This weeks reading was a fascinating account of the Mexican President Porfirio Diaz who served as President for seven terms or 34 years. It is clear that Diaz is a figure of controversy in the history of Mexico. The 'Porfiriato' (the title given to the period in which Diaz ruled) brought relative peace and stability within the borders and significant economic growth which included vast investments from foreign enterprises in the sectors of minerals and transportation/logistics. This article is bias towards the positive aspects of Diaz's rule and the benefits that the had on modernizing Mexico. Whilst the author does touch on the aspects of the cruel ways in which Diaz retained controlled, the overwhelming feeling is that the 'ends justify the means'; if to ensure telegraph wires were not cut it was required to hang or punish policeman then that was okay as sometimes its necessary to spill blood to save blood. This view on managing Mexico clearly backfired as he became greedy with his position and fell from power during the Mexican Revolution. His 'dictatorship' became unpopular wit the people as they felt repressed and whilst claimed to be democratic the elections were mere formalities as there was never an opposition.
I agree that this interview was extremely biased towards President Diaz and his accomplishments, but fails to provide any detail about the murder (such as the hangings with telephone wires) which he claims had understandable meaning behind them.
ReplyDeleteI am curious if his ability to vanish opposition was part of the reasoning for not letting priests vote. Perhaps he saw the church as a threatening institution?
ReplyDelete