Porfirio Diaz: The Victimization Of Mexico

Historians often divide the Mexican Revolution into three main periods of fighting due to its length and complexity. Of the three periods, the one that had the most impact on Mexican society at the time was the first phase in which Francisco Madero overthrew Porfirio Diaz as new revolutionary leaders such as Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa arose. This period allowed people that were not usually involved in politics to become more involved. The phase of the revolution that had the most potential to create change in Mexican society later was the third one that saw Conventionalists take on Constitutionalists for control of the country. This stage created the Constitution and led to a single political party gaining control of México.

Francisco Madero read James Creelman’s interview with President Diaz and thought that he would run for president and reform Mexico. Madero’s concerns were mainly political; he wanted voting to define something, and for people to express themselves freely. He was not sensitive to the famous desire to have access to land and to feed their families, neither was he very aware of the breaking in on peoples’ lands by farm work and extractive industries. In these early days, his courage to defeat Diaz rallied support throughout the

The Act led to an array of legal and moral arguments for and against the need to relocate the Indians westward from the agriculturally productive lands of the Mississippi in Georgia and parts of Alabama. This paper compares and contrasts the major arguments for and against the

It was a sick and deviated plan, to bring them fame and glory, by taking advantage of the Indio people, and leaving them out to dry, so they could achieve high social status and the credentials that would banish their past lives, meaning middle to low class living. While reading some of the letters from the Spaniards, one merchant repeatedly mentioned “ I think we will make a profit on the gold, I am sending you, because it is good. I received the 16 carat gold as being 12-carat, in exchange for merchandise” (Lockhart 21). Literally when they came to Mexico, their greed was magnified with all the possibilities of wealth, and respect that would be received, plus it was a way to resolve and capitalize upon a second shot at riches. To basically illuminate their mindset, they established the Requerimiento, and the Encomienda.

The spring of 1911, the revolutionary army captured the capital city of Ciudad Juarez, forcing Diaz to resign, the demise of the Diaz regime. Welcome to return as President Madero revolutionaries. The result of the Mexican revolution was successful in getting rid of Porfirio Diaz. After the Mexican revolution, no president could serve for more than six years and it also changed the country’s economic and social system (Dan La

Mexico’s drug cartels are the worst they have been in years, and all the problems stem from a lack of proper decision making from the government at every level . Since Colombia was taken away from the drug scene, Mexico’s cartels have made up for the slack and then some. Subsequently, cartels in Mexico also began to flourish at a time when Mexico was in the process of instituting a new form of government. Not only is Mexico trying to work out the kinks of their new democracy, but the cartels are pushing more drugs than ever before; Mexico needs to address this problem. To make matters worse, a number of Mexican officials are corrupt, unaccountable, or distrusted by the people.

Life in Mexico can be very harsh, many people outside of Mexico believe life in the country isn’t as bad as it seems. Over the years the country has changed but still face many problems. The Mexican drug war is still a highly supplied conflict between the Mexican army and drug cartels in Mexico. The country has been one of the main suppliers of illegal drugs that causes discrimination, drug trafficking and many deaths yearly. The question is, how has life in Mexico changed before and after the war on drugs?

There were many opportunities but not all of them were good and most of them weren’t for the Indians. On December 19, 1681, a man named Josephe, who was a Spanish-speaking Indian, was questioned by a royal attorney about the Pueblo Revolt. His answers to the questions was called the Declaration of Josephe. Josephe saw opportunity as an exploitation only because he was able to use the resources he had to give his opinion about the revolt and have it written out. When asked about the causes or motives of the Indians revolting, he replied, “...the causes they have were alleged ill treatment and injuries received from [Spanish authorities], because they beat them, took away what they had, and made them work without pay” (Foner,

Many of these countries faced the same problems in their economic development during the turn of the 19th century. Mexico is seen to being very highly influenced by its neighbors with elites often adopting themes that are successful in other countries. These newly adopted ideas that the elites brought about to the country created a large divide within the social classes due to ignorance in wanting to modernize. The Los de Abajo’s and the Los de Arriba’s, the social classes in Mexico often clashed in what they believed was right for Mexico and found it very hard to come to terms with each other. Judas burning and violence throughout the religious holy week did not aid to bringing these two classes together either.

The government tried to force assimilation on Native Americans as well as an attempt to “kill the indian, save the man.” These ideas and policies are similar to those popular during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. Jackson developed a sense of ‘paternalism’ towards indians and believed he was saving them by forcing them to live out west of the Mississippi river away from white culture. The difference was that Jackson did not believe in assimilation of indians into white culture, he believed they should be kept separate. With the help of the Federal government removing indians from land west of the Mississippi, Americans were

Wheat consumption increased and more rural workers contributed to the market as a result. Europeans proposed that by creating a bigger market economy Mexico would become modernized like an ultimately

The United States war with Mexico continues to be a divisive topic among many people because of its background. The Mexican-American war was a fight between Mexico and America for land. America’s belief at the time was Manifest Destiny, which meant that they believed that America should extend from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific ocean. In the end, America benefited from the war and got the land. The United States expanded its size, achieving their dream of Manifest Destiny.

“Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress”, chapter one of “A People’s History of the United States”, written by professor and historian Howard Zinn, concentrates on a different perspective of major events in American history. It begins with the native Bahamian tribe of Arawaks welcoming the Spanish to their shores with gifts and kindness, only then for the reader to be disturbed by a log from Columbus himself – “They willingly traded everything they owned… They would make fine servants… With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.” (Zinn pg.1) In the work, Zinn continues explaining the unnecessary evils Columbus and his men committed unto the unsuspecting natives.

Throughout the 19th century Native Americans were treated far less than respectful by the United States’ government. This was the time when the United States wanted to expand and grow rapidly as a land, and to achieve this goal, the Native Americans were “pushed” westward. It was a memorable and tricky time in the Natives’ history, and the US government made many treatments with the Native Americans, making big changes on the Indian nation. Native Americans wanted to live peacefully with the white men, but the result of treatments and agreements was not quite peaceful. This precedent of mistreatment of minorities began with Andrew Jackson’s indian removal policies to the tribes of Oklahoma (specifically the Cherokee indians) in 1829 because of the lack of respect given to the indians during the removal laws.

Furthermore, was the economic output of Mexico which was also an improvement in the country due to a large number of protective tariffs from domestic markets. Manufacturing, Agriculture, and Mining remained as the dominant factors of economic Mexico. However, as years passed by, the environment changed and a rise of political parties both from a left and right spectrum began to provoke PRI's candidates. There appeared the PAN and the PRD who began to challenge PRI's