Revisionism and the Recent Historiography of the Mexican Revolution

THE Mexican Revolution continues to attract the attention of scholars, and the flow of writing shows no sign of abating. Even specialists find themselves overtaxed to read-and sometimes to locate-the books, articles and dissertations that pour forth, not only in Mexico and in the United States but also in a half-dozen other countries. There are several reasons for the topic's durability, apart from its undeniable fascination. For North Americans, who still dominate the field in terms of scholarly production, there is the appeal of Mexico's proximity for research trips and a seemingly inexhaustible supply of source materials. Moreover, the Revolution was among the first Latin American specializations claimed by U.S. historians, and that early lead, seconded by the work of a numerous academic progeny, won for revolutionary studies a respected niche in college and university curricula. Even after U.S. attention shifted away from Mexico after World War II, the subject's popularity did not wane. The upheavals that swept the post-war world sparked new interest in the phenomenon of revolution and the Mexican experience took on added significance, as a case study and as a base for comparative analysis. By the 1960s Mexican revolutionary studies had reached a maturity that rivaled the larger and more established fields of European and U.S. history. Papers and commentaries offered at the international congresses on Mexican history at Oaxtepec in 1969 and especially at Santa Monica in 1973 showed dramatically how diverse the field has become,' and few indeed are the recent publications on the Revolution that fail to produce surprises of one kind or another. Today there is a historiography that is almost as complex as the Revolution itself.