Tag Archives: Mexico

Crisis in a Gilded Age?

LAST 100, , , , View all 2 comments

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.

Modernity and the Export Boom

LAST 100, , , , Leave a comment

Modernity came to Latin America tied to two basic principles: Order, and Progress. With order came progress, and with progress came modernity. Modernity was closely tied to capitalism, growth of the gross domestic product (GDP), increased foreign investment, and paying off national debt. Modernization meant having street-lamps, railways, automobiles, and flight, among other similar things. People embraced modernity as an idea from developed countries that would bring Latin America forwards into a new era of sustained economic growth and intellectual blossom. In other words, the more Latin America became like Europe and the US, the more modern it became. Immigration policy attracted foreigners and with them foreign investment. Foreign investment became the driving force behind the production, transport, and exploitation of Latin American staples and commodities. Staggering exports were fueled by foreign investment finally making them competitive in international markets.

In Mexico modernity came with the Porfiriato. Porfirio Diaz took power by force in 1877 and declared himself president. Diaz, then started a campaign to bring order to Mexico. Diaz thought that with order, progress would come thus lifting Mexico into modernity. Diaz, widely influenced by French positivism, enacted policies that brought foreign debt down and increased foreign investment. While he was in power Mexico expanded railways, got major infrastructure developed, became competitive in international markets, and held the strongest currency in its history. Urban centers became centers of progress, having trade schools, universities, and colleges. Even indigenous peoples got to participate, many times, assimilating into modern urban centers such as Mexico City. Diaz got the approval of US investors, politicians, and journalists, making his campaign for modernity widely supported by international players. All in all, through order and progress, Diaz ignited an era of modernism in Mexico which couldn’t’ve been done in any other way at the time given the current economic and socio-political climate of Mexico.

Although I don’t condone, or support by any means the way Diaz took upon his political goals, I agree with the fact that he brought order to a somewhat indecisive Mexico that had been struggling to compete in international markets or attract foreign investment. While large claims of corruption plague the Diaz mandate, all in all, the campaign to make Mexico a capitalist economy were far from unsuccessful. The porfiriato thus becomes an example of modernity through order and progress.