What went wrong /his/?
>Growing Mexican Economy
>Order and Progress
>Massive foreign investment
>An actual middle class
>1 Peso per 4 dollars
I don't get it.
>>1240905
Other elites in Mexico wanted the throne and exploited peasantry grievances against Diaz's anti labor union measures.
The Anglos were supporting Diaz and the German Empire supported the rebels.
>>1240926
What was the German interest in the conflict?
>>1240935
because it happened to occur around ww1.
>>1240905
>What went wrong /his/?
Everything that you listed.
>Growing Mexican Economy
That "growing" was part of a fluctuation. The economy was anything but stable.
>Order and Progress
"Order"? More like tyrannical despotism.
"Progress"? Progress is not something good in itself. What is relevant is the destination of such progress. The destination was ultimate loss sovereignty, ending up deculturalized, and owned by foreign powers, like Panama, or Colombia, or Puerto Rico.
>Massive foreign investment
The detriment in that is selfevident.
>An actual middle class
The presence of a middle class by itself is no sign of a stable, or burgeoning economy, or of a healthy society.
What is relevant is how are the various socioeconomic classes structured, and on what socioeconomic, and sociocultural, bases.
The socioeconomic classes of that time, much like virtually anywhere in the world today, were the result of an economy based on exploitation, both on an intranational level, and on an international level; i.e.: The Mexican government exploited its own people, while simultaneously letting other governments exploit them.
>1 Peso per 4 dollars
>>1240905
>Growing Mexican Economy
In absolute terms maybe, most of the rural population lived in quasi-slavery conditions
>Order and Progress
Only order sometimes and only under the threat of the worst punishments
>Massive foreign investment
That mostly took its profits to foreign counties
>An actual middle class
Middle class size was tiny compared to the literally land-less peasant masses, it was a lot smaller than it is even today
>1 Peso per 4 dollars
USD wasn't the world's reserve currency then, exchange rates were also regulated by the government.
Don't get me wrong, the shitheads who came after him were undoubtedly worse at managing the country but he wasn't exactly a 5-star general, I mean once the revolution actually broke out he was ousted for power in a matter of months, that is without even the army or a portion of it turning against the government.
>>1241068
>ousted from
He violated the property rights of Mexican peasants thus leading to revolution.
>>1240961
I'm not OP, but
>"Order"? More like tyrannical despotism.
Diaz was not afraid to use violence, but he rarely resorted to it. He was a dictator, but he was not a cruel one.
>The destination was ultimate loss sovereignty, ending up deculturalized, and owned by foreign powers
I don't know what you mean "deculturized," but Diaz did not followed some kind of comprehensive cultural policy that somehow shorned mexico of its past. He had mostly native ancestry on both sides and having come from Oaxaca he did empathize with their plight, though there was little he could do about it (and there are debates whether in fact the natives actually suffered under his rule).
As for the loss of sovereignty, you forget that Porfirio and his colleagues were just as concerned with the balance of trade (which was positive btw from 1890 or so) and especially the inflow of American capital in late 1890s/early 1900s. He was always careful to try to encourage British and European investment as a counterweight to American influence.
>The detriment in that is selfevident.
foreign investment=/=bad, and the problems that led to the revolution in the late year were mostly the product of short term causes like the worldwide slump of 1907, which affected other countries just as badly as Mexico. Tell me, what did the Mexican Revolution do if not bring unncessary destruction and death and capital flight and other economic ills? I do think Diaz did overstay his welcome as early as the 1891 (though if he had stepped down in 1906 the country would have been just as fine), but there's no denying that he brought order and unprecedented economic growth which would not be repeated until the 1940s.
>>1241092
You're a moron.
>>1241068
>but he wasn't exactly a 5-star general
He was in his 80s by this time and he hadn't commanded an army for many decades by that point. On top of that he had professionalized the army and cut its budget, which was an bit achievement considering that praetorianism was rampant before him. Unfortunately, the price of this was that the army was demoralized and not able to fight a counterinsurgency, and as far as I know he didn't exactly battle the rebels once it was clear how extensive how big the insurrection had become. To stress again too, Diaz was old, ailing and losing his memory. Sadly, he started to become suspicious of his proteges during these last years, including a prominent army man [whose name escapes me (leon i think)], that he lost focus on the rising discontent in the country. He also had the misfortune of lacking his most important advisers during the rebellion, one, Limantour, who had just gone to Europe on a diplomatic trip, and another which he made ambassador in France to diminish his influence. This was important considering his developing senility, which affected his prodigious memory and caused him to lose his grip over the localities.
>>1241119
Can't we be civil? I'm curious to see your take on the matter
>>1241092
>the problems that led to the revolution in the late year were mostly the product of short term causes like the worldwide slump of 1907
Nigger please, read pic related, written based on the firsthand accounts of an american journalist back in the day
>>1241137
This is what my source says on Turner:
"From the perspective of 'official' pro-Revolutionary and anti-porfirista history, Diaz became, in the famous phrase of journalist Filomeno Mata, 'the monster of evil, cruelty and hypocrisy.' [8] For the outside world, Diaz was portrayed as a ruthless tyrant, 'the most colossal criminal of our times... the central prop of a the system of slavery and autocracy,' as defined by North American journalist Kenneth John Turner in his influential and widely-read "Barbarous Mexico", first published in 1909.
>Turners portrait epitomized anti-Porfirismo: he accused Diaz of conspiracy and treason, inhumanity, brutality and duplicity. According to Turner, Dias was 'the assasin of his people... [and] a based and vile coward...The President of Mexico is cruel and vindictive, and his country has suffered bitterly.' It was a grossly distorted picture, and Turner was quite prepared to use unsubstantiated and even ludicrous anecdote for sensational effect. Turner's distortions were little more than caricature. As evidence for his personal penchant for cruelty, Turner cited what he claimed was an 'incident' from Diaz's childhood: 'annoyed with his brother Felix over some trivial matter, he placed gunpowder in his nose and set it on fire."
>>1241092
>Diaz was not afraid to use violence, but he rarely resorted to it.
His catchphrase was bread or the bludgeon.
>the problems that led to the revolution in the late year were mostly the product of short term causes like the worldwide slump of 1907
The problems that led the revolution had been long simmering such as the hacendados, mass dispossession of land, labor polices and political oppression. They didn't care about the decline in growth because they weren't feeling it anyways and using economic growth to judge a nations well being is a terrible idea as brutal left wing dictatorships were able to create periods of high economic growth as well.
>>1241240
>His catchphrase was bread or the bludgeon.
this might have been true but it doesn't prove anything. we don't know what contexts he spoke this in or to whom he was referring. He may well have been talking about this strategies to keep his subordinates under control. He also wasn't known for his polish either so his bluntness is not surprising.
>The problems that led the revolution had been long simmering such as
>the hacendados, mass dispossession of land,
this had not only been exaggerated, but the effects of porfirian modernisation were extremely variable from region to region, or even from county to county. Any sweeping conclusions about tyrannical haciendas or hordes of landless laborers are spooks
>labor polices
Labor relations were not at all bad until about 1905. Diaz was not some fanatical anti-labor advocate. He often counseled his subordinates to make concessions and practice moderation. He occasionally forced settlements favoring the workers. Labor relations seemed to have deteriorated becuase 1) the global slump of 1906 2) a series of much-publicized disputes which the ailing Diaz handled poorly. In fact Diaz made several miscalculated errors in these years that arguably hastened his demise. The Creelman interview of 1908, for example, was a lapse of judgement that created a lot of hype that Diaz never delivered on.
>political oppression
He did very little of this and he mostly targeted journalists, some of whom he jailed, but many of whom he coopted with bribery or other such emoluments. Some other killings were only tenuously linked to him and were probably done by subordinates. Even these were very few. So to compare Diaz to a communist regime (most of which, by the way, were also relatively mild with the exception of Stalin and Mao) is a travesty. Diaz ruled thirty years with relatively little trouble, but even in these circumstances one always makes enemies.
>>1241404
also forgot to add in the last sentence that Diaz was even respected by his "enemies" Molina and Madero even though they helped to overthrow his regime.
>>1241404
>He may well have been talking about this strategies to keep his subordinates under control.
That was the exact context he was using that in.
>Any sweeping conclusions about tyrannical haciendas or hordes of landless laborers are spooks
Virtually all of villages had lost their lands at that point and labor conditions denigrated over the long years (Friedrich Katz, 1974 http://brechtforum.org/files/filefield/Katz-%20Labor%20Conditions.pdf).
>Diaz was not some fanatical anti-labor advocate.
He was a worse version of what was happening to labor in the US/Britain.
>He did very little of this and he mostly targeted journalists
He pretty much eliminated freedom of press among other things.
He's like D. Pedro II, Emperor of Brazil. Fucking republicans, democrats and rebels.
>>1243635
>He's like D. Pedro II
How? Pedro didn't even give a damn when he was overthrown.
>>1243671
>didn't even give a damn when he was overthrown
>"The Greatest Brazilian ever born"
>While his body was being prepared for burial, a sealed package was found in the room. Next to it there was a message in Pedro’s own hand: "It is soil from my country, I wish it to be placed in my coffin in case I die away from my fatherland." The package contained earth from every Brazilian province. In accordance with his wishes, it was placed inside the coffin.
Dude, what?
>>1243742
>He dismissed all suggestions for quelling the rebellion that politicians and military leaders put forward.When he heard the news of his deposition he simply commented: "If it is so, it will be my retirement. I have worked too hard and I am tired. I will go rest then."
He had the chance to take back the throne but had grown indifferent towards the fate of the regime long before that.
>>1243597
>He pretty much eliminated freedom of press among other things.
This was unfortunate, and was undoubtedly anti-liberal and oppressive. But other than this, most people would have never experienced oppression, even among the more politically aware middle class people from Mexico City from which most journalists came.
>He was a worse version of what was happening to labor in the US/Britain.
Britain was famous for its mild handling of labor. US labor history on the other hand was violent. If anything, then, I'd argue that Diaz's regime was more like Britain before 1906, but after 1906 it became more authoritarian and resembled US labor relations
>Virtually all of villages had lost their lands at that point and labor conditions denigrated over the long years
I agree that rural Mexico was not fine and dandy. There were certainly tensions that festered under the surface until the last years of the regime. However, I'd argue that the regime, or at least the central government, was not the cause of this. First of all, as your source admits, the data on the rural economy is very limited, and probably even more so during the time Katz was writing. This makes it difficult to generalize and may cloak the diversity of rural conditions in Porfirian Mexico. Secondly, loss of land did accelerate as a result of Porfirian development, but was made worse by population growth and a general sense of insecurity that is inherent to rapid economic growth and transformation. Third, even if the Porfirian government attempted to prevent the seizure of lands and the impoverishment of the peasantry, there was very little it could do. The central government grew during Diaz's regime, true, but not enough to muscle its way into local affairs, which the local elite controled. Diaz's massive personal correspondence shows that he was indeed concerned about the Indians, and that he advised the governors and the jefes politicos to prevent abuses, corruption and exercise moderation (cont..
>>1243946
in local disputes over land, but the governors could and did ignore his advice. Nevertheless, in areas where the government did have jurisdiction, it was careful to rural abuse. This was the case in regards to the parcelling out of a percentage of land to surveyors, which the government tightly regulated and during which less than half of the land promised was actually granted because the surveyors didn't fulfill their contract in its entirety. Moreover, the government came out in favor of locals whenever the surveyors overstepped their bounds. And to top it off, the government in its last decade took an even harder line on speculators and surveyors and passed a series of laws to protect indian lands, one of which recognized their corporate status (a right still denied to the Catholic church).
>>1243946
>This makes it difficult to generalize and may cloak the diversity of rural conditions in Porfirian Mexico.
Katz notes that in his work.
>or at least the central government, was not the cause of this
You could argue that it had more do the local elites than Diaz as even after the revolution they still held significant power. Being so chummy with such characters was bound to invite guilty by association type thinking though.
>The central government grew during Diaz's regime, true, but not enough to muscle its way into local affairs
I find this questionable friend. I don't think Diaz was an absolute dictator but I don't think he was so weak that he was unable to influence local affairs when he wanted to.
As far as dictators go I would give him a 5/10. He didn't do anything too bad but didn't do that much good either. The system he built rotated around him so things like rule of law were never really established and getting that close to the local elites was bad for government business.
>>1244078
hold on ill get to you tomorrow. bump in the mean time
