Posted on 05/21/2004 9:30:17 AM PDT by Slapshot 3
I have an exam that is based on these three quetions. I am hoping there is a history guru that can help me with these. 1. What is sovereignty, and how has it existed in Mexico since the 1860’s? Has it been volatile? Has it been threatened or steady? Has this sovereignty existed in Mexico in territorial integrity? in economic self-determination? What are examples that support your arguments?
2. Why did the Mexican Revolution begin? What were the issues that kept it going for so many years? Who pushed for it? Who suffered? Who were the people that claimed victory at the end, and why did they claim victory? How did the revolution end?
3. What is the “Mexican Miracle” and what did it do for the Mexican economy? How did Mexicans benefit or not benefit from the “Mexican Miracle?” How did it change Mexicans’ livelihoods and lifestyles? Why did it end? Why could not Mexico continue the miracle past the 1970s?
I think a good start would be to look up the word "sovereignty" in a dictionary, on-line or paper.
Is your Term Paper due today?
You joined Free Republic today so someone could give you the answers to your history test?
1) Do a Google search.
2) Go to the Library and look for answers on your own.
3) Don't be lazy and ask others to do your work for you.
And by the way, Welcome to FR
Go to math class first so you can learn to count. Looks like more than 3 questions to me.
Is the Bastan accent intentional?
But all too many history teachers believe truth is subjective, and the goal in their exams isn't to answer with the truth, but to present the "truth" that is favored by the teacher, modified a slight bit so that the teacher can pretend to herself that you're actually learning, instead of parrotting back bull-shit.
You'll have to look in your class notes, textbooks, and other class materials, to figure out which "truth" your teacher is looking for.
Sorry I couldn't be of more help.
Term paper, or turn paper?
Hey, I bet that have a course that will give you the answers to these questions. It might be the one that took place just prior to the test you are about to take.
Good luck!
I don't know, but listening to Slapshot usually gets me too agitated to study.
1. "Sovereignty" is tea you serve to the Queen. I don't think it happens very often in Mexico, but I could be wrong.
2.The cause of the Mexican revolution was Taco Bell (which is also the name of the Mexican phone company.)
3.The Mexican Miracle was Salma Hyak.
Go to this web site and you can get some basic information so YOU can research these exams questions further:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
For example, I've found that if you ask those of proud Mexican heritage what occurred on May 5th that is commemorated on the Cinco de Mayo holiday you'll get a lot of blank looks and vague incorrect replies.
I've found that that Americans who are not hispanic are much more likely to know that is was a victory over the French in a particular battle, and that it is not the Mexican independence day.
Mexico has been sovereign since the French and Austrians withdrew in the 1860s. One of the things Lincoln did, while fighting the South, was to support the Mexicans with arms. Once the Civil War was over, the French knew it was time to withdraw and did so.
Porifio Diaz was a modernizing technocrat similar perhaps to the Shah of Iran. The forces arrayed against him were various, there were democrats, populists, and marxists.
The forces who won out over the course of the war were the marxists. Now that they are hallowed founders of the Modern Mexican state, it is easy to forget that this was the era of the Russian revolution, and the same political forces at work there were a part of the Mexican political scene. The result was different because the marxists who won in Russia were Russians; Mexico was conquered by marxists who were, after all was said and done, Mexicans. So the result was different. A couple of million people slaughtered during war but no actual gulag.
They did make it a point to execute priests, which led to a counter revolution in the mid-to-late twenties, but this was eventually put down. The stories are that the generals whose job it was to hunt down the priests, were betrayed by their wives who held prayer services in their homes and hid the priests. How true that is I don't know, but that is the story that Mexicans tell about those times.
The basic assumptions of most Mexican political parties is still essentially marxist. The PRI is the direct descendant of the original marxist founders, which lost its revolutionary flavor long ago. Being the ruling party for 70 or 80 years means that it is a kind of mafia, and represents a certain kind of nationalist conservatism despite its marxist roots. PAN is a party that started as the Catholic opposition to the marxists, and suffered a good deal of repression in its early days. It is what passes for conservatism in Mexico; they adopted a lot of leftist Catholic "liberation" ideology, but it is openly pro-catholic while the other parties tend to be anti-catholic in their public posture (although they continue to be catholics just the same). And PAN is the party that is most business oriented, which makes them a little schizophrenic as they juggle two opposing postures within the same party.
PRD is the most openly marxist of the parties, and is still fairly small, but influential. They are the Eugene McCarthys of Mexico, marxist but idealistic.
It is hard to assign ideologies to the parties because at least the two majors have shifted over time, and their ideologies are surprisingly flexible. And a certain level of populism is endemic such that even Mexican conservatives express themselves in essentially marxist terms. And then there is the problem that there are two kinds of "conservatism", the PRI (the aged "revolutionary" party) representing the status quo and the PAN presenting almost an identical set of public beliefs but without the mafia dinosaurs. Theoretically.
The Mexican revolution was intended to redress certain land abuses, but left the country with economic stagnation. Land reform after the revolution broke up large land holdings but did not give the indian peasants clear title to their land. Consequently they can not borrow against their holdings, leaving them with no way to modernize their methods. They can't afford to buy farming equipment, in other words. So they are stuck on a plot of land that won't feed them, and if they decide to move to town, or to the US, they can't sell their property either, so they simply abandon it. That is happening all over Mexico.
The original communes established by the marxists after the revolution have mostly been subdivided into family plots for practical reasons, but such subdivision is technically illegal, which leaves much of Mexican land in legal limbo. This kind of legal limbo is what locks most of Mexico's economy into stagnation (see Hernando de Soto's work for an explanation of how that works).
The Mexican Miracle similarly made Mexican industry off limits to foreign investment, which locked the rest of the economy into stagnation. So much of Mexican history has been taught by the PRI that an honest assessment of what the revolution did to the country has been impossible. Everyone agrees that the revolution was the best thing that could have happened, and any other view is essentially impossible. Until the post-revolutionary land reform is resolved giving the settlers actual legal title, most of their peasantry will continue to be driven north.
The overthrow of the PRI dinosaurs has opened doors to a new analysis of the national situation, but until the country as a whole learns to reject much of what they have been taught, it will be hard to turn anything around. A country in which even conservatives operate on marxist economic assumptions has a long way to go.
bump
It happens all too often.
Looks like you 17 questions... not three.
The Mexican revolution was intended to redress certain land abuses, but left the country with economic stagnation. Land reform after the revolution broke up large land holdings but did not give the indian peasants clear title to their land. Consequently they can not borrow against their holdings, leaving them with no way to modernize their methods. They can't afford to buy farming equipment, in other words. So they are stuck on a plot of land that won't feed them, and if they decide to move to town, or to the US, they can't sell their property either, so they simply abandon it. That is happening all over Mexico.
Which is where Hernando deSoto comes in (no, not that one - the other one).
Arguably the best decision the formative US government ever made was that real property would only be held in fee simple. Land never reverted on death, was never entailed to descendents, etc. It was owned, and could be rented, sold, mortgaged, etc.
As for Mexico, my response to those who claim that we should allow Mexicans to cross into the US for work, without restrictions, that under NAFTA they should be able to take any job that a US citizen can, is that I'll support that as soon as a US citizen can buy any property in Mexico that a Mexican can.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.