Despite securing hard-fought independence from Spain in the early 19th century, Latin America experienced a neocolonial resurgence that renewed feelings of oppression throughout the region.
Neocolonialism was generally reinforced by strong-man, caudillo-type leaders. These people usually came to power by leveraging a supposed link with the commoner, only to bend to outside influence under the guise of positivism and progress while in office.
In Mexico, an armed and violent revolt was necessary to enact the type of long-lasting change that the people of Mexico longed to have. By creating a mestizo national identity and enacting near-Marxist-style political policies, Mexico was finally able to cement a national identity outside of foreign influence.
Neocolonialism in Mexico peaked under the dictatorship of longtime caudillo Porfirio Diaz known as The Porfiriato. This period was characterized by a classic military strongman-style authoritarian dictatorship that would come to define the region during the late 19th century. Diaz came to power like many caudillos: appealing to the “common man.” Once in power, Diaz employed his national police to suppress the countryside while simultaneously keeping indigenous peoples out of the city to not give “the wrong impression.”
Diaz welcomed foreign investment — 25% of Mexican land was eventually foreign-owned, and so were the profits from that land. His actions were all in the name of positivism, a French idea that called for an authoritarian government to “achieve order and progress,” importing more European ideas to Latin America. Of course, it wasn’t all bad.
As railroads became necessary, Ignacio Altamirano, the renowned Mexican writer, wrote glowingly of the new connection between Mexico City and Texcoco. He proclaimed that Texcoco had received an “infusion of youth”. He reported that the critical ancient city was revived by the new railroad.
Predictably, enthusiasm for positivism was not universal. Neocolonialism and positivism brought a racial hierarchy like the one that plagued colonial Latin America. Altamirano provides insight into this reality in The Blue-Eyed Bandit.In this book, the roles are reversed, and the light-skinned people become the “bad guys. “
In contrast, the darker-skinned people are the “good guys,” Through this, I believe we can see how the average Mexican has come to view race. Positivism also meant “scientific” racism and the preposterous idea of “whitening” a race over time through immigration and intermarriage. Fortunately, a growing population of discontented Mexicans sought a change in their government and they resorted to violence to achieve it.
The problems with racism and a lack of a national identity from neocolonialism would not last forever. Revolutionary factions in central, northern, and southern Mexico took advantage of the growing discontent with the Diaz government, and by 1917 a new constitution was written. The new constitution and government would fuse anti-neocolonialism sentiment into a new ethnic nationalism with Marxist overtones.
Like nativism, nationalism rejected the idea of white racial superiority and American and European hegemony in the region. Nationalism celebrated Mexico’s racial and cultural differences by creating a mestizo nationalist identity. The emphasis on mestizo identities allowed nationalists to elicit support from the entire social spectrum to incite rebellion and revolution.
The nativist independence movements of the early 19th century created national borders, but only after further revolution did nationalism create a society. Nowhere was this more brutally evident than in Mexico.
The constitution created in Mexico is still in place today as, finally, the country was a nation influenced by its people. When a nation is oppressed, suppressed, and marginalized, such as under The Porfiriato, the only logical recourse is violent insurrection resulting in a revolution.
