Explore the vast range of titles available.

Forced Marchesis a collection of innovative essays that analyze how the military experience molded Mexican citizens in the years between the initial war for independence in 1810 and the consolidation of the revolutionary order in the 1940s. The contributors-well-regarded scholars from the United States and the United Kingdom-offer fresh interpretations of the Mexican military, caciquismo, and the enduring pervasiveness of violence in Mexican society. Employing the approaches of the new military history, which emphasizes the relationships between the state, society, and the \"official\" militaries and \"unofficial\" militias, these provocative essays engage (and occasionally do battle with) recent scholarship on the early national period, the Reform, the Porfiriato, and the Revolution.When Mexico first became a nation, its military and militias were two of the country's few major institutions besides the Catholic Church. The army and local provincial militias functioned both as political pillars, providing institutional stability of a crude sort, and as springboards for the ambitions of individual officers. Military service provided upward social mobility, and it taught a variety of useful skills, such as mathematics and bookkeeping.In the postcolonial era, however, militia units devoured state budgets, spending most of the national revenue and encouraging locales to incur debts to support them. Men with rifles provided the principal means for maintaining law and order, but they also constituted a breeding-ground for rowdiness and discontent. As these chapters make clear, understanding the history of state-making in Mexico requires coming to terms with its military past.

In October 1931, Governor Bartolomé García Correa and Socialist Party activists violently closed Carlos R. Menéndez’s Diario de Yucatán for being reactionary. Defenders of the Diario denounced the governor for illegally silencing the voice of what today we would understand to be civil society. After a seventeen-month struggle in the courts, the national press, and in Mexico City’s bureaucracy, Menéndez prevailed. This article closely examines the conflict, using regional and national archives and abundant contemporary press coverage, paying careful attention to discursive expression of socioethnic inequalities. It reveals significant limits on the regional independent press and the concept of civil society during the formative period in postrevolutionary Mexico known as the Maximato (the 1928–35 era dominated by Plutarco Elías Calles as hyperexecutive or Jefe Máximo). During the Maximato, the postrevolutionary state employed authoritarian measures to centralize power. The Maximato state, however, could not govern without acknowledging both the Constitution of 1917’s classical liberal civil rights, such as freedom of the press and guarantees of associational life, and the revolutionary political legacy of popular action against “reaction.” In the Yucatecan case, the muzzling of the regional independent press was not simply top-down illiberalism. Yucatecan socialists believed it would help create a more egalitarian and inclusive socio-political order to supplant civil society. The Diario’s exclusivist definition of civil society and the national press’s personal attacks on García Correa reflected widespread beliefs that people of indigenous and African descent were incapable of taking part in civic life. While Menéndez eventually prevailed in the courts, it was due more to his economic and cultural capital and prominent Mexico City allies than to legal protections for press freedom or civil-society resistance. The case helps us to understand how the latter two varied so significantly over place and time in postrevolutionary Mexico, and why Tocquevillian notions of civil society require careful qualification when applied to poor, overwhelmingly indigenous regions of Mexico. En octubre de 1931, el gobernador Bartolomé García Correa y activistas del partido socialista de Yucatán cerraron violentamente el Diario de Yucatán, perteneciente a Carlos R. Menéndez, por ser reaccionario. Los defensores del Diario denunciaron el acto como un intento ilegal para callar la voz de lo que actualmente consideramos la sociedad civil. Después de una lucha de diecisiete meses en los tribunales, la prensa nacional y la burocracia federal en México, Menéndez prevaleció. Este artículo examina de cerca el conflicto, utilizando archivos regionales y nacionales y la abundante cobertura de la prensa de aquellos años, poniendo especial atención a la expresión discursiva de las desigualdades socioétnicas. Este artículo revela los límites significativos de la prensa regional independiente y el concepto de la sociedad civil durante el periodo formativo del México posrevolucionario conocido como el Maximato (la época 1928–35 dominada por Plutarco Elías Calles como híperejecutivo o Jefe Máximo). Durante el Maximato, el Estado utilizó métodos autoritarios para centralizar el poder. Sin embargo, el Maximato no podía gobernar sin considerar las garantías clásicas liberales de los derechos civiles de la Constitución de 1917, como la libertad de prensa, la garantía de libertad de asociación o la herencia política revolucionaria de la acción popular contra la “reacción”. En el caso yucateco, amordazar a la prensa regional independiente no era un caso de iliberalismo desde arriba. Los socialistas yucatecos creían que el ataque contra el Diario sería una manera para establecer un orden sociopolítico más igualitario e inclusivo para reemplazar la sociedad civil. La definición exclusivista de la sociedad civil del Diario y los ataques personales de la prensa nacional contra García Correa reflejaron creencias diseminadas sobre que las personas de descendencia indígena y africana eran incapaces de tomar parte en la vida civil. Aunque Menéndez prevaleció en los tribunales, su victoria se debió más a su capital económico y cultural, a más de sus aliados prominentes en México, que a las protecciones legales de la libertad de prensa o la resistencia de la sociedad civil. Este caso ayuda a entender como las dos últimas variaban tanto dependiendo el lugar y el tiempo en la época posrevolucionaria de México, y porque las nociones Tocquevillianas de la sociedad civil requieren una calificación cuidadosa cuando se aplican a regiones pobres, y abrumadoramente indígenas en México.

In October 1931, Governor Bartolomé García Correa and Socialist Party activists violently closed Carlos R. Menéndez’s Diario de Yucatán for being reactionary. Defenders of the Diario denounced the governor for illegally silencing the voice of what today we would understand to be civil society. After a seventeen-month struggle in the courts, the national press, and in Mexico City’s bureaucracy, Menéndez prevailed. This article closely examines the conflict, using regional and national archives and abundant contemporary press coverage, paying careful attention to discursive expression of socioethnic inequalities. It reveals significant limits on the regional independent press and the concept of civil society during the formative period in postrevolutionary Mexico known as the Maximato (the 1928–35 era dominated by Plutarco Elías Calles as hyperexecutive or Jefe Máximo). During the Maximato, the postrevolutionary state employed authoritarian measures to centralize power. The Maximato state, however, could not govern without acknowledging both the Constitution of 1917’s classical liberal civil rights, such as freedom of the press and guarantees of associational life, and the revolutionary political legacy of popular action against “reaction.” In the Yucatecan case, the muzzling of the regional independent press was not simply top-down illiberalism. Yucatecan socialists believed it would help create a more egalitarian and inclusive socio-political order to supplant civil society. The Diario’s exclusivist definition of civil society and the national press’s personal attacks on García Correa reflected widespread beliefs that people of indigenous and African descent were incapable of taking part in civic life. While Menéndez eventually prevailed in the courts, it was due more to his economic and cultural capital and prominent Mexico City allies than to legal protections for press freedom or civil-society resistance. The case helps us to understand how the latter two varied so significantly over place and time in postrevolutionary Mexico, and why Tocquevillian notions of civil society require careful qualification when applied to poor, overwhelmingly indigenous regions of Mexico.

During the Mexican Revolution, male revolutionaries in Mexico repeatedly tried to suppress confession by invoking the trope of the sexually predatory priest menacing weak, superstitious women. Campaigns against the rite resulted from long-standing gender divisions over the Church, fears of Catholic counter-revolution, and male revolutionaries' drive to modernise marriage as companionate and secular but still patriarchal. Although ultimately unsuccessful as policy, attacks on the confession strengthened radical anticlericalism. By equating masculinity with reason, nation and progress while painting femininity as vulnerable, fanatical and potentially treasonous, the campaigns subtly shaped gender roles and helped to consolidate post-revolutionary patriarchy. Revolucionarios masculinos en México trataron repetidamente de suprimir la confesión al utilizar la figura del sacerdote sexualmente rapaz contra a mujeres débiles y supersticiosas. Las campañas en contra del ritual fueron el resultado de un anticlericalismo historicamente mayor entre hombres que entre mujeres, los temores de una contrarrevolución católica, y el deseo de revolucionarios masculinos de modernizar el matrimonio como algo secular y consensual, aunque aún patriarcal. Aunque ultimadamente no tuvieron éxito como política, los ataques en contra de la confesión reforzaron el anticlericalismo radical. Al comparar a la masculinidad con la razón, la nación y el progreso, mientras se representaba a la feminidad como vulnerable, fanática y potencialmente traicionera, las campañas transformaron sutilmente los roles de género y ayudaron a consolidar el patriarcado postrevolucionario. Revolucionários do sexo masculino repetidamente tentavam sufocar o confessório ao utilizar a alusão de padres sexualmente predadores ameaçando mulheres supersticiosas e frágeis. Campanhas contra o rito resultaram de um anticlericalismo historicamente mais acentuado entre homens que entre mulheres, temores de contra-revolução católica e o desejo dos revolucionários em modernizar o matrimôio em uma instituição laica e mais consensual, porém ainda patriarcal. Apesar de mal-sucedida enquanto política, os ataques ao confessório fortaleceram o radicalismo anti-eclesiástico. Ao vincular a masculinidade com a razão, a nação e o progresso e figurar a feminilidade como vulnerável, fanática e potencialmente desleal, as campanhas sutilmente definiram papéis de gênero que ajudaram à consolidar posições pós-revolucionárias patriarcais.