Regimes of Order and Progress in Latin America: 1875 - 1910

Regimes of Order and Progress in Latin America: 1875 - 1910

Données clés

Faculté	Lettres
Département	Département d’histoire générale
Professeur(s)	Aline Helg
Cours	The United States and Latin America: late 18th and 20th centuries

Lectures

• The Americas on the eve of independence
• The independence of the United States
• The U.S. Constitution and Early 19th Century Society
• The Haitian Revolution and its Impact in the Americas
• The independence of Latin American nations
• Latin America around 1850: societies, economies, policies
• The Northern and Southern United States circa 1850: immigration and slavery
• The American Civil War and Reconstruction: 1861 - 1877
• The (re)United States: 1877 - 1900
• Regimes of Order and Progress in Latin America: 1875 - 1910
• The Mexican Revolution: 1910 - 1940
• American society in the 1920s
• The Great Depression and the New Deal: 1929 - 1940
• From Big Stick Policy to Good Neighbor Policy
• Coups d'état and Latin American populisms
• The United States and World War II
• Latin America during the Second World War
• US Post-War Society: Cold War and the Society of Plenty
• The Cold War in Latin America and the Cuban Revolution
• The Civil Rights Movement in the United States

The regimes of "Order and Progress" in Latin America, which were implemented in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, aimed to modernise and industrialise their countries, promote economic growth, and create a strong, centralised government. These regimes, led by authoritarian leaders, often implemented policies such as modernising infrastructure, expanding education and public health, and suppressing political dissent. However, they also led to widespread human rights abuses, suppression of indigenous and working-class populations, and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite.

In Mexico, the regime of Porfirio Díaz, which ruled from 1876 to 1910, implemented policies of "Order and Progress" as a means of modernising the country. Díaz's government built railroads, roads, and other infrastructure, and encouraged foreign investment. However, these policies also led to the suppression of political dissent, the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite, and widespread human rights abuses. This led to widespread discontent among the Mexican people, particularly among the working class and indigenous populations, ultimately leading to the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920.

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Western ideologies such as racism and social Darwinism were widely accepted and played a significant role in the justification of the social status quo in Latin America. These ideologies were used to justify the disproportionate exploitation of workers, particularly those from marginalised groups such as indigenous people and Afro-Latin Americans. Racism, which held that certain races were inherently superior to others, was used to justify the subjugation of indigenous and Afro-Latin American populations. Social Darwinism, which held that certain groups or classes were biologically superior and therefore had the right to dominate others, was also used to justify the exploitation of workers and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite.

In the context of Latin America, these ideologies were used to justify the continuation of exploitative labour practices, such as forced labour and debt peonage, even after the formal abolition of slavery in many countries. They also played a role in suppressing political dissent and human rights abuses by the regimes of "Order and Progress."

Economic liberalism, which emphasises minimal government intervention in the economy and protecting private property rights, developed in Latin America during the last quarter of the 19th and early 20th centuries. However, it is important to note that this economic system was not developed in a vacuum, but rather with significant state intervention and subsidies. Governments in Latin America during this period, often led by authoritarian leaders, implemented policies to promote economic growth and modernisation, such as building infrastructure, encouraging foreign investment, and suppressing political dissent. They also provided subsidies and protection to large landowners and industrialists, while suppressing protests and dissent from workers and small farmers.

In addition, state-sponsored migration policies were implemented to "launder" the population by encouraging the migration of Europeans to the region. This was done in order to create a new demographic that would be more amenable to the economic policies of the state and to the interests of the ruling elite.{

{Translations | fr = Régimes d’Ordre et de Progrès en Amérique latine : 1875 - 1910 | es = Regímenes de Orden y Progreso en América Latina: 1875 - 1910 }}

The positivist ideology

Context in Latin America

During the last quarter of the 19th century, many Latin American states were influenced by the positivist ideology, which emphasized the importance of scientific and rational thinking in understanding the world and promoting social progress. This ideology was seen as a way to emulate the rapid development and modernisation of the United States and to counter the perceived threat of U.S. imperialism in the Americas.

Many Latin American leaders embraced positivism to modernise their countries and promote economic growth. They believed that implementing policies based on scientific principles and rational thinking could create a strong and centralised state, improve infrastructure, and promote education and public health.

However, positivism was also used to justify the suppression of political dissent and human rights abuses by the regimes of "Order and Progress." Positivists believed that social progress could only be achieved by suppressing "backward" elements of society and creating a homogeneous population by suppressing indigenous cultures and migration policies.

The development of communication channels and the growing population in Latin America in the mid-19th century played a significant role in the increase of raw material production and exports. The construction of railroads, roads, and ports improved transportation and made it easier to extract, transport and export resources such as minerals, agricultural products, and natural fibres.

The population growth also led to an increase in demand for raw materials and agricultural products, both domestically and internationally, which encouraged the expansion of these industries. Additionally, the expansion of these industries created jobs and helped to drive economic growth.

The increased production and export of raw materials also significantly impacted the economies of many Latin American countries. They became dependent on these resources' exports, making them vulnerable to fluctuations in the global market prices. This in turn led to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small elite who controlled these industries. At the same time, the majority of the population remained poor and excluded from the benefits of economic growth.

The gap between Latin America and the Northern and Western United States has widened significantly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This was due to a number of factors, including economic, political, and social differences between the two regions.

Economically, the Northern and Western United States had a more developed and diversified economy, while Latin America was heavily dependent on the export of raw materials. This made Latin America more vulnerable to fluctuations in global market prices and caused the gap in wealth and living standards to widen between the two regions.

Politically, the United States had a more stable and democratic government, while authoritarian regimes, political instability, and human rights abuses characterised Latin America. This made the United States a more attractive destination for foreign investment and immigration.

Socially, the United States had a more developed education and healthcare system and a higher standard of living, while Latin America had significant social and economic inequalities.

In addition, Latin America's dependence on trade and investment shifted from England to the United States as the U.S. emerged as a dominant economic and political power in the region. This shift in dependence led to further economic, political and cultural influence of the U.S. over Latin America, which has had both positive and negative consequences.

Influence of Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism was used in the United States to explain the country's economic success by claiming that the Anglo-Saxon race was biologically superior to other groups. This belief was used to justify the subjugation of non-white and non-Anglo-Saxon groups, including immigrants, African Americans, and Native Americans. Social Darwinism was used to justify discriminatory policies such as segregation and exclusion from political, social and economic opportunities.

In Latin America, the ideology of Social Darwinism was used similarly to justify the economic and social status quo by stating that the majority of the population, which is of African and Amerindian descent, is inferior and therefore responsible for the backwardness of the nation. This belief was used to justify the suppression of indigenous cultures, the forced assimilation of indigenous and Afro-Latin American populations, and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite.

For many elites in Latin America, the perceived backwardness of their nations was not seen as a law of God, but rather as a result of human actions and decisions. This belief led to a sense that the situation could be remedied through human effort, such as modernisation and economic development.

This perspective is different from that of many Protestant elites in the United States, who often saw their country's economic success and dominance as a sign of God's favour and saw the subjugation of non-white and non-Anglo-Saxon groups as part of a divine plan. This belief was used to justify discriminatory and oppressive policies towards these groups, and to resist efforts at reform and social change.

Many Latin American elites, mostly composed of white individuals, believed that indigenous people, mestizos, and non-whites were inferior and responsible for the perceived backwardness of their nations. They often viewed these groups as a hindrance to modernisation and economic development.

However, these same elites also believed that this backwardness could be overcome by implementing "Order and Progress" regimes heavily influenced by positivism. Positivism, with its emphasis on scientific and rational thinking, was seen as a way to modernise and industrialise the country, and to create a strong, centralised government. The elites believed that implementing policies based on positivism could improve infrastructure, promote education and public health, and bring about social progress.

This perspective of the elites was highly problematic, as it led to widespread human rights abuses and the suppression of indigenous and working-class populations. The policies implemented under the guise of "Order and Progress" often resulted in the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite, while leaving the majority of the population marginalised and excluded from the benefits of economic growth.

The Positivist philosophy

Positivism is a philosophy that was developed by the French philosopher Auguste Comte in the mid-19th century. It emphasises the importance of scientific and rational thinking in understanding the world and promoting social progress. Positivism holds that human societies evolve in a linear and predetermined way, passing through three stages: the theological, the metaphysical, and the scientific or positive stage. According to Comte, the positive stage is the ultimate stage of human development, in which society is guided by scientific principles and rationality rather than by religious or supernatural beliefs.

In this philosophy, Comte also believed that societies would progress through a natural process of selection, where the best-endowed societies would survive and evolve while the others would die out. He believed that the progress of human society could be measured by the degree of social integration and the degree of scientific knowledge.

Positivism was widely adopted in Latin America as a means to emulate the rapid development and modernisation of the United States and Europe, and to counter the perceived threat of U.S. imperialism in the Americas. However, as we've previously discussed, it was also used to justify the suppression of political dissent and human rights abuses by the regimes of "Order and Progress." It also led to the suppression of indigenous cultures, forced assimilation, and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite.

According to positivism, the evolution of societies can be accelerated by economic liberalism, which emphasises minimal government intervention in the economy and protecting private property rights. Positivists believed that by creating a favorable environment for economic growth and development, societies would naturally progress towards the positive stage.

Positivists also believed that a strong government led by a small elite was necessary to guide society towards progress, as they believed that the masses could not make rational decisions. This belief led to the implementation of authoritarian policies and suppression of political dissent by the regimes of "Order and Progress" in Latin America.

In addition, Positivism rejected the idea of protecting the rights of the working classes, as it believed that social progress could only be achieved by suppressing "backward" elements of society and by creating a homogeneous population. This led to the suppression of labour rights, forced labour, and debt peonage, and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite.

Positivism attempted to reconcile the idea of progress with the traditional social order, which was appealing to many Latin American elites who sought to modernise their countries without fundamentally altering the existing economic and socio-racial hierarchies. These elites were often reluctant to challenge the existing power structures and were unwilling to grant full citizenship rights to working classes.

The idea of reconciling progress with tradition enabled these elites to justify maintaining their own privileges and power, while at the same time, promoting modernisation and economic growth. They believed that implementing policies based on positivism could improve infrastructure, promote education and public health, and bring about social progress without fundamentally changing the existing power structures or granting equal rights to all citizens.

However, this approach led to widespread human rights abuses, the suppression of political dissent, and the suppression of indigenous and working-class populations. The policies implemented under the guise of "Order and Progress" often resulted in the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite, while leaving the majority of the population marginalised and excluded from the benefits of economic growth..

Positivism in Latin America

Positivism spread rapidly throughout Latin America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and its philosophy reflected the characteristics of the region during that time period. The elites, who were mostly composed of white individuals, used positivism to justify maintaining their own privileges and power, while at the same time promoting modernisation and economic growth. They believed that implementing policies based on positivism could improve infrastructure, promote education and public health, and bring about social progress without fundamentally changing the existing power structures or granting equal rights to all citizens.

However, this approach led to widespread human rights abuses, the suppression of political dissent, and the suppression of indigenous and working-class populations. The policies implemented under the guise of "Order and Progress" often resulted in the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite, while leaving the majority of the population marginalised and excluded from the benefits of economic growth.

The elites also continued to manipulate the principles of economic and political liberalism to maintain a colonial socio-racial hierarchy that ensured their control of economic resources, including control of land through the concentration of land ownership and control of labour through the repression of any contestation.

Flag of Brazil with the notion "ORDEM E PROGRESSO" which is the motto of positivism founded by the French philosopher Auguste Comte.

From the last quarter of the 19th century, we see the emergence of an era where the powerful have greater freedom. Still, the rights and democratic representation of the majority of the population are suppressed. The policies implemented by the "regimes of order and progress" in Latin America were designed to promote economic growth and modernisation. Still, they were often implemented at the expense of the rights and well-being of the majority of the population.

The elite, who were often composed of white individuals, used their power to maintain control of economic resources, including control of land through the concentration of land ownership and control of labour through the repression of any contestation. They also suppressed political dissent and human rights abuses to maintain their power and privileges.

These policies led to widespread human rights abuses, suppression of political dissent, suppression of indigenous and working-class populations, and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite. The rights and democratic representation of the majority of the population were sacrificed in the name of economic growth and modernisation. While the situation was dire and unjust, it is important to remember that not all elites in the region held the same views, and not all policies implemented by the regimes of "Order and Progress" were negative. Some had positive impact in areas such as education, science and technology.

For the elites in Latin America, progress was often defined by the growth of exports of tropical products and mining and the seizure of land from small farmers and indigenous communities by the big landowners. This was seen as a way to modernise the country and increase economic growth.

The construction of railroads and the modernisation of cities was also seen as a way to open the country to foreign investment and promote economic growth. However, these policies often led to the displacement of small farmers and indigenous communities, and the concentration of land in the hands of a small elite.

Although these policies promoted economic growth, they also had negative consequences for most of the population. Small farmers and indigenous communities were often displaced from their land and left with little means of livelihood. The concentration of land in the hands of a small elite led to widespread poverty and social inequality, as the majority of the population was excluded from the benefits of economic growth. These policies were not unique to Latin America. Similar policies were implemented in other regions of the world during this period, leading to similar consequences.

The concept of "Order" in the "Regimes of Order and Progress" in Latin America often involved the development and modernisation of the military, often with the help of military missions from countries such as Germany. The military was strengthened and used to suppress political dissent and maintain social control.

The restoration of many prerogatives of the Catholic Church, which were suppressed under liberal governments, was also considered a key element of "Order." This included the return of the Church's influence in education and in public life, and the suppression of religious minorities and secular movements.

Opposition to these policies was often silenced through censorship, the return of the censal vote, which restricted voting rights to only a small portion of the population, and the brutal repression of workers and small farmers who mobilised against these changes. These policies led to widespread human rights abuses, suppression of political dissent, and the concentration of power in the hands of a small elite.

The positivist regimes, which were heavily influenced by the ideas of "Order and Progress," were implemented in many Latin American countries during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Some examples of these regimes include the regimes of Rafael Reyes in Colombia and Manuel Estrada Cabrera in Guatemala.

Two countries that are particularly notable for their association with these regimes are Mexico and Brazil. In Mexico, the regime of Porfirio Díaz, who ruled from 1876 to 1911, was one of the most influential and longest-lasting of these regimes. Díaz's government promoted modernisation and economic growth but also suppressed political dissent and maintained a strong authoritarian grip on power.

Similarly, in Brazil, the First Republic (1889-1930) also proclaimed itself as a regime of "Order and Progress". This regime aimed to promote modernisation, industrialisation, and economic growth but also suppressed political dissent and maintained a strong authoritarian grip on power. The phrase "Ordem e Progresso" (Order and Progress) was inscribed on the Brazilian flag during this period, reflecting the government's commitment to these ideals.

The Porfiriato or Porfirio Díaz regime in Mexico: 1876 - 1911

General Porfirio Díaz.

The Porfiriato, also known as the Porfirio Díaz regime, was a period of Mexican history that lasted from 1876 to 1911 and was characterised by the strong authoritarian rule of President Porfirio Díaz. This regime was heavily influenced by positivism, which emphasized scientific and rational thinking to promote social progress.

During the Porfiriato, Díaz's government implemented policies aimed at modernising and industrialising Mexico, including constructing railroads, expanding foreign investment, and promoting education and public health. However, these policies were often implemented at the expense of the rights and well-being of the majority of the population. The regime suppressed political dissent, and maintained a strong authoritarian grip on power. At the same time, the concentration of land in the hands of a small elite led to widespread poverty and social inequality.

The Porfiriato also saw a resurgence of the Catholic Church's influence in public life and suppression of religious minorities and secular movements. This regime has often been criticised for violating human rights and not fulfilling the ideals of progress and order, as most of the population were excluded from the benefits of economic growth and remained marginalised.

The Porfiriato ended in the explosion of the Mexican Revolution. This decade-long conflict would result in the overthrow of Porfirio Díaz and the establishment of a constitutional republic in Mexico.

In 1876, Mexico was a much smaller country than it had been at the time of its independence, as a significant portion of its territory had been annexed by the United States as a result of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). This loss of territory had a significant impact on the country's economy and society.

In addition to this territorial loss, Mexico also underwent significant changes in terms of land ownership and property rights. The Lerdo Law of 1856, passed during the Second Mexican Empire, allowed for the privatisation of properties belonging to the Catholic Church and the lands of indigenous communities and villages. This law enabled wealthy Mexicans, including foreign investors, to acquire large tracts of land, often at the expense of small farmers and indigenous communities.

This law would have an important impact on the social and economic inequality. It would also be one of the factors that would lead to the Mexican Revolution, as many small farmers and indigenous communities would demand the return of their lands.

Porfirio Díaz was a Mexican politician and military leader who served as President of Mexico for over 30 years, from 1876 to 1911. He was of mixed heritage, with a mix of indigenous and Spanish descent, and came from a modest background - his parents were innkeepers. He received a Catholic education and later joined the army, rising through the ranks to become a regional and then national leader.

In 1876, he was elected president on a liberal platform, promising to implement policies to modernise and industrialise the country. However, he imposed himself as a dictator through fraudulent elections, and his regime is known as the Porfiriato. He ruled Mexico with an iron fist, suppressing political opposition and maintaining a strong authoritarian grip on power.

Díaz's regime was heavily influenced by positivism, which emphasises scientific and rational thinking as a means of promoting social progress. He implemented policies aimed at modernising and industrialising Mexico, including the construction of railroads, the expansion of foreign investment, and the promotion of education and public health. However, these policies were often implemented at the expense of the rights and well-being of the majority of the population. The concentration of land in the hands of a small elite led to widespread poverty and social inequality.

The Porfiriato would end with the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution. This decade-long conflict would result in the overthrow of Porfirio Díaz and the establishment of a constitutional republic in Mexico.

After taking power, Porfirio Díaz surrounded himself with a group of positivist intellectuals who were known as "científicos" (scientists). These intellectuals believed that they were the embodiment of modernity in Mexico and that they were in the last stage of evolution of positivism. They believed that implementing policies based on positivism could improve infrastructure, promote education and public health, and bring about social progress without fundamentally changing the existing power structures or granting equal rights to all citizens.

The "científicos" were a small group of elite intellectuals who were appointed to key positions in the government and played a significant role in shaping the policies of the Porfiriato. They were responsible for advising Díaz on various matters, including economic development, education, and public health. They also helped to suppress political dissent and maintain a strong authoritarian grip on power. Not all intellectuals in Mexico supported the Porfirian regime, and the "científicos" faced criticism from other intellectuals and social groups for their role in implementing policies that led to widespread human rights abuses, suppression of political dissent, and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite.

Progress

For the Porfirian regime and its supporters, progress was closely tied to the modernisation and industrialisation of Mexico, which in their view meant the seizure of land from small farmers and indigenous communities for the benefit of big landowners and foreign investors. This policy was accelerated by laws passed in 1884, such as the "ley de desamortización" (law of disentailment), which decreed that the surface and subsoil wealth of the land belonged to its owner, and the "ley del español" (law of the Spaniard) which stipulated that any parcel of land whose occupant could not produce a title deed could be seized by the first purchaser.

These laws enabled wealthy Mexicans, including foreign investors, to acquire large tracts of land, often at the expense of small farmers and indigenous communities. The concentration of land in the hands of a small elite led to widespread poverty and social inequality, as the majority of the population was excluded from the benefits of economic growth. These policies were not unique to Mexico. Similar policies were implemented in other regions of the world during this period, leading to similar consequences. Additionally, these policies were heavily criticised for violating human rights and not fulfilling the ideals of progress and order, as most of the population were excluded from the benefits of economic growth and remained marginalised.

The result of the laws passed in 1884 was a dramatic concentration of land ownership in Mexico. By around 1900, around 20% of the land in Mexico had been taken from its occupants, with a significant portion of it being acquired by large landowners and foreign investors. This led to a significant increase in the size of large landholdings and a decrease in the number of small farmers.

Additionally, around 90% of the indigenous communities in the central plateau lost their communal lands. This has been a significant blow to their way of life, traditional economy, and culture. These policies led to widespread poverty and social inequality, as the majority of the population was excluded from the benefits of economic growth and remained marginalised. These policies had significant long-term consequences for the country, as they contributed to the social and economic inequality, and also to the discontent that would lead to the Mexican Revolution. The call for land reform would be one of the main demands of the revolutionaries, leading to the agrarian reform laws, and the establishment of ejidos (communal landholdings) that would be implemented after the revolution.

The laws passed in 1884 increased financial speculation, as wealthy Mexicans and foreign investors could acquire large tracts of land at the expense of small farmers and indigenous communities. However, these laws did not increase agricultural productivity, as more and more peasants and indigenous people were becoming landless, which led to a surplus of landless labour. This, in turn, had a negative effect on the labour market, as there was no incentive to mechanise agriculture, which would have increased productivity.

More and more land was being cultivated for export, and less and less was being used to feed the growing Mexican population. This was particularly problematic as the population of Mexico was increasing rapidly, from around 10 million in 1877 to 15 million in 1900, due in part to advances in medicine that led to a decrease in mortality rates.

Additionally, the shift towards export-oriented agriculture led to a decline in the production of basic food staples such as maize and beans, which were essential to the diet of most Mexicans. This led to a food insecurity and malnutrition among the population, particularly among the landless and marginalised groups.

ownership in the hands of a small elite, fewer goods were produced for domestic consumption, which led to a rise in food prices. At the same time, wages were falling, as there were too many job seekers in the market, leading to a decline in living standards for most of the population.

As more land was being used for export crops, less land was available for growing basic food staples such as maize and beans, which were essential to the diet of most Mexicans. This led to a shortage of these basic food staples and to an increase in food prices which was particularly problematic for the landless and marginalised groups who could not afford to buy food at these prices.

Additionally, the surplus of landless labour led to a decline in wages as employers could pay lower wages due to the high competition for jobs. This, combined with the rising food prices, led to a decline in living standards for most of the population.

The government of Porfirio Díaz invested heavily in the construction of railroads, increasing the total length of railroads in Mexico from 800 kilometres in 1877 to 24,000 kilometres in 1900. These railroads were built to link the country's North and South, and some of the engineering achievements were quite impressive. The construction of railroads allowed for the movement of goods, people and ideas to be faster, more efficient and cheaper, which in turn helped to spur economic growth. Still, it also had a significant social and environmental impact.

The construction of railroads enabled the export of agricultural and mining products from Mexico to foreign markets, which helped to spur economic growth in the country. However, the construction of railroads also led to the displacement of many communities, the destruction of natural habitats and the introduction of invasive species. The construction of railroads was a major achievement for the country, but it also significantly impacted the environment and the communities that lived near the railroads. Additionally, the railroads were mainly built to serve the interests of the elites and foreign investors, and not the majority of the population.

The railway represented one of the advances in the economy of the Porfiriato and was exposed to the world as a symbol of progress. The Mexican culture of Díaz's time had economic characteristics, such as this painting by José María Velasco, which reflects the railroad in the Valley of Mexico.

The construction of railroads under the Porfirian regime allowed for the expansion of the state apparatus and the mobility of the army, as well as the increase in the number of civil servants. The government also attempted to attract European migrants to Mexico as a way of "whitening" the population. Still, very few actually came, as the living conditions in Mexico were not attractive enough.

Díaz's government also promoted public primary education and hygiene as ways of "improving the race." The government believed that by educating and improving the population's health, they could improve the overall quality of the population and reduce the number of "inferior" individuals. However, these policies were not implemented to benefit the majority of the population, but instead to benefit the elites and foreign investors. These policies were heavily criticised for being based on racist and eugenic ideas, and for not fulfilling the ideals of progress and order, as they did not improve the living conditions of the majority of the population. Additionally, the emphasis on "whitening" the population was criticised for being racist and for promoting the marginalisation of indigenous and Afro-Mexican communities.

The Porfirian period's economic figures are impressive, as the gross national product (GNP) increased by an average of 8% per year between 1884 and 1900. This period saw a significant economic expansion, and a true national economy was formed with a domestic market. The construction of railroads, the expansion of export-oriented agriculture, and the modernisation of industry all contributed to this economic growth.

This period also saw an increase in foreign investment and modernisation of the country, with the construction of infrastructure, such as railroads, ports, and telegraph lines, and modernisation of the country's industry and mining. The expansion of the export-oriented economy helped to spur economic growth. Still, it also led to a concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite, and it was based on the exploitation of the land and labour of the majority of the population. The economic growth during this period was impressive, but it also had significant social and environmental consequences. The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite led to widespread poverty and social inequality, and the exploitation of the land and labour of the majority of the population. Additionally, these policies were heavily criticised for not fulfilling the ideals of progress and order, as the majority of the population were excluded from the benefits of economic growth and remained marginalised.

While the economy was growing during the Porfirian period, the majority of Mexicans were excluded from the benefits of this progress. The economy was increasingly dominated by foreign investors, particularly those from the United States, who owned a significant portion of the tropical plantations, mines, railroads, oil, banks, and light industry. This led to a concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite, and it was based on the exploitation of the land and labour of the majority of the population.

The majority of Mexicans, particularly small farmers and indigenous communities, were displaced and dispossessed of their land. The majority of the population remained marginalised and excluded from the benefits of economic growth. Additionally, this economic model was heavily dependent on exploiting natural resources, which led to environmental degradation and the destruction of traditional ways of life. It's worth noting that these policies were heavily criticised for not fulfilling the ideals of progress and order, as the majority of the population were excluded from the benefits of economic growth and remained marginalised. Additionally, the dependence on foreign investment and the exploitation of natural resources were criticised for not being sustainable and for not promoting the country's long-term development.

During the Porfirian period, regional disparities in the country grew considerably. The central region of Mexico, which was known as Mexico's breadbasket, continued to produce mainly corn, wheat, and beans, but this was not enough to feed the rapidly growing population. Small industries were developing in the region, but they could not keep up with the growing demand for food and other goods.

Most of the land in the central region was taken over by large landowners, who focused on growing export crops, such as sugar cane, which meant that less land was available for growing basic food staples such as corn, wheat, and beans. This led to a shortage of these basic food staples and increased food prices, which was particularly problematic for the landless and marginalised groups who could not afford to buy food at these prices.

Additionally, the surplus of landless labour led to a decline in wages as employers could pay lower wages due to the high competition for jobs. This, in combination with the rising food prices, led to a decline in living standards for the majority of the population in the central region.

During the Porfirian period, the northern region of Mexico experienced significant changes, becoming an important mining region. The production of copper, lead, zinc, and silver was developed, along with the cultivation of cotton and the establishment of light industries. The population of the North also increased, as a result of the migration of 300,000 impoverished Mexicans, particularly central Mexican peasants who had lost their land, as well as the settlement of around 15,000 Americans who were investors, owners of mines and large haciendas.

The development of mining and light industries in the North created new job opportunities, which attracted many migrants from other parts of the country. However, the majority of these jobs were low-paying and dangerous, and the living conditions for the majority of the population in the North were poor. Additionally, the concentration of land ownership in the hands of a small elite and the shift towards export-oriented agriculture led to widespread poverty and social inequality.

The Order

In order to implement the policies of progress and development, the Porfirian regime strongly emphasised maintaining order and control over society. This was done through various methods, including the principles of "divide and rule" and "bread or stick".

The principle of "divide and rule" was used to weaken the power of any potential opposition by playing different groups against each other. For example, the government would favour certain regions or groups or create divisions within the working class or indigenous communities.

The principle of "bread or stick" was used to control the population by offering them incentives or rewards for compliance, or by using repression and force to punish those who opposed the regime. For example, the government would provide jobs, land, or other incentives to those who supported the regime or use the military and police to repress those who opposed it.

The Porfirian regime also made use of censorship, propaganda, and surveillance to maintain control over the population. It also suppressed political opposition, suppressed freedom of speech and press, and restricted civil liberties. This repression was particularly felt by workers, small farmers, indigenous communities and political dissidents.

A detachment of Rurales in field uniform during the Diaz era.

The Porfirian regime's "bread or stick" approach to maintaining order and control over society was primarily aimed at the elite and the pillars of the regime, such as the army and the church. The regime offered incentives or rewards, such as jobs, land, or other benefits, to those who supported the regime and were willing to cooperate with it. This was done to "buy off" the support of certain elite members, and to prevent them from opposing the regime.

However, for the majority of the population, particularly the working class and indigenous communities, the regime relied primarily on repression and force to maintain control. The military and police were used to repress any opposition to the regime, and to maintain control over the population. This approach was particularly effective in rural areas, where the government's presence and control were weaker.

Porfirio Diaz, being a former military officer himself, understood the importance of controlling the army in order to maintain his grip on power. To achieve this, he created a parallel force, known as the "rurales", which reported directly to the central government and maintained order in rural areas. This allowed Diaz to exert control over the rural population and prevent any potential rebellion or opposition from arising.

Diaz also sought to maintain the loyalty of the regular army by increasing the salaries and benefits of soldiers and officers, and by modernising the army with new weapons and equipment. By playing on the competition between the rurales and the regular army, Diaz hoped to prevent any potential overthrow.

Uprising of the Yaqui Indians - Yaqui Warriors in Retreat, by Frederic Remington, 1896.

Porfirio Diaz maintained a cautious and pragmatic relationship with the Catholic Church during his regime. He did not officially reform the constitution to remove the anticlerical provisions of the liberal constitution of 1857, but instead chose to ignore them. Diaz returned the monasteries and religious schools that had been confiscated under the previous liberal regime to the Catholic Church, and allowed the Church to continue to play an important role in society.

In return, the Church supported Diaz and his regime, and did not openly oppose or criticize his policies. This informal agreement between the Church and the government allowed Diaz to maintain the support of the Church and its followers, which was seen as a significant source of political power in Mexico at the time.

Critics, however, argued that this informal agreement between Diaz and the Church, although allowing Diaz to retain the support of the Church, led to the Church's interference in politics and the suppression of religious freedoms, and also had negative effect on education. Additionally, the Church's support of Diaz and his regime was seen as legitimizing the regime's authoritarian policies and repression of political dissent.

Porfirio Diaz's regime was characterised by a policy of selective repression, where he targeted those who opposed him while allowing the big landowners, bankers, and entrepreneurs to prosper. Diaz used this approach to maintain the support of the economic elite, while also preventing them from becoming a political threat to his regime.

Diaz would often give land, concessions, or other benefits to those who supported him politically, while launching a repression against those who opposed him. This approach allowed Diaz to maintain the support of a significant portion of the economic elite, while also preventing them from becoming too powerful or challenging his own power.

As the Porfirian regime invested heavily in infrastructure development and the expansion of the state, new civil servant positions were created to manage these efforts. One of the most notable examples was the expansion of the railway network, which allowed for the efficient transportation of troops and supplies to different parts of the country.

This expansion of the railway network allowed the government to quickly and effectively respond to any potential revolts or uprisings in rural areas, by transporting troops and suppressing any opposition. This was seen as a key strategy for maintaining control and order over the population, as it allowed the government to quickly respond to any potential threats to its power.

During the Porfirian regime, there were several revolts and uprisings in border areas, particularly among indigenous communities such as the Yaqui people in the north of Mexico. The Yaqui economy was based on agriculture, which was essential to feed the mining areas, but their land was seized by the government and big land owners, leading to their revolt.

The government responded by sending the army to suppress these revolts, often resulting in massacres of the indigenous communities. Many survivors were then forcibly deported to serve as forced labour in other parts of the country, such as the Yucatán peninsula. This was seen as a way for the government and army officers to benefit from the forced labour of the indigenous people and make profits from their deportations.

For example, in a single operation, one Colonel managed to deport 15,700 Yaqui men, women, and children in just three years. The planters of Yucatán paid 65 pesos for each Yaqui, with 10 pesos going to the Colonel and 55 pesos going to the War Ministry.

This policy of forced deportation and forced labour was seen as a violation of human rights and indigenous rights. It was also criticised as it destroyed traditional Yaqui communities, culture, and way of life. Additionally, it resulted in the exploitation of indigenous peoples for cheap labour, which contributed to the growing discontent and opposition to the regime.

The Yaqui people were not the only ones who were targeted with repression and violence under the Porfirian regime. Workers, political opponents, and other groups who opposed the regime were also subject to massacres and deportations. This included labour strikes and protests which were met with brutal repression by the police and military, with many workers being killed, injured or arrested.

Political opponents of the regime were also targeted, with many being arrested or exiled for their opposition to the government. This led to a climate of fear and repression, in which many people were afraid to speak out against the government or participate in political activities.

Diaz was able to maintain his regime for a long period of time by eliminating and muzzling opposition through repression and violence. However, several factors were accumulating that would ultimately lead to the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution in 1911.

First, there was growing discontent among the working classes and peasants due to the concentration of land ownership and the suppression of labour rights. The gap between the wealthy elite and the poor majority was widening, and many Mexicans struggled to make a living. Additionally, the lack of political representation and suppression of dissent led to frustration and anger among the population.

Second, an economic crisis was developing due to the over-reliance on exporting raw materials and neglecting domestic industries. This led to a decrease in exports and a decrease in overall economic growth.

Third, the regime's heavy-handed approach to maintaining order, including the brutal repression of labour strikes and political opposition, led to growing resentment among the population. As well as the forced migration and forced labour of the indigenous population.

Finally, Diaz's regime was becoming increasingly autocratic and undemocratic, with Diaz himself holding power for over 35 years and manipulating elections to stay in power. This led to a growing sense of disillusionment among the population, who were ready for a change in government.

All these factors together contributed to the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution in 1910, which ultimately led to the overthrow of the Porfirian regime and the establishment of a new government in Mexico.

The First Republic of Brazil: 1889 - 1930

The Proclamation of the Republic, by Benedito Calixto.

After abolition, the Brazilian elite faced the question of how to organize the labour force for the country's rapidly growing economy. In 1889, the Brazilian monarchy was overthrown in a bloodless coup, and a republic was established with the motto "Order and Progress." The new government, led by a small elite of wealthy landowners, industrialists, and military leaders, sought to modernise the country and promote economic growth.

The First Republic of Brazil, as it came to be known, implemented a number of policies aimed at promoting modernisation and economic growth. This included investment in infrastructure, such as the construction of railroads and ports, and the establishment of a national bank. The government also encouraged foreign investment and sought to attract European immigrants to settle in Brazil.

However, these policies were implemented primarily to benefit the country's elite and foreign investors, rather than the majority of the population. The government's approach to labour was heavily influenced by Social Darwinism, which held that certain races were superior to others. As a result, the government's policies favoured white immigrants and discriminated against Afro-Brazilians and indigenous people.

The government also maintained a tight control over the political sphere, suppressing any opposition or dissent. This led to a lack of political representation for the majority of the population and a lack of accountability for the government.

The First Republic of Brazil was marked by a growing divide between the elite and the majority of the population and a lack of political representation and government accountability. The country's economy grew during this period, but this growth was not evenly distributed, and the majority of the population continued to live in poverty. These factors contributed to the eventual downfall of the First Republic of Brazil in 1930 and the rise of a new government.

The First Republic of Brazil, which lasted from 1889 to 1930, was primarily controlled by a small elite of wealthy landowners, industrialists, and military leaders who sought to modernise the country and promote economic growth, but in a way that primarily benefited themselves and foreign investors. They used the ideology of positivism to justify their actions and maintain the socio-spatial hierarchy that existed under the monarchy. They implemented policies such as investment in infrastructure, encouragement of foreign investment and immigration. Still, these policies were implemented primarily to benefit the elite, rather than the majority of the population, leading to a growing divide between the rich and poor, and a lack of political representation and accountability for the government.

The population of Brazil during the First Republic was still largely concentrated on the coasts and in the state of Minas Gerais, with a total population of around 14 million. The country's vast interior was relatively sparsely populated, and the government's focus on modernisation and economic growth primarily benefited the coastal regions and the state of Minas Gerais, rather than the interior. This led to further disparities in economic development and political representation between the country's different regions.

During the First Republic of Brazil, significant socio-economic changes occurred, particularly with the shift in economic power from the North-East to the states of Minas Gerais and São Paulo, where coffee production was rapidly increasing. The profits from coffee exports were used to invest in creating new industries, which helped stimulate the growth of urban centres like São Paulo. At the same time, the rapid increase in population created a larger domestic market for goods, allowing for the substitution of imported goods with locally produced ones. This led to a shift in economic power from the traditional elite to a new urban elite of industrialists and entrepreneurs.

The First Republic of Brazil, while officially a republic, was in fact dominated by the coffee growers of São Paulo. This led to a system of government that was more like a federation of relatively autonomous states, each governed by large landowners who held significant power and influence. This elite group also controlled the federal government and the military. The right to vote was restricted to a small percentage of the population, only men over 21 who could read and write and had a certain amount of money were eligible to vote. This meant that the majority of the population, including the working class and rural poor, were effectively excluded from the political process. This system of government and political exclusion would eventually lead to the rise of populist movements and social unrest, ultimately leading to the fall of the First Republic in 1930.

Progress

The programme of progress of this republic includes, as under the monarchy, the construction of the railways, the modernisation of the ports, and the modernisation of the city on the model of Paris, borrowing from the English. The First Republic of Brazil's government sought to modernise the country's cities, with a particular focus on Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo. They did this by investing in constructing new infrastructure, such as roads and public buildings, and promoting urban planning and zoning. They also sought to make these cities more aesthetically pleasing by replicating European cities' architecture and urban design, particularly Paris. This included the creation of wide boulevards, parks, and public squares, and the construction of grand public buildings and monuments. This modernisation of the cities brought some improvements, but also led to the displacement of many working-class residents and the destruction of historic neighborhoods.

The abolition of slavery in Brazil was done gradually, with the "Golden Law" of 1888, which officially abolished slavery but did not provide any compensation or assistance to former slaves. As a result, many former slaves were forced to continue working on the same plantations as before, but now as low-paid wage workers. The abolition of slavery did not improve the lives of the majority of Afro-Brazilians, as they were still excluded from the country's political and economic power structures. The "progress" of the First Republic of Brazil was mainly for the benefit of the elites and the foreign investors, leaving the majority of the population, especially Afro-Brazilians, marginalised and disadvantaged.

The first republic also saw the continuation of land grabbing, particularly in the Amazon region, where large rubber plantations were established, often through the forced labour of indigenous people. This led to the decimation of many indigenous populations in the region. Additionally, the government continued to support the concentration of land ownership in the hands of a small elite, leading to the displacement of small farmers and the indigenous population. Despite the rhetoric of progress, these policies perpetuated the socio-economic inequality and exploitation that had existed under the monarchy.

Despite these efforts, very few Europeans actually migrated to Brazil, so the population remained mostly composed of people of African and indigenous descent. The gap between the rich and poor also widened, with a small elite controlling the country's economic resources and political power. At the same time, the majority of the population remained impoverished and marginalised. This socio-economic hierarchy, coupled with the brutal repression of workers and political opponents, ultimately led to widespread dissatisfaction and the overthrow of the first republic in 1930.

However, the vast majority of these immigrants were not able to find a job in the cities and were forced to work on the coffee plantations under poor conditions. Despite these efforts, the population of African and Indigenous descent still made up the majority of the population and the socio-racial hierarchy remained unchanged. The progress of the elites did not improve the lives of the majority of the population and instead led to increased exploitation and oppression.

The Order

During the First Republic of Brazil (1889-1930), planters in the southern states utilised state funds to bring in European migrants to create a labour market dominated by free competition. However, in reality, this strategy was used as a means to marginalise Afro-Brazilians in the labour market. This tactic was effective in the most prosperous regions and the best-paid jobs, where migrants systematically displaced Afro-Brazilian workers and resulted in their exclusion from factories and replacement in handicrafts by immigrants. As a result, Afro-Brazilians were relegated to domestic work and other marginal occupations, with limited access to education, healthcare, and other social services. This historical situation is an example of systemic racism and discrimination that has had a lasting impact on Brazilian society, perpetuating economic and social inequality till present day.

The marginalisation of Afro-Brazilians was not solely due to lack of qualifications, but also due to the racism that prevailed in society. At the time of abolition, many Afro-Brazilians were no longer slaves, and were just as qualified, if not more so, than the European migrants who were brought in to replace them in the labour market. Additionally, many of these migrants were illiterate, without a profession, and did not speak Portuguese. Yet, they were still given preferential treatment over Afro-Brazilians due to the pervasive racism in society. This historical situation is an example of how racism and discrimination can create barriers to economic and social opportunities for marginalised groups, even if they are equally or more qualified than the individuals who are chosen over them.

The social integration of Afro-Brazilians, who were formerly enslaved, was hindered by the discrimination and exclusion they faced in the labour market during the First Republic of Brazil (1889-1930). As a result of this, many Afro-Brazilian men were confined to low-paying jobs in the poorest regions or on plantations, where wages were inadequate. Concurrently, Afro-Brazilian women were primarily relegated to domestic service, as it was one of the few employment options available to them. This has contributed to the perpetuation of economic and social inequality among Afro-Brazilians, making it challenging for them to achieve social integration and access opportunities for upward mobility. These historical factors continue to influence the economic and social well-being of Afro-Brazilians in the present day.

The discrimination and exclusion faced by Afro-Brazilians in the labour market during the First Republic of Brazil (1889-1930) resulted in the separation of families, with the mother often becoming the primary breadwinner. This has had a double impact on Afro-Brazilian fathers, not only making it difficult for them to find decent paid jobs, but also marginalising them within the family. This is not only an economic issue, but also a social and cultural one, as it goes against traditional family dynamics and can lead to the erosion of the patriarchal structure of Afro-Brazilian families. This has contributed to the perpetuation of economic and social inequality among Afro-Brazilians, making it difficult for them to achieve social integration and access opportunities for upward mobility.

Racial positivism, an ideology that emphasises the supposed biological and cultural differences between races and the supposed superiority of certain races over others, has had a particularly pernicious effect in Brazil. Unlike in other countries where segregation is codified in law, in Brazil, it is a more subtle and discreet form of racism that takes place in everyday life. Despite this, it still has a significant impact on Afro-Brazilians, who comprise a very small minority of the population, and are disproportionately affected by poverty, inequality, and limited access to education, healthcare, and other social services.

The elite in Brazil often proclaims the country to be a republic and a racial democracy, but this is contradicted by the reality that only a very small minority of Afro-Brazilians, usually mulattoes, manage to rise socially. This allows the elite to deny the existence of racism in the country and perpetuates Afro-Brazilians' marginalisation. This historical situation is an example of how subtle and discreet forms of racism can significantly impact marginalised groups, making it difficult for them to achieve social integration and access opportunities for upward mobility.

The assertion of Brazil as a racial democracy, which is often used by the elite and the state to deny the existence of racism and discrimination in the country, has played a significant role in perpetuating the marginalisation of Afro-Brazilians. This narrative allows the elite and the state to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the poor socio-economic condition of Afro-Brazilians after the abolition of slavery and shifts the blame onto the Afro-Brazilian community. This implies that their condition is a result of their own fault or that they are racially inferior.

This narrative creates a vicious cycle of racism. It not only absolves the elite and the state of any responsibility but also perpetuates the stereotypes and discrimination that Afro-Brazilians face daily. It makes it difficult for Afro-Brazilians to access equal education, healthcare, and employment opportunities. This perpetuates the social and economic marginalisation of Afro-Brazilians and makes it difficult for them to achieve social integration and upward mobility.

It is important to note that the Brazilian myth of racial democracy, which asserts that racism does not exist in the country, coincided with the transition from slavery to a system of free labour and the transition from a monarchy to a republic, specifically the First Republic of Brazil (1889-1930). The state and the elite utilised this narrative to obscure the reality of the socio-racial structure that was perpetuated after the abolition of slavery.

During this time, the state and the elite sought to establish a regime of order and progress that was authoritarian and elitist. They used the narrative of racial democracy to hide the reality of discrimination and exclusion faced by Afro-Brazilians in the labour market and in society as a whole. This narrative served as a tool to maintain the socio-racial structure that had existed under slavery, where Afro-Brazilians were marginalised and denied access to opportunities for education, healthcare, and economic advancement.

The Brazilian myth of racial democracy, which asserts that racism does not exist in the country, coincided with the transition from slavery to a system of free labour and the transition from a monarchy to a republic. The state used it and the elite to obscure the reality of the socio-racial structure that was perpetuated after the abolition of slavery, and to maintain an authoritarian and elitist regime that reproduces the old socio-racial structure.

Annexes

• Dabène Olivier, « Chapitre 1 - L’entrée de l’Amérique latine dans l’ère moderne (1870-1914) », dans : , L'Amérique latine à l'époque contemporaine. sous la direction de Dabène Olivier. Paris, Armand Colin, « U », 2011, p. 7-40. URL : https://www.cairn.info/l-amerique-latine-a-l-epoque-contemporaine--9782200248970-page-7.htm