Reflecting on the life Pancho Villa lived, it can be said that he – just like many other citizens of Mexico – was a product of a corrupt and autocratic governmental system. About 90% of the population lived in poverty under Díaz’s regime (“Pancho Villa: Robin Hood or Ruthless Terrorist?” 03:10-03:15). Villa was unable to receive basic education and had to leave his family at an early age seeking a better job (“Pancho Villa: Robin Hood or Ruthless Terrorist?” 01:00-01:33). His decision to become one of the local outlaws was a result of the contemporary system. It is important to highlight that he was a criminal for the government, but not for the working class of Mexico. Starting from the early 1910s, Villa was actively involved in revolting against Mexican leaders, who did not provide the majority of the country’s population with good living conditions. In a campaign against Madero, whom he once helped, Villa showed great leadership and care for the local poor, receiving support and acceptance from American people (“Pancho Villa: Robin Hood or Ruthless Terrorist?” 13:15-14:10). Although resorting to violence for some time, he was a great leader of the Mexican working class who fought for a better government. Villa helped to improve the conditions in which he once lived and is rightfully believed to be the Mexican Robin Hood.
All of the statements provided on Villa’s life are correct and objective. Just like the colleague described them, Villa’s decisions, goals, and worldview were affected and altered from what many consider “good” because of his upbringing. His intention to help the poor was popular at the time. Despite the deaths of the innocent, many more had suffered before his campaigns and could have continued to suffer if Villa did not lead the revolutions against autocratic regimes. Villa was neither good nor bad, but if one side needs to be chosen, I would say that he was a good person.
Work Cited
“Pancho Villa: Robin Hood or Ruthless Terrorist?” YouTube, uploaded by Biographics, 2019. Web.