Week 7 respose: export boom as modernity

Sorry for the couple hours delayed upload- I have managed to break my laptop, tooth and phone all within the span of one week 

This week's lecture's were focused entirely on Modernity and the concept of modernization and what it means to us.  Modernization can be defined as the process of a change in development when it comes to social aspects, political and economical aspects. Throughout the 1880's I discovered that countries experienced a lot modernization- in Western Europe, Latin America, North America, and Africa. 

Paying specific attention to Latin America and the kind of images that were depicted on Modernity- it seems to me that they all expect us to look and act as people in the US. You are considered modern in todays world if you look like US- when it comes to dressing, technology and all other aspects. Without a doubt- the world will soon turn into America because that is the most "ideal" form of Modernity. God forbid we start thinking like Trump which I pray never happens. 

Nonetheless- with regard to Mexico- the president Diaz brought so much into the country with references to wealth, dressing, medicine, health.  He began restructuring the economy- and this called for huge booms in economic development and improvement of transportation. Not only was life much quicker during this time but it also increased the amount of exploitation of the natural resources by luring foreign capitals to invest in Latin American countries and it's agriculture at the time

Diaz may have brought in a huge stability with regard growth in Mexico- but this can be counter argued in so many ways as many people over look the gap that it created within the rich and the poor.  Diaz's method of ruling was dictatorship and left no room for political advancement or opposition .

The lecture also talks about the ways in which religion, Dawson, secularism- and talks about how Christianity was introduced into Mexico- in several ways the catholic churches imposed themselves onto the Mexicans and left little to no room for choice dictating exactly the way people should live their lives.


My question for this week will have to do on the relation of Diaz and modernity- could he really be considered a positive impact of Mexico if he caused such a huge divide between the upper and the lower class and did not allow for formal opposition?

Comments

  1. I enjoyed reading your post. However I'm not sure what you mean by positive impact. Did he make life easier for most people through modernity? Well, yes. Like you say, he brought better medicine, better transportation so I suppose those things ARE better for everyone. However you are correct in the class divide, but I always think that a leader has their own goals and have to achieve them no matter what and that's how they themselves may measure 'success'. So, if by dividing the rich and poor even further Diaz saw all these 'positive' changes, I would say he may not be a positive impact...but he achieved what he wanted which was power first and a 'better' Mexico second..

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Week 10 Power to the people

Speaking Truth to Power: Week 12

Citizenship and Rights in the New Republics