While it is true that early 20th century Mexico fell into economic, social, and political crises after the fall of Porfirio Diaz in 1911 I believe it is unfair to portray all of Latin America as going into crisis when only one country starts to revolt. While it is true that the Mexican Revolution started as the result of political treachery, the lack of attention to the rural population, and an uneven distribution of wealth and resources, the ever-increasing Americo-capitalist influence that plagued late 19th and early 20th century Latin America didn’t always end in crisis. The factors that contributed to the Mexican Revolution were unique in their own way thus creating the perfect breeding ground for revolutionary thought and new political ideas to benefit the majority of the population forgotten by Diaz’s dictatorship.

What I agree is a common post-1900-boom Latin American trend, was the increasing anti-imperialist feeling accompanied with idealistic sentiment of a unified Latin America. Authors such as José Vasconcelos with works such as La raza cosmica, present new concepts representing ideals of the future and how becoming racially-unified, boundaries will cease to exist in order to lead Latin America into a new golden future. Vasconcelos rejects Darwinian natural selection arguing that it is not applicable to the new human race, which is only valid for inferior species, not man. Unification through the disregard of race became one of the prime ideas that encompassed what it meant to be Latin American. Criticism of the European and North American practices of applying zoology to sociology became prevalent. Latin America became united by one common principle. Growth and progress through racial unity. At least that was what José Vasconcelos and people like him thought.

In general, regarding Dawson’s views on early 20th century Latin America, I find often find myself thinking: the history and development of Latin America can’t be summarized by taking only one country into account. I often found myself wondering what other points of view there are on the historical development of Latin America. Maybe one less inclined to make generalizations based on one set of unique circumstances.