Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Rafael Pavani de Silva
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Master's Dissertation |
| Press: | Campinas, SP. |
| Institution: | Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP). Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas |
| Defense date: | 2009-02-18 |
| Examining board members: |
José Alves de Freitas Neto;
Maria Helena Rolim Capelato;
Iara Lís Schiavinatto
|
| Advisor: | José Alves de Freitas Neto |
| Abstract | |
This work intends to present and to render problematic about the changing of Lázaro Cárdenas thought about Mexican Revolution, especially on the period of 1934 until 1940. Thus, I wanted to argue the political results and its consequences, mainly whether these results legitimated his president power and the new government established from that time on, because the circumstances in which those changes appeared were througout the successives conflicts that his government had to face: in 1935-36, there was the dispute with Plutarco E. Calles; in 1938, there was the petroleoum nationalization and, furthermore, the angy political fights marching on coming election for government renovation in 1940, as well the cedillista rebelion in 1938. These conflicts permit us to put on relief how important is to rebuild the revolutionary past as an essencial exercise of cardenista politic and as a vital part of political frame. Considering that the Revolution way of using composed an important aspect of Cárdenas speech, this work aims to understand political propositions, ideological disputes and power relationships on this time, observing the revolutionary simbolism construction. Therefore, the aim is detach the specificity of Mexican history, as well the politic of Cárdenas, even so the historiography has been broaching it like something homogeneous to other political governments in Iberian America among 1930 and 1940 years. Thus, to think about Cárdenas behaviour, I wanted to argue particularly with this bibliography, because there is a need to adapt his rethoric and understand that the revisionist historiography must be contested, given they made a teleological interpretation when imputed to Cárdenas the same power and authoritarianism that happened in Mexico on 1960's and 1930's. Therefore, my propose was to think the cardenismo as a peculiarity extremely limited within the frameworks established by the Mexican Revolution, and to present a criticism of the interpretation that see Cárdenas like a handler simply, who had a anti-ethical speech for an alleged political reality, ignoring the particularities of time, looking for comparisons with various Latin American leaders (AU) | |