Speaking of Mexico: English; 1

Speaking of Mexico. Radio television the University of Texas in cooperation with the National Association of educational broadcasters presents speaking of Mexico. Dr. Thomas McGann is professor of Latin American history the University of Texas. It is with pleasure that we present Dr. my dad as he discusses Mexican history with Dr. Carl Schmidt professor of Latin American government the University of Texas. And Mr. Enrique gonzález a graduate student of the University of Texas who is a native of Mexico. I'm Tom began and with me in the studio Dr. Carlos Schmidt of the department of government the University of Texas and Enrique Gonzalez a student from Mexico here at the university. The job before us is to give you as much useful information as we can about Mexican history. And I would hasten to point out that we aren't here to give you a course in history but rather to think out loud with you about the important points of Mexican history as we as we see them here today.

I'm not sure that the three of us in the studio will agree on all points. Seldom do historians agree on. The major matters under discussion. After all we're dealing with the affairs of people in that nations are made up of people. The Mexican nation is no exception. I'd like to begin the discussion by saying that history seems to many of us to be a central discipline out of which one can derive much information for economics for political science about education and many other fields. It's appropriate to have a discussion of the past of Mexico I think in order to understand its present. Now going back into the past one has a tendency perhaps to go back to the conquest of Mexico and Cortez and that great period of Spanish and Indian conflict but perhaps more useful would be to begin our discussion of

modern Mexico Mexico today by looking at the regime of Porfirio Diaz The Great Dictator of Mexico who ruled the country between 1876 and 80 and one thousand eight hundred ten. Diaz regime it seems to me and perhaps you gentlemen will agree was in many ways a summary of many of the great features of the Mexican past which preceded Diaz and certainly the Diaz regime which collapsed in revolution in 1910 was the immediate background of the Mexican Revolution. Among the points that I would mention in order to begin our discussion with respect to Diaz would be the dominant system of landowning which of course was that of the greatest states the icn has another dominant characteristic of the regime. Seems to me would be. Militarism and very closely allied to militarism of course

personalities mo personal ism that is the one man rule of Dio's. What what other points would you. Add to this Mr Gonzales. Well Mr again I would agree with you in saying that the DIA's redeem was in fact really one of the best examples in history of. But it's on the lease more video the US came to power around 1876 he was sort of a hero at the beginning of the regime. However medicine at least most took hold of the US and he continued to be shall we say elected by the people to office. He reigned in this way for 30 years. No doubt that video did some good to the country as a whole at a price of course. Mexico under the US

became renowned throughout the world. It was a conservative country. Europe was highly respected in Mexico and for that reason Mexico was respected in Europe. A lot of investment was made in Europe from Europe to Mexico. But all of this of course in the hands of a very few that seems to me to be a critical point the fact that the ruling elite was just that a minority ruling the the masses of the people and of course this left the Indians another inferior position. If I may sum up what you both have said I put it something like this. A number of the colonial institutions come through the period. Personally XML for example this mentioned the landholding system the social elite the church but superimposed upon this during

that period was something of a modern economy in the sense that beginnings were made in industrialization. The building of railroads foreign investments on a vast scale and Mexico being the size it is a million square miles an area almost a third the size the United States of course. This modernization was of enormous importance. But the modernization wasn't carried through. It was restricted to a very limited part of the development. The modernization was not carried through in the sense of political life. There was no sharing of political power with the new groups that were created by the new economy the economy itself was developed along very narrow lines. There was no attempt to introduce modern agriculture into the country or what we would call a modern social system into the country but rather the Indian masses it said by some observers were in a worse position in 1910 than they were

18 dead in terms of income. In other words the problems of Mexico the engine problem ECT or accentuated in the period by this attempt to introduce a degree of modernization. Perhaps Mr. Gonzalez would comment on the role of the Army in Mexico under Diaz as a way of getting to our discussion of the revolution when it broke out in 1910. Well following up what Dr. Schmidt said this there was a certain group that influenced Diest throughout the Regina and it was the group of the CND costs or the scientific once they were of the rich class they defended their class to the utmost of their ability. They believe that Mexico should be run by an oligarchy of the rich people. And it was against this very oligarchies that the tremendous resentment was built up in the last years of the regime particularly the last decade or two that finally burst out into.

Violence and general uprising in 1910 and 911 is the end of 1910 beginning 1011 Chris Diaz we must remember was a very old man at this time and lost much of the grip that he had held for so long on the Mexican people. Now the Army of the US was backing him up at every turn every reform attempt that was made through any of the organized labor groups was immediately put down by force. What what aided the revolution however at the time that it broke out was that even the army had become corrupted by the very end of the regime so that the US having lost control as you said Professor McGann lost even control of the army. And many of the soldiers were simply names on a piece of paper for whom salaries were collected often by the top officers and pocketed. That when the when the violence occurred there really wasn't a powerful army such as was believed by many the time actually in existence and the regime

was toppled with relatively little fighting. One of the reasons for that would be the heavy concentration of all resources not only human but technical and military in the federal district and the surrounding areas the semi-dark surrounding it all right south around Mexico City in an hour. That's why the revolution was actually or actually was born in the north were the influence was of course lessened by the distance. Yes there was a succession of great northern military leaders of whom the most famous I suppose is Pennsylvania who swept down on to central Mexico and into Mexico City and on several occasions in the period of violence from 1910 to one thousand twenty overpowered the central government and set up one of their own leaders. Interesting part of the phase of Mexican history from 1920 the period of violence as you've termed it is the fact that the revolutionary leaders them Snit themselves were not of one mind. There was considerable considerable quarreling and disputing

among them not only for power but. But over ideology over the direct line of the Rev This is precisely the point that is worth considering here what did start the revolution after all we say Diaz was overthrown. The name of Francisco Madero the great leader of the Mexican Revolution should be brought up here wouldn't you say Mr Gonzales. Yes I believe you're right Mr McGann. After all Madero was a mild mannered little man. How could such a little man start such a movement. Well he actually began with a book on the anti re election of any of the officials of the government. Principal E D S and I re election E's mo as it was called was certainly important for us but behind Darrow's mild manner was a driving personality. Unhappily for Mexico of course he was assassinated in 1913 and then a succession of military leaders ruled the country for the

next seven years around or around these military men though there seem to cluster a group of intellectuals each with a every farm program in which he was particularly interested. Some of these pushed hard for land reform and overthrow of the great land holding pattern with which Mexico was cited almost from the days of the conquest of others pushed hard for general education to wipe out illiteracy in the country. Others were extremely. Anti foreign and wish to drive large farm monopolies and foreign enterprises from the country let me interrupt you there Mr Smith if I may to point out that many of these goals reform goals were finally incorporated in the great constitution of 1917 which in itself was a compromise of many of these issues so much so that it's been pointed out many times that there are

contradictions in the constitution of 1917 because all of the various reform groups wish to get their particular interest written into it. So we find one place of protection of private property and another place we find the social responsibilities of property seemingly conflicting ideologies which the Mexicans as they got along have worked out in practice with some kind of a compromise. If we could just go back for a moment I think of the great figures of this period are so important and so colorful. So part a comes to mind Mr. Gonzales. Do you regard him. And what way would you distinguish between Zapata and vi and their revolutionary objectives. Well I don't think that that is very difficult. The media did not have any set pattern of political reform or even land reform. Video was just really I get every year at all or a guerrilla fighter. He was good in skirmishes. He was

great for leading small bands in the rough terrain of the north. But he was not even a politician Sakata had other ideas for his native state of Morelos and for the rest of the country supper was definitely the patron saint of Mexico as far as land reform is concerned. He always insisted insisted on Monday at all and the subsequent governments that land reform was essential and that it should be carried out with the least amount of time elapsing at almost any cost. Yes land reform of course is a central theme in there in the revolution and down to today because there are many in Mexico and outside Mexico who will say perhaps with justice that the Mexican Revolution of 1910 has not yet ended. And if we examine the issue of land and how it was handled from 1920 on in the 20s and 30s perhaps it would be of some

use in clarifying the situation with regard to land in Mexico today. How do you feel about the actual reform Mr. Schmidt that was carried out with regard to the breaking up of the greatest states in Mexico. Well I would put it this first that not all revolutionists and. We're in favor of land reform in exactly the same way. There were different approaches to it and I think if we're speaking of the colorful figures of the early period we can't ignore the Kuranda who was much opposed to the land reform program of the pot the more I look Carranza spoke in very moderate terms of land reform dragged his feet wherever possible in implementing the Constitution 1017 with respect to land reform and Qur'an says position of moderation and and caution was substantially followed by the revolution as it came after him all during the decade of the 1920s through the 20s through the whole break gone the greatest military man already gone or the his

his lieutenant Caius. Well this brings us to this this is actually in keeping with my devil's belief that. Political reform should take precedence over any other type of reform after political reform could come. Land reform education labor and so on. Well when did land reform actually come though you know some people say that it didn't come until well late twenties but then principly on to cover them as we have a still living Mexican next President Carter than us who in the 1930s distributed so much land in the form of the he dull the communal collective as a word perhaps we should be careful of a cooperative rural agricultural land system of Mexico. It would be well to point out that he has existed since colonial times. However even the US did. Shall we say give new impetus to this.

Well it was said to you. Statistics that have been gathered indicate that more land was distributed under Cardenas to the all previous revolutionary administrations and I think and up to now possibly talking to now help as Matteo's has distributed a great presidential land even today in the US this year or last year right now. This is still a continuing tradition in the revolution and education of course is a factor of great importance in Mexico today which has a long long history of the attempt to create literacy. And this was one of the one of the earliest aspects of the revolution this attempt to uplift the Indian masses the peasant masses not just those that are of pure indian blood necessarily but of the peasantry comprising over half of the population. Two to incorporate them into national life to raise their prestige and standing in Mexican society. And it was conceived as one of the first. Instruments to be used was simply to teach them how to read and write and so that schools and rural schools for the first time became an important

part of governmental policy. And we find one of the greatest figures in early revolutionary education who save us come save us. As Minister of Education. Constructing a grandiose plan for yes he did a great deal for education he was bitterly criticized for some of his later political views in Mexico becomes critical the revolution later but in the in the 20s in the early 20s he was he was a magical educator. Literacy is extremely important for industrialization too. I think we should make the point that the man who reads reads and writes makes a better Foreman a man who can read instruction can handle instructions and handle machinery industrialization in Mexico since World War 2 particular during and after World War 2 has been. Tremendous importance increase economic activity in the industrial fields. I'll agree with you there Mr McGann advancements have been made in education. However they still fall quite short of the mark

up to now an approximate 6 percent of the population. Speak only Indian dialects or tongues and it is calculated that up to 45 percent of the Mexican people are illiterate. Yes in the true sense of where this a very high figure now in 1946 right after World War. Great advancements were made by daughters but that too was a minister of education. He proposed a plan that each one teach one. One literate person would teach to read and write an illiterate person. Now for a while this did work out however soon it was seen that after only one year of this so-called education that person would fall back into illiteracy due to lack of books and the opportunity to practice and to read that language with someone of his own its caliber it's an ongoing program still but with a great deal more to do.

I'd like to have your ideas gentlemen on I suppose the most central issue in Mexico today the political question and the role of the party. Mexico has evolved a unique. Political arrangement in Latin America and perhaps indeed in the world because the period of violence which we discussed from 1910 to 1920 has been gradually replaced by a period of political calm and stability in Mexico especially since the administration of President Alamein which began in one thousand eight hundred forty six Amman was succeeded in a peaceful normal manner by his following of the following president and so on down to the present president of Mexico the. Lopez Mateo's. Now much of this political stability I think necessarily centers on the role of the PR I the Revolutionary Institutional Party

of Mexico which is the inheritor of the revolutionary movement. Well I think this is one of the most interesting developments in the post 1010 period. The the party grew almost by accident when President elect Obray gaun was assassinated in one thousand twenty eight Caius was faced with a present crisis faced with a critical political situation. The matter of succession came up as a problem of succession the present day which Mexico had wrestled with from the very beginning of its independence. And Carney has called the leaders of the country together the military leaders primarily and literally forge this group into a political party to meet a necessary condition. This party was not constructed as were so many other political institutions all on the basis of a grandiose theory. But on the basis of simple political need and from these rather in all specialised beginnings it has grown to be the single most polluted Porton political institution in

Mexico today. It is solve the problem of the succession to the presidency. One man can succeed another without resort to violence. This was reflected in what Mr McGann said from 1946 when the Amman took office. Actually this pretty that part of the you know revolutionary you used it with your nom actually was formed in 1946 from the party that over gone had formed largely a change of name. Well what in a way what it's done Also since we've been talking about personalities mole is in a sense institutionalized personalities mole made the decision as to the ruler of Mexico the future president a matter of joint or or party decision rather than the work of a revolution of violence so while personalities MO is still very important individual as a man perhaps better said in Mexican politics. The party is the dominant force.

The choice for the presidency the man who is proposed for the presidency must meet not only certain qualifications of leadership which of course he must must not only have the approbation of personal leaders but he must also meet the requirement of certain powerful interest groups in the country. I don't think that you can get a president in Mexico who is completely persona non grata to say the labor people. Well the party itself does represent these groups and has various secretaries in her these various sectors are represented in the party has the office of the bureaucratic sector. What about the role of the Army though nowadays and that's not the most interesting one perhaps the most difficult to handle. The army itself is not formally represented in the party. It's taking a back seat. The Army's taken a back seat it doesn't openly come out and push for power. A careful study of the army however does reveal that certain military officers do hold

positions in the party. What you have though they often are in retirement is to Gonzalez how do you view the role of the army. Well looking at the fact that only 7 percent of the budget of Mexico goes to the military. You can see that definitely the army has taken a backseat. Yes and literacy campaign for literacy and land reform has moved ahead in proportion in the budget and in fact I wouldn't like to make one more comment with regard to personal the XML and the on the political right and that is that America not succeed himself in power and that while a given individual as president is the most powerful political figure in the country once he leaves the presidency he doesn't retain that same degree of power. The new president then exercises power and the man that has been in takes while he still remains powerful takes a lesser position to that of the president. Well this sounds to me as though the revolution which began in 1910 the great revolution with a capital R has

died. The fires have died down at any rate this is my view since 1940 with the outbreak of World War 2 and Mexico's closer friendship to the United States in the coming of industrialisation the need for capital in Mexico seems to me that the revolution has as quietly expired and that we're facing in Mexico today the pleasant prospect of a friendly and increasingly prosperous nation one with many problems to solve but certainly not a revolutionary country in the sense that we've talked about it in earlier periods. Well as you know Professor McGann I object very much the use of the word die with respect to the revolution. I think we're we're in basic agreement as to what is happening in Mexico and has been be perhaps largely a semantic disagreement. I just like the word die because I feel that it it implies that there's been something of a reaction against the revolution. I would prefer to use the word modification rather than death of the revolution.

It has taken a dip. Let's get a let's get a vote from the other side B of Mr. Gonzalez as a Mexican to meet the revolution with a capital R meant more than any strife or conflict. It meant the establishing of an ideal for Mexico for an ideal to be followed not as the old generals were followed before but now something concrete and at the same time and I concrete ideal that the people can follow to a better life in the future. Therefore I think that as such the revolution is not dated. I think a great deal of this idealism remains. There is still concern for economic betterment. There is a there is still a drive to extend the benefits of modern civilisation there are a good many signs of desire to pursue revolutionary ideals but certainly not in a revolutionary way not in a violent America not a no no.

This I agree the air of violence is over the era of rapid changes over. And that's why I prefer modification to death I think it's taking a different direction. One thing that the American people should keep in mind while studying the history and the president of Mexico is that. The government of Mexico is not like the American government. And yet who can decide if the present form is not the better one or exactly what exactly. And who can say that the mixture of traditions the old traditions both Indian and Spanish coming through from the colonial period with its mixture of revolutionary zeal which characterized the early years the revolution has not produced a a stronger and a better Mexico than than ever before in the history of that country the people are feeding themselves now better than ever before. More literacy is the prospect and the fact the sense of freedom I think is greater because of the revolution occurred

within a framework yet that is very strongly Indian and yet very strongly Spanish an important role for the Church important role for the individual which is an intensely Spanish characteristic personalities MO is important but not now so violently significant as it was in the past. If I may add just a sentence to you to your talk is that there is a better role for the churches not only the Roman Catholic now but the appearance of the Protestant churches that have been making some inroads in the country. Yes Protestantism too. Moving as a sign of new new values coming into Mexico. Yes this is just another indication of the pluralistic society which had its implications during the violent phase of the revolution in Mexico and which has been achieved certainly in the past three decades. This has been Mexican history which Dr. Thomas McGann professor of Latin American history the University of Texas Dr. Carl Schmidt professor of

Latin American government the University of Texas and Mr. Enrique gonzález a graduate student at the University of Texas speaking of Mexico was produced by R. C. Norris and directed by BW Crocker add Radio-TV the University of Texas under a grant in aid from the National Association of educational broadcasters. This is the end I ybe Radio Network.