The contrast lies in the sense that while history portrays him as the Puppet President, the one who has Catholic blood on his hands, the one who deceived many to make his way through, on the other hand, Almada portrays him to be reasonable, logical and nonetheless ‘humane’ in contrast to popular opinion. One will have to explore facts and indulge in an in-depth study in this context to be fair in an analysis, and to explore as to which side of the story holds more truthful value. The paper aims at exploring the mainstream history books popular not just in Mexico but rather in the world. The study will focus on how Plutarco is portrayed and perceived in the world, also how the opinion has been altered. Furthermore, the opinions will be contrasted with data from the documentary produced by Almada who is Calles` great grand-daughter. This data will reflect how a daughter perceived her father, i.e. the firsthand account of someone who was directly associated with the much controversial figure. Thus, based on the analysis, contrasts would be made to predicate how history is de-shaped and de-framed by the historians.
Calles is essentially portrayed as someone who was deeply indulged in a power struggle throughout his life, which poses certain paradoxes. He is perceived as a rather controversial yet revolutionary figure, a President who failed to deliver his promises, deported priests on a massive scale, destroyed covenants, closed Catholic schools while he was facing a huge scaled rebellion. However, he sent his daughter to the United States, and that too to study at a Catholic school. This poses a question-mark over the issue i.e. if he hated Catholics such deeply, why would he want his daughter to be indulged in an education purely based on those values he abhorred. Historically, Calles was many things, portrayed by mainstream history, i.e. a school teacher, a Guaymas native, someone who went as far as to become