Kelly Lytle Hernández’s Bad Mexicans
Kelly Lytle Hernández’s “Bad Mexicans: Race, Empire, and Revolution in the Borderlands” offers a compelling narrative that recontextualizes the Mexican Revolution through the lens of the Partido Liberal Mexicano (PLM) and its leader, Ricardo Flores Magón. Her central argument is that the actions of the PLM, often marginalized in traditional accounts of the Revolution, are crucial for understanding the broader impacts of the Mexican Revolution, particularly in shaping the social and political landscape of the United States.
Hernández argues that the PLM and Flores Magón were instrumental in challenging not only the Mexican regime but also the racial and imperial structures on both sides of the border. By referring to the PLM members as “Bad Mexicans,” she underscores how they were perceived as threats by both the Mexican and American governments, due to their revolutionary activities and radical ideologies. This label, however, is reappropriated in her narrative to highlight their bravery and the justness of their cause. The term “Bad Mexicans” serves to draw parallels between the historical struggles of the PLM and contemporary issues of racial justice and immigration, suggesting that the fight against oppression and for civil rights is ongoing.
In our study of the Mexican Revolution, Hernández’s interpretations provide a nuanced understanding that complements and sometimes challenges the conclusions of other scholars like Michael Gonzales and Justin Castro. Gonzales, in his analysis, often focuses on the broader socio-economic impacts and class struggles within Mexico, while Castro delves into the technological and cultural transformations. Hernández adds another dimension by emphasizing the transnational aspects and the significant role of Mexican exiles and their interactions with the American labor movement.
One of the strengths of Hernández’s approach is her ability to weave together a rich tapestry of personal stories, political movements, and socio-political contexts, making the narrative both engaging and informative. Her emphasis on the cross-border dynamics provides a fresh perspective on the Revolution, highlighting how it was not just a Mexican event but a binational one with far-reaching implications. This approach helps in understanding the interconnectedness of political struggles across borders and the impact of migration and exile on revolutionary movements.
However, a potential weakness in Hernández’s narrative might be her focus on the PLM to the possible detriment of other revolutionary factions and perspectives within Mexico. While her account is thorough and well-researched, it might give the impression that the PLM’s role was more central to the Revolution than it might have been in comparison to other groups.
Hernández’s study of the binational attempts to thwart the PLM provides a valuable lens for rethinking Gonzales’ and Castro’s conclusions. It underscores the importance of considering the international dimensions of the Revolution and the role of external actors in shaping its course. This perspective can lead to a more holistic understanding of the Revolution’s causes and consequences, showing how international politics and transnational networks influenced revolutionary activities.
Based on Hernández’s analysis, it can be argued that the Mexican Revolution indeed “has legs.” The issues raised by the PLM, such as workers’ rights, social justice, and racial equality, remain relevant today. Her work suggests that the Revolution’s legacy continues to influence contemporary social and political movements, particularly in the context of U.S.-Mexico relations and the ongoing struggles for immigrant rights and racial justice in the United States.
