the aftermath of a revolution: art and education shape a national identity
TRANSCRIPT
The Aftermath of a Revolution:
Art and Education Shape a National Identity
Angela SmithLatin American History Seminar
December 10, 2008Dr. Christoph Rosenmüller
After the violent first decade of the Mexican Revolution of 1910 came to a close,
President Alavaro Obregón (1880-1928) led the country into a new era focused on
reconstruction. The long years of the Revolution had left the country in shambles.
More than a million people had been killed, the railway and mining industries were
devastated, agricultural production had dropped steeply, and the educational
system suffered with the closing of three thousand schools.1 Obregón, one of the
revolutionaries, knew that a primary goal was education for the masses. While the
ruin left by a decade of fighting would delay the achievement of that goal for many
years, Obregón began his presidency in 1921 with a major push in that direction.
Almost immediately, he established a Ministry of Public Education that included
three departments and two auxiliary activities and held educational jurisdiction
over the entire country.2 The ministry carried out a plan, orchestrated by public
education secretary José Vasconcelos, which was invested in education, fine arts,
and library initiatives. Outreach to indigenous people, educating them in Spanish
culture and literacy was also part of the plan.3 An intended byproduct of this
cultural effort was the creation of a new nationalism with a mythologized version
of the revolution woven into its fabric. From 1921 until 1924, a revolutionary
narrative appeared that bolstered the image of the heroic revolution to the citizens
1 Mary Kay Vaughan, and Stephen E. Lewis, The Eagle and the Virgin: Nation and Cultural Revolution in Mexico, 1920-1940, ed. Mary Kay Vaughan and Stephen E. Lewis (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007), 4.
2 José Vasconcelos, A Mexican Ulysses: An Autobiography (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1972), 151.
3 Ibid., 157.
2
through teachers, words, and art. This narrative, which was consciously created
and widely accessible, became the backdrop of a modern Mexican identity that
reflected nationalism and indigenismo as much as it did colonialism and elitism.
The revolution began as a reaction to the reign of Porfirio Díaz, whose
presidency spanned the period from 1876 to 1910. Under more than three decades
of his leadership Mexico became a stable, modernized country by way of
international investment in oil, railroads, and other natural resources. Many
ordinary citizens did not benefit from the modernization; they became victims of
widespread land abuse due to the policies of the Díaz administration. The
Porfiristas focused on industrialization and modernization. They saw the needs of
the rural populace as secondary to urbanization of the country. As a result, they
redistributed peasant land to large haciendas in exchange for investment. The
population of the country expanded to 15 million people, with more than 90
percent of these being of Indian or mixed Indian descent.4 By 1910 the volume of
rural and urban poverty was immense. 5 As a result of the disparate social and
economic conditions, a clamor arose for a modern democratic state and land
reform; revolution began in many sectors of the country. Leading the call for a
more democratic Mexico was Francisco Madero, who had wide popular support in
his 1910 campaign against the incumbent Díaz. In an effort to control the emerging
rebellion, however, Díaz had Madero thrown in jail. The effort was briefly
successful, and Díaz was declared president in October 1910, but a year later he 4 Laura Randall, Reforming Mexico's Agrarian Reform (New York, NY: Columbia
University, 1996), 16.
5 James W. Wilkie, Statistical Abstract of Latin America, (Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Press, 2002), 116.
3
was driven into exile. Madero became president in November 1911, and the
Revolution strengthened its foothold. In what is often the nature of revolutions,
though, the factions that fought to bring Madero to power then began to fight
against him. Madero was an idealist trapped between competing constituencies of
foreign investors, Diaz loyalists, Pancho Villa, Venustiano Carranza, and Alvaro
Obregon and their followers to the North; Emiliano Zapata and the peasants of the
South. Madero was assassinated in 1913 by his army general, Victoriano de la
Huerta, who became president by force. The revolutionaries of the north and south
then united and fought to take back the government. They eventually won, forced
de la Huerta out, wrote a new constitution, and in 1917 established Carranza as the
new president. The 1917 compromise resulted in a constitution that promised to
implement land, education, and industrial reform. Finally it seemed possible that
the country could stop fighting and move forward peacefully. Carranza ruled for
three years. When he would not allow for democratic elections in 1920, he was
assassinated in an ambush and a few months later an election brought Obregón,
the Sonoran general, into office in 1921.6
Obregón understood the importance of stabilizing the nation and jumpstarting
the economy, both to maintain his own power and for the economic well being of
the nation. He also saw the opportunity to create a new beginning after nearly half
a century. The long rule of Díaz and then ten years of revolutionary chaos had
divided the country into many factions with separate identities and needs.
Obregón came to power recognizing these divergent needs and promising degrees
6 Anita Brenner, The Wind That Swept Mexico; the History of the Mexican Revolution, 1910-1942 (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1971).
4
of government action. He also understood the power of the country’s self-image, as
did his secretary of education, Vasconcelos. Both men wanted to educate all people
– without regard to region or race – through a celebration of culture, education and
development, and Vasconcelos had a plan to make it happen. Vasconcelos, who had
served in the Madero government and gone into exile after Madero’s assassination,
returned in 1920 to become the rector of the National University during Adolfo de
la Huerta’s temporary rule. When Obregón came to power and asked him to direct
public education, he was prepared to create and execute an ambitious plan.7
Throughout the country, the ten years of Revolution had created human
hardships. By 1921, Mexico needed a new image both inside and outside the
country. Obregón understood that a new image was key to reintroducing foreign
investment into the country. Though their effort was not labeled “branding” or
“marketing” in the 1920s in Mexico, what Obregón and Vasconcelos set out to do
was to establish a recognizable national identity. Obregón, who knew that
improving the image of a country with an 80 percent illiteracy rate called for basic
education, committed significant financial resources to Vasconcelos. He committed
money to build more than a thousand rural schools and two thousand public
libraries and also to commission murals for public buildings.8 He asked some of
Mexico’s artists to communicate the country’s history and cultural icons in
accessible places. It was a bold approach to accomplish the goal of consolidating
7 Vasconcelos, A Mexican Ulysses. 152.
8 Robert Pring-Mill, "The Conscience of a 'Brave New World: Orozco'," Oxford Art Journal (Oxford University) 4, no. 1 (July 1981): 47.
5
Mexico’s identity visually and communicating it visually not only to a largely
illiterate public but to a far wider audience of potential investors and industrialists.
Vasconcelos was a central intellectual figure of the Revolution of 1910. Born in
Oaxaca and educated as a lawyer, by 1910 he was one of the leaders of a group of
young philosophers called Ateneo de Juventud, or Athenaeum of Young People. The
group’s stated goals for Mexico were to destroy the Díaz regime, remove foreign
economic controls, and diminish the influence of the philosophy of positivism on
the cultural and educational life. 9 Positivism, derived from the teachings of French
philosopher Auguste Comte, was the idea that drove the Díaz administration.
Positivism, based on reason and logic, maintains that the best way to solve
problems is to apply the scientific method, thus minimizing art, theology, and
metaphysics. In terms of politics, Díaz believed a more stable economy and
government would result from a positivist approach. Mexico experienced stable
growth during the Díaz years as the government applied patient observation,
investigation, and experience to arrive at solutions based on the application of
scientific method and the goal of nation advancement.10
In contrast, Vasconcelos, believed positivism was not right for Latin America
because it did not allow for the naturally aesthetic life of the region. “Science
discovers the laws of the movements of the concrete and relative,” he wrote in his
autobiography. “Aesthetics seeks the rhythm of the definitive goal which leads
9 Vasconcelos, A Mexican Ulysses, 5.
10 Leslie Bethell, ed., The Cambridge History of Latin America, Vol. 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 387; and Elizabeth Flower, “The Mexican Revolt Against Positivism,” Journal of the History of Ideas 10, no. 1 (January 1949): 115-129.
6
things and beings to the reincarnation in the Divine.”11 During his tenure in the
ministry of education, he tried to unify the country through art and his philosophy
of aesthetic monism, his view of a world driven by a cosmic or mystical force
rather than by science. It was a view that was in many ways affirmed in the work
of “Los Tres Grandes,” the three great muralists commissioned to play a role in the
reconstruction of the 1920s.12 While Vasconcelos did not stipulate subject matter,
the work of Diego Rivera (1886-1957), David Siqueiros (1896-1974), and José
Clemente Orozco (1883-1949), could be said to act as “guide, teacher and
conscience of his country,” according to scholar and critic Jean Franco. “[In
countries] where national identity is still in the process of definition and where
social and political problems are both huge and inescapable, the artist’s sense of
responsibility towards society needs no justification.” 13 Those concerns came
together in the stance of the muralists, whose commissions from Vasconcelos
arrived neither out of the traditional patronage system, which reflected
Europeanism, nor out of public assistance, which gave rise to the American Federal
11 Vasconcelos, A Mexican Ulysses, 47. See also Patrick Romanell, “Bergson in Mexico: A Tribute to José Vasconcelos,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 21, 4 (June 1961): 501-513; and Luis A Marentes, José Vasconcelos and the Writing of the Mexican Revolution, (New York, NY: Twayne Publishers, 2000).
12 There were many artists commissioned during this period, but the grand three are the most famous. For more information see Mary Kay Vaughan, and Stephen E. Lewis, ed., The Eagle and the Virgin: Nation and Cultural Revolution in Mexico, 1920-1940, (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007); David Craven, Art and Revolution in Latin America, 1910-1990, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006); and Leonard Folgarait, Mural Painting and Social Revolution in Mexico, 1920-1940: Art of the New Order (Cambridge University Press, 1998).
13 Pring-Mill, “The Conscience of a 'Brave' New World: Orozco,” 47.
7
Aid Art Project a decade later. Instead, the muralists took on the role of educators,
just as the teachers and librarians did in the same period.14
The muralists’ work could be said to serve the people in the same way the
stained-glass windows and sculptured façade of medieval cathedrals served the
people of Western Europe. Like the medieval art, the murals “are essentially ‘visual
aids’ designed to teach, or to remind, a largely illiterate populace of the nature of
their own origins and past history. … The murals were indeed one way of trying to
tackle those ‘huge and inescapable’ political and social problems: problems which
the muralists could clearly not solve, but to whose solution they could contribute
by fostering a new climate of ideas and creating an awareness of a common
cultural heritage … and national identity.”15
Such an identity was significant to Vasconcelos. He was successful and well
educated, but he identified himself as a mestizo, or a person of mixed race whose
ancestors included indigenous and Portuguese people.16 In his writings, both
before and after the Revolution – Vasconcelos lived until 1959 – he often indicated
an ongoing awareness of the struggles of the working class. Nowhere was that
more obvious than in his educational efforts, which tapped not only the
community spirit but also the communal tradition of rural Mexico. The new school
buildings came from local labor and materials and the community, as much as it
could, supported the teachers. While it might be viewed as a setup for failure, that
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ana María Alonso, “Mestizaje, Hybridity, and Aesthetics of Mexico,” Cultural Anthropology, 19, 4 (Nov 2004): 463.
8
was not the case. “The will to improvise and the acceptance of teachers who had an
educational barely superior to that of the villagers brought success to a movement
which might otherwise have existed only on paper,” linguist Louise Schoenhals
said. “In a sense it was a ‘grass roots’ movement and it implied an awakening of the
peasant classes.” 17
Those struggles figure prominently in the voluminous historiography of the
Mexican Revolution, though there are two central historical arguments regarding
its legacy. The first argues that the revolution was an uprising of the common man,
who overthrew the government, and the large landowners; essentially, they argue,
the Revolution played out like government image-makers claim. The second of
these central interpretations is a revisionist theory that claims the Revolution was
a middle- and upper-class uprising designed to create a modern, democratic,
industrial state. It also argues the pro-revolution interpretation is essentially
propaganda designed to steer the country away from a soviet style government. 18
Frank Tannenbaum was one of the first historians to write about the Revolution,
and he characterized the rebellion as an agrarian peasant movement that arose
against the feudal haciendas.19 Most historians agree there was significant peasant
17 Louise Schoenhals, “Mexico Experiments in Rural and Primary Education: 1921-1930,” The Hispanic American Historical Review 44, no. 1 (February 1964): 35.
18 See Richard Tardanico, “Revolutionary Mexico and the World Economy: The 1920s in Theoretical Perspective,” Theory and Society 13, 6 (November 1984): 758-759; Mark Wasserman, “You Can Teach An Old Revolutionary Historiography New Tricks: Regions, Popular Movements, Culture, and Gender in Mexico, 1820–1940,” Latin American Research Review 43, no. 2 (2008): 260-271; and Brian Hammett, "Recent Work in Mexican History," The Historical Journal (Cambridge University Press) 50, no. 3 (2007): 747-759.
19 Frank Tannenbaum, The Mexican Agrarian Revolution, (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1968).
9
and lower class activity present. There are some historians that argue that it was
not Revolution at all, but reform. Alan Knight argues that it was indeed a
Revolution because there was a sharp break with the past, and genuine reform
occurred. He also argues that it was ultimately a bottom up revolution that created
odd alliances—which was the key to its success. From 1911 until 1920, ideology
was not at the root of the Revolution, he argues. “Ideology was weak not so much
because revolutionaries—including popular revolutionaries—lacked ideas which
informed their conduct, but rather because the basic objectives of many
revolutionaries, being local and concrete, permitted the co-existence of apparently
hostile ideologies, at least for the short term.”20 This changed as the chaos settled
and the government became more stable around 1921; Obregón was a practical
politician and less tied to ideals than Vasconcelos, the philosopher. John Tutino
argues for a longer view of Mexican history to explain the Revolution. According to
Tutino, the roots for the uprising was sown in the 18th century and changing land
use patterns.21 The most recent scholarship has emphasized the regional nature of
the Revolution.22
A number of scholars have written about the Mexican cultural activities of the
1920s. The most recent collection of articles about the topic is titled The Eagle and
20 Alan Knight, The Mexican Revolution: Counter-revolution and Reconstruction (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1990), 5.
21 John Tutino, From Insurrection to Revolution in Mexico (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989), 353-371.
22 Brian Hammett, "Recent Work in Mexican History," The Historical Journal (Cambridge University Press) 50, 3 (2007): 747-759.
10
the Virgin: National and Cultural Revolution in Mexico 1920-1940.23 There are,
however, no English language articles or books that argue either for or against the
intent of Obregón and Vasconcelos to create a new national narrative through
education and art.
Alan Knight argues that the Mexican revolution reshaped Mexico’s trajectory
internally and externally. The revolution began with many ideas; some fell to the
wayside, while others took root and grew; they became the basis for how the post-
revolution governments ruled. Knight states it is a mistake to believe that the
revolution shaped everything that followed, but it was, however, the catalyst for
the social and political reforming that followed in the 1920s and beyond.24 Over
the last half century, there have been many debates about when the Revolution
began and when it ended; some question if it was even a revolution at all.25 Rarely
does a historical narrative come in a nice, neat package because history is
disordered. Only in the movies, in art, and in the occasional history book can all the
dots can be smoothly connected. This is particularly true of the Mexican
Revolution, yet in the 1920s, the Ministry of Education embarked on a concerted
effort to create a holistic history of Mexico that its citizens could embrace, a history
that included a rich culture that colonial histories neglected.
23 Vaughan, The Eagle and the Virgin.
24 Alan Knight. “The Peculiarities of Mexican History: Mexico Compared to Latin America, 1821-1992.” Journal of Latin American Studies 24 (1992): 104.
25 See William H. Beezley. “Reflections on the Historiography of Twentieth-Century Mexico.” History Compass 5, 3 (2007): 963-974; and Calvert, Peter. “The Mexican Revolution: Theory or Fact?,” Journal of Latin American Studies 1, 1 (May 1969): 51-68.
11
When thinking of our own cultural and historical identity, our perceptions are
shaped by the senses, what we see, hear, smell, taste, and touch. As much as any
country I have visited, Mexico’s history captures the contemporary imagination in
a sensory rich way, and perhaps no period more than the 1911 Mexican
Revolution. Correspondingly, the key participants in the Revolutionary drama,
Pancho Villa, Francisco Madera, Emiliano Zapata, Venustiano Carranza, and Alvaro
Obregón, are larger than life characters who have evolved over time into
archetypal actors in a national play that has heroes, martyrs, villains, and saints.
This classic play has been central to the sensory image development of modern
Mexico, directing the way Mexicans see themselves and their history. Film crews
came to Mexico to capture the image of Pancho Villa leading his rebels on
horseback across the plains of Northern Mexico and Emiliano Zapata and his
crusading peasants marching for land reform. What a gold mine of images and
themes for the fine artist to depict and for a new national identity to be formed.
Tatiana Flores refers to 1921 as a “seminal year in Mexican Culture.” The year
marked a new government focus, defining twentieth century Mexican culture in
art, literature, and education. It was a cultural rebirth after the long chaos of
revolution.26 Art historian Alistair Hennessey notes, “The culture of Mexico is
visual rather than literary.”27 Accordingly, visual art has played a key role in the
creation of this national identity in the 1920s. Through the work of artists Orozco,
26 Tatiana Esther Flores, “Estridentismo in Mexico City: Dialogues between Mexican avant-garde art and literature, 1921—1924,” (New York: Columbia University, 2003), 14.
27 Alistair Hennessy, “Artists, Intellectuals and Revolution: Recent Books on Mexico.” Journal of Latin American Studies 3, 1 (May 1971): 71.
12
Siqueiros, and Rivera, key episodes of Mexican history were re-created in public
spaces in a way that celebrated the revolutionary spirit of the period. These public
murals carried nationalistic themes to a large (and largely illiterate) audience,
while new education initiatives were introduced and expanded to educate the
electorate and create a cohesive and accessible post-revolution Mexican identity.
Vasconcelos’s commitment was to a new nationalism that extended the
boundaries of society and culture in a way that was unimaginable with the
nationalism of Díaz. Latin American historian John Ochoa even suggests that
Vasconcelos “deliberately blurs the distinction between himself and the nation: he
nationalizes himself.”28 To support his argument, Ochoa cites the motto
Vasconcelos devised for the National University: “Por mi raza hablara el espiritu”
(through my race the spirit shall speak). It must be noted that Vasconcelos held
some bizarre racial theories, such as his prophecy of a cosmic race, but those can
stand alone in another article.29 His racial theory is just one of several
contradictions evident in his ideas. They are contradictions Ochoa contends
ultimately doom Vasconcelos’s ideals. I argue that the power of the visual images
he commissioned during his tenure and the willingness of the government to
promote art as a communication medium for both history and culture was not only
a success, but actually transformed the image of Mexican history into a larger 28 John A Ochoa, The Uses of Failure in Mexican Literature and Identity, (Austin,
TX: University of Texas Press, 2004), 123.
29 In 1925, Vasconcelos published an essay titled, “The Cosmic Race.” He argued that in the Latin American region a new race is forming, a blending of all other races of the world into one. This new race, the cosmic race, embodies the best characteristics of all the other races both spiritually and genetically. See Luis A Marentes, José Vasconcelos and the Writing of the Mexican Revolution, (New York: Twayne Publishers, 2000), 75-107.
13
mythology both within Mexico and throughout the world. Vanderbilt art historian
Leonard Folgarait argues that the importance of the murals is historical, rather
than aesthetic.30 He does not see the murals as an example of extraordinary art,
except for their historical value. I would go a step farther and argue that murals as
a medium to communicate to a largely illiterate audience was one creative solution
to a difficult problem. It used a cultural medium to communicate ideology and
history, as well as used powerful images to create a post-revolution identity. While
Europeans heavily influenced Mexican art during the pre-revolution era, the works
commissioned by the Ministry for Public Education resulted in art with many
different influences from both inside and outside of the country. The indigenous
influence is particularly present in Diego Rivera’s work as well as the work of
many other lesser-known artists.
When the government commissions public art, schools, and libraries, each
inherently transcends class because a wide social net is thrown out. Vasconcelos
understood the need to take education to the rural areas of the country, as well as
to the cities. His efforts were imperfect, as one cans see in his insistence on
attempting to educate the masses – including the Indians – not only in the classics
but also solely in Spanish. However, he consciously created the Fine Arts
Department as a vehicle for nurturing Mexican art; through it, and through the
other divisions of the ministry, he aided in shaping and conveying a broader
national identity. Though Vasconcelos’ tenure was relatively short, he influenced
art and educational goals that made a lasting impact on Mexico. In the era of
30 Leonard Folgarait, Mural Painting and Social Revolution in Mexico, 1920-1940: Art of the New Order (Cambridge University Press, 1998), 8.
14
reconstruction, Mexico needed to forge a national identity that encompassed its
diverse regions and peoples. Secondarily, the Obregón government, and
particularly Vasconcelos, endeavored to raise awareness that Mexico was distinct
from the powerful nations that had wielded power over it, first the Spanish
colonization and then the American land grab. With art and education, Obegron
and Vasconcelos brought their revolutionary goals to fruition. Statistics show that
the number of rural schools and the number of students enrolled increased by
more than a third in the 1920s while illiteracy was reduced by more than a third.
More important than statistics, though, are Vasconcelos’s accomplishments in
changing the outlook and concept of a nation towards education and its impact on
identity. Schoenhals, translating from a 1924 Spanish brochure on public
education, writes:
These three traits, general knowledge, technical training, and the development of art, have been fundamental elements of our educational plans. To carry out our program, we have counted upon the good will of the executive, upon the generosity of congress and upon national enthusiasm. We have given new trends to education, we have built a few schools, and we have roused the national conscience. … We have made a start, we have scratched the surface.31
Those words – “we have made a start” – are critical to the argument that
Vasconcelos inaugurated programs in basic education, art and music that changed
the public perception of Mexico. The conclusion rests on acceptance that the
neglect of indigenous people over centuries of colonization, as well as those
people’s rebellion against their oppressors, could not be remedied in the four-year
term of a Mexican president. After all, the Revolution of 1910 was over, but every
31 Schoenhals, “Mexico Experiments in Rural and Primary Education,” 29.
15
new government faced a new uprising. The record shows, however, that there was
a new spirit that might carry forward to provide greater achievement beyond the
end of the Obegron presidency in 1924. An anecdotal reflection of this came a year
later when correspondent Stephen Bonsal wrote in the New York Times:
I recalled the incident of the woman I met on the street on one of the critical days lecturing her pulque sodden husband as she led him homeward. “You must not do this any longer, Juan,” she protested; then throwing back her head she added proudly, “you must remember that you are the father of children who are learning how to read and write.”32
Were Obregon and Vasconcelos successful in their goal of creating a new
national identity through art and education? The answer is a qualified yes; they
were successful in establishing educational and cultural opportunities for most of
the Mexican people. It is beyond the scope of this paper to determine if they were
absolutely successful. I began this study with the idea that the government was
probably obsessed with control—I thought they would be more Russian like in the
way they applied their ideals. The commissioned artists were never specifically
directed for content, only theme. The teachers that traveled throughout the
country saw themselves as missionaries—and indeed some of them were.
Vasconcelos is an interesting case study, both because of his ideas about
philosophy and his idealistic vision that he executed while he led the Ministry of
Public Education from 1921-1924. It is also important to note that the political
party founded in 1929 from the remnants of the Revolution leadership (PRI), led
Mexico until 2000. The values illustrated in much of the art commissioned in the
32 Ibid., 30.
16
early twenties told a story embraced by this party for the next 75 years. In fact, the
images that were created and the educational objectives that were accomplished
during this period of history still influence the image of Mexico today.
17
Bibliography
Alonso, Ana Maria. “Conforming Disconformity: ‘Mestizaje,’ Hybridity, and the Aesthetics of Mexican Nationalism.” Cultural Anthropology. Nov. 16, 2004: 459-490.
Beezley, William H. “Reflections on the Historiography of Twentieth-Century Mexico.” History Compass 5, no. 3 (2007): 963-974.
Bethell, Leslie. The Cambridge History of Latin America. Vol. 4. Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Brenner, Anita. The Wind That Swept Mexico; the History of the Mexican Revolution, 1910-1942. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1971.
Calvert, Peter. “The Mexican Revolution: Theory or Fact?.” Journal of Latin American Studies 1, no. 1 (May 1969): 51-68.
Craven, David. Art and Revolution in Latin America, 1910-1990. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006.
Flores, Tatiana Esther. “Estridentismo in Mexico City: Dialogues between Mexican avant-garde art and literature, 1921--1924.” PhD Dissertation: Columbia University, 2003.
Folgarait, Leonard. Mural Painting and Social Revolution in Mexico, 1920-1940: Art of the New Order. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Hammett, Brian. "Recent Work in Mexican History." The Historical Journal. Cambridge University Press. 50, no. 3 (2007): 747-759.
Hennessy, Alistair. “Artists, Intellectuals and Revolution: Recent Books on Mexico.” Journal of Latin American Studies 3, no. 1 (May 1971): 71-88.
Knight, Alan. The Mexican Revolution: Counter-revolution and Reconstruction. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1990.
_____________“The Peculiarities of Mexican History: Mexico Compared to Latin America, 1821-1992.” Journal of Latin American Studies 24 (1992): 99-144.
Marentes, Luis A. José Vasconcelos and the Writing of the Mexican Revolution. New York: Twayne Publishers, 2000.
Ochoa, John A. The Uses of Failure in Mexican Literature and Identity. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004.
18
Pring-Mill, Robert. “The Conscience of a 'Brave' New World: Orozco.” Oxford Art Journal 4, no. 1 (July 1981): 45-50.
Randall, Laura. Reforming Mexico's Agrarian Reform. New York, NY: Columbia University, 1996.
Romanell, Patrick. “Bergson in Mexico: A Tribute to José Vasconcelos.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 21, no. 4 (June 1961): 501-513.
Schoenhals, Louise. “Mexico Experiments in Rural and Primary Education: 1921-1930.” The Hispanic American Historical Review 44, no. 1 (February 1964): 22-43.
Tannenbaum, Frank. The Mexican Agrarian Revolution. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1968.
Tardanico, Richard. “Revolutionary Mexico and the World Economy: The 1920s in Theoretical Perspective.” Theory and Society 13, no. 6 (November 1984): 757-772.
Tutino, John. From Insurrection to Revolution in Mexico. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989.
Vasconcelos, José. A Mexican Ulysses an autobiography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1972.
Wasserman, Mark. “You Can Teach An Old Revolutionary Historiography New Tricks: Regions, Popular Movements, Culture, and Gender in Mexico, 1820–1940.” Latin American Research Review 43, no. 2 (2008): 260-271.
Waters, Wendy, Michael Snodgrass, Desmond Rochfort, Adriana Zavala, James Oles, Jean Meyer, et al. The Eagle and the Virgin: Nation and Cultural Revolution in Mexico, 1920-1940. Duke University Press, 2005.
Wilkie, James W. Statistical Abstract of Latin America. Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles, 2002.
19
20