What do you think?
Rate this book
Zapata and the Mexican Revolution
This essential volume recalls the activities of Emiliano Zapata (1879-1919), a leading figure in the Mexican Revolution; he formed and commanded an important revolutionary force during this conflict. Womack focuses attention on Zapata's activities and his home state of Morelos during the Revolution. Zapata quickly rose from his position as a peasant leader in a village seeking agrarian reform. Zapata's dedication to the cause of land rights made him a hero to the people. Womack describes the contributing factors and conditions preceding the Mexican Revolution, creating a narrative that examines political and agrarian transformations on local and national levels.
435 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1968
103 people are currently reading
2534 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews
September 20, 2021
Catalytic Converters
Emiliano Zapata is an important figure in the history of Mexico, not particularly for what he accomplished but rather for what he allowed others to cause to happen. John Womack is a widely praised historian of Latin America who does an outstanding job of describing the national circumstances that led to Zapata’s involvement in revolutionary activity. Womack also makes it clear that Zapata was largely unaware of the politics of his situation or the likely consequences of his actions. Zapata’s role was catalytic not formative; his participation generated consequences because of the intentions of others. Womack does a less good job, I think, considering this or what it meant and means for Mexico’s future.
The War of Mexican Independence at the beginning of the 19th century replaced the Spanish monarch as head of state but maintained, even strengthened, the feudal character of New Spain, which character had been under threat in the late eighteenth century by mercantilist directives from Spain. Although begun as a popular uprising sparked by racial inequality and officially sanctioned oppression, the War of Independence eventually produced a republic organised and maintained by essentially the same local network of elite loyalties that the country had started with.
A nominal democracy, Mexican Republican politics from their origins were not a matter of parties, publicly competing candidates and issues, but of balancing factional interests in the selection of candidates behind the scenes. Deals were made in private and candidates selected on the basis of acceptable compromise. Possible competitors would then withdraw and the result of elections would be a certainty. From an exterior perspective, this appeared as stability.
This Mexican form of democracy was not a model for the world perhaps, but it worked to some degree, interrupted by the occasional coup when compromise could not be reached. This system, I am told, is very similar to the accommodation between feudalism and democracy that exists in the Channel Island of Jersey, which, while also a democracy, has all its most important executive, judicial and law enforcement officials appointed by the British Crown. Jersey is a place also proud of its political stability.
After the failure of the French Intervention in Mexico during the American Civil War, Porfirio Díaz led a coup d’etat that proved decisive for the country. For 35 years Diaz presided over a programme of strict political feudalism (to call it dictatorship would be to misrepresent it entirely I think) and overt economic capitalism, a feat perhaps used subsequently as a model in other Latin American countries.
Diaz’s strategy was one of ‘scientific management,’ that is the promotion of the rationality of production efficiency regardless of the human costs of dislocation or poverty. The success of this programme was certainly a mark of political genius, evil genius perhaps, but nevertheless genius. Decades in advance of so-called Taylorism in the United States, Diaz created an expert staff of cientificos to advise him on the intricacies of microeconomic rationality. He took that advice and incorporated it into his political negotiations.
And the strategy worked as it was meant to, especially in the the sugar cane producing state of Morelos, the home of Zapata. By the first decade of the 20th century, Diaz, through political appointments, legislation, and (if necessary) pure thuggery, had facilitated the transformation of the local family-run haciendas into enormous corporate estates with the latest industrial milling equipment. He had also given these agrarian conglomerates access, through railroads, to international markets. In short, he had done what he set out to do, that is, to re-create Mexico, or at least this sector of it, as an example of industrial capitalism.
But Diaz still ran an essentially feudal state, which because of his success, required increasingly complex ‘deals’ among an increasing variety of interests. He essentially blew that feudal system apart in Morelos by appointing an inept and unilaterally chosen person as governor of the state. As a consequence, uncontrolled factionalism emerged that eventually compromised the entire system in Morelos, and undermined confidence nationally.
Political instability led to repression which led to resentment which led to violence. Zapata organised and led an army of the dispossessed and disaffected that defeated the government forces of Diaz in fairly short order. Zapata was promptly betrayed by Diaz’s replacement, who in turn was ousted quickly by Zapata’s fellow revolutionary, General Huerta, who was in turn ousted from his position with the support of Zapata’s troops within a year. Clearly once a feudal order has been disrupted, the end result is hard to imagine (as the late Roman Empire, and the subsequent one called Holy, can attest). As was in the case 100 years earlier, a decade of revolution led directly back to the status quo ante.
Zapata is a heroic martyr in the political mythology of Mexico. But the practical outcome of Zapata’s efforts and the sacrifice of his life are really insignificant - an ambiguous and largely meaningless Article 27 about land reform in the Mexican Constitution, and some half-hearted land redistribution in the 1930’s. Not that the revolution of 1910 had no effect. Essentially the feudal system was reconstituted in the Partido de la Revolución Mexicana, now the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which continued the same intra-party political deal-making among (new) conflicting interests as was traditional for the previous century.
The PRI’s hegemony succeeded in maintaining stability from its formation in 1929 until its first loss in national elections in 2000. It lost to the candidate from the National Action Party (PAN), signalling the end of the intra-party deals and accommodations. ‘Real’ democracy had emerged. And with that the ability to maintain some kind of balance among competing interests evaporated. When the PAN President Felipe Calderón declared a national war on drugs in 2006, he disrupted the existing feudal equilibrium that had been established by the PRI.
It appears in the light of subsequent nationwide violence that Calderón too may have been the catalyst for yet a new Mexican revolution. The feudal equilibrium again has been disrupted. But the feudal democratic tradition is the only one available. There is no difference in principle between the interests of the sugar cane producers of 1910 and the black tar heroin manufacturers of 2010, except for the profit margins (or for that matter between the founder of the Sinaloa drug cartel, ‘El Chapo’ Guzmán, and the bandit Pancho Villa, whom Zapata fought both with and against). And as in previous national conflicts both sides have been forced into a stalemate. It is clear, as it always has been, that the solution is political not military. I wonder when the new Diaz or PRI will emerge and in what form to stop the violence - before Mexico becomes Peru?
Emiliano Zapata is an important figure in the history of Mexico, not particularly for what he accomplished but rather for what he allowed others to cause to happen. John Womack is a widely praised historian of Latin America who does an outstanding job of describing the national circumstances that led to Zapata’s involvement in revolutionary activity. Womack also makes it clear that Zapata was largely unaware of the politics of his situation or the likely consequences of his actions. Zapata’s role was catalytic not formative; his participation generated consequences because of the intentions of others. Womack does a less good job, I think, considering this or what it meant and means for Mexico’s future.
The War of Mexican Independence at the beginning of the 19th century replaced the Spanish monarch as head of state but maintained, even strengthened, the feudal character of New Spain, which character had been under threat in the late eighteenth century by mercantilist directives from Spain. Although begun as a popular uprising sparked by racial inequality and officially sanctioned oppression, the War of Independence eventually produced a republic organised and maintained by essentially the same local network of elite loyalties that the country had started with.
A nominal democracy, Mexican Republican politics from their origins were not a matter of parties, publicly competing candidates and issues, but of balancing factional interests in the selection of candidates behind the scenes. Deals were made in private and candidates selected on the basis of acceptable compromise. Possible competitors would then withdraw and the result of elections would be a certainty. From an exterior perspective, this appeared as stability.
This Mexican form of democracy was not a model for the world perhaps, but it worked to some degree, interrupted by the occasional coup when compromise could not be reached. This system, I am told, is very similar to the accommodation between feudalism and democracy that exists in the Channel Island of Jersey, which, while also a democracy, has all its most important executive, judicial and law enforcement officials appointed by the British Crown. Jersey is a place also proud of its political stability.
After the failure of the French Intervention in Mexico during the American Civil War, Porfirio Díaz led a coup d’etat that proved decisive for the country. For 35 years Diaz presided over a programme of strict political feudalism (to call it dictatorship would be to misrepresent it entirely I think) and overt economic capitalism, a feat perhaps used subsequently as a model in other Latin American countries.
Diaz’s strategy was one of ‘scientific management,’ that is the promotion of the rationality of production efficiency regardless of the human costs of dislocation or poverty. The success of this programme was certainly a mark of political genius, evil genius perhaps, but nevertheless genius. Decades in advance of so-called Taylorism in the United States, Diaz created an expert staff of cientificos to advise him on the intricacies of microeconomic rationality. He took that advice and incorporated it into his political negotiations.
And the strategy worked as it was meant to, especially in the the sugar cane producing state of Morelos, the home of Zapata. By the first decade of the 20th century, Diaz, through political appointments, legislation, and (if necessary) pure thuggery, had facilitated the transformation of the local family-run haciendas into enormous corporate estates with the latest industrial milling equipment. He had also given these agrarian conglomerates access, through railroads, to international markets. In short, he had done what he set out to do, that is, to re-create Mexico, or at least this sector of it, as an example of industrial capitalism.
But Diaz still ran an essentially feudal state, which because of his success, required increasingly complex ‘deals’ among an increasing variety of interests. He essentially blew that feudal system apart in Morelos by appointing an inept and unilaterally chosen person as governor of the state. As a consequence, uncontrolled factionalism emerged that eventually compromised the entire system in Morelos, and undermined confidence nationally.
Political instability led to repression which led to resentment which led to violence. Zapata organised and led an army of the dispossessed and disaffected that defeated the government forces of Diaz in fairly short order. Zapata was promptly betrayed by Diaz’s replacement, who in turn was ousted quickly by Zapata’s fellow revolutionary, General Huerta, who was in turn ousted from his position with the support of Zapata’s troops within a year. Clearly once a feudal order has been disrupted, the end result is hard to imagine (as the late Roman Empire, and the subsequent one called Holy, can attest). As was in the case 100 years earlier, a decade of revolution led directly back to the status quo ante.
Zapata is a heroic martyr in the political mythology of Mexico. But the practical outcome of Zapata’s efforts and the sacrifice of his life are really insignificant - an ambiguous and largely meaningless Article 27 about land reform in the Mexican Constitution, and some half-hearted land redistribution in the 1930’s. Not that the revolution of 1910 had no effect. Essentially the feudal system was reconstituted in the Partido de la Revolución Mexicana, now the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which continued the same intra-party political deal-making among (new) conflicting interests as was traditional for the previous century.
The PRI’s hegemony succeeded in maintaining stability from its formation in 1929 until its first loss in national elections in 2000. It lost to the candidate from the National Action Party (PAN), signalling the end of the intra-party deals and accommodations. ‘Real’ democracy had emerged. And with that the ability to maintain some kind of balance among competing interests evaporated. When the PAN President Felipe Calderón declared a national war on drugs in 2006, he disrupted the existing feudal equilibrium that had been established by the PRI.
It appears in the light of subsequent nationwide violence that Calderón too may have been the catalyst for yet a new Mexican revolution. The feudal equilibrium again has been disrupted. But the feudal democratic tradition is the only one available. There is no difference in principle between the interests of the sugar cane producers of 1910 and the black tar heroin manufacturers of 2010, except for the profit margins (or for that matter between the founder of the Sinaloa drug cartel, ‘El Chapo’ Guzmán, and the bandit Pancho Villa, whom Zapata fought both with and against). And as in previous national conflicts both sides have been forced into a stalemate. It is clear, as it always has been, that the solution is political not military. I wonder when the new Diaz or PRI will emerge and in what form to stop the violence - before Mexico becomes Peru?
August 22, 2017
"Zapata and the Mexican Revolution" is John Womack's Harvard doctoral dissertation and a stunning example of the high standards of this great university. While the style is always very good and at times dazzling, the book is not easy to read. Womack writes with care and deliberation understanding that every line will be scrutinized very carefully by a stellar panel of academic examiners.
In this book Womack tells the story of how Emiliano Zapata led the Campesinos of the state of Morelos during the Mexican Revolution in their struggle to win back the lands that the owners of the Haciendas had taken from them during the Presidency of Porfirio Díaz (1884-1911). In order to establish the background for Zapata's actions, Womack very carefully describes how the Campesinos of Morelos were dispossessed. However, he provides no additional information on Mexican history and only describes the events of the Mexican Revolution that directly affected Morelos. His intended readers being university professors simply did not require background information of this nature.
Womack is an unabashed admirer of Zapata who, in his view, corrected very serious injustices that had been committed against the rural population of Morelos. Womack portrays Zapata as a great organiser, a superb military commander and a very just ruler. As important as anything else, Zapata demonstrated remarkable judgement. Other military leaders notably Pancho Villa tried to get Zapata involved in their schemes to topple the federal government. Zapata however always maintained his independence and used the resources of his movement only to further the cause of the Morelos.
I can find no blemishes in this masterpiece of historical writing. Presumably no one on the dissertation committee could either as Womack was awarded a professorship at Harvard shortly after its defense.
In this book Womack tells the story of how Emiliano Zapata led the Campesinos of the state of Morelos during the Mexican Revolution in their struggle to win back the lands that the owners of the Haciendas had taken from them during the Presidency of Porfirio Díaz (1884-1911). In order to establish the background for Zapata's actions, Womack very carefully describes how the Campesinos of Morelos were dispossessed. However, he provides no additional information on Mexican history and only describes the events of the Mexican Revolution that directly affected Morelos. His intended readers being university professors simply did not require background information of this nature.
Womack is an unabashed admirer of Zapata who, in his view, corrected very serious injustices that had been committed against the rural population of Morelos. Womack portrays Zapata as a great organiser, a superb military commander and a very just ruler. As important as anything else, Zapata demonstrated remarkable judgement. Other military leaders notably Pancho Villa tried to get Zapata involved in their schemes to topple the federal government. Zapata however always maintained his independence and used the resources of his movement only to further the cause of the Morelos.
I can find no blemishes in this masterpiece of historical writing. Presumably no one on the dissertation committee could either as Womack was awarded a professorship at Harvard shortly after its defense.
October 31, 2017
The Muhammad Ali of books on Zapata, and yet....
In every field of endeavor, in every activity known to Man, whether sailboarding or physics, hairdressing or chipmunk catching, there are people who excel, people who go far beyond the rest. They reach the epitome while we mere mortals look up from below and marvel. So, when you have read the 526 pages of Womack Jr.'s book [not counting the appendices], you can tell yourself that you have read THE book on Zapata and his role in the Mexican Revolution. The author used every source available, he interviewed all those who were left alive to talk. I wonder if any new printed sources will ever be found ? Certainly everyone who played a role, however insignificant, in those long ago days of 1909-1920 is now dead, making new interviews extremely unlikely. This is a work of art, a work of love, and a vast labor that surely took a few years off the life of the author, not to mention breaking some relationships. It is the definitive work so far on the subject. If you want to know the story of why and how Emiliano Zapata, a once insignificant small town horse trader and farmer, became a legendary rebel whose name resounds throughout Mexico today---a man who fought unwaveringly for the rights of small farmers and villagers to the land they worked---then you have no choice but to read this volume. This is the epitome, this is the story in unbelievable detail; political, economic, social, military. And yet, Zapata himself almost disappears in the vast bulk of detailed historical and interpretive observations. It is not so much a work on an individual as on the whole period in a small area of Mexico.
If you want a general history of the Mexican Revolution because you are just beginning to think about the subject, if you are looking for concise explanations, then this is not the book you need. ZAPATA AND THE MEXICAN REVOLUTION is for college courses on Latin American history, or for the scholar who wants every detail in Zapata's long struggle, for the person who wants to know what the peasants and small town dwellers of the state of Morelos went through in the first two decades of the twentieth century. The work is impressive, not only for its vast wealth of detail, but for its compassion and sympathy for the aims of those people who made tremendous sacrifices for their cause. Good photographs, a good map of Morelos. If you are not that interested in Mexico, but would just like to see what a great, academic, social history book could be like, I can recommend this book without hesitation. At times, the detail is overwhelming, a vast body of characters and place names that can hardly be absorbed. [There are around 90 footnotes to each chapter, sometimes more.] But, if you want to know the whole story, this is the book for you. It is the best.
In every field of endeavor, in every activity known to Man, whether sailboarding or physics, hairdressing or chipmunk catching, there are people who excel, people who go far beyond the rest. They reach the epitome while we mere mortals look up from below and marvel. So, when you have read the 526 pages of Womack Jr.'s book [not counting the appendices], you can tell yourself that you have read THE book on Zapata and his role in the Mexican Revolution. The author used every source available, he interviewed all those who were left alive to talk. I wonder if any new printed sources will ever be found ? Certainly everyone who played a role, however insignificant, in those long ago days of 1909-1920 is now dead, making new interviews extremely unlikely. This is a work of art, a work of love, and a vast labor that surely took a few years off the life of the author, not to mention breaking some relationships. It is the definitive work so far on the subject. If you want to know the story of why and how Emiliano Zapata, a once insignificant small town horse trader and farmer, became a legendary rebel whose name resounds throughout Mexico today---a man who fought unwaveringly for the rights of small farmers and villagers to the land they worked---then you have no choice but to read this volume. This is the epitome, this is the story in unbelievable detail; political, economic, social, military. And yet, Zapata himself almost disappears in the vast bulk of detailed historical and interpretive observations. It is not so much a work on an individual as on the whole period in a small area of Mexico.
If you want a general history of the Mexican Revolution because you are just beginning to think about the subject, if you are looking for concise explanations, then this is not the book you need. ZAPATA AND THE MEXICAN REVOLUTION is for college courses on Latin American history, or for the scholar who wants every detail in Zapata's long struggle, for the person who wants to know what the peasants and small town dwellers of the state of Morelos went through in the first two decades of the twentieth century. The work is impressive, not only for its vast wealth of detail, but for its compassion and sympathy for the aims of those people who made tremendous sacrifices for their cause. Good photographs, a good map of Morelos. If you are not that interested in Mexico, but would just like to see what a great, academic, social history book could be like, I can recommend this book without hesitation. At times, the detail is overwhelming, a vast body of characters and place names that can hardly be absorbed. [There are around 90 footnotes to each chapter, sometimes more.] But, if you want to know the whole story, this is the book for you. It is the best.
May 11, 2007
This is pure historical narrative, but it reads like a novel. I read it in a college history class and knew all along what fate Zapata would eventually face yet found myself racing through the pages to find out "for sure." Might be too much detail for those who don't truly care about Mexican history, but if you like to read history, this is as good as the writing of it gets.
September 23, 2020
I've been wanting to read this book for a while and am auditing a class on revolution in Latin America where this was the first reading assigned. I have never read a detailed narrative about Zapata and the Mexican Revolution and while you read many details of people coming in and out, I feel this is an vital read for anyone interested in Mexican history, Zapatismo and revolution. It is not an easy read and I had to write down names of people and what happened to them (this guy dead. this guy left for US. this guy got into power and then got killed) - kind of like when i read 100 Years of Solitude. But it is written as an historical narrative that makes it engaging. I'm super curious how Womack got access to so much archival materials when writing this.
You not only get a sense of the dynamic leader that was Zapata, but how in 10 years he put the interests of the people of Morelos first and was known to live those politics as well as espouse them. People just knew he would never sell them out. Even in a position of power or as a "leader" - he did everything to raise up the people of Morelos - helping to create community based forms of leadership that were participatory and democratic. He obviously had a love for liberation rather than a drive for power. You also get a lot of details about the power struggles sparked between the absentee landowners and the people working the land (Womack refuses to call them peasants) during the rise of sugar cane production in Mexico. There are details about the experiments in the province of Morelos with the replacing of the military power with civilian bodies, role of local councils - the direct democracy as Zapata wanted political involvement from the bottom. And lots of great reads on Zapatistas burning down the haciendas, taking over private land and being generally bad ass revolutionaries.
The book also gives a glimpse to larger questions - is it possible to have revolution in a smaller area without fighting for revolution beyond? What is defeat and what is success in revolutionary struggle? Should you fight for state power or fight for autonomy and self-determination within an oppressive state structure? Do you engage in cross-class alliances (Liberals/Constitutionalists) for short term gain or when imperialist forces show up to undo the revolution? How does revolutionary consciousness emerge in working people/peasants to the point of risking so much for an armed uprising? How do you raise peoples consciousness to get them onside to defend the land?
i really appreciate complicating writing about revolution - there is no easy answer to the impact of Zapata and the Mexican revolution. It makes you reconsider what makes a revolution a failure or success? And how do experiments and struggles of liberation stay with people? and what disappears?
No real easy answers as Zapata aligned with many problematic people, made mistakes, but was also brilliant in strategy and the risks he took. This book is about him but also the building of a people's revolution which gives insight to the relationship between elected leaders and the masses on the ground - and what kind of balance and connection one needs to create a culture of resistance. It led to the lived improvements of lives for a period and to general Agrarian Reform in Mexico (which is being undone in the last few decades). And even after his assassination, there is a continuing legacy that inspires many movements. To think about the Land Back struggle right now in Canada or the enduring struggle of the Zapatistas in Chiapas, it was very cool to read this piece of history that you can still feel as activists identify with Zapatismo or when you see images of Zapata.
You not only get a sense of the dynamic leader that was Zapata, but how in 10 years he put the interests of the people of Morelos first and was known to live those politics as well as espouse them. People just knew he would never sell them out. Even in a position of power or as a "leader" - he did everything to raise up the people of Morelos - helping to create community based forms of leadership that were participatory and democratic. He obviously had a love for liberation rather than a drive for power. You also get a lot of details about the power struggles sparked between the absentee landowners and the people working the land (Womack refuses to call them peasants) during the rise of sugar cane production in Mexico. There are details about the experiments in the province of Morelos with the replacing of the military power with civilian bodies, role of local councils - the direct democracy as Zapata wanted political involvement from the bottom. And lots of great reads on Zapatistas burning down the haciendas, taking over private land and being generally bad ass revolutionaries.
The book also gives a glimpse to larger questions - is it possible to have revolution in a smaller area without fighting for revolution beyond? What is defeat and what is success in revolutionary struggle? Should you fight for state power or fight for autonomy and self-determination within an oppressive state structure? Do you engage in cross-class alliances (Liberals/Constitutionalists) for short term gain or when imperialist forces show up to undo the revolution? How does revolutionary consciousness emerge in working people/peasants to the point of risking so much for an armed uprising? How do you raise peoples consciousness to get them onside to defend the land?
i really appreciate complicating writing about revolution - there is no easy answer to the impact of Zapata and the Mexican revolution. It makes you reconsider what makes a revolution a failure or success? And how do experiments and struggles of liberation stay with people? and what disappears?
No real easy answers as Zapata aligned with many problematic people, made mistakes, but was also brilliant in strategy and the risks he took. This book is about him but also the building of a people's revolution which gives insight to the relationship between elected leaders and the masses on the ground - and what kind of balance and connection one needs to create a culture of resistance. It led to the lived improvements of lives for a period and to general Agrarian Reform in Mexico (which is being undone in the last few decades). And even after his assassination, there is a continuing legacy that inspires many movements. To think about the Land Back struggle right now in Canada or the enduring struggle of the Zapatistas in Chiapas, it was very cool to read this piece of history that you can still feel as activists identify with Zapatismo or when you see images of Zapata.
June 29, 2007
A very thoroughly researched ode to Zapata. I read most of it in a history class in college and have gone back to re-read it. Womac depicts the Mexican revolution in the state of Morelos largely as a struggle of good versus evil, and he isn't shy about worshiping certain historical figures - which I see as a byproduct of his bias. He attempts to write from the narrow perspective of poor rural Mexicans. He succeeds in producing a convincing explanation of how Zapata developed a strong following, and how his movement sustained itself on the people's demands for land even though munitions were short and he himself died in mid-struggle. Read this keeping in mind that the views held by other actors in the Mexican revolution are to be found elsewhere. Being a decent history book, it sheds light on the causes and life cycles of present day conflicts.
January 30, 2016
Womack is as uncompromising as Zapata himself. I loved it.
April 20, 2023
A must-read to understand the complexity that was the Mexican Revolution. Womack does an incredible job of morphing Zapata, who was both a revolutionary legend to the poor of Morelos and an ordinary man who made great mistakes. His clear and concise writing humanizes Zapatismo as an ideology and a way of living. Overall a great historical piece of Latin America.
March 11, 2009
VERY detailed account of Zapata and the Mixed up Mexican Revolution. Not a nail bitter but lots of info, names and dates that anyone interested in the Mex Rev should know.
March 9, 2010
Very simply--- a bravura account of the Mexican Revolution of 1911, told through the career of Emiliano Zapata, the southern general, warlord, and populist reformer. Thoughtful, insightful, and full of relevance for anyone looking at how peasant rebellions and their moral economy operate--- or interested in the history of Mexico and US-Mexican relations.
June 14, 2024
Fantastic book; I feel like I have a better understanding not only of Zapata or the Mexican Revolution but of Mexico and of peasant revolutions more generally. I also wish historians let themselves *write* like this still.
October 5, 2020
the classic account of the Morelos revolt, which was part of the Mexican Revolution but was really kind of its own thing, running on a parallel track under its own steam and for its own purposes. This is a dense and involved book (a lot of names are going to come and go) and if you don't know a lot about what happened in Mexico from 1910-20 before you pick it up a lot of it is going to be totally opaque. But Womack's ideological analysis is nuanced and fascinating if you're (like I am) immersed in more conventional types of leftism than Zapatismo was and is. Obviously a lot's happened in the scholarly world since the 1960s but this is still a standard secondary text in English on Zapata, and it gets five stars because of how compelling and sincere a narrative it is and because the stars on this website, like the land, belong to the people.
But actually the main reason i wanted to write this review is: did you know that John Womack Jr. was Lil Peep's grandfather? I'm serious, he was. Apparently they were very close, and you can google it and find clips from a documentary about Lil Peep and there's pictures of the two of them just hanging out. A weird, touching fact that i think about all the time. Anyway buy this book it's great.
But actually the main reason i wanted to write this review is: did you know that John Womack Jr. was Lil Peep's grandfather? I'm serious, he was. Apparently they were very close, and you can google it and find clips from a documentary about Lil Peep and there's pictures of the two of them just hanging out. A weird, touching fact that i think about all the time. Anyway buy this book it's great.
November 19, 2011
Womack's timeless dissertation on Zapata is still the authority on one of the most interesting men of the Mexican Revolution. Zapata never wanted power for himself and fought for the peasants of Morelos. His desire for land reform is exposed here as well as his strategy and life. It is an excellent biography and presents a small facet of the revolution. If you have not read anything on the revolution this is not the book to start with. It assumes that you have a working knowledge of the revolution and does an excellent job of conveying the information of Zapata's ideals.
September 21, 2010
One of, if not the best, book on Zapata. This book should be required reading for every academic social science student as proof that good writing does not make for bad scholarship.
April 2, 2019
Take from the rich and give to the poor!!! A very well written political history!!!
December 17, 2019
A lot of it I didn’t really understand, tbh. Maybe I’ll try again sometime. Oh, and RIP Lil Peep.
October 18, 2019
I have to admit I began this book a couple of times, but could not get too far into it. Written by a Harvard scholar it is meant for an academic audience. As a matter of fact, I think calling it a biography is a bit of a stretch as the focus of the book is on the political, legal and military events in the State of Morales during the Revolution. We learn nothing about Zapata as a person, a husband, father or why he became so passionate about agrarian reform. He seems to have appeared out of a village council of elders as a spokesman in a legal dispute involving a hacienda and inspired thousands to take up arms against the government. The reasons this transformation occurred is sketchy.
I was able to get further into the book this time because I have a greater base knowledge if the events and personages involved in Mexican Revolution. I also enjoy digging into the footnotes and source material and my Spanish has improved making those much easier read.
The Mexican army is often derided as corrupt and inefficient. I believe that the view does not take into consideration the Mexican military has been used almost exclusively as a club against it own people. How could any military maintain a healthy moral when it is led by flawed generals in defense of flawed principals against opponents who consider themselves the true Mexican patriots.
I would highly recommend this book but caution the reader to not delve into the source material. The Mexican sources are very rare and inaccessible. Once you find the information the language is very dated.
I was able to get further into the book this time because I have a greater base knowledge if the events and personages involved in Mexican Revolution. I also enjoy digging into the footnotes and source material and my Spanish has improved making those much easier read.
The Mexican army is often derided as corrupt and inefficient. I believe that the view does not take into consideration the Mexican military has been used almost exclusively as a club against it own people. How could any military maintain a healthy moral when it is led by flawed generals in defense of flawed principals against opponents who consider themselves the true Mexican patriots.
I would highly recommend this book but caution the reader to not delve into the source material. The Mexican sources are very rare and inaccessible. Once you find the information the language is very dated.
August 14, 2019
If you are looking for the typical popular biography, where the focus is the individual and the individual’s foibles and colorful life, you will be disappointed. This biography had its roots in a Ph.D thesis, and there is a carefully footnoted academic remove in the tone. Instead, we get a thorough review of Zapata’s political actions, his social impact, and how the Mexican revolution looked from a smaller province a short distance from the capital. (A military minded reader will be disappointed. You don’t get a clear vision of Zapata’s campaigns.)
The biography starts slow — and it is frankly confusing to those of us who don’t know much about pre-revolutionary Mexican history. As Zapata remakes the power structure in his province, it does get easier to follow. The ebb and flow of the revolution, as it effects Zapata, is interesting, as is the brief shining period when it looks like Zapata wins. But Zapata is killed, and...
Well, read the book. The coda to Zapata’s life is movingly told, and these final 75-100 pages is the portion where the author finds his voice.
The biography starts slow — and it is frankly confusing to those of us who don’t know much about pre-revolutionary Mexican history. As Zapata remakes the power structure in his province, it does get easier to follow. The ebb and flow of the revolution, as it effects Zapata, is interesting, as is the brief shining period when it looks like Zapata wins. But Zapata is killed, and...
Well, read the book. The coda to Zapata’s life is movingly told, and these final 75-100 pages is the portion where the author finds his voice.
February 10, 2021
Despite being over 50 years old, Zapata and the Mexican Revolution remains an excellent narrative history of Emiliano Zapata's role in the Mexican Revolution. Womack's writing is excellent, bringing historical figures to startling life and making the immense complexity of the Mexican Revolution into something approaching coherence. Chronicling political intrigue, rife with betrays and assassinations Zapata and the Mexican Revolution reads at times like Game of Thrones, albeit with a great deal more discussion about agriculture and land reform. If anyone has an interest in learning more about the Mexican Revolution, Womack's book is an excellent, very accessible starting point.
March 19, 2019
Very thorough examination of Zapata's role in the Mexican Revolution. Appropriate for a history class or those who love history enough to slog though a typical history tome. A perfect example why the vast majority of readers do not read history books. Unfortunately, it is very common for the historian to take a very exciting and dramatic period and make it a hard read. I would say the author is a better historian than writer.
September 12, 2015
Morgan thought I should read this so I can better understand the context of A is for Activist, and so I can explain to Sam what a Zapatista is.
***
One year later, I'm trying again, but this time, I'm making a glossary.
***
And yet, for all my careful note taking, it wasn't until page 270 that I made the connection that Francisco Villa is the same person as Pancho Villa.
***
One year later, I'm trying again, but this time, I'm making a glossary.
***
And yet, for all my careful note taking, it wasn't until page 270 that I made the connection that Francisco Villa is the same person as Pancho Villa.
June 28, 2015
A meticulously researched history, using primary sources. It focuses on the Zapatista movement, treating the rest of the Mexican revolution in no more than broad strokes. Colored by an evident romantic attachment to the cause of farming villages' rights. Sometimes bogs down in the swirling mix of politicians, military chiefs, and realigned loyalties.
Still, it has a strong and useful focus, and does its job well.
Still, it has a strong and useful focus, and does its job well.
May 9, 2019
For someone who knew nothing of the Mexican Revolution save that there was one, and was passingly familiar with certain names (such as Pancho Villa) this was a good introduction to the Revolution and one of its most prominent leaders. Focusing mainly on a single state (Morelos) John Womack gives us a picture of the man and his times, though he perhaps praises him too much. There are hints at Zapatas flaws but not a great exploration. Still worth the read.
October 30, 2015
Extremely informative and answered a lot of questions I had. It was exciting to have already been most of the way through the book when I visited Mexico. I saw a statue of Zapata in Cholula, Puebla and actually knew what it meant, and was sitting in Mexico City's Zocalo when I read about the battle there.
June 1, 2014
Very well researched. About the agrarian reform movement in Mexico in early 20th Century and life of Zapata, Zapatista movement and state of Morelos.
December 3, 2014
"I am resolved to struggle against everything and everybody."
July 31, 2015
Una biografía clásica que, en su momento, fue de las mejores disponibles. La apertura de nuevos archivos ha modificado algunos datos, por lo que sería conveniente una actualización.
May 21, 2016
"Viva Zapata" my birth name Zapata Y.Que. with Pride
June 3, 2024
Extraordinarily readable and engaging despite the detail, this book is a parade of names, places, decisions, actions, and consequences woven through the person of Emiliano Zapata.
Womack tells Zapata's story with respect and admiration but also an appropriate distance. Zapata emerges flawed, a bit of a rube, stubborn, at times strategically innovative, at times a step behind his contemporaries, but always intensely loyal to Anenecuilco.
Womack focuses on Zapata throughout but does a great job of contextualizing Zapata and the Morelos revolutionaries within broader national and international conditions. What emerges is a powerful story of the making of a legend and the making of the modern Mexican state.
Womack tells Zapata's story with respect and admiration but also an appropriate distance. Zapata emerges flawed, a bit of a rube, stubborn, at times strategically innovative, at times a step behind his contemporaries, but always intensely loyal to Anenecuilco.
Womack focuses on Zapata throughout but does a great job of contextualizing Zapata and the Morelos revolutionaries within broader national and international conditions. What emerges is a powerful story of the making of a legend and the making of the modern Mexican state.
December 10, 2021
The politics and factional maneuvering in this historical account are so juicy it really filled a void that Game of Thrones left behind
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews