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