090505-FN7/Porfiriato

FN 7 As currently served up, Mexican history is a collection of murals and myths, chief among them the fable that the 1910 Revolution was, at bottom, a rising up of the peasantry and popular classes. In fact, at its core, the Revolution was a squabble between liberal factions, in which the peasantry and popular classes participated peripherally. It goes without saying, that upon the fall of the Second Empire, the conservatives did not retreat into historical monasticism but sought survival within the liberal regime. Conversely, Diaz, retreated de facto from strict and radical application of the Reform Laws. Most importantly, Diaz became a centralist -- and he did so because anyone who undesrtands anything about the true nature of Mexico understands that its governance has always demanded the finessed hand of a coopting and coordinating centralism. Thus, while geo-politically Mexico became tied to the United States, domestically, the Porfirian regime became moderately conservative. But centralization brought with it the old envy and hostility between capitolene innies and provincials outies, which once again played itself out in 1910. The difference between 1910 and 1810 was that this time both rural Indians and urban workers were able to play off liberal factions so as to wrest political and economic concessions. This was by no means an insignificant achievement, albeit not quite the brilliant uprisings of Orozco’s and Rivera’s murals.
.