The statement that "The Cuban and Mexican Revolutions were movements led by of the dominant and wealthiest sectors; however, these revolutions ultimately resulted in major changes
beneficial to the poor of those two societies" is true in general but a little simplistic, a little too black-and-white. Certainly both revolutions were supported and encouraged by some members of the dominant and wealthiest sectors, as every revolution must be at some point if it is to succeed. In addition, while the revolutions did bring some important benefits to the poor of both nations, this hardly means that they were removed from their poverty, as perhaps they were promised and perhaps they hoped would be the case.
George Leighton writes that although Mexico's economy was strong and its political foundation apparently stable in 1910, there were signs of turbulence not far beneath the surface of that prosperity and calm. The primary complaints still alive and growing were for a more democratic government and one which would be more responsive to the poor. Francisco Madero was one rich and powerful man who sought to right these political and socioeconomic wrongs (Leighton 21). Ironically, Diaz himself stirred up first democratic (and, ultimately, revolutionary) energy by staging electoral events designed to show a true democracy was at work (Leighton 22-23). At the same time, Diaz was cracking down on those more liberal elements in the dominant and wealthy sector who might pose any danger (such as the Maderos). However, without both rich and poor, owners and workers, the Revolution could not have taken place: "It lined up on the same side wealthy liberals who had no want but political freedom, and organizers of revolutionary labor unions." In addition, angry peasants such as Zapata sought radical political and economic change, along with students, migratory workers, a "prominent lawyer," "a doctor" (Leighton 28), and once the facade broke, the rev...