This week’s lecture brought up that there is a gap between the abstract domain of rights and the practical integration of them. Even then, once they are incorporated, it may be for alternative motives. For example, Dawson noted how some formerly enslaved black slave owners in Haiti embraced emancipation not for the virtue of it […]
Posted in Blogs, Week 6 | Tagged with abstract, Darwin, Dawson, dogma, eugenics, judith, limpieza de sangre, phrenology
Revolution: attempt to shape a view of the past that organizes power in the present and making claims on the meaning of those events. With regard to Latin America people say that the revolution never really ended.
The video talks about the 3 major components of revolution. There was people like the Diaz’s that benefited from the power and economic advantages that were happening. Another ethos was the revolution of the Serrano- the frontiers- people that lived a free life in the Mexican state and had seen their life transform because of the modernity that had happened. For them, this was freedom, and freedom of authority. The last group was the Agrarian: mostly indigenous people living in central and southern Mexico who’s land was illegally taken from them.
The concept of who won the revolution is very difficult to say some people won land and some walked with nothing at all. I found it very interesting to hear what Dawson said about revolution and how the youngest were usually the ones to survive and they had been followers, not leaders. So at that particular time, it was better to be a follower than a leader which is ironic. One thing that really struck me was when Dawson talked about the phenomenon that nobody really wins a revolution, you can win a war but never a revolution.
The claim of “liberty and land never go away” I discovered was extremely important. The 2 icons: Wachovia and Zapata. The fights between the Zapatistas and the Agrarians got me thinking about the world today and how it would be if people asked for their lands back and fought for their lands back. For one- would we be on the Musqueam lands, secondly would war like Israeli/Palestinian conflicts would be further amplified?
The reading of Signs of Crisis in a Gilded Age talks about the struggles that people faced whilst trying to gain some type of modernization. When Dawson talks about this he talks about how it was beneficial in some respects but similarly- people do not realise about all the suffering that took place- it was unstable, violent and a struggle despite the fact that it was an “economic boom”
Posted in Blogs, Week 8 | Tagged with Crisis, Dawson, Diaz, economic boom, revolution, serrano, wachovia, Zapata
Revolution: attempt to shape a view of the past that organizes power in the present and making claims on the meaning of those events. With regard to Latin America people say that the revolution never really ended.
The video talks about the 3 major components of revolution. There was people like the Diaz’s that benefited from the power and economic advantages that were happening. Another ethos was the revolution of the Serrano- the frontiers- people that lived a free life in the Mexican state and had seen their life transform because of the modernity that had happened. For them, this was freedom, and freedom of authority. The last group was the Agrarian: mostly indigenous people living in central and southern Mexico who’s land was illegally taken from them.
The concept of who won the revolution is very difficult to say some people won land and some walked with nothing at all. I found it very interesting to hear what Dawson said about revolution and how the youngest were usually the ones to survive and they had been followers, not leaders. So at that particular time, it was better to be a follower than a leader which is ironic. One thing that really struck me was when Dawson talked about the phenomenon that nobody really wins a revolution, you can win a war but never a revolution.
The claim of “liberty and land never go away” I discovered was extremely important. The 2 icons: Wachovia and Zapata. The fights between the Zapatistas and the Agrarians got me thinking about the world today and how it would be if people asked for their lands back and fought for their lands back. For one- would we be on the Musqueam lands, secondly would war like Israeli/Palestinian conflicts would be further amplified?
The reading of Signs of Crisis in a Gilded Age talks about the struggles that people faced whilst trying to gain some type of modernization. When Dawson talks about this he talks about how it was beneficial in some respects but similarly- people do not realise about all the suffering that took place- it was unstable, violent and a struggle despite the fact that it was an “economic boom”
Posted in Blogs, Week 8 | Tagged with Crisis, Dawson, Diaz, economic boom, revolution, serrano, wachovia, Zapata
Revolution: attempt to shape a view of the past that organizes power in the present and making claims on the meaning of those events. With regard to Latin America people say that the revolution never really ended.
The video talks about the 3 major components of revolution. There was people like the Diaz’s that benefited from the power and economic advantages that were happening. Another ethos was the revolution of the Serrano- the frontiers- people that lived a free life in the Mexican state and had seen their life transform because of the modernity that had happened. For them, this was freedom, and freedom of authority. The last group was the Agrarian: mostly indigenous people living in central and southern Mexico who’s land was illegally taken from them.
The concept of who won the revolution is very difficult to say some people won land and some walked with nothing at all. I found it very interesting to hear what Dawson said about revolution and how the youngest were usually the ones to survive and they had been followers, not leaders. So at that particular time, it was better to be a follower than a leader which is ironic. One thing that really struck me was when Dawson talked about the phenomenon that nobody really wins a revolution, you can win a war but never a revolution.
The claim of “liberty and land never go away” I discovered was extremely important. The 2 icons: Wachovia and Zapata. The fights between the Zapatistas and the Agrarians got me thinking about the world today and how it would be if people asked for their lands back and fought for their lands back. For one- would we be on the Musqueam lands, secondly would war like Israeli/Palestinian conflicts would be further amplified?
The reading of Signs of Crisis in a Gilded Age talks about the struggles that people faced whilst trying to gain some type of modernization. When Dawson talks about this he talks about how it was beneficial in some respects but similarly- people do not realise about all the suffering that took place- it was unstable, violent and a struggle despite the fact that it was an “economic boom”
Posted in Blogs, Week 8 | Tagged with Crisis, Dawson, Diaz, economic boom, revolution, serrano, wachovia, Zapata
Revolution: attempt to shape a view of the past that organizes power in the present and making claims on the meaning of those events. With regard to Latin America people say that the revolution never really ended.
The video talks about the 3 major components of revolution. There was people like the Diaz’s that benefited from the power and economic advantages that were happening. Another ethos was the revolution of the Serrano- the frontiers- people that lived a free life in the Mexican state and had seen their life transform because of the modernity that had happened. For them, this was freedom, and freedom of authority. The last group was the Agrarian: mostly indigenous people living in central and southern Mexico who’s land was illegally taken from them.
The concept of who won the revolution is very difficult to say some people won land and some walked with nothing at all. I found it very interesting to hear what Dawson said about revolution and how the youngest were usually the ones to survive and they had been followers, not leaders. So at that particular time, it was better to be a follower than a leader which is ironic. One thing that really struck me was when Dawson talked about the phenomenon that nobody really wins a revolution, you can win a war but never a revolution.
The claim of “liberty and land never go away” I discovered was extremely important. The 2 icons: Wachovia and Zapata. The fights between the Zapatistas and the Agrarians got me thinking about the world today and how it would be if people asked for their lands back and fought for their lands back. For one- would we be on the Musqueam lands, secondly would war like Israeli/Palestinian conflicts would be further amplified?
The reading of Signs of Crisis in a Gilded Age talks about the struggles that people faced whilst trying to gain some type of modernization. When Dawson talks about this he talks about how it was beneficial in some respects but similarly- people do not realise about all the suffering that took place- it was unstable, violent and a struggle despite the fact that it was an “economic boom”
Posted in Blogs, Week 8 | Tagged with Crisis, Dawson, Diaz, economic boom, revolution, serrano, wachovia, Zapata
Sorry for the couple hours delayed upload- I have managed to break my laptop, tooth and phone all within the span of one week
This week’s lecture’s were focused entirely on Modernity and the concept of modernization and what it means to us. Modernization can be defined as the process of a change in development when it comes to social aspects, political and economical aspects. Throughout the 1880’s I discovered that countries experienced a lot modernization- in Western Europe, Latin America, North America, and Africa.
Paying specific attention to Latin America and the kind of images that were depicted on Modernity- it seems to me that they all expect us to look and act as people in the US. You are considered modern in todays world if you look like US- when it comes to dressing, technology and all other aspects. Without a doubt- the world will soon turn into America because that is the most “ideal” form of Modernity. God forbid we start thinking like Trump which I pray never happens.
Nonetheless- with regard to Mexico- the president Diaz brought so much into the country with references to wealth, dressing, medicine, health. He began restructuring the economy- and this called for huge booms in economic development and improvement of transportation. Not only was life much quicker during this time but it also increased the amount of exploitation of the natural resources by luring foreign capitals to invest in Latin American countries and it’s agriculture at the time
Diaz may have brought in a huge stability with regard growth in Mexico- but this can be counter argued in so many ways as many people over look the gap that it created within the rich and the poor. Diaz’s method of ruling was dictatorship and left no room for political advancement or opposition .
The lecture also talks about the ways in which religion, Dawson, secularism- and talks about how Christianity was introduced into Mexico- in several ways the catholic churches imposed themselves onto the Mexicans and left little to no room for choice dictating exactly the way people should live their lives.
My question for this week will have to do on the relation of Diaz and modernity- could he really be considered a positive impact of Mexico if he caused such a huge divide between the upper and the lower class and did not allow for formal opposition?
Posted in Blogs | Tagged with christianity, church, Dawson, Diaz, export, modernity, politics, secularism, Stability
