Blog 5: Thoughts on the Mexican Revolution

The Mexican Revolution is very interesting to learn about. If I am being completely honest, I had no idea the Mexican Revolution happened. In this course, I have gained much knowledge on the revolution and I would like to comment on this newly learned content.

Firstly, there are many names involved in this revolution and it can be hard to keep track of who is who. After listening to the lectures and reading Gonzales, I still do not have a solid grip on each individual's involvement and their beliefs. I am constantly going back to look at my notes and the book to remind myself of a one's role in the revolution.

The correlation between power and corruption is clearly seen with Porfirio Diaz. It is interesting to me how someone could gain the presidency with a vision for Mexico and it's people but end up becoming a tyrant after holding onto power for more than 30 years. I wonder how the revolution would have been affected if Diaz stepped down and chose a successful successor. What if the leaders listened to the peoples' grievances?

My view of the United States has dramatically changed after learning about U.S. involvement to protect their national interest. The US Ambassador, Henry Lane Wilson, overstepped his role and infringed on Mexican sovereignty by supporting a coup to overthrow Morelos. Uggg..why won't the U.S. leave Latin America alone!

I am so thankful that I got to learn about the Mexican Revolution because I have gained awareness of how the United States gets involved when their national interests are threatened and I learned about a critical part of Mexican history.

Blog 4 Reaction: Becky's Blog

Yess Becky!! I totally agree with you! When reading the book, I did notice the poor treatment of women. I am glad that you expanded on this thought and went into greater detail. Camila's role throughout the book was very tragic because she was viewed as an object rather than another human being. I like that you brought up War Paint and how the men treated her after she stabbed Camila. It makes me wonder if the author wrote the book with role of women as poor or if he was just a product of the time.

Blog 4: Power and Corruption

After discussing several leaders throughout Mexico's history, especially Santa Anna and Porfirio Díaz, it makes me think about how power can corrupt. When we learned about both, Anna and Diaz, we talked about how they came into power to make a better Mexico and had a large amount of support from the people. Diaz established himself as a winning general in the Battle of Puebla and had an overall favorable image. He came into power to bring growth to Mexico through political stability and the encouragement foreign investments. One of the defining views Diaz had was the belief that Mexican leaders should be "one and done" and no re-election. Overall, he seems like a great leader that had Mexicans interest at heart and truly wanted Mexico to be a better country.

In time, there seems to be a relationship between power and corruption. The longer Diaz stayed in office he began to contradict some of his original viewpoints that got him into office. Diaz changed the laws so that he could stay in power and used fraud ensure that he won election after election. Once he got older, he assigned a weak Vice President, Ramon Corral, to act like his puppet. 

I wonder if and how Mexico's history would have changed if corruption did not occur? What if Diaz set a precedent for a presidential term by stepping down? I believe that Mexico would have seen more growth if leaders did not put their personal interest first before the Mexican people. Leave a comment of your thoughts on whether Mexican leaders acted as an obstacle toward the growth of the country.

Blog 3 Reaction: Kendall's Blog

I definitely agree with you Kendall. I think it is so crazy how some parts of history are left out in K-12 education. It is very frustrating and makes me reflect on everything else I have been taught in the past. I hope moving forward that future generations will be able to be educated through multiple perspectives and not just the United States. It is crucial that our education shows the good and bad parts of history. The point of learning history is to apply it to the future and when some parts are hidden, it becomes difficult to do this.

Blog 3: What's Being Taught??

In K-12 education, I was taught that the United States stood for liberty. Furthermore, if liberty was threatened in foreign nations America would step up and uphold democracy. This was my thinking/outlook on the United States foreign relations. In history, I have always thought of the US as being the hero who stood up for equality and liberty as result of my prior education.

Applying this thinking to Latin America, I was always confused on the distaste towards the United States (especially with Cuba). When learning about the relationship between Cuba and the United States there have always been fuzzy gaps in the story that didn't quite add up or the blanket statement "they are communists and communists are bad."

After class, I feel complete in this puzzle that I have pondering on since high school.  There are valid reasons for the United States reputation and stigma in Cuba. America took advantage of the Cuban independent movement for their own economic and imperial interests. The US took the Cuban presents out of the war and inserted itself in place.

Moving forward, I am glad to see that the travel ban had been lifted in Cuba and I hope that we, as a nation, will grow in diplomatic relations. History should be taught in multiple perspectives because that is when people will get a more complete picture of what really occurred. I wish I had this knowledge about Latin America, from Inca to the present, much earlier in life because I feel like I have been brainwashed to think a certain way.