I would like to begin this blog post by commenting on something that Diaz said that I found particularly interesting. Diaz made the claim that democracy was for the middle class, as the rich did not care about the poor, and the poor were too uneducated. I find this claim extremely intriguing, as some research I have put in shows a high correlation between democracy and the middle class as a high percentage of the population. This week’s focus was on the modernity of South America in the early 20^th century.

This week we learnt that the elites of Mexico back then, simply measured modernity in terms of infrastructure and aesthetics, while Dawson measures modernity in terms of innovation, liberty and secularism. We learnt about the division between the wealthy, who lived in the cities, and the poor, who lived in rural areas/outskirts.

I found it particularly saddening to see how the poor were exploited and abused for the sake of the modernity that the elites referred to. On occasions Diaz justified human rights abuses and ‘cruelty’ by citing national modernization interests. I am strongly opposed to this as I am a staunch believer in the principle that a leader should take care of his people before his land, as taking care of the people does both.