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?
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