This weeks material focused on crisis facing Latin America at the beginning of the 20th century, with a particular focus on Mexico and the Mexican Revolution. The Mexican revolution is really interesting to me because it seems to still play a role in Mexican politics and society. As Dawson mentions in the video the Plan […]
Posted in Blogs, Week 8 | Tagged with EZLN, Mexico, NAFTA, pancho villa, Plan de Ayala, revolution, Zapata
This weeks material focused on crisis facing Latin America at the beginning of the 20th century, with a particular focus on Mexico and the Mexican Revolution. The Mexican revolution is really interesting to me because it seems to still play a role in Mexican politics and society. As Dawson mentions in the video the Plan […]
Posted in Blogs, Week 8 | Tagged with EZLN, Mexico, NAFTA, pancho villa, Plan de Ayala, revolution, Zapata
One thing I found particularly interesting that came up in Dawson, as well as Emilio Zapata’s “Plan de Ayala”, was the association of peasant revolutionaries as being ‘bandits and rebels’. Dawson points out that the writing was essentially on the wall after Zapata and Villa occupied Mexico City; that they had irreversibly upset the liberal […]
Posted in Blogs, Week 8 | Tagged with MLK, oligarchy, revolution, riot, unionism, Villa, Zapata
This week, we looked at how the export boom and economic progress affected Latin American societies, particularly Mexico. The readings point out how fragmented the social classes were as a reflection of how the wealth from the boom was distributed between groups: the profits were concentrated in the hands of the urban elites and landowners, […]
Posted in Blogs, Week 8 | Tagged with export boom, fragmentary society, Mexican Revolution, pancho villa, Zapata
This week, we looked at how the export boom and economic progress affected Latin American societies, particularly Mexico. The readings point out how fragmented the social classes were as a reflection of how the wealth from the boom was distributed between groups: the profits were concentrated in the hands of the urban elites and landowners, […]
Posted in Blogs, Week 8 | Tagged with export boom, fragmentary society, Mexican Revolution, pancho villa, 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
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
