Who Is Emiliano Zapata?

Emiliano Zapata has garnered a cult of personality that shares a common trait with myths from the beginning of time in which people would create gods to worship and heroes to admire. Zapata was a revolutionary during the Mexican Revolution who stands out as one of the most admirable figures in Mexican history. From the state of Morelos near the city of Mexico, he started a practical movement for land redistribution in his home state that transforms into an ideology of rebelling against bad government and a true representation of the majority of Mexico. Zapata’s myth by this time has become ubiquitous in Mexico in which highways, streets, and a statue show his significance in Mexican history and various books were written about his life and
after his death. His myth had to arise from somewhere and in his case; he would become popular mainly through the transformation of his ideal into something universal. The rise of Zapata's myth as a symbol for the common people would come about through the artists of corridos, murals, and movies all contributing to the image of Zapata spreading it throughout Mexico and the United States.
Francisco Madero inspiring many to rebel against the Porfiarian system sparked the Mexican revolution. Francisco Madero, a wealthy man that believed that Mexico needed a proper election, would start the revolution from the idea that Mexico needs to remove Porfirio Diaz, in which many other revolutionaries would arise either to contribute to violence or as a way to change the system a little. The Porfiarian system left many people out in a political and social sense. A major trend that started in the reform period yet became prevalent in the Porfiarian time would be the concentration of land in fewer owners. From the system of order and prosperity, many factions named after the leader they follow. Although Francisco Madero would spark the revolution, he would not lead it and since all the revolutionaries had their own motivations, they would fight for what was convenient for themselves.
One of the few Revolutionaries that cared about his people was Emiliano Zapata, who would fight and die for the redistribution targeting his home state of Morelos but in order to legitimize his movement, he would draft the Plan de Ayala.
For its time the plan would be revolutionary, but looking into it is rather conservative. The way of seeing this is in article seven, which says “…the lands, forest and waters are monopolized in only a few hands: for this reason, we expropriate without previous indemnization one third of those monopolies from the powerful proprietors …this shall correct the lack of prosperity and increase the well-being of the Mexicans.” This is conservative compared to communist or socialist standard, since it allows the hacendado to keep two-thirds of their lands, yet this would be the necessary step to start the issue of agrarian reform. This document also held an almost sacred level for Zapata and the Zapatista since this represented Zapata’s vision of working society for Morelos. His idea of land redistribution and comes from his motivation for helping the campesinos of Morelos. Campesinos as Womack says is a better term than peasant is since the latter seems exotic compared to the former, which means people from the field. One of the most admirable aspect of Zapata comes from his single-minded motivation to represent the campesino cause of agrarian reform, the fact coming from drafting this document when Francisco Madero broke too many promises about
land reform. A sign of the times being so awful is that Plan of Ayala would be made and even with the provision that allow Hacendados to keep their lands, he still had to fight up until his death. Although he had a disorganized army, he would achieve a sphere of influence that would include his home state, Guerrero, Oaxaca, and part of the city of Mexico. He would be involved in the removal of both Díaz and his successor Victorian Huerta. The end of Zapata’s life would come about through the machinations of Venustiano Carranza. Pablo Gonzalez, the general of the federal army in Morelos, under Carranza's orders had to have Zapata assassinated, in which Jesus Guajardo was used as a type of double agent to lure Zapata into a trap. Zapata would end up dead in the hacienda of Chinameca. Therefore, one of the most important event in his life would be his death since like some historical figures that died for their cause; he would be a martyr, similar to Aristotle, Jesus Christ, Abraham Lincoln and a whole lot of names. Although killed for political reasons by Carranza, his death would be one of the greatest factors to preserve his legacy. To reiterate, although his movement would be rather conservative, by having him die while fighting for a cause, this would help in making him become a legend since the campesinos of Morelos viewed the act as showing the fear of the central government toward Zapata. In 1919, many corridos would give Zapata’s death significance and start the process of myth making by adding in new elements.
Corridos play the role of being the source of news for the majority of Mexico. In the case of Mexico, a majority of the Mexican campesino would be illiterate. Obviously, Mexico still had newspapers, but the educated sector of the population would read them. Therefore, rural Mexican people would learn about the revolution from singers. A corrido is a unique Mexican genre similar to a ballad, which tells stories of local and national interest such as the story of a train, a ghost, and revolutionaries. Although all the revolutionaries would get a few songs about them, Zapata would get some that aggrandize him, show that he was an example to follow.
The start of Zapata’s myth comes from the corridos that would sing about the example he gave Mexico and shows the influence of the common people in his myth. A prime example of a song that aggrandizes him calls him a as a true patriot that differs from those who use their military experience for government posts. An interesting line said in Romero Flores anthology of corridos has the line, “Zapata fue un gran patriota/cual pudo serlo Obregon/ nunca de sangre una gota / rego por vias de ambicion.” The lines describe Zapata as a great patriot who did not kill for the sake of ambition and invoking Obregon as being a good man that used his military background for political ambitions. Although not exclusively a Mexican problem, politics in would be very corrupt. In this way, the idea that Zapata rather than follow with the common idea of garnering power and influence in order for his own benefit, Zapata shows Mexico's desire for a leader that cares for the state of Mexico in earnest. Although in his life he would represent the people of Morelos, his death gave the singers a man that died with integrity. An idea of Zapata would be created through songs like this one that would help build up the status of Zapata into a man that represents the nation. His single-minded motivation for the redistribution of land is implicitly reinforced in songs like this. Although these songs would simplify him since there can only be so much lyrics for a song, they would help spread his name and ideas throughout Mexico. These singers would base their songs on newspaper and the stories they heard from the common people.
A thread of some corridos includes the idea that Zapata had premonitions for his death and gives advice.
As one song says, “una mujer se acerco / a Zapata desmayada,/ diciendole que Guajardo/ queria hacerle una celada.” In this corrido, Zapata foresaw the plan of Pablo Gonzalez, similar to a prophecy, yet he still goes to the Hacienda. The idea that Zapata would not go down without a fight would be present in this song since the singer by adding the idea that Zapata was suspicious of Guajardo. Another part of the myth of Zapata would be that he was wealthy. Corrido de la Triste Despedida de Emiliano Zapata would include various stanzas of farewell to the land of Mexico, from the mountains, valleys, caves, states, and to the people he cared about. This song also includes the lines that say, “…les encargo a mis muchachos/ Saquen todito el dinero/ que deje bien enterrado, / busquenlo cerro por cerro.” In this song, the singer uses Zapata as a mouthpiece to say what he will miss in this world and in the middle tells his children to find the money that he has hidden well around the hills. The idea of hidden wealth reflects the campesino believing that Zapata being a smart man would have left money for his family. This further places he idea that the singer would have heard the stories surrounding Zapata and incorporate it in his song to be heard wherever he went. These songs would help in spreading the myth of Zapata and would influence his image by becoming a national
hero.
In the period that followed the revolution, Diego Rivera, David Alfaro Siqueiros, and Jose Clemente Orozco would become famous for presenting the history of Mexico, and of the three Rivera and Orozco would present their interpretation of Zapata, showing the symbolic strength of Zapata and the prevalence of his myth. Artists are as well as a proxy for the popular imagination since many ideas that they would express in their art would be what a section society. This reflects back on the manner in which many Mexicans during 1920 and 1930 being illiterate would come to understand their history and identity through their murals. Out of these artists, the one who would make Zapata into a hero would be Diego Rivera. The mural originally painted in the archway of the Palacio de Cortes in Cuernavaca includes the history of Morelos in which Zapata is present. The image shows Zapata in a white campesino clothes also called calzones, in which he holds in his left arm a sickle. He holds the reigns to a white horse that shares in the center in the MOMA mural. He stands over a dead hacienda official that lies on the floor, and has a mass of campesino behind him holding farming tools as weapons. This portrayal of Zapata gives the most positive view of Zapata, partly from Rivera’s politics and the influences of the stories told about the man. This portrayal makes Zapata into a campesino messiah. By doing this, the image of Zapata becomes more relatable, since rather than have his charro that would make him seem elitist; he truly looks like one of the people. Rivera as Brunk writes blurred the line between his death and life when portraying Zapata as a Christ figure. In this way, Zapata would live on as long as people still desired to fight for the right of ownership of their lands as the mural shows him as a Jesus figure that helps the poor common people. Although Rivera would have been in Europe for most of the revolutionary period, this does not diminish his contribution of making Zapata into a hero. David Alfaro Siqueiros would even accuse Rivera of being a mystical Zapatista based on another mural of Rivera that presented Zapata as Christ in a red robe .
The muralist, Jose Clemente Orozco had the most negative view of the revolution, and expressed in his paintings of Zapata. The image has a darker tone of black and red and has two people on their knees one being a woman and the other having their back to the portrait. Zapata would loom in the doorway with two Zapatista soldiers on his sides. Compared to the other muralist, Orozco’s gives a more complex view of Zapata since it leaves it ambiguous if the people on their knees mourn a soldier that died or are going to be killed. Orozco’s art focuses more on themes of suffering, and the power of machines, and he did not deal with any heroes of the revolution, yet by the time he reached the US, he would create his own portrayal of Zapata. Rather than show Zapata to be vicious himself, the painting shows the corrupting power of the revolution, showing the later phase in which death became more prevalent. Although an ambiguous image of Zapata, it shows the basic evil of the revolution than anything Zapata ever did himself. Out of these two portrayals of Zapata, the one that would be ubiquitous would be those of Rivera because he put him in his murals while Orozco made painting of him that was donated to museums in the US. The myth of Zapata would migrate to the north through the influence of this artwork, which the mythmakers of the world gave their interpretation of Zapata.
In most traditional myths, the finalizing of a story comes when it is expressed in a play and myth of Zapata can be culminated into the film, which mixes the historical aspects along with myths in Viva Zapata! In all, the movie as a whole shows the power of Zapata’s myth since it was a movie produced by an American movie studio, written by John Steinbeck and would have an actor that would be considered one of the greatest of his generation, Marlon Brando. The way in which his life is portrayed is rather faithful to various sources that describe his life. The movie itself gives a faithful representation of Zapata’s life, but still presents elements of the myth of Zapata. One of interesting note is one that although has a source, it is questionable whether it actually occurred. Gildardo Magaña, a Zapatista intellectual that became an emissary to Villa and successor to Zapata, gives an account of Zapata’s meeting with Francisco Madero, which the movie takes line for line. Zapata reasons with Madero that he and his army cannot give up their weapons comparing it to stealing the watch of the president. He has the right to keep it and the president without a weapon must allow him to keep the watch. If they meet again and Madero has a weapon, does he have the right to reclaim his watch? Madero would say that he does and Zapata says that this is the situation of the Hacendados and that the campesinos simply want to take back what is theirs. This quote, which in part some sources use as fact, while others questions presents the contrast in what the Mexican people came to understand about the revolution. This event shows man from a small state desiring to remove the politics of an issue and show the truth of the situation. Zapata may have initially followed Madero, but this would start from Zapata asserting his goal of agrarian reform for his home state and after many broken promises; he would draft and follow the Plan of Ayala for the rest of his life.
Viva Zapata! ending also presents the common idea of the preservation of his idea and the need for him to die. The end of the movie has him in the hacienda of Chinameca, in which a white horse is presented to him along with ammunition and weapons to continue fighting. The horse gets scared and runs away while Zapata is killed from a barrage of bullets shot from soldiers that were hidden in the roof and crevices of the hacienda. The military officers try to remove any doubt about his death by throwing his lifeless body in the center of the plaza, but some of the villagers refuse to think him dead and instead think he escaped to the mountains, and the scene ends with a white horse on a hill. The last scene in this movie culminates in showing the various influences of both the people of Mexico and the influence that artist have since through corridos, the idea of Zapata being warned is present and the idea that he could not die is included in the myth, to return another time. The image of the white horse which was introduced by the artwork of Diego Rivera, showing the purity of his ideal and a symbol of himself, since he was famous horseman.
The myth of Emiliano Zapata developed and spread throughout Mexico and the United States through the popular culture in which corridos, Murals, and a movie present the best example of its early and late stage of development. The spread of his myth shows that not only Mexico, but also the human need to elevate a person after their death if they fought for a cause. What his legacy shows is that even death cannot stop an idea.