Modern Mexican society has its roots in the interaction between two diverse civilizations, the American Indian and the Spanish. Mexican religion, political institutions, and land tenure systems and the racial composition of the Mexican people have all been influenced by these two elements. The Spaniards, the Indians, and their mestizos (mixed offspring) have shared a land limited in resources and a generally difficult climate. Their history has been characterized by poverty and struggle and by frequent and intense violence. Mesoamerican Civilization Prior to arrival of the Spanish the struggle for survival characterized Indian life. Frequent conflicts arose over competition for such resources as hunting grounds, arable lands, and irrigation water. Two types of civilizations emerged in \TMesoamerica\t: the highland, characterized by states and empires with elaborate class structures, advanced architecture, bureaucracies, and densely settled agrarian areas; and the lowland civilizations of primitive aboriginal groups with little social stratification, government, or architecture. The earliest inhabitants of Mexico were hunters. By the 1st or 2d millennium BC tribes of sedentary seed gatherers, the \LOlmec\ls, had settled in villages along the coastal plain at the southwestern edge of the Gulf of Mexico. These small and simply structured communities planted corn, beans, and squash. The basic tools were the stone ax and the wooden digging stick. This primitive form of agriculture led to deforestation, however, which caused soil erosion. The Classic Mayan and Central Highland Civilizations After about 400 BC the growing problem of a food supply forced the Indians to develop more complex forms of social organization. Their new civilizations had a social structure dominated by a ruling class of priests. From their ceremonial centers these priests, acting as the representatives of the gods, distributed land, allocated food surpluses, stored seed, sponsored trade, and employed skilled craftsworkers. Their religion was pantheistic. These theocracies of the so-called classic era in Mesoamerica first flourished soon after the birth of Christ; they reached their peak in the central highland cities of \TTeotihuacan\t and \TMonte Alban\t and in the great centers of the \LMaya\ls of southern Mexico and the area that is now Guatemala. These classic societies remained generally peaceful and nonexpansionist until about AD 750. A combination of natural disasters and overpopulation brought both the Mayas and the Teotihuacans to an end. The land could no longer produce the resources necessary to support the ceremonial centers. Warfare began, and the priestly rulers did not have the ideological tools to mediate the increasing conflict; deforestation and drought worsened the crisis. The growing opulence of the urban religious centers bred envy and then resentment in the hinterland villages whose labor provided the surplus needed to support the magnificence of those cities. Conflict began on the peripheries of these civilizations--where vigorous hunting cultures had survived. A spreading revolt probably interrupted trade, disrupting the food supply, and the great theocratic centers were either abandoned or conquered. Between 650 and 670 warlike peoples invaded, burned, and plundered Teotihuacan. The fall of Teotihuacan was followed by the collapse of Monte Alban and all the great Mayan centers. By AD 900, the golden age of pre-Columbian civilization had ended. The Toltecs and Aztecs Some of the Mayan survivors migrated to other areas and founded new cities; others became assimilated into the new conquering tribes, among them the Toltec. The new civilization that emerged has also been called \TToltec\t; it centered around the city of \TTula\t on the central plateau. These more militaristic tribes began to organize their society more rigidly. The Toltecs developed a complex society based on warfare and military expansion, intensive agriculture, and a tight network of government control. They levied tribute on the agriculture surplus of their subject tribes and widely practiced human sacrifice. The Toltecs flourished for three centuries, but by the 13th century, after a period of internecine struggle, Tula had fallen, and the Toltec peoples had dispersed. Their demise gave rise to a confused welter of states, constantly at war with one another, a situation that prevailed for the next two centuries. During the 15th century the \LAztec\ls, a warlike tribe that had once hired its warriors out to Tula as mercenaries, restored order. This tribe, also known as the Mexica, created a remarkable if short-lived empire. Three large cities, \TTenochtitlan\t (the capital), Tlacopan, and Texcoco, dominated their confederacy. The tribe organized itself into clans with stratified and pyramidal internal social hierarchies. At the top were the warriors and priests (about 3,000 in total). This group was tax-exempt except for the military service owed by the warriors; it dominated all high office and collected tribute from subordinate groups. The priests and warriors wore distinguishable insignia and dress, practiced polygamy, and monopolized land and the educational system. Beneath these nobles existed a servile class of free peasants and a mass of serfs. The pochteca, a group of non-Aztec merchants living in Tenochtitlan's twin city, Tlatelolco, controlled trade. The Aztecs practiced a polytheistic religion. The chief god, or teotl, was called \THuitzilopochtli\t; he was a god of the sun and of war. There were many lesser deities, among them \TQuetzalcoatl\t, a serpent god who symbolized the arts and morality. According to Aztec legend he had been exiled, but his return was expected to herald the end of Aztec civilization. Aztecs practiced a doomsday religion; their world, they believed, was frequently created and then consumed in recurrent disasters. Only constant warfare and human sacrifice would help to preserve their civilization. Aztec warriors captured males from the surrounding tribes for the needed sacrifices; other victims were obtained by tributes levied on subject tribes. The Aztecs generally left the local dynasties in place and levied tribute on the peasants. Seeking power and sacrificial victims, the Aztecs had expanded their power over much of Mexico by the 16th century. Although other tribes had similar practices, many of the conquered tribes hated their Aztec lords and were seething with revolt when the Spanish arrived. Spanish Conquest and Rule The Spanish conquest of Mexico, launched from Cuba, resulted eventually in the creation of a new, hybrid culture. Spanish political control lasted for three centuries. Conquest Hoping to found a colony that might supply mineral riches and a labor force to replace the quickly depleted indigenous population of the West Indies, Cuban Governor Diego de \TVelazquez de Cuellar\t sent a series of military expeditions to the mainland. These expeditions were led by adventurers known as \Tconquistadors\t. The first, under Francisco Hernandez de Cordoba (d. 1518?), reached the Yucatan Peninsula in 1517. The following year a second expedition, under Juan de Grijalva (d. 1527), reached the peninsula and explored the Mexican coast as far as the site of present-day Veracruz; from the Indians the members of this force heard of the magnificent empire of the Aztecs. The third expedition, led by the Spanish adventurer Hernan \Tcortes\t, succeeded in conquering the Aztecs in less than three years. Cortes landed in 1519 with 11 ships, about 600 men, 16 horses, and a few light cannon; he founded the town of \TVeracruz\t and proceeded inland. Many of the disgruntled Aztec subjects flocked to Cortes's side. He reached Tenochtitlan in November 1519 and soon captured the Aztec emperor, \TMontezuma II\t. Historians attribute Cortes's success in vanquishing the formidable imperial armies to superior technology, cleverness in posing as the god Quetzalcoatl, and adroit use of Indian mercenaries. After the Spaniards' initial successes, the Aztecs besieged Tenochtitlan; on the night of June 30-July 1, 1520, known as "la noche triste" (the night of sadness), Cortes retreated, causing many casualties among the Spanish and their Indian allies. The following summer, however, the Europeans, accompanied by thousands of Indian mercenaries, sacked and besieged Tenochtitlan. Their capital in ruins and their emperor dead, the Aztecs finally collapsed. Cortes named his conquest \TNew Spain\t and sent out expeditions to extend Spanish power over the continent. Pedro de \TAlvarado\t conquered (1523-24) the regions of Guatemala and El Salvador, which together then constituted much of Central America. The Rise of New Spain The Spanish crown rapidly sought to consolidate its new empire and slowly curbed Cortes's personal power. An \Taudiencia\t (royal court) was established in 1528, and the first viceroy, Antonio de \TMendoza\t, took office in 1535. The followers of Cortes received \Lencomienda\ls, grants of Indian villages from which they could collect tribute. These grants gave the colonists control over Indian labor and produce. Many of the clergy objected to the encomiendas. One Spanish missionary in particular, Bartolome de \TLas Casas\t, a former encomendero, argued for their suppression. The Indians themselves revolted (1541) unsuccessfully against Spanish control and abuses of the encomienda system in the Mixton War. The crown opposed the encomiendas both because they led to abuse of the Indians and because they seemed a reversion of feudal practices that challenged the central power of the monarchy. The Spanish ruler, Holy Roman Emperor \TCharles V\t, attempted to abolish or curb them--most notably by the so-called New Laws of the Indies of 1542. Twenty years later a group of leading colonists (led by Cortes's son) revolted in protest against attempts to diminish their power, but the viceroy put down the rebellion. The encomienda system declined gradually. In close alliance with the Roman Catholic church, the Spanish crown sought to create a well-ordered colony, free of feudal privilege and religious dissent. The Spanish religious orders (especially the Franciscans) were particularly successful. The friars capitalized both on the subject tribes' widespread hatred of the Aztecs and on the similarities between Catholicism and Indian folk religion to carry out mass conversions. In the Spaniards' eyes an Indian who accepted Christianity became theoretically humanized and, therefore, protected by Spanish law. The church often built its shrines on the sites of Indian idols. The friars made the conversions and then moved on to new frontiers. The secular clergy (parish priests) in turn organized the Christian communities. Missions and monasteries came to dominate much of the countryside. The Spanish crown and colonists controlled a vast wealth that had several sources. Silver mining underlay the colony's prosperity. Urban centers based on mining flourished at Zacatecas, Taxco, and Fresnillo (and later in Durango and Chihuahua). Large estates and ranches fed the mining centers. Other estates grew wheat, sugarcane, and indigo for export. Colonial merchants distributed such goods as cotton, silk, and dye that the Indians produced. Spain, however, following a policy of mercantilism, prohibited the colonists from manufacturing products that competed with goods shipped by or manufactured in Spain. New Spain became the crown jewel of a vast colonial empire. Period of Decline In the 17th century the economy of New Spain collapsed. Disease and overwork had combined to wipe out much of the Indian population. By 1700 only a little more than 1 million Indians survived in New Spain--out of an estimated population of 11 million or more in the 1520s and perhaps 7 million in the 1550s. In addition, the vast cattle and sheep herds destroyed farmland, and the Spanish monopolized irrigation water; it thus became almost impossible for the Indian farmers to grow food. Without labor the mines could no longer function. The population retreated into rural estates called haciendas, which became self-sufficient centers of political and economic power. The viceroyalty's frontiers continued to expand as friars and soldiers moved the borders into what are today the states of Texas and California. Throughout most of the 17th century, however, New Spain languished. Spain, itself in economic collapse, could provide little help. Bourbon Reforms In the 18th century a new Spanish dynasty, the Bourbons, reorganized the colonies. Political boundaries were reshuffled; the crown improved tax collection, reduced export and import duties, and appointed honest officials. The economy boomed. Mining production rose fourfold, and agriculture and trade increased. Acapulco flourished as a center of trade with the Orient; Veracruz dominated the Caribbean and European trade. The colonists also developed textile, rope, tobacco, china, and pulque (an alcoholic beverage) industries--all supported by locally produced raw materials. Puebla, the center of woolen mills and pottery, became a large urban center. Guanajuato and Guadalajara also became centers of wealth and industry. Mexico City, the colony's administrative center, grew to a population of 170,000. It housed the viceroy, a great university, a school of mines, and an audiencia. In 1800, New Spain enjoyed an enviable position. Mining, industry, and agriculture thrived; it possessed major centers of learning and urban administrative centers. The population had grown to 6.5 million--about 42% Indian, 18% white, and 38% mestizo. The viceroy's writ extended south to present-day Panama and north to California. The system contained, however, the seeds of its own destruction. Native-born criollos (Creoles, or people of European descent born in Spanish America) resented Spanish monopolization of political power and an economic system that favored the Spanish-born. Spain's authority was also eroded as its position as a world power declined. The rural masses lacked land and purchasing power, and thousands lived in urban slums. In addition, New Spain's territorial boundaries were too remote. No roads connected the frontier areas with the administrative centers, and troops for defense were in short supply. These problems led to a final break with Spain in the 1820s. Independence to 1910 Mexican independence came about at the convergence of two revolts. The first was led by two poor priests, Miguel \THidalgo y Costilla\t and Jose Maria \TMorelos y Pavon\t, and was directed against colonial officials. On Sept. 16, 1810, Hidalgo led an Indian uprising; his call for revolution, the Grito de Dolores (Cry of Sorrows; a rousing speech made in the town of Dolores), called for a new government and redistribution of land. Hidalgo's forces marched toward Mexico City under the banner of the Mexican Virgin of Guadalupe. In the meantime, Morelos led guerrilla forces in the south; he assumed leadership of the revolution after Hidalgo was executed (1811). The Spanish bureaucracy and rich criollos defeated the rebellion, however, and executed Morelos (1815) as well as other leaders. The second revolt occurred when these same wealthy criollos, who feared that Spain (then dominated by liberals) would acquiesce to demands for land redistribution, under the leadership of Agustin de \TIturbide\t and with the support of reactionary Spaniards, declared (1821) Mexico independent. Iturbide was proclaimed Emperor Agustin I in 1822, but the following year unpaid troops overthrew the fiscally plagued empire, set up a republic with Guadalupe Victoria (1786?-1843) as its first president, and ushered in 50 years of chaos. The Age of Santa Anna Historians have called the years between 1823 and 1855 "the Age of Santa Anna." Gen. Antonio Lopez de \TSanta Anna\t, one of the leaders of the coup that had overthrown Iturbide and several times president of Mexico, was more a representative than a dominant figure. Mexico faced staggering problems probably beyond the ability of any individual or group to solve. The government was saddled with an internal debt of millions of pesos incurred by Spain and Iturbide. Military expenses greatly exceeded revenue. The harassed government sought funds abroad, but foreign loans could be obtained only at heavy rates of interest and discount. Once the money reached Mexico, government officials spent it on second-hand war material or grafted it themselves. Bankrupt governments rose and fell. During this turbulent era, two groups competed for dominance. Liberals representing regional power centers and free-trading interests sought to model the new Mexican nation on the United States. Their rivals, the conservatives, were supported by the army, Mexico City and the other colonial administrative centers, and some manufacturers. Both parties eventually turned to the church's wealth to alleviate insurmountable fiscal problems. Santa Anna, sometimes a liberal, sometimes a conservative, moved in and out of power. By the 1850s this chaos had led to disaster. Mining virtually stopped, agriculture declined, and trade and industry suffered from internal tariffs, foreign competition, banditry, and political violence. Immigration was virtually nonexistent. Texas had declared its independence on Mar. 2, 1836 (see \TTexas Revolution\t), and by 1846, Mexico was embroiled in a war with the United States (see \TMexican War\t). The disunited Mexicans were routed, and in the peace treaty of \TGuadalupe Hidalgo\t, Mexico lost over half of its territory, including the area of the present U.S. states of California and New Mexico as well as northern Arizona. Mexico stood virtually ruined; the national debt had reached astronomical proportions; and the army had degenerated into banditry. In 1853, Santa Anna returned to power as "perpetual dictator" and sold southern Arizona to the United States for $10 million (see \TGadsden Purchase\t). Liberal Reforms In 1855 a brilliant group of liberals, led by Melchor Ocampo (1814-61), Ignacio Comonfort (1812-63), and the pure-blooded Indian Benito \TJuarez\t, forced Santa Anna from power and ended his dominance of Mexican national life. In order to restore the shattered economy the liberals decreed that the church had to sell most of its land and that Indian communal lands (ejidos) had to be distributed to individual peasants. These reforms did not create a rural middle class, however; the poor could not afford to purchase the newly available land. The liberals also promulgated (1857) a new constitution. Government revenue rose but most of it went to meet the costs of a new civil war, called the War of Reform (1858-61). The conservatives sought foreign help, and in 1862, \TNapoleon III\t of France sought to establish a Mexican empire under the Austrian prince Maximilian (see \TMaximilian, Emperor of Mexico\t). The liberals, led by Juarez, resisted bitterly. Although supported by French troops and Mexican conservatives, Maximilian could not consolidate his empire. The French withdrew in 1867, leaving the ill-fated emperor to meet his death. Juarez, then president, initiated various reforms to modernize Mexico, but he died in 1872. The liberals made many mistakes, but their accomplishments were impressive. They destroyed the excessive power of the army, the church, and other conservative elements. They institutionalized democratic principles in the federal constitution of 1857. Finally, their struggle against Maximilian created a sense of nationalism previously unknown in Mexico. The Age of Don Porfirio Juarez's liberal successors faltered, however, and in 1876 a general, Porfirio \TDiaz\t, seized power. Diaz effectively governed Mexico until the Revolution of 1910, serving as president from 1877 to 1880 and 1884 to 1911. During the age of Don Porfirio a new Mexico emerged. Diaz established order and workable government. Civil wars ceased, and eventually banditry disappeared from the countryside. Now provincial governors obeyed the law emanating from Mexico City. The army became professionalized. The Rurales, a militarized police force of several thousand, maintained order throughout the country. Diaz and the Cientificos, the group of wealthy intellectuals that advised him, adopted French positivism as a national creed. The positivists' worship of science, technology, and quantitative growth served as Diaz's ideological justification. Foreign investors rushed to take advantage of the new political and economic climate, and money poured in. The results were phenomenal. Exports and national income increased; new highways, railroads, and telegraph lines crossed Mexico; and new industries dotted the countryside. Foreign investment and technology revived mining and created major oil fields around Veracruz. Formerly despised for its backwardness, Mexico became the model for much of the then developing world. Porfirian Mexico, however, like New Spain in 1800, contained the seeds of its own destruction. The urban and rural masses remained impoverished. Mexicans of all classes hated the increasing foreign economic dominance. Finally a politically ambitious younger generation came to resent the 30-year dominance exercised by the Diaz clique. Modern Mexico Two major strikes--against the Cananea copper company in Sonora and the Rio Blanco textile mills in Veracruz--political discontent, and financial dislocations disturbed the last years of the Diaz dictatorship. The Revolution of 1910 and the regime's collapse, however, amazed the entire Western world. The Revolution The major direct cause of the revolt was Diaz's monopoly of political power. In 1908, perhaps to refute charges about the autocratic nature of his rule, he told a U.S. journalist, James Creelman (1859-1915), that Mexico would be ready for free elections in 1910. Once published, the interview inspired various discontented sectors to begin organizing. The opposition eventually coalesced around an eccentric northern landowner, Francisco I. \TMadero\t, who had the time, resources, and contacts to organize an effective political movement. Madero campaigned under the slogan, "effective suffrage and no reelection." Diaz rigged the election, however, and Madero led a revolt that spread rapidly throughout the nation. As the top-heavy, corrupt Diaz military organization collapsed, the old dictator fled. A moderate, Madero advocated neither social reforms nor any other drastic changes. He succeeded in angering not only the radical proponents of land reform and economic nationalism but also the landowners, who opposed all change and hated the new president's weakness. With conservative support, yet another general, Victoriano \THuerta\t, overthrew Madero, who was executed. Mexico again became engulfed in ruinous violence. In the north, Pancho \Tvilla\t, an ex-bandit, organized the local cowboys. In the south, Emiliano \TZapata\t, a small farmer, recruited an army of angry landless peasants. Other small armies joined the struggle against Huerta. The U.S. government under Woodrow Wilson imposed sanctions and even sent troops that occupied Veracruz for several months; Huerta, his army defeated, fled. In August 1914, however, Venustiano \TCarranza\t, a rich landowner who had supported Madero, assumed executive power, and civil war broke out between his forces and those of Villa in the north and Zapata in the south. In 1915 the U.S. government recognized Carranza as head of a de facto government, although guerrilla raids continued until 1917, when Carranza's forces prevailed. Zapata was murdered (1919), and Villa surrendered (1920). The victors called a convention that legislated (1917) a new constitution embodying principles of anticlericalism, land reform, nationalism, and protection of workers. Although extremely nationalistic, Carranza desired neither land reform nor a strong labor movement. In 1920 he tried to prevent Gen. Alvaro \TObregon\t from succeeding him as president, but Obregon led a military coup that overthrew Carranza's government the following year. The Northern Dynasty The governments that ruled Mexico from 1921 to 1933 are known as the Northern Dynasty. The governments of Presidents Obregon, Plutarco Elias \TCalles\t, Emilio Portes Gil (1891- ), Pascual Ortiz Rubio (1877-1963), and Abelardo Rodriguez (1889-1967)--dominated by politicians from northern Mexico--sought to establish order while developing the economy and increasing the internal market by land reform and higher wages. They faced bitter opposition from the clergy, landowners, foreign investors, and ambitious generals within their own ranks. The government brutally crushed two military revolts and the Cristero rebellion of Mexico's militant Catholics. The northerners achieved many of their objectives. They used executions as a tool to create political peace and formed a new political party, the PNR (National Revolutionary party), which unified progovernment political forces and destroyed opposition parties. The land reforms of Calles and Portes Gil expanded the internal market and created peace in rural areas. Obregon brought organized labor into the government and, as a result, wages improved--for organized, urban workers. Economic productivity rose, mining resumed, and the northern city of \TMonterrey\t became a center for steel production. Calles established cordial relations with the United States, but Mexican efforts to control the oil industry remained a serious problem. Despite these reforms large pockets of discontent remained in Mexico in the 1930s. The government and its labor allies had become increasingly corrupt. Calles, the PNR's dominant leader, became more conservative, ending land reform and opposing strikes. Furthermore, the world depression that began in 1929 had halted the economic recovery. Intellectuals admired U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal and called for similar reforms in Mexico. Gen. Lazaro \TCardenas\t became president in 1934. Although an ally of Calles, he surprisingly ended the policies of the Northern Dynasty and revived the revolutionary fervor of 1910. His government exiled Calles, carried out a vast land reform, reorganized the labor movement, and nationalized foreign oil companies. Cardenas also established state-managed collective farms as the basis of Mexican agriculture; these farms were called ejidos, the name used earlier for the communal lands of the Indian peasants. In 1940 he stepped down in favor of his minister of war, the moderate general Manuel \TAvila Camacho\t. Mexico since 1940 Avila Camacho and his successor, Miguel \TAleman Valdes\t, established the policies that Mexico has followed since Cardenas. The government has placed heavy emphasis on industrial growth while downplaying redistributive social reforms and economic nationalism. This policy has led to one of the world's most impressive economic growth rates, but it also has led to great maldistribution of wealth, probably as serious as that which existed during the Diaz period. Income inequalities, inflation, intellectual ferment, and government repression of labor led to the student strike of 1968, which the government of Gustavo \TDiaz Ordaz\t brutally repressed. The 1968 strike signified the end of the period begun by Avila Camacho. The term of Luis \TEcheverria Alvarez\t, who succeeded Diaz Ordaz, was marked by economic instability and political unrest. Under Echeverria's successor, Jose \TLopez Portillo\t, the nation exploited newly-found oil reserves and entered a period of economic prosperity and growing economic influence. The decline of the world oil market in the early 1980's, however, plunged Mexico into a serious economic crisis. When Miguel \Tde la Madrid Hurtado\t assumed the presidency in December 1982, Mexico's economy was on the verge of collapse. The government imposed broad austerity measures and in 1985 signed with foreign creditors the first stage of a 14-year debt restructuring plan. In September 1985, the Mexican economy suffered an additional setback when earthquakes severely damaged the capital, killing thousands of persons. Economic prospects brightened somewhat as oil prices began to recover in 1987, although inflation accelerated and the already-huge foreign debt grew. In July 1988, Carlos \TSalinas de Gortari\t, the candidate of the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (\TPRI\t), won the presidency, amid widespread charges of irregularities in the polling. \TAlbert\t \TMichaels\t Bibliography: Brandenburg, Frank R., The Making of Modern Mexico (1964); Cheetham, Nicolas, New Spain: The Birth of Modern Mexico (1974); Cline, Howard F., Mexico: Revolution to Evolution, 1940-1960 (1971; repr. 1981) and The United States and Mexico, rev. ed. (1963); Colegio de Mexico, A Compact History of Mexico, ed. by D. C. Villegas, et al. (1974); Fehrenbach, T. R., Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico (1973); Hanna, Alfred J. and Kathryn, Napoleon III and Mexico (1971); Hellman, Judith A., Mexico in Crisis, 2d ed. (1983); McHenry, John Patrick, A Short History of Mexico, rev. ed. (1970); Meyer, Michael C., and Sherman, William L., The Course of Mexican History, 2d ed. (1983); Parkes, Henry B., A History of Mexico, 3d ed. (1960); Peterson, Frederick, Ancient Mexico (1959); Prescott, William H., The History of the Conquest of Mexico, 2 vols. (1957); Ratt, W. Dirk, and Beezley, William H., eds., Twentieth-Century Mexico (1986); Ruiz, Ramon, The Great Rebellion (1980); Simpson, Lesley B., Many Mexicos, 4th ed. (1966).