normal_post - The Mexican Revolution 1910-1940 - Book Reviews Author Topic: The Mexican Revolution 1910-1940  (Read 1012 times)


  • *****
  • avatar_240_1418794287 - The Mexican Revolution 1910-1940 - Book Reviews
  • Posts: 54226
  • medal1 - The Mexican Revolution 1910-1940 - Book Reviewsmedal2 - The Mexican Revolution 1910-1940 - Book Reviewsmedal3 - The Mexican Revolution 1910-1940 - Book Reviewsmedal4 - The Mexican Revolution 1910-1940 - Book Reviewsmedal5 - The Mexican Revolution 1910-1940 - Book Reviewsmedal6 - The Mexican Revolution 1910-1940 - Book Reviews
  • Be the change you want to see in the world...
    • Share Post
xx - The Mexican Revolution 1910-1940 - Book Reviews
The Mexican Revolution 1910-1940
« on: November 20, 2007, 03:21:30 PM »
From reading Michael Gonzales’ The Mexican Revolution 1910-1940, I realized that one of its flaws was that there was a failure in going in depth in certain topics that were in the book. One example of this was that although the author states that the Mexican Revolution was popular and agrarian-based, he doesn’t support this by not citing specific examples of socio-economic factors. It would have been better had Gonzales given social and cultural accounts of his points by giving specific examples instead of being so wide-scoped in the end. What I mean by this is that Gonzales effectively summarizes the contributions of revolutionary leaders such as Francisco I. Madero, Pancho Villa, Emiliano Zapata, Alvaro Obregon and Venustiano Carranza, as well as President Diaz, but doesn’t go into the socioeconomic factors of these characters. From reading the biography of the book as well as knowing Gonzales was responsible for writing prior works that covered labor as well as economic topics, it was rather disappointing that Gonzales didn’t make reference to those in this book.
I would say that the book’s weakness is its strength, what I mean by this is that it effectively covers amount of history within a limited amount of space, however it is this time constraint that makes the book weak in terms of specifics. Due to such a massive time line covered, it leads to factual errors to manifest, such is observed in page 93 when Gonzales stated that the Bernardo Reyes revolt occurred in 1912, when realistically it began in 1911. These are minor examples of how Gonzales’ broad-aspect focus and evasion of specific detail undermines the work. Essentially, I think that the book would have been better had Gonzales cited more examples and stories that could have strengthened the motives of Zapata, Madero and other revolutionary leaders. 


Share via facebook Share via linkedin Share via pinterest Share via tumblr Share via twitter

Latest Topics

Lebron plus Davis by balong
[Today at 05:05:03 AM]

The Warriors are one game away from elimination, and their dynasty is one step c by balong
[Today at 04:58:30 AM]

WW3 US vs Iran by balong
[Today at 04:34:41 AM]

sea of black by balong
[Today at 01:02:24 AM]

Inspiring Quotes by balong
[Yesterday at 07:34:27 PM]

Choosing a Party-List by
[Yesterday at 01:34:53 PM]

No Internet Shops During School Hours by
[Yesterday at 01:33:28 PM]

Makati Police Officer Commended for Kindness by
[Yesterday at 01:32:10 PM]

Modernizing the Philippine National Police by
[Yesterday at 01:29:11 PM]

How to Avoid Investment Scam by
[Yesterday at 01:27:47 PM]

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk
Powered by SMFPacks SEO Pro Mod | Sitemap
Mobile View
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2019, SimplePortal