The Mexican Revolution was a time period that lasted from 1910 to 1920 and called for social, political, and economic change. This powerful rebellion is considered as the first major revolution of the 20th century that began the expression of nationalism. One of the revolutionary leaders during this era of revolt was Francisco “Pancho” Villa. Social justice can be defined as the fight against unfair and uneven opportunities in order to achieve equality among the lower masses and the wealthy upper class. Pancho Villa fought for social justice in the Mexican Revolution by fighting against the dictatorships of Porfirio Diaz and Victoriano Huerta, and providing jobs while maintaining haciendas in the North. American newspapers portrayed Pancho
…show more content…
The subtitle of the article is important to take notice of due to the diction chosen to detail Villa. Villa is shown as a “conqueror of Chihuahua” and the “taker of Juarez,” as if his achievements are negative and even hurtful to the local Mexicans (“Villa, Bandit and Brute” 1). The New York Times also manages to insult Villa through a description of his appearance where he was a “vicious faced man of 35” who was “crude of speech” and “in every way unattractive and repulsive” (“Villa, Bandit and Brute” 1). In addition, Villa is compared to General Huerta, who became president after murdering Madero. Huerta is “a saint compared to the outlaw of the mountains of Chihuahua” as Huerta is “mild and innocent” while Villa is crazy criminal and bandit (“Villa, Bandit and Brute” 1). The reason the New York Times portrayed Villa in such a pessimistic perspective is because of the “unusual number of murders and robberies to his credit” (“Villa, Bandit and Brute” 1). Although Pancho Villa fought against the dictatorships in the revolution and provided jobs to help other Mexicans, he is perceived as an “out-and-out bandit” along with his followers “numbering a hundred or more of the worst characters” in Mexico (“Villa, Bandit and Brute” 1). Villa managed to become general of his army, the Division of the North, and forced …show more content…
Although Villa wanted social reform, American newspaper focused most on his wicked side where he committed crimes and murder. He was considered an outlaw, bandit, and a rebel due to his troublesome ways by many, yet he knew that society needed change and decided to take action along with others such as Zapata and Orozco. Francisco Villa is a legend that will live on due to his influence on Mexico and its people. Work Cited
“Francisco Villa Surrendered.” (1920, Jul 29). Los Angeles Times (1886-1922) Retrieved from http://libproxy.csun.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.csun.edu/docview/160777209?accountid=7285
Quirk, Robert E. The Mexican Revolution, 1914-1915: The Convention of Aguascalientes. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1960. Print.
“VILLA, BANDIT AND BRUTE, MAY BE MEXICAN PRESIDENT.” (1913, Dec 14). New York Times (1857-1922) Retrieved from
The subtitle of the article is important to take notice of due to the diction chosen to detail Villa. Villa is shown as a “conqueror of Chihuahua” and the “taker of Juarez,” as if his achievements are negative and even hurtful to the local Mexicans (“Villa, Bandit and Brute” 1). The New York Times also manages to insult Villa through a description of his appearance where he was a “vicious faced man of 35” who was “crude of speech” and “in every way unattractive and repulsive” (“Villa, Bandit and Brute” 1). In addition, Villa is compared to General Huerta, who became president after murdering Madero. Huerta is “a saint compared to the outlaw of the mountains of Chihuahua” as Huerta is “mild and innocent” while Villa is crazy criminal and bandit (“Villa, Bandit and Brute” 1). The reason the New York Times portrayed Villa in such a pessimistic perspective is because of the “unusual number of murders and robberies to his credit” (“Villa, Bandit and Brute” 1). Although Pancho Villa fought against the dictatorships in the revolution and provided jobs to help other Mexicans, he is perceived as an “out-and-out bandit” along with his followers “numbering a hundred or more of the worst characters” in Mexico (“Villa, Bandit and Brute” 1). Villa managed to become general of his army, the Division of the North, and forced …show more content…
Although Villa wanted social reform, American newspaper focused most on his wicked side where he committed crimes and murder. He was considered an outlaw, bandit, and a rebel due to his troublesome ways by many, yet he knew that society needed change and decided to take action along with others such as Zapata and Orozco. Francisco Villa is a legend that will live on due to his influence on Mexico and its people. Work Cited
“Francisco Villa Surrendered.” (1920, Jul 29). Los Angeles Times (1886-1922) Retrieved from http://libproxy.csun.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.csun.edu/docview/160777209?accountid=7285
Quirk, Robert E. The Mexican Revolution, 1914-1915: The Convention of Aguascalientes. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1960. Print.
“VILLA, BANDIT AND BRUTE, MAY BE MEXICAN PRESIDENT.” (1913, Dec 14). New York Times (1857-1922) Retrieved from