The Democracy Of Mexico : Developing A Democracy In Mexico

To what extent was Mexico’s independence from Spain a “full-scale assault on dependency”? This essay will investigate how the Mexican independence from Spain was only slightly a “full-scale assault on dependency”, due to several political and social conflicts. Firstly, Mexico remained a monarchy (but not under the control of Spain) after the insurgency. Secondly, there was still an official state religion in Mexico. Another reason is because social conflicts reduced the desire for independence .On the other hand, it assaulted dependency because there were some changes within the social hierarchy, and because Mexico was free from Spain.

The economic and political systems was not part of something they all came into an agreement for many years. Some of the challenges that happened was the laws over the church power and and land ownership. Benito Juarez was a assimilated Indian, took office, making changes for Indians. Over the the time the nationalist produced a strategy that came from both the Spanish and Indian traditions. This helped build the growth of nationalism. Everyone was getting along because there were threats from outsiders that made them become closer. What they did since they didn’t want war, they created borderlands, inviting non-Mexicans to join them. The reason why Mexican wanted to this was because they wanted more white people to offset the Indian influence and others just wanted a new society modeled. A lot changes and experimentation with nationalism occurred, some people didn’t agree and stood against it but other wanted to change things and wanted something new. There was always arguments because the nationalism programs wanted to grant citizenship to all the people that were in the Mexican territory. Overall this process of trying out nationalism was a disaster, Mexican leaders rushed into making new programs but they didn’t take in consideration peoples choices.

Those creoles pushing towards revolution to free themselves from Spanish rule felt that the Spanish crown was only abusing, discriminating and holding them back form growing economically. The elite felt they were not part of a revolution seeing themselves only as people who were All those part of the social context of Latin America, felt differently within Indians, on side of the Spanish King, though great abuse fell through. "Nonetheless, the Indians of New Spain (and elsewhere) enjoyed a set of legal privileges, exemptions, and protection which significantly interferes with their complete integration into colonial society, and kept them in a legal bubble of tutelage ruptured only with the advent of independent Mexican nationhood in the third decade of the nineteenth century (Van Young, 154). The point here is that where these and other legal and administrative remedies were applied in favor of the Indians of colonial New Spain, they were applied in the kings' name. Furthermore, religious and civic ritual of all kinds constantly stressed the centrality of the Spanish king to the colonial commonwealth, and his benevolence and fatherly concern with the welfare of his weakest subjects (Van Young 155). "Situated as they were between the Spaniards and the masses. The creoles wanted more than equality for themselves and less than equality for their inferiors" (Lynch, 44). The creoles discriminated against those in lower classes than themselves.

Mexico was building up to its revolution long before activists like Francisco Madero and Emiliano Zapata. From 1840 to 1910; Mexico went from a war-torn and newly freed nation to a nation on the brink of civil war. How did it get there? Through a series of wars, leaders, and policies, which proved causation politically, socially, and economically to the Mexican Revolution.

During the 19th Century the United States sought to expand westwards and increase their land. Since Mexico stood in the way they did all they could to provoke it and start a war. “The Mexicans fired the first shot. But they had done what the American government wanted” (Zinn 151). What they wanted was California, soon they wanted Texas and then Arizona and New Mexico came along. For a long period of time, probably still today; Mexican-Americans are seen as “an ahistoric people” (Romano 44). An assumption that is completely wrong. Mexican American have been fighting for their rights and equality since they became part of America. In fact they had two movements conduct by different generations. The Mexican-American Generation between 1930 and 1960; and the Chicano generation between 1945-1960. Although both generations were had the same ancestry, they had different world view because their history and the events that were going on in their time. Both Mexican-American generation and Chicano generation similarities and differences help understand the overall Chicano history in the 20th Century.

After the war of independence that separated Mexico from Spain as an independent country and oust of Agustin I as the ruling monarch, Mexico established a federal republic

United Mexican States was weak and was just forming Mexico’s government, and the only people that Mexico could not control was the Americans. The Americans even got special treatment and the Americans still rebelled. “One way to increase the population was to welcome settlers from the United States.” (Background Essay Paragraph 3) With Mexico being weak, anti-slave, and just getting formed the Americans were not happy with how it was being run when they showed up. Congress also stated “...Did not want a large slave territory to be added to the United States.” (Background Essay Paragraph

Children are taught at a young age learning the three branches of the United States and how well they work however Mexico’s government is very similar to the US. Mexico’s government is a lot more developed than you might think; it has a good structure with three branches also called Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.

The documents that provide a deep and valuable insight into this topic includes “Colonial Spanish America” by Historian Leslie Bethell (1987) and “The Americas: A Hemisphere History” by Felipe Fernandez-Arnesto (2003). Document 1 portrays the ethnic makeup of the population in 1789, depicting that the majority of the population consisted of Indians and Creoles/Peninsulares. The author portrays this information in order to illustrate the divisions within society, and how the ethnic diversity correlated with a desire for self-governance. This document verifies that is the local and elite population that sparks the idea for revolution, thereby confirming the desire of natives to revolt. During this time period, the idea of revolution/independence was still in its foundational form, and hadn’t reached prominence. However, the dominance of natives and incorporation of elites allowed these ideals to evolve and motivate the population to strive for independence. Document 3 also provides a vital and critical source of information obtained by a historian. The document informs the reader about the results of the wars and the causes of them. He states that the Revolutions occurred as a result of “resentful elites trying to resist the increasing intrusion and interference of their mother countries.” It portrays how the local

During the 19th Century, the United States sought to expand westwards and increase their land. Since Mexico stood in the way they did all they could to provoke it and start a war. “The Mexicans fired the first shot. But they had done what the American government wanted” (Zinn 151). What they wanted was California, soon they wanted Texas and then Arizona and New Mexico came along. For a long period of time, probably still today; Mexican-Americans are seen as “an ahistoric people” (Romano 44). An assumption that is completely wrong. Mexican American have been fighting for their rights and equality since they became part of America. In fact, they had two movements conduct by different generations. The Mexican-American Generation between 1930 and 1960; and the Chicano generation between 1945-1960. Although both generations were had the same ancestry, they had different worldview because of their history and the events that were going on in their time. Both Mexican-American generation and Chicano generation similarities and differences help understand the overall Chicano history in the 20th Century.

Within the Mexican American parties political participation has been a key factor towards getting representation within the eyes of the government. When people continue to protest for their rights they often show that they have not only begin the race, but they have put an effort to win. Organizations such as the UFW (United Farm Workers) have shown that political change can happen if people organize for a cause they believe in. This boycott showed that Mexican Americans are capable of organizing a group to voice their opinions against the dominant Anglo views. Mexican Americans were heard when they protested for their wellbeing because they were often being exposed to pesticides. Protests like this have shown that the voices of these protests

Throughout its history Mexico has had many revolutions. The most famous perhaps is the Mexican Revolution from 1910-1920. The people of Mexico were getting tired of the dictator rule of President Porfino Diaz. People of all classes were fighting in the revolution. The middle and upper classes were dissatisfied with the President’s ways. The lower and working class people had many factors such as poor working conditions, inflation, inferior housing, low wages, and deficient social services. Within the classes everyone was fighting; men, women, and children all contributed to the fight for freedom from Diaz (Baxman 2). This revolution proved to be the rise and fall of many leaders.

Mexico has had a history characterized by agriculture, resource extraction and an underdeveloped industrial climate. When the Spaniards first arrived in the country they were merchants and silver miners, who diversified their investments with landed estates. At the time the indigenous farmers were the largest members of the population. New Spain as it was called at the time was seen by Spain as a means of wealth. The colonial economy of Mexico was fairly successful as they were able to produce much of their own food and products from ranching. They also had a textile industry that helped them be fairly self-sufficient in supplying their own needs. In 1804 Spain implemented a policy that forced mortgage holders to have to pay the principal

The Mexican Revolution was one of the great revolutionary upheavals of the twentieth century and had a profound impact on the development of Mexico well into the modern day. The revolutionary period itself can be split into three distinct stages: First, several factions united behind Francisco Madero in order to overthrow the dictatorial government of Porfirio Diaz. When Madero’s government appeared to maintain the status quo set forth during the Porfiriato period, however, the same forces that brought Madero to power rose up once again to remove him. Finally, the remaining factions, no longer possessing a common goal to unite them, turned on one another in a fight to establish dominance. At the end of this bloody period emerged a new triumvirate:

From the Institutional Revolutionary party (PRI) to the National Action Party (PAN) to the Party of Democratic Revolution (PRD), Mexico has had many political parties in the past and present but many have questioned the fact that how has PRI manage to stay in power and maintain its place as the dominant party in the past. In this short research paper I am going to be talking about Partido Revolucionario Institutional (PRI) and Mexico. I want to discuss the history of PRI and how it came about during and after the Mexican Revolution. I will also touch upon the party’s weaknesses and precursors that might have signaled its loss in the elections of 2000.