The Mexican Revolution: The Rise Of Porfirio Diaz

In the year of 1908, “60,000 to 100,000 Mexicans immigrated to the United States” due to a recession (Davenport 67). They left during the rule of Porfirio Díaz, who ruled Mexico as a dictatorship from 1876 to 1910. Taking control of a failing country, Díaz managed to improve the economy and infrastructure of Mexico, so some see him as a leader who transformed Mexico for the better. However, in order to make these improvements, Díaz had to exploit the lower class of Mexico and rig elections to ignore the two consecutive term limit so he could keep his power. Due to the poor conditions of the lower class and his blatant corruption, Mexico overthrew him in 1910 during the Mexican Revolution. Despite Díaz’ improvements to Mexico, his corruption …show more content…
He may have industrialized Mexico, but he did not solve the problems that came with industrialization. Laborers that were working in industrial factories had poor working conditions: low wages and no chance for promotion (Frost and Keegan 16-17). Also, workers in the haciendas, or plantations, were often illiterate, paid low wages, and had a one in four mortality rate (“The Restored Republic and Porfiriato”). Sometimes, the workers were not paid actual wages, but given credits for use in the company store (Frost and Keegan 20). Díaz hurt Mexico because he did not make any changes that would stop the squalor that the peasants were living in, even when other industrialized countries at the time had made reforms, such as labor unions, to help the working class, and those countries were successful. Even though these industries improved Mexico in terms of infrastructure, due to his failure to improve the conditions of low class, anger would build up in them due to their terrible state of living, and that resentment would lead to the uprising known as the Mexican Revolution, putting Mexico in a state of violence for years to come. Díaz would never address the issues with the working class, showing that he completely ignored them. Not only were the lower class of Mexico living in terrible conditions, but …show more content…
It seized land belonging to peasant villagers, and sold it to other companies, leaving the peasants homeless (Frost and Keegan 17-18). Workers were also forcefully collected by the military to work in the haciendas (Frost and Keegan 20). Anybody trying to organize any strikes or protest were forcefully stopped by the “rurales”, or police force (“The Restored Republic and Porfiriato”). Díaz knowingly allowed the lower class to be exploited in order to try and maintain his power by keeping the higher class of Mexico happy. Díaz was willing to leave the peasants without anywhere to live or farm, have them collected to be almost like slaves, and did not allow them to try and improve their working conditions. Díaz’ infringements of rights proved that he harmed Mexico. In order to justify these terrible acts, Díaz used “positivist ideals”, which is taking action to “benefit[...] some people at the expense of others” (“Porfirio Díaz”). Díaz thought that taking away the rights of the lower class was necessary in order to improve the lives of the upper class, but doing this led to the lower class taking part in the Mexican Revolution in 1910, which would, ironically, lower the power of the highest class. Díaz was against Mexico because the lower class were not recognized any rights during his reign. What the lower class had to suffer through prove that Díaz did not care about them, and their state of