So let’s take this one step at a time. General Huerta generally seen as a return to Porfirio Diaz, though some historians have tried to redeem him, is not recognized by the new president of the USA, Woodrow Wilson, and finds himself forced to resign amid pressure from opposing forces, yet those forces soon split between the “Constitutionalists” (Carranza et. al., and the “Conventionists”, Pancho Villa et al). Carranza will be recognized by the US, will move the seat of power to the port of Vera Cruz keeping important trade open during WWI, will wear down the opposition, but in the end finds himself gunned down after suggesting a political lackey to run instead of supporting his General Obregon’s presidential aspirations. Along the way the “Jacobians” will help draft a new constitution, Pancho Villa will invade the United States, and the Spanish flu will ravage its way across the population. That seems to be the broad strokes of chapter 4.
Many interesting stories and questions emerge here. What is the role of women in the Mexican Revolution? To what extent does the US and other foreign powers influence the revolution? What difference would any of this make in the life of Mexican citizens?
The right to collectively bargain, to strike and to be paid overtime is a very practical and substantive difference in the life of a working family. The right to own land is also pretty substantial and some would say also reigning in the power of the Catholic Church. What about women’s rights? They fought on all sides in the revolutionists, the suffragettes in England and the USA have had some wins. What about the women of Mexico?
Inquiring minds want to know.
ibhistorytopics 
I think the most interesting thing of this chapter are the “soldaderas”. The soldaderas are the women fighters from the Mexican Revolution. The fact that they were a part of the war is not the surprising thing, but rather the way that they were treated. For one, the women believed that after they had seized the opportunity to take part in the war that they would be recognized and they would gain additional opportunities. While, the actual results of the war only produced a few awards and as put by one of the women in the war, “[the government] sent us home, saying that the place of a woman is in her home”. Another interesting part is the treatment of the women during the war. On one side, Alvarado, Zapata, and Gonzalez encouraged the participation of soldaderas, and gave the women an opportunity to participate in the revolution. While on the other side, Villa did not like women fighting, and as a result he once gunned down 90 soldaderas and their children. Obregon had a similar mindset to Villa, and he actually positioned women and children in front of his troops as human shields. So we see how this could have been a turning point for equal rights in Mexico and the women of the country could have had their life styles completely revamped. Although in reality nothing really changed during or following the war.
LikeLike
This is very true, and also evinced by the fact that women only won the right to vote in 1953 (!) almost forty years after most developed nations. It is also interesting to see the way the suffrage movement and feminism evolved during this time. In Britain, suffragettes became militant shortly before WW1, bombing, and throwing rocks, whereas in America feminists threw themselves into the war effort as a way of proving their mettle. Meanwhile in Mexico, serious groundwork is laid in Yucatan by Alvarado as is mentioned by the book, in what becomes the first Mexican Feminist Congress. The new constitution drafted in 1917 guarantees equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender, but in reality nothing much changes for women, especially in the lower classes, perhaps for shoddy implementation, and low levels especially of female literacy. One point which is mentioned in the book, and which I think deserves to be explored in more depth, is the effect of the post-revolutionary chaos. With their menfolk largely missing/dead/otherwise incapable of providing, women bear the brunt of the economic repercussions of this drawn-out conflict, struggling often to support large families on one or two wages, and as women’s work was and is traditionally badly paid, one can see how the extreme poverty following the revolution would stifle a great many voices. Thus the divide between legislature and actuality becomes even more pronounced as regards to women, which were previously left largely unmentioned.
LikeLike
I found it very interesting that the Revolution could be paralleled to the Spanish Civil War in many regards. Firstly, the main focus of both was the conflict between a fundamentalist, outdated, right leaning force and a fractious left leaning force. Just as in Mexico, in Spain there was conflict between the various armies, including the International Brigades, the POUM, and the regional militias, and between those there were political differences, such as Stalinist Communists and Socialists. Furthermore, the Republic in Spain also had a powerful anti-clerical movement, which led to the burning of churches and the murder of priests. It’s crazy to think that these two conflicts happened only 20 some years apart. The Mexican government did try to help the Republic, but this was in the form of outdated rifles, with limited ammunition. What I want to know is why weren’t more people interested in the events that transpired? The biggest thing that the United States seems to enjoy is its sphere of influence, aka South America. So why were Wilson’s actions limited? If he had protected Carranza throughout the war, and granted him any favor he desired, than US influence would have increased ten-fold. And if he was worried about losing control of Carranza, then why didn’t he allow the combatants to wear themselves down and then swoop in and institute a US dictatorship?
LikeLike
To comment on your question regarding Wilsons involvement in México (or upon analysis, lack thereof), it is essential to consider that when the U.S gets involved with another country it is (almost) never for selfless reasons and it is never absolute. Meaning, that instead of focusing his energies on seeing how he could actually help Carranza and the Mexican populace, Wilson focused on how his involvement in México would secure U.S investments and oil in Northern México, which by the way was half-assed (for lack of proper terminology). Basically, he was thinking long-term but not as objectively as he should have. As I mentioned in my comment, I believe that this is a reflection on Wilson as a weak-tempered and almost unheeding politician. In contrast, if he would have taken on a more (Roosevelt-ishly) tactical and invasive approach (kind of like the one you describe) then things would have differed. But it just seems to me that Wilson is preoccupied with other events happening in the world and wallowing in his own apathy and lack of command. It would be interesting to see how a president with less rationale and apathy would have handled this situation, perhaps someone like Reagan or even Bush would have managed to institute more of an influential force in México.
LikeLike
*more rationale and less apathy
LikeLike
I like how America was set on getting involved in Mexico. It makes sense since they are so close to us, but it seems like America can’t choose who to support. Both sides are bad in their own way, the anarchists are anarchists and are extremely destructive and crazy, but the socialists are also insane so there is really nowhere for Amercia to go. I don’t think they should have gotten involved. I also found it super interesting that there were women soldiers that fought in the war, yet they were still treated poorly after the revolution, and some were even forced into service in the first place. I wonder if,since they fought and were actually very effective, this will spur a small wave of femenism.
LikeLike
It was interesting to see that women had a part in the revolution, but were not seen as part of it. As mentioned by the author Villa did not like the idea of women fighting, which could be due to his macho figure. He believed that women were vulnerable rather than fighters. Obregon apparently positioned women and children in front of his troops as human shields, shows the lack of respect he had for the women. I just thought that it was really interesting how they used women as human shields as if there lives were not as important as the men. I took the time to listen to the revolution song “La Adelita” (adelitas was another way to say soldaderas) and although there is many interpretations about the song, one of them is that this unknown Adlelita follows the sergeant into battle because she is in love with him and the song lyrics describes this fearless soldadera ready to fight. This famous corrido also represents a women who is respected and although she is beautiful she is also brave. It stood out to me how one of the soldaderas stated “Women helped make the revolution…the government of our country, when the revolution ended and they had taken advantages of our services, sent us home saying that the place of a woman is in her home.” The fact that these women risked their lives to fight and for them to not even be recognized, is harsh. They sent women home, saying that’s where they belong, shows how women were only useful to them when they needed nurses or fighters, but once it was over they were not seen as part of it.
LikeLike
I think that American involvement in Mexico under Wilson wasn’t as controlling as Roosevelt, Taft or even McKinley. Those presidents all showed a more ferocious willingness to intervene in Mexico, whereas Wilson sought to promote his democratic ideas and teach Mexico how to behave in a political setting more calmly. Now, like those other presidents mentioned above, Wilson was incongruous in regards to why he was involved in Mexico. U.S presidents love to justify their involvement in other countries by continually throwing the word “democracy” and “stability” around like candy for the hungry yet mostly ignorant citizens that believe their statements. In 1913 Wilson saw Carranza as the leader of a movement that politically, socially, and militarily controls northern Mexico where American and foreign investments are concentrated. Furthermore, Wilson and his government prefer to “reason” with an individual like Carranza rather than Zapata or Villa who were more politically unpredictable and unprepared. To make a longs story short, Wilson gets involved in Mexico to basically say, “Hey I collaborated, now give me some concessions.” The U.S was thinking of its investments, and in the future of oil policies and agreements, there really was no lesson to be learned by Mexico or any democracy to be preserved or taught like Mr.Willy said there would be.
In regards to the involvement, women had during the revolution; it is accurate to say that it was a rather significant one. Besides the “soldaderas” there were hundreds of women through Mexico that fought by contributing through different fronts. They were messengers, nurses, journalists, and feminist leaders. There are significant numbers of essential women like Hermida Galindo Acosta de Topete and Elvia Carillo Puerto who became the first congresswoman in Mexico (elected 1923).
LikeLike
As far as women’s involvement in the Mexican Revolution, I tend to liken it somewhat to the role women played during the American Revolution, as their primary roles were not as fighters who engaged in physical combat, but rather the diffusers of the principles which sparked the revolutionary spirit. Without their fervent political assertion as outspoken advocates for social justice, the Revolution’s most instrumental ideologies never would have spread as quickly, nor as effectively, to a significant portion of the Mexican population. I hope that the authors will eventually include details on specific women who played important roles in the Revolution, but I’m not optimistic about the odds of them being mentioned in a passive account of two straight German men on Mexico’s Revolution.
LikeLike
The thing that I found most interesting in the section is the role that women played during the revolution. Even though they weren’t seen as fighters, they were used as human shields, which is horrible. It just shows how poorly men thought of women durning this revolution and how compared to other major wars in the world where women are treated as useful, for example during the American revolution, women would follow the soilders and take care of the injured and sew clothes and what not but during the Mexican revolution women were just seen as human shields.
LikeLike
The role of woman, no matter from what part of the world, has been the same- do it all. Just like the American and European women of the suffragette movement who did their share to better the lives of women, the Mexican women played a key role in the Mexican Revolution. The soldaduras fought along side the men but did not receive the same recognition as the men. They had no rights. In fact, they were often assaulted, used as human shields along with their children and when the war was over, they were told to go home and become housewives! They got nothing in return for fighting for the cause. On the other hand, the US was most crucial in the revolution since it supplied weapons to the revolutionaries but it was done to protect American interests. Then, under Wilson’s command the US invaded two Mexican ports (Vera Cruz). This invasion took a toll on the citizens attempting to resist. In the end, US supported Carranza, didn’t trust Huerta and despised Villa for causing chaos at the US- Mexican border. US helped win the war and defeat Huerta. The Gringos or Americans offered a reward for Villa- dead or alive.
LikeLike
I thought it was really interesting how other countries really influenced the revolution. The interests of foreign powers in Mexico seems like it could be yet another cause that led to the start of the first world war. Also the trade between Democratic presidents and Republican presidents had a large amount of influence on the Mexican revolution.
LikeLike
I was super interested by the differentiation on how women were treated by Zapata and Pancho Villa and the conflict it caused. Although Villa was a revolutionist, he can be seen as more culturally traditional than Zapata was. It could be argued that Villa was more of a feminist because he respected women enough to protect them from the rages of war. However, it could also be argued that Zapata was more of a feminist because he saw women as being equal enough men to fight in the war. While both sides falter, the conflict created between the two led to a split in leaders. The true feminist would say, however, that women are equal to men and should be able to make the decision, on their own, to fight in the war or not.
LikeLike