. He is founder and director of Editorial Clío and Magazine Letras Libres.
He is a Member of the Academia Mexicana de la Historia since 1990. He has recieved a great number of prizes among them: “Gran Cruz de la Orden de Alfonso X, el Sabio” (2005), “Ezequiel Montes Ledesma (2006), Gran Cruz de la Orden de Isabel la Católica (2008).
He writes at several newspapers and magazines like: Dissent Magazine, The New Republic, The Washington Post, The New York Review of Books and The New York Times.
----------------------------------------
Historiador, ensayista y editor mexicano, director de la Editorial Clío y de la revista cultural Letras Libres.
Cursó la licenciatura en Ingeniería Industrial en la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México de 1965 1969, y el doctorado en Historia en El Colegio de México de 1969 a 1974. Ha sido profesor investigador del Centro de Estudios Históricos de El Colegio de México en 1977, profesor invitado en el St. Anthony’s College de Oxford, de octubre a diciembre ene 1981 y en 1983. Profesor invitado en The Wilson Center, de octubre a diciembre de 1987.
De 1968 a 1970 participó como consejero universitario por parte de la Facultad de Ingeniería. Por más de veinte años colaboró con Octavio Paz en la revista Vuelta, de la que fue secretario de redacción de 1977 a 1981 y subdirector de 1981 a 1996. En 1992 fundó la editorial Clío, de la que es director, mismo puesto que ocupa dentro de la revista cultural Letras Libres, que fundó en 1999, con circulación en varios países de habla hispana.
En 1990 ingresó a la Academia Mexicana de la Historia. Obtuvo el “Premio Comillas” de Biografía en España (1993). En diciembre de 2003, el Gobierno Español lo condecoró con la “Gran Cruz de la Orden de Alfonso X, el Sabio”. En abril de 2005, ingresó como miembro de El Colegio Nacional. El 5 de julio de 2006, fue distinguido con la Presea “Ezequiel Montes Ledesma” por parte del Gobierno de Querétaro. El 12 de septiembre de 2007, fue honrado por la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León con el doctorado Honoris Causa. El 1º de agosto de 2008, el Rey de España le concedió la Gran Cruz de la Orden de Isabel la Católica. En 2010, el Gobierno de México le confirio
el Premio Nacional de Historia.
Desde 1985 ha escrito en Dissent Magazine, The New Republic, The Washington Post, The New York Review of Books and The New York Times.
He studied Industrial engineering at UNAM in México city and then made a PhD in History at El Colegio de México from 1969 to 1974. He has been a professor at Centro de estudios historicos at El colegio de México (1977), guest professor at St. Anthony’s College in Oxford (1981-1983), and also at The Wilson center (1987).
He was a colaborator of Octavio Paz at the magazine Vuelta. He is founder and director of Editorial Clío and Magazine Letras Libres.
He is a Member of the Academia Mexicana de la Historia since 1990. He has recieved a great number of prizes among them: “Gran Cruz de la Orden de Alfonso X, el Sabio” (2005), “Ezequiel Montes Ledesma (2006), Gran Cruz de la Orden de Isabel la Católica (2008).
He writes at several newspapers and magazines like: Dissent Magazine, The New Republic, The Washington Post, The New York Review of Books and The New York Times.
----------------------------------------
Historiador, ensayista y editor mexicano, director de la Editorial Clío y de la revista cultural Letras Libres.
Cursó la licenciatura en Ingeniería Industrial en la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México de 1965 1969, y el doctorado en Historia en El Colegio de México de 1969 a 1974. Ha sido profesor investigador del Centro de Estudios Históricos de El Colegio de México en 1977, profesor invitado en el St. Anthony’s College de Oxford, de octubre a diciembre ene 1981 y en 1983. Profesor invitado en The Wilson Center, de octubre a diciembre de 1987.
De 1968 a 1970 participó como consejero universitario por parte de la Facultad de Ingeniería. Por más de veinte años colaboró con Octavio Paz en la revista Vuelta, de la que fue secretario de redacción de 1977 a 1981 y subdirector de 1981 a 1996. En 1992 fundó la editorial Clío, de la que es director, mismo puesto que ocupa dentro de la revista cultural Letras Libres, que fundó en 1999, con circulación en varios países de habla hispana.
En 1990 ingresó a la Academia Mexicana de la Historia. Obtuvo el “Premio Comillas” de Biografía en España (1993). En diciembre de 2003, el Gobierno Español lo condecoró con la “Gran Cruz de la Orden de Alfonso X, el Sabio”. En abril de 2005, ingresó como miembro de El Colegio Nacional. El 5 de julio de 2006, fue distinguido con la Presea “Ezequiel Montes Ledesma” por parte del Gobierno de Querétaro. El 12 de septiembre de 2007, fue honrado por la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León con el doctorado Honoris Causa. El 1º de agosto de 2008, el Rey de España le concedió la Gran Cruz de la Orden de Isabel la Católica. En 2010, el Gobierno de México le confirio
el Premio Nacional de Historia.
Desde 1985 ha escrito en Dissent Magazine, The New Republic, The Washington Post, The New York Review of Books and The New York Times.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews
May 13, 2021
I have to confess I haven't read the English version of this book. But if it's anywhere as good as the 3-volume Spanish version, it is probably excellent.
Mexico, particularly in Latin America, is a mythical country. It has always had a vibrant popular culture. In Colombia, it used to be said that the upper class aspired to be English, the middle class wanted to be American, and the lower class wished to be Mexican. This is not intended to offend Mexico, but just a statement of its powerful pull over others. Amazingly, such an important country has never had such a strong historiography as much smaller ones, like Cuba. This has many reasons, one of them being that the Revolutionary Institutional Party (PRI), probably the most effective political party in history, was able to co-opt most intellectuals either with favors or intimidation.
Therefore, much Mexican history used to revel in a hagiographical version of its pre-Columbian splendor and to celebrate politically correct milestones, such as Hidalgo's cry, Juarez's victory over Maximilian or the 1911 revolution, while glossing over other important but more embarrasing episodes, such as Iturbide's empire, Santa Anna's 30 year reign that led to the loss of the Northern half of the country to the US, Maximilian's closeness to Indian land rights (Indians in Mexico were never better treated than under Maximilian), the remarkably efficient Porfiriato (a 35 year-long dictatorship), or the extremely brutal aftermath of the revolution. This promoted a mythological self-view of Mexico that paved the ground for the economic catastrophe of Lopez Portillo and the political catastrophe of Salinas de Gortari.
For anyone interested in looking behind the cobwebs of official history and popular culture, Krauze is a godsend. In his work one can view the greater trends of Mexican history, and understand how a country may be both statist and hospitable to private business, officially anti-clerical but deeply religious, often in unorthodox ways, extremely violent but highly cultured, with an often radical foreign policy that belied a very conservative political culture.
As a Colombian I was very surprised at the conservative failure to win power from the 1870s to President Fox (in Colombia the conservatives have run the country for well over half of its existence). One, of course, has to see the origin of this in the alleged betrayal of the conservatives who supported Maximilian's empire, even though Maximilian himself wasn't conservative at all. And Mexico's complex attitude to religion can be traced to such ambivalent figures as Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz (a nun-poet who was deeply critical of male domination in the Church) and Father Hidalgo (a revolutionary priest who is one of Mexico's Founding Fathers, who was close to freemasons and loved to indulge in forbidden readings and female companionship).
Mexico's strong nationalism is of course fueled by its closeness to the most powerful country in the world. Like Porfirio Diaz lamented, "We are so far away from God, and so close to the Americans". Also Mexico's Indian pride (maybe no country other than Paraguay, where dictator Gaspar Rodriguez de Francia forced whites and indians to marry, has a better tradition of metissage, although the rights of actual indians have historically been disregarded: cf. the Zapatistas in Yucatán) did not prevent it from receiving the greater part of Republican Spanish emigration after the Civil War.
So, Mexico is a complex country, perhaps more than most. It is also, after Argentina's self-combustion, the only Hispanic-American country to have a shot at the first world (Chile is actually getting there, but it’s much smaller than Mexico). Harvard's Huntington has decried Mexican influence in the US, and has even hinted that Mexico could use its presence throughout the South Western US to reclaim its former territories. That is highly unlikely. Mexico is fully aware that it has to live and work with its powerful northern neighbor (although that's not inconsistent with an official nationalist policy, for popular consumption). But these fears indicate that all North Americans should be interested in Mexico. And Krauze is a great place to start. Americans, in particular, do worse than to know more about their great southern neighbor.
Mexico, particularly in Latin America, is a mythical country. It has always had a vibrant popular culture. In Colombia, it used to be said that the upper class aspired to be English, the middle class wanted to be American, and the lower class wished to be Mexican. This is not intended to offend Mexico, but just a statement of its powerful pull over others. Amazingly, such an important country has never had such a strong historiography as much smaller ones, like Cuba. This has many reasons, one of them being that the Revolutionary Institutional Party (PRI), probably the most effective political party in history, was able to co-opt most intellectuals either with favors or intimidation.
Therefore, much Mexican history used to revel in a hagiographical version of its pre-Columbian splendor and to celebrate politically correct milestones, such as Hidalgo's cry, Juarez's victory over Maximilian or the 1911 revolution, while glossing over other important but more embarrasing episodes, such as Iturbide's empire, Santa Anna's 30 year reign that led to the loss of the Northern half of the country to the US, Maximilian's closeness to Indian land rights (Indians in Mexico were never better treated than under Maximilian), the remarkably efficient Porfiriato (a 35 year-long dictatorship), or the extremely brutal aftermath of the revolution. This promoted a mythological self-view of Mexico that paved the ground for the economic catastrophe of Lopez Portillo and the political catastrophe of Salinas de Gortari.
For anyone interested in looking behind the cobwebs of official history and popular culture, Krauze is a godsend. In his work one can view the greater trends of Mexican history, and understand how a country may be both statist and hospitable to private business, officially anti-clerical but deeply religious, often in unorthodox ways, extremely violent but highly cultured, with an often radical foreign policy that belied a very conservative political culture.
As a Colombian I was very surprised at the conservative failure to win power from the 1870s to President Fox (in Colombia the conservatives have run the country for well over half of its existence). One, of course, has to see the origin of this in the alleged betrayal of the conservatives who supported Maximilian's empire, even though Maximilian himself wasn't conservative at all. And Mexico's complex attitude to religion can be traced to such ambivalent figures as Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz (a nun-poet who was deeply critical of male domination in the Church) and Father Hidalgo (a revolutionary priest who is one of Mexico's Founding Fathers, who was close to freemasons and loved to indulge in forbidden readings and female companionship).
Mexico's strong nationalism is of course fueled by its closeness to the most powerful country in the world. Like Porfirio Diaz lamented, "We are so far away from God, and so close to the Americans". Also Mexico's Indian pride (maybe no country other than Paraguay, where dictator Gaspar Rodriguez de Francia forced whites and indians to marry, has a better tradition of metissage, although the rights of actual indians have historically been disregarded: cf. the Zapatistas in Yucatán) did not prevent it from receiving the greater part of Republican Spanish emigration after the Civil War.
So, Mexico is a complex country, perhaps more than most. It is also, after Argentina's self-combustion, the only Hispanic-American country to have a shot at the first world (Chile is actually getting there, but it’s much smaller than Mexico). Harvard's Huntington has decried Mexican influence in the US, and has even hinted that Mexico could use its presence throughout the South Western US to reclaim its former territories. That is highly unlikely. Mexico is fully aware that it has to live and work with its powerful northern neighbor (although that's not inconsistent with an official nationalist policy, for popular consumption). But these fears indicate that all North Americans should be interested in Mexico. And Krauze is a great place to start. Americans, in particular, do worse than to know more about their great southern neighbor.
November 21, 2016
This is an excellent history of modern Mexico (from 1810, its independence from Spain), told through the biographies of Mexico’s leaders. The history is a case study about how political culture shapes and constrains a country. Mexico is split into multiple factions: different Indian tribes, creoles (of European descent, born in Mexico), Mestizos (mixed European-Indian ancestry), clerics, anti-clerics, liberals (anti-church, anti-Spanish, in both moderate and radical forms; and communists in the 1920s-30s). The overall split is between the conservatives (church-Spain-wealth) and liberals (anti-all of these).
In the Hobbesian fashion, autocratic leaders filled the governing void. This is Krauze’s “biography of power” thesis. This "concentration of power into a single power,” Krauze states, found its expression as “the historic norm across the centuries,” as “tlatoani, monarch, viceroy, emperor, President, caudillo, jefe, etadista.” Unlike Hobbes’s Leviathan, though, the Mexican leaders promoted not the good of the whole, but the good of their factions. The strong man tradition is well represented by the long-time leader, Santa Anna, who, Krauze writes, “gave a thousand or so dazzling speeches in which it is hard to find one sincere phrase or even a glimmer of authenticity beyond the authenticity of performance.” The liberals gradually became ascendant and, by 1940, the author writes that “the country had reestablished order, centered around a political system controlled by a ‘Revolutionary Family’ rather than a single person, though personal government would continue to be a central feature of Mexican political life.” Mexico’s factionalized political culture and political chaos left a weak and inept Mexican state that result in a 1847 U.S. invasion that saw the U.S. flag raised above the National Palace in Mexico City and the total loss of territory that was the equivalent to what the U.S. obtained through the Louisiana Purchase.
In the Hobbesian fashion, autocratic leaders filled the governing void. This is Krauze’s “biography of power” thesis. This "concentration of power into a single power,” Krauze states, found its expression as “the historic norm across the centuries,” as “tlatoani, monarch, viceroy, emperor, President, caudillo, jefe, etadista.” Unlike Hobbes’s Leviathan, though, the Mexican leaders promoted not the good of the whole, but the good of their factions. The strong man tradition is well represented by the long-time leader, Santa Anna, who, Krauze writes, “gave a thousand or so dazzling speeches in which it is hard to find one sincere phrase or even a glimmer of authenticity beyond the authenticity of performance.” The liberals gradually became ascendant and, by 1940, the author writes that “the country had reestablished order, centered around a political system controlled by a ‘Revolutionary Family’ rather than a single person, though personal government would continue to be a central feature of Mexican political life.” Mexico’s factionalized political culture and political chaos left a weak and inept Mexican state that result in a 1847 U.S. invasion that saw the U.S. flag raised above the National Palace in Mexico City and the total loss of territory that was the equivalent to what the U.S. obtained through the Louisiana Purchase.
April 2, 2008
For anyone with an interest in Mexican history. Extremely well written and thorough, offering the historical analysis along with touching personal anecdotes that make the history come alive. Mexico has as many revolutionary heroes and self-sacrificing saints as one could ever hope to find.
January 15, 2010
If you ever doubted that Mexico had a gripping history, you should pick up this book and read any chapter. It's brilliant.
September 30, 2021
This book is motivated by a simple idea, the history of Mexico, more even than most countries, is a history of its leaders, its caudillos. A biography of every one of these leaders over the past 200 years will give the reader a sense of that history, and of the biography of the nation.
On one level the conceit works. After Hidalgo Morelos, the priest of the poor and child of the enlightenment, began his grito or cry against the Spanish in 1810 (his Indian followers chanted "Death to the Spaniards! Long live the Virgin of Guadalupe!"), his mystical vision imprinted itself on the nation. The pureblood Indian of Zapotec, Benito Juarez, who abandoned the seminary but kept a vague sense of devotion, would become the hero of the 1857 Constitutional Convention, the "War of Reform" and then the war against the French Emperor Maximillian. Porfirio Diaz was a creole soldier from Oaxaca who captured the government in 1872 and then imposed four decades or relative peace and prosperity, but whose taciturn paternalism stunted Mexico's development.
The story is at its best around the Mexican Revolution. There are portrayals of the famous Zapatista and Pancho Villa, but much more enlightening are those of Venustiano Carranza, a Juarista liberal northern landowner who led Mexico for six years after 1914, and who oversaw the 1917 Constitution, whose terms proved too radical for him. Plutarco Elias Calles, a rabidly anticlerical teacher from Sonora, led Mexico officially for much of the twenties, and unofficially for the next decade when he created what became the PRI party. Lazaro Cardenas, a shopkeeprs son who was recruited early into the Mexican Revolution, eventually solidified the PRI, uniting workers in one national union, finding a concordat with the Catholic Church, nationalizing the oil companies, and establishing the complete ejido communal farming system. He was a sort of untutored or pragmatic Marxist, and he put Mexico and the PRI on its future path.
The postwar years are tedious in the extreme. A series of functionaries promise to lead the nation in the principles of the Revolution, which may make them more left or rightwing depending on their inclinations. Adolofo Ruiz Cortines, the fiercely ascetic old man, published all his assets and demanded his civil servants do the same. Gustavo Diaz Ordaz, was a lawyer and, like many leaders of the era, former Interior Minister, before he assisted in the killing of student protestors in 1968 and then passed the presidency onto his own Interior Minister, the ultra-leftist Luis Echeverria. In the end, the book is too winding, too anecdotal, and too sporadic to make its point. It gets lost in trivialities and names and loses its chronology too many times without purpose. I learned about Mexican history and a few dictators and great men, but I plowed through too much extraneous stuff to get there.
On one level the conceit works. After Hidalgo Morelos, the priest of the poor and child of the enlightenment, began his grito or cry against the Spanish in 1810 (his Indian followers chanted "Death to the Spaniards! Long live the Virgin of Guadalupe!"), his mystical vision imprinted itself on the nation. The pureblood Indian of Zapotec, Benito Juarez, who abandoned the seminary but kept a vague sense of devotion, would become the hero of the 1857 Constitutional Convention, the "War of Reform" and then the war against the French Emperor Maximillian. Porfirio Diaz was a creole soldier from Oaxaca who captured the government in 1872 and then imposed four decades or relative peace and prosperity, but whose taciturn paternalism stunted Mexico's development.
The story is at its best around the Mexican Revolution. There are portrayals of the famous Zapatista and Pancho Villa, but much more enlightening are those of Venustiano Carranza, a Juarista liberal northern landowner who led Mexico for six years after 1914, and who oversaw the 1917 Constitution, whose terms proved too radical for him. Plutarco Elias Calles, a rabidly anticlerical teacher from Sonora, led Mexico officially for much of the twenties, and unofficially for the next decade when he created what became the PRI party. Lazaro Cardenas, a shopkeeprs son who was recruited early into the Mexican Revolution, eventually solidified the PRI, uniting workers in one national union, finding a concordat with the Catholic Church, nationalizing the oil companies, and establishing the complete ejido communal farming system. He was a sort of untutored or pragmatic Marxist, and he put Mexico and the PRI on its future path.
The postwar years are tedious in the extreme. A series of functionaries promise to lead the nation in the principles of the Revolution, which may make them more left or rightwing depending on their inclinations. Adolofo Ruiz Cortines, the fiercely ascetic old man, published all his assets and demanded his civil servants do the same. Gustavo Diaz Ordaz, was a lawyer and, like many leaders of the era, former Interior Minister, before he assisted in the killing of student protestors in 1968 and then passed the presidency onto his own Interior Minister, the ultra-leftist Luis Echeverria. In the end, the book is too winding, too anecdotal, and too sporadic to make its point. It gets lost in trivialities and names and loses its chronology too many times without purpose. I learned about Mexican history and a few dictators and great men, but I plowed through too much extraneous stuff to get there.
March 7, 2015
My professor of Russian/Soviet history once said in a lecture that you could tell the depth of centralization of power in a country by how many biographies it minimally took to tell a fairly complete history of the country.
In the case of the Soviet Union, it was like five: Lenin, Stalin, Trosky, Bukharin, Zinoviev/Kamenev. Such was the level of concentration of power that reading the lives of those guys was pretty much all you needed to understand the Revolution and the first four decades of the Soviet experiment and Russian life in general, as their lives determined a lot of what went in the country during those years: economics, agriculture, politics, culture.
Something similar can be said for Mexico, though the number of biographies is larger. In no particular order, read the biographies of Diaz, Calles, Cardenas, Carranza, Zapata, Madero, Villa, and a few others.
That's why this book is so important and helpful. It's a terrific overview of Mexican history through the lives of the people who were its main actors. And in Mexico, the main actors determined a whole lot more than they determine in other less centralized, less classist countries.
Given the centralization of the country's political, economic and cultural life, these fellows' biographies and a few more are all you need to have a pretty good understanding of the broad contours and a lot of the details of Mexican life from before the Revolution through WWII.
Loved, in particular, the part about Zapata, who was simply a small farmer/landholder, interested in gaining land for his followers. He likely would have repudiated the aims of the folks who used his name many years later.
Reminded me of the use of the image of Cesar Chavez by those interested in promoting the legalization of illegal immigrants. Chavez hated illegal immigrants because they undermined the ability of his people - Mexican-Americans - to get a fair deal from growers.
In the case of the Soviet Union, it was like five: Lenin, Stalin, Trosky, Bukharin, Zinoviev/Kamenev. Such was the level of concentration of power that reading the lives of those guys was pretty much all you needed to understand the Revolution and the first four decades of the Soviet experiment and Russian life in general, as their lives determined a lot of what went in the country during those years: economics, agriculture, politics, culture.
Something similar can be said for Mexico, though the number of biographies is larger. In no particular order, read the biographies of Diaz, Calles, Cardenas, Carranza, Zapata, Madero, Villa, and a few others.
That's why this book is so important and helpful. It's a terrific overview of Mexican history through the lives of the people who were its main actors. And in Mexico, the main actors determined a whole lot more than they determine in other less centralized, less classist countries.
Given the centralization of the country's political, economic and cultural life, these fellows' biographies and a few more are all you need to have a pretty good understanding of the broad contours and a lot of the details of Mexican life from before the Revolution through WWII.
Loved, in particular, the part about Zapata, who was simply a small farmer/landholder, interested in gaining land for his followers. He likely would have repudiated the aims of the folks who used his name many years later.
Reminded me of the use of the image of Cesar Chavez by those interested in promoting the legalization of illegal immigrants. Chavez hated illegal immigrants because they undermined the ability of his people - Mexican-Americans - to get a fair deal from growers.
July 28, 2012
I read this book to get a broad overview of Mexican history, and was not disappointed. I'm not usually a fan of the Great Man style of historical writing, but perhaps it was justified in this case. Mexico has certainly had its share of charismatic or despotic leaders, as well as ones who were just odd and hapless, such as Francisco Madero.
There have been so many opportunities for real social change squandered by leaders who became intoxicated with power and by those who refused to exercise power when they had the chance. The revolution of 1910 could have resulted in the destruction of the hacienda system and a genuinely democratic society, but turned instead into an institutionalized version of the Porfirio Diaz regime, giving only lip service to land and labor reform but existing in reality primarily to serve the interests of the ruling classes.
But, who knows, despite the recent electoral victory by PRI, maybe change is in the air. The new Zapatistas seem to have widespread support, and Lopez-Obrador came a close second in the presidential election despite widespread election fraud, propaganda, and intimidation. So perhaps Mexico will one day become a truly democratic society. I hope so.
There have been so many opportunities for real social change squandered by leaders who became intoxicated with power and by those who refused to exercise power when they had the chance. The revolution of 1910 could have resulted in the destruction of the hacienda system and a genuinely democratic society, but turned instead into an institutionalized version of the Porfirio Diaz regime, giving only lip service to land and labor reform but existing in reality primarily to serve the interests of the ruling classes.
But, who knows, despite the recent electoral victory by PRI, maybe change is in the air. The new Zapatistas seem to have widespread support, and Lopez-Obrador came a close second in the presidential election despite widespread election fraud, propaganda, and intimidation. So perhaps Mexico will one day become a truly democratic society. I hope so.
September 14, 2024
Krauze's discussion of the pre-modern period is primarily mythic (and not compellingly so), and his description of the 19th century tropic and scattered (the great man approach leaves too much unexplained). His painting of the Revolution and of the decades of PRI rule is magnificent. Krauze writes of the figures of the 20th century with immense empathy yet a critically clear eye. Essential reading, not simply in order to better understand Mexico, but to understand power and its social impact.
March 14, 2016
Almost twenty years ago, when I was in college, I remember taking a history course on Modern Mexico. I found it interesting due to the continual struggle for power that has marked the country since its 1810 Revolution. Mexican history is littered with uprisings, revolts, massacres, egomaniacs, backstabbing, corruption, incompetence, and - most of all - blood. I came away from that course being somewhat shocked at how screwed up Mexico was due to all of the above. I once again have that same feeling now that I have finished reading this book.
Mexico is a country that has never seemed to be at peace with itself, dating from the Spanish Conquest by Hernan Cortes in 1519. The mixing of Indian and Spaniard blood - mestizaje - helped reduce racial tensions, but solved little else. The country was heavily dominated by the Catholic Church, although the stature of the Church has declined throughout the 20th century. The political culture is somewhat socialistic with autocratic men in charge. After a long period of rule by Porfirio Diaz (34 years), the Revolution in 1910 resulted in two decades of the most unstable political situation that one could imagine. Overthrows, executions, exiles, bloody drawn-out local and regional wars, and a continuous revolving door of dictators characterized this period.
Beginning in 1940, things settled down but then institutional and political suppression began to rule. The government cracked down (way too) hard on, first, railroad workers in 1958, then students and teachers in 1968. The Presidency itself had stabilized by then: each man serving one six-year term and being forbidden to be re-elected. But the PRI - the dominant political party - controlled almost all elections. In any that it may have legitimately lost to its biggest rival, PAN, it would use massive vote fraud and illegal tactics (burning of ballot boxes, for example) to declare victory. Each President hand-picked his successor, and the presidential election in July was an election in name only.
Krauze clearly cares deeply about his country - this tends to come through more in the last part of the book (as he was alive to live through those events). Chronologically, he divides the book into five different parts. While this works well, within these parts the chapters typically focus on a single President, with the result that each chapter has some overlap with the few prior to it and those following it. Also, he would go back to begin a brief biography of each man. This proved difficult to keep up with as, for instance, during the tumultuous 1910s and 1920s, each time he started a new chapter about someone (like Venustiano Carranza, for instance) the reader gets transported back to the person's birth and has to move forward through events that were already described (all be it from different viewpoints) to the present time of the chapter. Especially for someone not very familiar with Mexican History, this tended to make many of the leaders from around this time sort of blend together.
There were a few topics that Krauze really did not delve into: very little was written about the War with Mexico in the 1840s. With Mexico losing such a vast expanse of territory to the United States, and coming on the heels of the annexation of Texas in 1836, I would have thought that this would have garnered much more than the couple of pages that Krauze devotes to it. Also missing was a description of just how the 1968 Summer Olympics went. Krauze wrote at length about the government suppression of student protests in the summer if 1968, but nothing at all about the Olympics themselves. He also does not talk about the immigration issue - from Mexico's standpoint it would be the inability to make itself attractive to its natives. However, overall, anyone wishing to learn a few things about Mexico in the last 200 years could be well-served by reading this book.
Grade: B-
Mexico is a country that has never seemed to be at peace with itself, dating from the Spanish Conquest by Hernan Cortes in 1519. The mixing of Indian and Spaniard blood - mestizaje - helped reduce racial tensions, but solved little else. The country was heavily dominated by the Catholic Church, although the stature of the Church has declined throughout the 20th century. The political culture is somewhat socialistic with autocratic men in charge. After a long period of rule by Porfirio Diaz (34 years), the Revolution in 1910 resulted in two decades of the most unstable political situation that one could imagine. Overthrows, executions, exiles, bloody drawn-out local and regional wars, and a continuous revolving door of dictators characterized this period.
Beginning in 1940, things settled down but then institutional and political suppression began to rule. The government cracked down (way too) hard on, first, railroad workers in 1958, then students and teachers in 1968. The Presidency itself had stabilized by then: each man serving one six-year term and being forbidden to be re-elected. But the PRI - the dominant political party - controlled almost all elections. In any that it may have legitimately lost to its biggest rival, PAN, it would use massive vote fraud and illegal tactics (burning of ballot boxes, for example) to declare victory. Each President hand-picked his successor, and the presidential election in July was an election in name only.
Krauze clearly cares deeply about his country - this tends to come through more in the last part of the book (as he was alive to live through those events). Chronologically, he divides the book into five different parts. While this works well, within these parts the chapters typically focus on a single President, with the result that each chapter has some overlap with the few prior to it and those following it. Also, he would go back to begin a brief biography of each man. This proved difficult to keep up with as, for instance, during the tumultuous 1910s and 1920s, each time he started a new chapter about someone (like Venustiano Carranza, for instance) the reader gets transported back to the person's birth and has to move forward through events that were already described (all be it from different viewpoints) to the present time of the chapter. Especially for someone not very familiar with Mexican History, this tended to make many of the leaders from around this time sort of blend together.
There were a few topics that Krauze really did not delve into: very little was written about the War with Mexico in the 1840s. With Mexico losing such a vast expanse of territory to the United States, and coming on the heels of the annexation of Texas in 1836, I would have thought that this would have garnered much more than the couple of pages that Krauze devotes to it. Also missing was a description of just how the 1968 Summer Olympics went. Krauze wrote at length about the government suppression of student protests in the summer if 1968, but nothing at all about the Olympics themselves. He also does not talk about the immigration issue - from Mexico's standpoint it would be the inability to make itself attractive to its natives. However, overall, anyone wishing to learn a few things about Mexico in the last 200 years could be well-served by reading this book.
Grade: B-
August 5, 2023
This is the best book that I've read on Mexican history. I'm reading it again, and enjoying even more the second time.
A Biography of Power is basically a series of short biographies of Mexican leaders up until (almost) the end of the 20th century. Since the book was written in 1997, it left me wanting to delve into the last 20+ years.
Although this book is chronological, it moves back and forth in time, as it goes through these mini cradle-to-grave stories of Mexican leaders.
My only complaint is that this is supposed to be a modern history of Mexico (1810-1996), but it breezes through the last 30 years in 50-70 pages. It's as if the author rushed to finish the book. The presidential biographies became extremely short, 2 or 3 pages, and then on to the next bio. The 80's fly by in a few pages, the 90's a few pages, and it comes to a screeching halt. Kinda left me wanting more.
This book was actually pretty fantastic. Inspired writing. The translation was excellent.
A Biography of Power is basically a series of short biographies of Mexican leaders up until (almost) the end of the 20th century. Since the book was written in 1997, it left me wanting to delve into the last 20+ years.
Although this book is chronological, it moves back and forth in time, as it goes through these mini cradle-to-grave stories of Mexican leaders.
My only complaint is that this is supposed to be a modern history of Mexico (1810-1996), but it breezes through the last 30 years in 50-70 pages. It's as if the author rushed to finish the book. The presidential biographies became extremely short, 2 or 3 pages, and then on to the next bio. The 80's fly by in a few pages, the 90's a few pages, and it comes to a screeching halt. Kinda left me wanting more.
This book was actually pretty fantastic. Inspired writing. The translation was excellent.
January 24, 2008
The Dork in Me. I read this for a class, (Chicano Studies taught by an Asian Ph. D.)... to this day it remains at the top of my list.
The more i see of the world, the more amazing it is to me the drivel they spoonfed us in High School. Yet, more amazing still, is the number of people who can not even conceive that there is another version/perspective of His-story....
As the Serbian repairman told me the other day, " There are a lot of stupid people in this country... what do you say?..... you can take the person out of the trailer park, but can not take the trailer park out of the person "
hmmmm....
The more i see of the world, the more amazing it is to me the drivel they spoonfed us in High School. Yet, more amazing still, is the number of people who can not even conceive that there is another version/perspective of His-story....
As the Serbian repairman told me the other day, " There are a lot of stupid people in this country... what do you say?..... you can take the person out of the trailer park, but can not take the trailer park out of the person "
hmmmm....
July 12, 2008
Lo lamento pero a los 13 años me leí todas las Biografías del Poder del Fondo de Cultura Económica de Enrique Krauze y me encantaron porque decían todo lo contrario a los libros de historia de la escuela.
Mis preferidas fueron la historias de Villa, Zapata, Madero y Calles.
Hace poco en una cena charlando con un compañero historiador de Ríos de Tinta, le confesé el hecho: "Lo lamento", me dijo Enrique Rajechenberg.
Krauze tampoco es mi preferido, pero los libros cumplieron su cometido para comenzar a buscar mi propia verdad sobre la historia.
Mis preferidas fueron la historias de Villa, Zapata, Madero y Calles.
Hace poco en una cena charlando con un compañero historiador de Ríos de Tinta, le confesé el hecho: "Lo lamento", me dijo Enrique Rajechenberg.
Krauze tampoco es mi preferido, pero los libros cumplieron su cometido para comenzar a buscar mi propia verdad sobre la historia.
November 14, 2013
Disfrute mucho esta lectura. En especial, me gustó que te da un panorama de los orígenes de los caudillos revolucionarios, su pensamiento, la mística que los llevó a unirse a la lucha y que marcó su presidencia.
Tiene datos imperdibles de ellos.
Siendo una especie de compendio hay sucesos en los que no profundiza, pero biográficamente sí.
Si les interesa el tema de la Revolución Mexicana, este libro es obligado.
Tiene datos imperdibles de ellos.
Siendo una especie de compendio hay sucesos en los que no profundiza, pero biográficamente sí.
Si les interesa el tema de la Revolución Mexicana, este libro es obligado.
October 25, 2019
Since the history of Mexico is tied to “strong men,” Krauze structures the book with short biographies, starting with Cortes. The translation is very easy to read, almost like fiction. I knew very little about Mexico or it’s history, so very different from our own despite both being discovered by Spanish explorers. The book shows the consequences of authoritarian presidents and weak legislators, very important given our current situation. Highly recommend.
August 18, 2020
I am keeping this book on my night stand, so much history!!!
I am going to go back as reference, as I continue to read other books on the subject.
I am a US citizen, born in Mexico and I am reading a book in English about my Mexican heritage!! Go figure!!
I absolutely love the book and I learned so much!!
Yes, I am grateful to Mr. Krauze!!!
I am going to go back as reference, as I continue to read other books on the subject.
I am a US citizen, born in Mexico and I am reading a book in English about my Mexican heritage!! Go figure!!
I absolutely love the book and I learned so much!!
Yes, I am grateful to Mr. Krauze!!!
August 18, 2008
Before reading this, you might think 800 pages of historical biography would be dull. But in truth it's absolutely gripping, and, for me, revelatory.
September 4, 2021
I’m in awe at the history of my country right now. What a wonderful book. Every Mexican should read it.
Read
July 7, 2021This is a review by an American redneck, who doesn't know a whole lot about Mexican history but wanted to read this book to have a better understanding of its political history. I will have to make some comparisons to US history due to my limitations in understanding.
Krauze states that he decided to make the book a set of biographies of important figures to make the narrative comprehensive, although there were some important national themes beyond biography. One key theme that seems so central to Mexican identity is its independent mentality. As George Washington would say, avoid foreign entanglements, for Mexico's history that was conflicts of its relationship with US business interests and political-religious influence from Rome. Mexico's struggle between the separation between church and state was more complicated than the USA's.
Because the book is largely biographies of the Mexican presidents, their roles seem to be overemphasized in determining outcomes for the nation. Just like in the US where a president takes the credit and blame for the current state of the economy, even though there are many economic factors that have nothing to do with decisions of the president, Krauze seems to judge the Mexican presidents in a similar fashion. The good times and bad times in the Mexican economy seem to correspond to the broader global trends.
As the USA and Mexico were both former European colonies that fought for their independence, its interesting to note the trajectories of each nation. While the US largely displaced their Native American populations, Spain subordinated theirs in Mexico. To me, that seems to be the central difference. By 1810, when Mexico began its long struggle of an independent democracy, it came largely from an illiterate and oppressed native culture that in many ways was taught by colonial overlords through violence. When Mexico became independent there was not a relatively large enough population that was literate with experience in law or running a government. While the resistances and the revolution of 1910 were led by a caudillos who had the military capacity to overthrow the power structures, these caudillos in turn became the major obstacles toward democracy once they were in power. Krauze really conveys the burning desire of the Mexican national spirit for a democratic system. The book ends in 1997, just three years before Fox becomes president in 2000, the first president since the revolution who was not part of the PRI party. The problematic nature of the one party system was a major focus of the book.
Another big issue was land reform, as the Asian Tiger nations, once independent, have shown that land reform is a critical factor in their economic development. Mexico had its own path and own struggles. Perhaps Krauze's major fault, he finds with Lazeno Cardenas, is that he rushed land reforms too quickly. To me, this seems like a vital issue. Mexico is also famously overly centralized, which Krauze attributes to President Alaman, something I did not know.
In the end, Krauze urges a Mexican public to both look at the good and the bad in their past. This is also good advice for the USA, such as looking at the bad in out Latin American policies or that how democratic system is often far from perfect. In fact, one could make the argument that the US has not been a true democracy until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. From a US perspective, we could learn a lot from being more aware of our neighbor's history. Just a Krauze shows a love for his country and its citizens but also acknowledges its past sins and takes an honest look at the inherent struggle that comes with a democratic government, is this something north of the border we could do as well?
Krauze states that he decided to make the book a set of biographies of important figures to make the narrative comprehensive, although there were some important national themes beyond biography. One key theme that seems so central to Mexican identity is its independent mentality. As George Washington would say, avoid foreign entanglements, for Mexico's history that was conflicts of its relationship with US business interests and political-religious influence from Rome. Mexico's struggle between the separation between church and state was more complicated than the USA's.
Because the book is largely biographies of the Mexican presidents, their roles seem to be overemphasized in determining outcomes for the nation. Just like in the US where a president takes the credit and blame for the current state of the economy, even though there are many economic factors that have nothing to do with decisions of the president, Krauze seems to judge the Mexican presidents in a similar fashion. The good times and bad times in the Mexican economy seem to correspond to the broader global trends.
As the USA and Mexico were both former European colonies that fought for their independence, its interesting to note the trajectories of each nation. While the US largely displaced their Native American populations, Spain subordinated theirs in Mexico. To me, that seems to be the central difference. By 1810, when Mexico began its long struggle of an independent democracy, it came largely from an illiterate and oppressed native culture that in many ways was taught by colonial overlords through violence. When Mexico became independent there was not a relatively large enough population that was literate with experience in law or running a government. While the resistances and the revolution of 1910 were led by a caudillos who had the military capacity to overthrow the power structures, these caudillos in turn became the major obstacles toward democracy once they were in power. Krauze really conveys the burning desire of the Mexican national spirit for a democratic system. The book ends in 1997, just three years before Fox becomes president in 2000, the first president since the revolution who was not part of the PRI party. The problematic nature of the one party system was a major focus of the book.
Another big issue was land reform, as the Asian Tiger nations, once independent, have shown that land reform is a critical factor in their economic development. Mexico had its own path and own struggles. Perhaps Krauze's major fault, he finds with Lazeno Cardenas, is that he rushed land reforms too quickly. To me, this seems like a vital issue. Mexico is also famously overly centralized, which Krauze attributes to President Alaman, something I did not know.
In the end, Krauze urges a Mexican public to both look at the good and the bad in their past. This is also good advice for the USA, such as looking at the bad in out Latin American policies or that how democratic system is often far from perfect. In fact, one could make the argument that the US has not been a true democracy until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. From a US perspective, we could learn a lot from being more aware of our neighbor's history. Just a Krauze shows a love for his country and its citizens but also acknowledges its past sins and takes an honest look at the inherent struggle that comes with a democratic government, is this something north of the border we could do as well?
December 12, 2021
Although I’m planning a trip to central Mexico this winter, my visits so far have been limited to an afternoon in Tijuana and a couple of trips to the Mayan Riviera. Until I read Biography of Power, my reading about Mexico was even narrower. In fact, it was non-existent. I found this book to be a terrific introduction to the country's history. It focuses mostly on the last two centuries, but the glimpse it offers of the pre-Cortesian and Spanish colonial worlds set the stage well. The author uses a series of short, colorful and engaging biographies of around twenty leaders to construct a narrative that explains Mexico’s political development and particular challenges. Reading this book really ratcheted up my anticipation of our upcoming trip and made me feel orders of magnitude more prepared for the experience. I have no idea how Krauze reads in Spanish, but the English translation is a pleasure. Hank Heifetz is a poet, and his translation is luminous.
My only disappointment with the book is that it ends in 1996. It would be great if the author created an updated edition.
My only disappointment with the book is that it ends in 1996. It would be great if the author created an updated edition.
September 29, 2014
This is a very comprehensive and scholarly history of Mexico covering the period from the start of the American War of Independence to the end of the Institutional Revolutionary Party.
I studied Canadian and French history as a undergraduate but never took any courses dealing with Mexico thus my perspective on this book is formed by having read one other survey history of Mexico and several novels by Carlos Fuentes. My instinctive rather than my informed reaction is that this book constitutes an exceptionally fine introductory history to Mexico.
Knowing little about the topic I feel uncomfortable giving it the fifth star which I suspect that it probably deserves. Because of its style, comprehensiveness and clarity I would certainly not look anywhere else for an introductory survey history.
I studied Canadian and French history as a undergraduate but never took any courses dealing with Mexico thus my perspective on this book is formed by having read one other survey history of Mexico and several novels by Carlos Fuentes. My instinctive rather than my informed reaction is that this book constitutes an exceptionally fine introductory history to Mexico.
Knowing little about the topic I feel uncomfortable giving it the fifth star which I suspect that it probably deserves. Because of its style, comprehensiveness and clarity I would certainly not look anywhere else for an introductory survey history.
June 5, 2013
"Mexico: a Biography of Power" tells the history of Mexico by profiling each of Mexico's national leaders--dedicating a chapter to each one--since 1810. Although they subjects are mainly presidents, political leaders like Emiliano Zapata are also included.
The book is a great introduction to the presidents and leaders of Mexico since 1810. I knew nothing of Mexican history and had no trouble understanding what was going on. Krauze provides just enough background information to keep novices like me up to speed.
The book is not an academic work: there are no citations and plenty of biased opinion. However, the leaders mostly are portrayed in grey tones: most do not come off as out-and-out villains or heroes.
The book is a great introduction to the presidents and leaders of Mexico since 1810. I knew nothing of Mexican history and had no trouble understanding what was going on. Krauze provides just enough background information to keep novices like me up to speed.
The book is not an academic work: there are no citations and plenty of biased opinion. However, the leaders mostly are portrayed in grey tones: most do not come off as out-and-out villains or heroes.
July 5, 2017
Someone should have told Krauze about Thomas Carlyle. Locates far too much causation in the realm of personal psychology (even the Tlatelolco massacre he blames on Diaz Ordaz's paranoia and faulty intelligence - one might ask being fed to him by whom?) Explains away everything wrong with the Mexican political system by the term "corruption" with little in the way of a procedural explanation for how it occurs. Krauze's fetishism for formal democracy leads him to paint most Mexican political actors in a hopelessly ambiguous fashion, even Sinarquista elements within PAN. Breezes through the '70s and beyond even though he lets on that he has the capacity for something more comprehensive there
February 16, 2013
Excellent history of Mexico from the revolution onwards. Reads like a novel as the main actors that arose from colonial times were a fascinating bunch. Great title.
July 27, 2014
Por fin pude entender la Revolución Mexicana gracias a este libro y a mi amigo Victor Escala, quien me lo recomendó
January 19, 2016
THE political history of Mexico.
April 4, 2016
Very thorough history of Mexican power and leadership. Highly recommend for anyone interested in Mexican history.
December 26, 2022
Mexico: Biography of Power: A History of Modern Mexico, 1810-1996, Enrique Krauze, 1997, 872 pages, Dewey 972.04 ISBN 0060163259
Excellent introduction to the political history of Mexico. The biographies of her presidents largely tell the biography of Mexico. Unfortunately. Mexico suffers kleptocracy, internal imperialism, one-man rule, one-party system, enormous inequality. pp. 797-798.
(The 2017 Spanish edition, /México: Biografía del poder/, also covers only the years 1810-1996, compiled from three books, /Siglo de caudillos/, /Biografía del poder/, /La presidencia imperial/. Krauze's latest book, /Crítica al poder presidencial: 1982-2021/, shows that the patten continues: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... . )
Mexico has been ruled by dictators since Aztec times. p. 343. There have been successful revolutions led by people who wanted to abolish arbitrary dominance of one person over everybody else. But these people have neither wanted, nor known how, to rule. Plus, the moneyed interests controlling the U.S. have never tolerated a government that fails to subjugate its people to enrich those interests. pp. 211, 235, 252.
1521 Hernán Cortés: conquest begins. pp. xiv, xx, 3. Mexico has some 10 million inhabitants. p. 53.
1521-1821 Spain-born Spaniards rule Mexico. Mexico is as isolated and stagnant as Spain is. p. 4, 12, 14. Political opposition is unthinkable. p. 64.
1529 Bishop Juan de Zumárraga: "We've baptized a million infidels, destroyed 500 temples and 20,000 images of devils." p. 34. The Indians and all their things were so destroyed that no sign remained that they were ahead of many arrogant nations. p. 35.
1500s Dominicans Bartolomé de las Casas and Francisco de Vitoria express their then-peculiar view that indigenous Mexicans are people. pp. 32, 781. Pope Paul III agrees that Indians have souls. pp. 36-37. 1542 New Laws of the Indes for the Good Treatment and Preservation of the Indians. No Indian slavery. Import Africans. pp. 37, 49-50, 63.
1621 Mexico's population is below 1 million, due to smallpox and other diseases. p. 53. But see https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=... showing 3 million.
1650s Mexico has 1,625,000 people, 7,000 priests. (1 priest/232 people) p. 75.
1700 Mexico's population is 3 million. p. 65.
1803 Mexico has 6 million people: about 41% Indian, 39% mixed, 19% white. p. 52. Gradually, it would approach 100% mestizo. pp. 55, 81, 97. Though many Indian communities still exist in the 21st Century. Chiapas and Yucatán are still today largely fully Mayan. p. 780. p. 220, 780. 1810 Four thousand pure indigenous communities remain in "Old Mexico." p. 223.
1810-1821 War of Independence. Mexico-born Spaniards will rule Mexico. pp. xiv, 4, 11-13. Slavery is abolished. All 10,000 Africans are freed. p. 50. $10 million ($1 = 1 peso at the time) of capital fled the country. Mexico is born bankrupt. p. 126.
Fine words abound:
Actions fall short:
Usurpation and pillage has enthroned itself as King in Mexico. Guerrero … Santa Anna … What demons they are! --Simón Bolívar, 1828. p. 130.
1830s There are 6,000 feudal haciendas in Mexico. There is no industry. There are few navigable rivers. Seven million people: 90% live in small villages. No conception of politics; even less of nationality. Controlled by local strongmen, /caciques/. pp. 131-132.
The Mexican elite repeatedly prove their inability to create an economically solvent and politically stable state. p. 132.
The Conservative party represents the interests of the landowners, the army, and the Church. The Liberal party represents the interests of the middle class, and of the strongmen, /caciques/, especially in the north. Neither party represents the interests of the millions of laborers and subsistence farmers. p. 139.
1836 Texans defeat Santa Anna. pp. xx, 139.
1845 U.S. annexes Texas. p. 5.
1846-1848 U.S. takes more than half of Mexico's territory, including New Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah, Nevada, western and southern Colorado, and southwestern Wyoming, in addition to Texas. Nine days after the peace treaty, North American prospectors strike gold in California. p. xx, 4, 144, 146.
1850 There are 8 million Mexicans. Mexico is 2 million square km = 750,000 square miles. Haciendas rely on debt-servitude labor. There are cloth factories in Puebla; little other industry. There's no rail. Travel is perilous. Foreign debt is a ruinous 52 million pesos. The Confederacy seems likely to secede from the U.S. and, if successful, to take Mexican land and enslave her people. p. 147.
1851 Melchor Ocampo (1814-1861) requests that the poor pay less to the Church for sacraments. p. 153. This in response to a priest's, "salt him and eat him" suggestion to a bereaved father who lacked the fee the priest charged for a Christian burial for his son. p. 154. "Freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are ungodly!" thunders the priest. p. 154. Priests disdained the poor, servants, and children; did not tend the sick; did not bury the poor. p. 154. A peon would have to borrow money from his employer to pay for sacraments: compounding his debt servitude. pp. 155, 158.
1853 Gadsden Purchase: the Mesilla Valley, southern Arizona, including Tucson; southwestern New Mexico. pp. 146, 149.
1856-1857 Constitutional convention. p. 158. New constitution does not decree Catholicism the exclusive religion of Mexico. The Church incites civil war in defense of its special privileges. p. 169.
1858-1861 Mexican civil war, the War of the Reform. pp. 152-170. Constitution or theocracy? p. 156. In a country of 8 million, there are never more than 25,000 men under arms. p. 170. It is a war between the ruling minorities. Both sides need funds. The Conservatives nearly mortgage the country to Spain and the Liberals to the U.S. Luckily, neither deal goes through. p. 170. Conservatives hire two Spanish warships from Cuba to blockade the Liberals at Veracruz. The pro-Liberal U.S. government sends three warships to seize the Spanish ones. The Liberals win the war. p. 170. Church and state are divorced. p. 171.
1862-1867 France tries, and fails, to conquer Mexico. Precipitated by Mexico's suspension of payments toward foreign debt. p. 4, 11, 175-191.
Mexico can't afford, and at peace doesn't need, an 80,000-man army. Commanders rebel at mass demobilization. p. 199. Bandits prey on travellers. Mayans rebel against white overlords. Yaqui Indians in the north rebel against federal authority. p. 220-221.
1876-1910 Porfirio Díaz is dictator. King in all but name. p. 218. Peace, Order, and Progress. pp. 3, 7, 10, 219, 252. Peace by letting foreign businesses take Mexico's wealth, without military intervention. Order by hanging thieves. Progress by rail. The indifference of the middle class, in their more-or-less illusory world of material well-being, doomed the newspapers to being mouthpieces of the dictator. Díaz likewise maintained control of intellectuals. pp. xxi, 9-10.
1870s Sugar mills take villagers' land. pp. 275-276. 1905 Díaz deports complainants to Quintana Roo. p. 280.
1910 Emiliano Zapata (1879-1919) takes back village land that haciendas had stolen in and after 1607. pp. 274-281.
1911 You must never ask, holding a hat in your hand, for justice from the governments of tyrants but only pick up a gun. --Emiliano Zapata.
1910 Mexico's population is 15 million. 87% speak Spanish. Almost 100% are Catholic. p. 68. Infant mortality is 50% by age 1. 84% of the population is illiterate. There are 8,000+ haciendas: many worked by, essentially, slaves. Vast inequality: palaces amid hovels. 70% of the people are rural. One medical doctor per 5,000 citizens. p. 219. The urban middle class is 500,000 people, many of them government officials. pp. 219-220. A million people live in urban slums. p. 220. Factories run on child labor, low wages, long hours, no worker protections. p. 234.
Díaz neither repealed nor applied the anti-Catholic Laws of Reform. p. 227. Wanted religious peace. The Church has regained some of its property by 1910. The Jesuits have returned. p. 227.
Mexicans are taught to venerate their national heroes as they venerate the Catholic saints. The calendar of special days includes: p. 229-230
February 5, 1857 Constitution Day https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Const...
March 21, 1806 Benito Juárez's birthday https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benit...
April 2, 1867 Porfirio Díaz's final victory in Puebla over Maximilian https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toma_...
May 5, 1862 victory against the French at Puebla https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batal...
May 8, 1753 Miguel Hidalgo's birthday https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migue...
July 18, 1872 Benito Juárez's death day
September 15, 1830 Porfirio Díaz's birthday https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porfi...
September 16, 1810 Independence Day (independence declared; war with Spain begins) https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indep...
When wars and rebellions begin, they grow too fast to be stopped. The revolutionary potential of the poor is a sleeping tiger. p. 220.
1910-1940 MEXICAN REVOLUTION
Madero promised pueblos the return of land seized from them by haciendas. p. 281. Foreign companies were cutting down indigenous communities' forests, 1913. p. 439. U.S. oil companies evaded taxes, left only wasteland, 1926. p. 444.
Francisco Ignacio Madero fought Díaz's dictatorial power. Won. Refused to use power, so undermined the revolution. Mistakes: left Díaz's henchmen in the interim presidency and in the legislature; demobilized the revolutionary army. pp. 260-267.
Madero created a department of labor, regulated and humanized factory work, legalized unions, established the right to strike. Industrial and elementary schools opened, new railroads and roads, safety inspections of bridges, oil-company taxes. Universal direct voting. Restored powers to municipal and regional governments. These were real achievements, but Madero was an inept politician. U.S. ambassador Henry Lane Wilson, who had admired the dictator Díaz, orchestrated a coup and had Madero and friends murdered in the last month of Taft's presidency, February, 1913. pp. 260-273. Mexican civil war begins. Madero destroyed Porfirismo, but he did not construct democracy. p. 524.
U.S. marines occupied Veracruz for months in 1914, to seize arms shipments coming to the Huerta government from Germany: they were there in support of, but without the consent of, the Constitutionalist forces under Carranza. p. 347.
Revolutionaries Carranza, Villa, and Zapata had defeated Huerta's government, but could not agree. The worst of the civil war was to come, between the three revolutionary armies. As of October, 1914, they each controlled about a third of the country. pp. 292-333, 345, 348. At peak in May 1915, the armies numbered fewer than 100,000 men. p. 240. Carranza won, supported by armies under General Obregón.
1917: Mexico has a new constitution, but also an enormous 750-million-peso debt, no internal nor external credit, an insatiable military budget, rising unemployment, a country in ruins. Crops went unharvested, railroads had been destroyed, cattle were exported to buy munitions, mines & industries closed, cities short of water, food, coal. Influenza, typhus spreading.
Venustiano Carranza (1859-1920). President 1917-1920. Authoritarian. Repressed labor. p. 344. Carranza succeeded only in killing some rival revolutionary leaders, including Ángeles and Zapata p. 366-367.
1920: Mexico was in chaos. Government was kleptocratic. p. 369. Carranza picked an unknown civilian to succeed him. Forced to flee, he stole the entire national gold reserves. General Obregón wanted to be president, and had Carranza killed. pp. 344, 369-373.
Álvaro Obregón (1880-1928)
President 1920-1924. "The country cannot liberate itself from its liberators." p. 391. "Men who are more vigorous, better prepared, make better choices, gain greater advantages. But those on high must consider those below not merely as servants but as coworkers and collaborators." p. 392. [Says nothing about inherited wealth, position, and opportunity, nor inherited poverty, destitution, and barriers.] "Government must guarantee workers' rights and preserve capital." [In part, this is an either/or choice.] "[Dictator] Porfirio Díaz's only sin was to grow old." p. 392. --Álvaro Obregón, 1919. 1923, more than half the army fought against Obregón. Many generals hoped to be president. p. 397. Seven thousand men died. p. 398. Obregón reneged on promises he'd made to the Yaquis and to the working class. He was unpopular. He had his political rivals killed. He was assassinated in 1928. p. 403.
Plutarco Elías Calles (1877-1945)
President 1924-1928. A strongman. pp. 417, 429, 442. Calles wanted to take back concessions his predecessor made to American oil companies. Mexican spies stole documents from the U.S. embassy proving the U.S. planned to invade Mexico. The Coolidge government ("the business of America is business") backed off. p. 418. Calles restricts the Church; the Church stops celebrating masses in protest; peasants, who have almost nothing except the consolation of the Church, rebel against the government, 1927-1929. p. 422. 70,000 are killed; 450,000 flee to the U.S., beginning the major Mexican presence in California. pp. 423-424. Calles left the presidency at the end of his term, but continued to be a power behind it. He picked his successor, Cárdenas. p. 434.
Without political institutions to resolve presidential succession peaceably, Mexico was condemned to periodic violence. p. 425. Every general wanted to be president (despite the 100% assassination rate). 1926-1928, 72 generals were killed or forced out; over 1100 other people were killed. pp. 425, 428.
Mexico's National Revolutionary Party (PNR) initiated the "science" of electoral fraud in 1929, which they would later refine and specialize in. p. 430. The name changed to Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in 1946. p. 560.
1930-1938, the PNR was a civilized conclave of generals who resolved their differences without killing each other. p. 431.
continued in comment 1
Excellent introduction to the political history of Mexico. The biographies of her presidents largely tell the biography of Mexico. Unfortunately. Mexico suffers kleptocracy, internal imperialism, one-man rule, one-party system, enormous inequality. pp. 797-798.
(The 2017 Spanish edition, /México: Biografía del poder/, also covers only the years 1810-1996, compiled from three books, /Siglo de caudillos/, /Biografía del poder/, /La presidencia imperial/. Krauze's latest book, /Crítica al poder presidencial: 1982-2021/, shows that the patten continues: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... . )
Mexico has been ruled by dictators since Aztec times. p. 343. There have been successful revolutions led by people who wanted to abolish arbitrary dominance of one person over everybody else. But these people have neither wanted, nor known how, to rule. Plus, the moneyed interests controlling the U.S. have never tolerated a government that fails to subjugate its people to enrich those interests. pp. 211, 235, 252.
1521 Hernán Cortés: conquest begins. pp. xiv, xx, 3. Mexico has some 10 million inhabitants. p. 53.
1521-1821 Spain-born Spaniards rule Mexico. Mexico is as isolated and stagnant as Spain is. p. 4, 12, 14. Political opposition is unthinkable. p. 64.
1529 Bishop Juan de Zumárraga: "We've baptized a million infidels, destroyed 500 temples and 20,000 images of devils." p. 34. The Indians and all their things were so destroyed that no sign remained that they were ahead of many arrogant nations. p. 35.
1500s Dominicans Bartolomé de las Casas and Francisco de Vitoria express their then-peculiar view that indigenous Mexicans are people. pp. 32, 781. Pope Paul III agrees that Indians have souls. pp. 36-37. 1542 New Laws of the Indes for the Good Treatment and Preservation of the Indians. No Indian slavery. Import Africans. pp. 37, 49-50, 63.
1621 Mexico's population is below 1 million, due to smallpox and other diseases. p. 53. But see https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=... showing 3 million.
1650s Mexico has 1,625,000 people, 7,000 priests. (1 priest/232 people) p. 75.
1700 Mexico's population is 3 million. p. 65.
1803 Mexico has 6 million people: about 41% Indian, 39% mixed, 19% white. p. 52. Gradually, it would approach 100% mestizo. pp. 55, 81, 97. Though many Indian communities still exist in the 21st Century. Chiapas and Yucatán are still today largely fully Mayan. p. 780. p. 220, 780. 1810 Four thousand pure indigenous communities remain in "Old Mexico." p. 223.
1810-1821 War of Independence. Mexico-born Spaniards will rule Mexico. pp. xiv, 4, 11-13. Slavery is abolished. All 10,000 Africans are freed. p. 50. $10 million ($1 = 1 peso at the time) of capital fled the country. Mexico is born bankrupt. p. 126.
Fine words abound:
There is no nobility but that of virtue, knowledge, patriotism and charity; we are all equal; the children of the peasant should have the same education as the children of the rich hacendado; every just claimant should have access to a court which listens, protects and defends him against the strong and the arbitrary; laws should narrow the gap between wealth and poverty and increase the wages of the poor. --José María Morelos y Pavón, 1813. p. 112.
Actions fall short:
Usurpation and pillage has enthroned itself as King in Mexico. Guerrero … Santa Anna … What demons they are! --Simón Bolívar, 1828. p. 130.
1830s There are 6,000 feudal haciendas in Mexico. There is no industry. There are few navigable rivers. Seven million people: 90% live in small villages. No conception of politics; even less of nationality. Controlled by local strongmen, /caciques/. pp. 131-132.
The Mexican elite repeatedly prove their inability to create an economically solvent and politically stable state. p. 132.
The Conservative party represents the interests of the landowners, the army, and the Church. The Liberal party represents the interests of the middle class, and of the strongmen, /caciques/, especially in the north. Neither party represents the interests of the millions of laborers and subsistence farmers. p. 139.
1836 Texans defeat Santa Anna. pp. xx, 139.
1845 U.S. annexes Texas. p. 5.
1846-1848 U.S. takes more than half of Mexico's territory, including New Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah, Nevada, western and southern Colorado, and southwestern Wyoming, in addition to Texas. Nine days after the peace treaty, North American prospectors strike gold in California. p. xx, 4, 144, 146.
1850 There are 8 million Mexicans. Mexico is 2 million square km = 750,000 square miles. Haciendas rely on debt-servitude labor. There are cloth factories in Puebla; little other industry. There's no rail. Travel is perilous. Foreign debt is a ruinous 52 million pesos. The Confederacy seems likely to secede from the U.S. and, if successful, to take Mexican land and enslave her people. p. 147.
1851 Melchor Ocampo (1814-1861) requests that the poor pay less to the Church for sacraments. p. 153. This in response to a priest's, "salt him and eat him" suggestion to a bereaved father who lacked the fee the priest charged for a Christian burial for his son. p. 154. "Freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are ungodly!" thunders the priest. p. 154. Priests disdained the poor, servants, and children; did not tend the sick; did not bury the poor. p. 154. A peon would have to borrow money from his employer to pay for sacraments: compounding his debt servitude. pp. 155, 158.
1853 Gadsden Purchase: the Mesilla Valley, southern Arizona, including Tucson; southwestern New Mexico. pp. 146, 149.
1856-1857 Constitutional convention. p. 158. New constitution does not decree Catholicism the exclusive religion of Mexico. The Church incites civil war in defense of its special privileges. p. 169.
1858-1861 Mexican civil war, the War of the Reform. pp. 152-170. Constitution or theocracy? p. 156. In a country of 8 million, there are never more than 25,000 men under arms. p. 170. It is a war between the ruling minorities. Both sides need funds. The Conservatives nearly mortgage the country to Spain and the Liberals to the U.S. Luckily, neither deal goes through. p. 170. Conservatives hire two Spanish warships from Cuba to blockade the Liberals at Veracruz. The pro-Liberal U.S. government sends three warships to seize the Spanish ones. The Liberals win the war. p. 170. Church and state are divorced. p. 171.
1862-1867 France tries, and fails, to conquer Mexico. Precipitated by Mexico's suspension of payments toward foreign debt. p. 4, 11, 175-191.
Mexico can't afford, and at peace doesn't need, an 80,000-man army. Commanders rebel at mass demobilization. p. 199. Bandits prey on travellers. Mayans rebel against white overlords. Yaqui Indians in the north rebel against federal authority. p. 220-221.
1876-1910 Porfirio Díaz is dictator. King in all but name. p. 218. Peace, Order, and Progress. pp. 3, 7, 10, 219, 252. Peace by letting foreign businesses take Mexico's wealth, without military intervention. Order by hanging thieves. Progress by rail. The indifference of the middle class, in their more-or-less illusory world of material well-being, doomed the newspapers to being mouthpieces of the dictator. Díaz likewise maintained control of intellectuals. pp. xxi, 9-10.
1870s Sugar mills take villagers' land. pp. 275-276. 1905 Díaz deports complainants to Quintana Roo. p. 280.
1910 Emiliano Zapata (1879-1919) takes back village land that haciendas had stolen in and after 1607. pp. 274-281.
1911 You must never ask, holding a hat in your hand, for justice from the governments of tyrants but only pick up a gun. --Emiliano Zapata.
1910 Mexico's population is 15 million. 87% speak Spanish. Almost 100% are Catholic. p. 68. Infant mortality is 50% by age 1. 84% of the population is illiterate. There are 8,000+ haciendas: many worked by, essentially, slaves. Vast inequality: palaces amid hovels. 70% of the people are rural. One medical doctor per 5,000 citizens. p. 219. The urban middle class is 500,000 people, many of them government officials. pp. 219-220. A million people live in urban slums. p. 220. Factories run on child labor, low wages, long hours, no worker protections. p. 234.
Díaz neither repealed nor applied the anti-Catholic Laws of Reform. p. 227. Wanted religious peace. The Church has regained some of its property by 1910. The Jesuits have returned. p. 227.
Mexicans are taught to venerate their national heroes as they venerate the Catholic saints. The calendar of special days includes: p. 229-230
February 5, 1857 Constitution Day https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Const...
March 21, 1806 Benito Juárez's birthday https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benit...
April 2, 1867 Porfirio Díaz's final victory in Puebla over Maximilian https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toma_...
May 5, 1862 victory against the French at Puebla https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batal...
May 8, 1753 Miguel Hidalgo's birthday https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migue...
July 18, 1872 Benito Juárez's death day
September 15, 1830 Porfirio Díaz's birthday https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porfi...
September 16, 1810 Independence Day (independence declared; war with Spain begins) https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indep...
When wars and rebellions begin, they grow too fast to be stopped. The revolutionary potential of the poor is a sleeping tiger. p. 220.
1910-1940 MEXICAN REVOLUTION
Madero promised pueblos the return of land seized from them by haciendas. p. 281. Foreign companies were cutting down indigenous communities' forests, 1913. p. 439. U.S. oil companies evaded taxes, left only wasteland, 1926. p. 444.
Francisco Ignacio Madero fought Díaz's dictatorial power. Won. Refused to use power, so undermined the revolution. Mistakes: left Díaz's henchmen in the interim presidency and in the legislature; demobilized the revolutionary army. pp. 260-267.
Madero created a department of labor, regulated and humanized factory work, legalized unions, established the right to strike. Industrial and elementary schools opened, new railroads and roads, safety inspections of bridges, oil-company taxes. Universal direct voting. Restored powers to municipal and regional governments. These were real achievements, but Madero was an inept politician. U.S. ambassador Henry Lane Wilson, who had admired the dictator Díaz, orchestrated a coup and had Madero and friends murdered in the last month of Taft's presidency, February, 1913. pp. 260-273. Mexican civil war begins. Madero destroyed Porfirismo, but he did not construct democracy. p. 524.
U.S. marines occupied Veracruz for months in 1914, to seize arms shipments coming to the Huerta government from Germany: they were there in support of, but without the consent of, the Constitutionalist forces under Carranza. p. 347.
Revolutionaries Carranza, Villa, and Zapata had defeated Huerta's government, but could not agree. The worst of the civil war was to come, between the three revolutionary armies. As of October, 1914, they each controlled about a third of the country. pp. 292-333, 345, 348. At peak in May 1915, the armies numbered fewer than 100,000 men. p. 240. Carranza won, supported by armies under General Obregón.
1917: Mexico has a new constitution, but also an enormous 750-million-peso debt, no internal nor external credit, an insatiable military budget, rising unemployment, a country in ruins. Crops went unharvested, railroads had been destroyed, cattle were exported to buy munitions, mines & industries closed, cities short of water, food, coal. Influenza, typhus spreading.
Venustiano Carranza (1859-1920). President 1917-1920. Authoritarian. Repressed labor. p. 344. Carranza succeeded only in killing some rival revolutionary leaders, including Ángeles and Zapata p. 366-367.
1920: Mexico was in chaos. Government was kleptocratic. p. 369. Carranza picked an unknown civilian to succeed him. Forced to flee, he stole the entire national gold reserves. General Obregón wanted to be president, and had Carranza killed. pp. 344, 369-373.
Álvaro Obregón (1880-1928)
President 1920-1924. "The country cannot liberate itself from its liberators." p. 391. "Men who are more vigorous, better prepared, make better choices, gain greater advantages. But those on high must consider those below not merely as servants but as coworkers and collaborators." p. 392. [Says nothing about inherited wealth, position, and opportunity, nor inherited poverty, destitution, and barriers.] "Government must guarantee workers' rights and preserve capital." [In part, this is an either/or choice.] "[Dictator] Porfirio Díaz's only sin was to grow old." p. 392. --Álvaro Obregón, 1919. 1923, more than half the army fought against Obregón. Many generals hoped to be president. p. 397. Seven thousand men died. p. 398. Obregón reneged on promises he'd made to the Yaquis and to the working class. He was unpopular. He had his political rivals killed. He was assassinated in 1928. p. 403.
Plutarco Elías Calles (1877-1945)
President 1924-1928. A strongman. pp. 417, 429, 442. Calles wanted to take back concessions his predecessor made to American oil companies. Mexican spies stole documents from the U.S. embassy proving the U.S. planned to invade Mexico. The Coolidge government ("the business of America is business") backed off. p. 418. Calles restricts the Church; the Church stops celebrating masses in protest; peasants, who have almost nothing except the consolation of the Church, rebel against the government, 1927-1929. p. 422. 70,000 are killed; 450,000 flee to the U.S., beginning the major Mexican presence in California. pp. 423-424. Calles left the presidency at the end of his term, but continued to be a power behind it. He picked his successor, Cárdenas. p. 434.
Without political institutions to resolve presidential succession peaceably, Mexico was condemned to periodic violence. p. 425. Every general wanted to be president (despite the 100% assassination rate). 1926-1928, 72 generals were killed or forced out; over 1100 other people were killed. pp. 425, 428.
Mexico's National Revolutionary Party (PNR) initiated the "science" of electoral fraud in 1929, which they would later refine and specialize in. p. 430. The name changed to Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in 1946. p. 560.
1930-1938, the PNR was a civilized conclave of generals who resolved their differences without killing each other. p. 431.
continued in comment 1
July 2, 2020
I have a goal of reading books on the history of at least half of the world's countries, but my focus has been primarily on Europe, Asia, and Africa. This was my first book on a Latin American country and is an overall well-written and engaging treatment of Mexican history. Its premise - made clear through the title "biography of power" - is that the making of modern Mexico can best be understood through the lives of its caudillos (military and political leaders) who, either through revolution or through their leadership of the country and the Institutional Revolutionary Party, exercised outsize (and generally autocratic) influence. Most of the book is therefore structured into chapters covering various Mexican presidents, with a particular focus on the 1910s Mexican Revolution which takes up almost a third of the book.
Three characters stood out in particular to me: Francisco Madero, one of the early revolutionary presidents of Mexico (from 1911 to his assassination in 1913), and someone who was influenced by spiritualism and believed that he received messages from his dead brother and Benito Juarez (prior President of Mexico). The Austrian archduke Maximilian and his wife Carlota, who were brought into power as Emperor of Mexico through a French invasion in the 1860s, eventually resulting in Maximilian's overthrow and death and in Carlota's insanity. And finally, Lazaro Cardenas, President between 1934-1940, who continued to exert influence in Mexico after his presidency, sometimes acting as a critic of the regime, and who even tried to travel to Cuba in defense of Fidel Castro during the Bay of Pigs.
A couple of other takeaways from the book: the importance of religion/Catholicism to Mexican history, and the dominance of the PRI as Mexico's governing party. On religion, Catholicism became a part of Mexican history with the arrival of the conquistadors and much of Spain's governing of New Spain taking place through priests. The 1767 expulsion of Jesuits from New Spain, and subsequent diminishing of the authority of the church in Mexico is really what led to priests rising up and leading the Mexican War of Independence in 1810-1821. The Mexican Revolution of the 1910s was largely anti-Catholic and anti-religious, leading to the Cristero War, with massive rural uprisings supported by priests protecting the Catholic Church against secularism and atheism. The role of religion in political and military conflict has really had a noteworthy place in Mexican history.
Lastly, the dominance of the PRI. The PRI was created to preserve and institutionalize the Mexican Revolution, literally making Mexico a one-party state between 1929 and 2000, when the PRI's monopoly was finally broken by the election of Vicente Fox. While Mexico was not as closed off as the Soviet Union it did experience periods of authoritative repression, including through the killing of protesting students in 1968 and 1971. The book, ending in 1996, ends with President Zedillo, whose partial reforms can in retrospect be seen as paving the way for Vicente Fox's win and the further reforms and democratization that Mexico has experienced since then. The book is also helpful in situating current day events with President AMLO (Andrés Manuel López Obrador), often characterized as part of the global populist wave but just as much a continuation of the Mexican phenomenon of the caudillo, continuing once again Mexico's biography of power.
Three characters stood out in particular to me: Francisco Madero, one of the early revolutionary presidents of Mexico (from 1911 to his assassination in 1913), and someone who was influenced by spiritualism and believed that he received messages from his dead brother and Benito Juarez (prior President of Mexico). The Austrian archduke Maximilian and his wife Carlota, who were brought into power as Emperor of Mexico through a French invasion in the 1860s, eventually resulting in Maximilian's overthrow and death and in Carlota's insanity. And finally, Lazaro Cardenas, President between 1934-1940, who continued to exert influence in Mexico after his presidency, sometimes acting as a critic of the regime, and who even tried to travel to Cuba in defense of Fidel Castro during the Bay of Pigs.
A couple of other takeaways from the book: the importance of religion/Catholicism to Mexican history, and the dominance of the PRI as Mexico's governing party. On religion, Catholicism became a part of Mexican history with the arrival of the conquistadors and much of Spain's governing of New Spain taking place through priests. The 1767 expulsion of Jesuits from New Spain, and subsequent diminishing of the authority of the church in Mexico is really what led to priests rising up and leading the Mexican War of Independence in 1810-1821. The Mexican Revolution of the 1910s was largely anti-Catholic and anti-religious, leading to the Cristero War, with massive rural uprisings supported by priests protecting the Catholic Church against secularism and atheism. The role of religion in political and military conflict has really had a noteworthy place in Mexican history.
Lastly, the dominance of the PRI. The PRI was created to preserve and institutionalize the Mexican Revolution, literally making Mexico a one-party state between 1929 and 2000, when the PRI's monopoly was finally broken by the election of Vicente Fox. While Mexico was not as closed off as the Soviet Union it did experience periods of authoritative repression, including through the killing of protesting students in 1968 and 1971. The book, ending in 1996, ends with President Zedillo, whose partial reforms can in retrospect be seen as paving the way for Vicente Fox's win and the further reforms and democratization that Mexico has experienced since then. The book is also helpful in situating current day events with President AMLO (Andrés Manuel López Obrador), often characterized as part of the global populist wave but just as much a continuation of the Mexican phenomenon of the caudillo, continuing once again Mexico's biography of power.
May 9, 2023
TL;DR Overall, highly recommend this book if you’re looking for a broad overview of colonial to modern Mexican history.
Summary:
Started this before a trip to Mexico, got 2/3 of the way through. I’ll say this, it’s quite a lot easier to read a book about a place BEFORE you go versus after - you gotta dig deep for motivation!!!
Anywho…. The book is long, it’s 800 pages, but it covers a very high level of all Mexican history from the arrival of the Spanish to the late 90s. I thought it went into just the right amount of detail, and the focus on particular historical figures seemed to align with their relative importance in the Mexican consciousness (e.g. lots of time spent on: Benito Juarez, for whom CDMX airport is named; Porfirio Díaz, dictator who took Mexico into the modern age and governed for decades into 1910; and Madero, the early hero of democracy whose time was cut short). The revolving door of political leaders in the 20th century is interesting, emphasizing that it’s no one president that really rises above to be THE name of the 1900s (though there’s contenders - Cardenas for example nationalized oil and seemed to be a peer of FDR). Instead, it’s the entire machine of the PRI, which is the Mexican political party that basically governed as a one party dictatorship at the local and national level. Since presidents have one six year term only, it was just a repeating cycle of self enriching strongmen anointed by the party running the country.
I particularly enjoyed the last bit about the 70s/80s/90s - they got into student protests of the 70s and finally the Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas of the 90s. Though short (which is understandable the book was written in 1996 so hard to have conclusive hindsight), I really liked it.
Summary:
Started this before a trip to Mexico, got 2/3 of the way through. I’ll say this, it’s quite a lot easier to read a book about a place BEFORE you go versus after - you gotta dig deep for motivation!!!
Anywho…. The book is long, it’s 800 pages, but it covers a very high level of all Mexican history from the arrival of the Spanish to the late 90s. I thought it went into just the right amount of detail, and the focus on particular historical figures seemed to align with their relative importance in the Mexican consciousness (e.g. lots of time spent on: Benito Juarez, for whom CDMX airport is named; Porfirio Díaz, dictator who took Mexico into the modern age and governed for decades into 1910; and Madero, the early hero of democracy whose time was cut short). The revolving door of political leaders in the 20th century is interesting, emphasizing that it’s no one president that really rises above to be THE name of the 1900s (though there’s contenders - Cardenas for example nationalized oil and seemed to be a peer of FDR). Instead, it’s the entire machine of the PRI, which is the Mexican political party that basically governed as a one party dictatorship at the local and national level. Since presidents have one six year term only, it was just a repeating cycle of self enriching strongmen anointed by the party running the country.
I particularly enjoyed the last bit about the 70s/80s/90s - they got into student protests of the 70s and finally the Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas of the 90s. Though short (which is understandable the book was written in 1996 so hard to have conclusive hindsight), I really liked it.
January 1, 2022
Cuando era niño, la materia que menos me gustaba era la historia. Como cambia la vida, hoy leo libros de historia y me encanta.
Y leerla del maestro de Enrique Krauze siempre hace que la disfrutemos más. Para iniciar el año en mis lecturas: “Biografía del poder: Caudillos de la Revolución Mexicana (1910-1940)”.
De muchos de los personajes mencionados en el libro solo recordaba su nombre. Al terminar el libro:
Me entristecí por Madero, por ver que inició una revolución además de por convicciones propias por su afán espiritista y porque creía que tenía una alta “misión” dada por espíritus. ¿Por qué tenía que empezar así? México, mágico, como dicen. Además sus convicciones le hicieron ser demasiado magnánimo hasta que fue traicionado y asesinado. Como dice Krauze: a aquellos que se les da el poder, si lo rechazan, éste acaba con ellos.
Zapata vi que era un luchador social. ¿Que hubiera sido se se hubiera atrevido a tomar la silla presidencial?
Villa se me hace un bandido y desalmado, que aprovechó la revolución para hacer desmanes y obtener poder y mujeres.
Carranza pues, hizo lo que pudo.
Obregón tenía mas bien convicciones de dinero y poder. Y casi logra su objetivo.
Calles parecía tan santito, pero fue el hombre fuerte de México muchos años.
Quizá el que mejor comprendí fué a Cárdenas. Siempre lo desprecié por la nacionalización petrolera, pues estoy en contra de la estatización de empresas. Pero en su casi si había muchos abusos y lo entiendo, aunque creo que si se hubieran corregido los abusos hubiera sido mejor.
Estupendo libro de Krauze, seguiré leyendo más de sus libros.
Buena manera de empezar el año.
Y leerla del maestro de Enrique Krauze siempre hace que la disfrutemos más. Para iniciar el año en mis lecturas: “Biografía del poder: Caudillos de la Revolución Mexicana (1910-1940)”.
De muchos de los personajes mencionados en el libro solo recordaba su nombre. Al terminar el libro:
Me entristecí por Madero, por ver que inició una revolución además de por convicciones propias por su afán espiritista y porque creía que tenía una alta “misión” dada por espíritus. ¿Por qué tenía que empezar así? México, mágico, como dicen. Además sus convicciones le hicieron ser demasiado magnánimo hasta que fue traicionado y asesinado. Como dice Krauze: a aquellos que se les da el poder, si lo rechazan, éste acaba con ellos.
Zapata vi que era un luchador social. ¿Que hubiera sido se se hubiera atrevido a tomar la silla presidencial?
Villa se me hace un bandido y desalmado, que aprovechó la revolución para hacer desmanes y obtener poder y mujeres.
Carranza pues, hizo lo que pudo.
Obregón tenía mas bien convicciones de dinero y poder. Y casi logra su objetivo.
Calles parecía tan santito, pero fue el hombre fuerte de México muchos años.
Quizá el que mejor comprendí fué a Cárdenas. Siempre lo desprecié por la nacionalización petrolera, pues estoy en contra de la estatización de empresas. Pero en su casi si había muchos abusos y lo entiendo, aunque creo que si se hubieran corregido los abusos hubiera sido mejor.
Estupendo libro de Krauze, seguiré leyendo más de sus libros.
Buena manera de empezar el año.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews