| Sumario: | Usually the conflict among historiographic interpretations serves as catalyst to change the common viewpoints on a historical period. Has this happened with historiography on Cardenism? This paper notes that, although our understanding of Cardenism has been updated by increasingly professionalized studies (both regional and sectorial), laudatory interpretations and those given by opponents to Cardenist policies still influence not only our knowledge of the period, but also our definition of the scope of the Mexican Revolution. Against the backdrop of the hundredth anniversary of the Revolution, a discussion about the meaning, the achievements and the scope of the revolutionary movement is in order. Whether with positive or negative outcomes, respecting or failing the “original program” of the Revolution, Cardenism has established a priviledged viewpoint to discuss the historical sense of that era of ruptures and continuities that shaped modern Mexico. A discussion where, although processes of agreement or convergence can be observed, conflicts are still alive and governing an idea of our past and, probably also of an alternative future.
|
|---|
