1. Quoted in James D. Cockcroft, Neighbors in Turmoil: Latin America (New York: Harper & Row, 1989), 76.
2. Michael C. Meyer and William L. Sherman, The Course of Mexican History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 211. Strictly speaking, Cortez did not conquer [Mexico] but Middle America, for Mexico came into being only later. But we follow Meyer and Sherman and common usage in referring to [Mexico] for the sake of clarity.
3. The underclasses in Europe were not in school either, but Spanish colonial law prevented Indians and mestizos from studying to be lawyers, doctors, or teachers. Andrés Lira and Luis Muro, [El siglo de integración,] in Historia general de México, vol. 2 (Mexico City: Secretaría de Educación Pública, 1981), 163.
4. Manuel López Gallo, Economía y política en la historia de México, 3rd rev. ed. (Mexico City: El Caballito, 1988), 46.
5. Díaz controlled the country directly or indirectly during this period. For a short time (1880–1884) he had puppet Manuel González in the presidency.
6. Hans Jürgen Harrer, Die Revolution in Mexico (Cologne: PahlRugenstein, 1973), 84, 86, 88.
7. John Kenneth Turner, México bárbaro (Mexico City: Costa Amic, 1974), 96, 99. This is the traditional view of the figures. [Over one-half of all rural Mexicans lived and worked on the haciendas by 1910,] say Meyer and Sherman in The Course of Mexican History, 458. But the number of peons ac