The Export Boom as Modernity
Alec Dawson, a professor of History from Simon Fraser Univerity defined ‘modernity’ in Latin America (with a focus on Mexico) is from the 16th century and the following 5 centuries. In addition, he claimed that there are four factors that contribute the periodical shift from the preceding era to modernity.
- Innovative: A society that improved, standards of living goes up, new technologies were invented.
- Emancipation: A society where slavery is abolished and woman rights are respected.
- Secularisation: A process of cultural and social change in which education, property, art, etc. are released from the church’s control to the general public; modern society is less religious.
- Universalism: Modern values are discovered: the value of freedom.
Most regions across Latin America in the late 19th century, elites wanted their society to look like Western Europe. By the early 20th century, Mexico wanted to look and feel like the United States, not from the philosophical viewpoint but to actually build a city that physically looks like.
As a result, Mexican cities had a sewage system, electricity, built modern armies, built railroads, integrated new ideas, and technology, by modeling what they aimed for.
Mexico was entering the stage of modernity without liberty. Again, Dawson defined that ‘liberal democracy’ is the rights invested in individuals, unlike in corporations and organisations. However, Mexico was too backward to have liberty flourish in the country according to 2 reasons:
- Not solely in Mexico, but Latin America as a whole had political chaos (civil war).
- Latin American society in the 19th century was shaped by system where a small white elite group ruling over societies where the majority of the citizens were not of European ancestry.
White elites realized that these populations were not suitable for democracy from the demographic and many other perspectives. So what did modernity mean in this case? It was an economic and aesthetic modernity ruled over by strong elites. Instead of ‘liberty’, ‘order’ was replaced by the Mexico’s political system, as the style to impose order from above was one of the few solutions to create progress in the country’s development.
Creelman wrote an article, and he was shocked for what he witnessed in Mexico, ruled under a dictatorship, as there were modern roads and lights, elevators, and electricity. In contrast, there are two factors where Creelman may not be shocked at what he saw in Mexico.
- His background: US wasn’t perfect in democracy yet, as racial dictatorship remained, and political corruption in the South.
- Bought into an idea, that Mexico was experiencing a civil war, they needed an ‘iron fist’ to transform a nation to an orderly place. Therefore, democracy couldn’t take off.
Domestic elites came to believe that a miraculous transformation had taken place but ignored the signs of crisis, that was happening behind their backs. We try to make sense of the world according to the values that we live in at the moment, so it is unfair to judge Creelman’s depictions and thoughts on Diaz’s administration.
Creelman’s article impacted the 1910 elections for the successor fo Diaz and it helped spur Francisco Madero to run an independence campaign, and so on. ut all of these pressures suddenly had an outlet and for a brief moment, ordinary people hoped that something might change. However, the hope became public and became uncontrollable, it led to the Mexican revolution. So, my question is: Is it possible to call this paradigm shift towards modernity, as a successful boom?