Version du 28 septembre 2023 à 11:01

Based on a lecture by Aline Helg^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]

Languages

The United States and Latin America: late 18th and 20th centuries

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

At the turn of the twentieth century, Latin America was marked by regimes advocating "Order and Progress". Inspired by positivism and the ideals of modernisation, these regimes, often led by authoritarian rulers, sought to industrialise their nations, stimulate economic growth and establish robust centralised power. While promoting laudable initiatives such as modernising infrastructure and improving public services, these regimes have also been synonymous with political repression, human rights abuses, and a concentration of power and wealth within a narrow elite.

Mexico is a case in point. Under the rule of Porfirio Díaz, from 1876 to 1910, the country underwent rapid modernisation, building railways and attracting foreign investment. However, this era, known as the Porfiriato, was also marked by growing inequality, harsh repression and human rights abuses, fuelling discontent that culminated in the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920.

This period was also influenced by Western ideologies, notably racism and social Darwinism. These beliefs were often used to justify the exploitation of marginalised groups such as indigenous peoples and Afro-Latin Americans. These ideologies reinforced exploitative practices, such as forced labour, even after the formal abolition of slavery.

Economic liberalism, although it advocates minimal state intervention, has in fact manifested itself in Latin America with the active support of the state, favouring large landowners and industrialists. At the same time, migration policies were put in place to encourage European immigration, with the aim of "whitening" the population, reflecting the racial prejudices of the time and the interests of the ruling elite.

The positivist ideology

The context in Latin America

In the last quarter of the 19th century, Latin America, fresh from its wars of independence, was looking for models to structure its young republics. Against this backdrop of aspirations for modernity and political and social instability, positivism, a philosophy developed mainly by Auguste Comte in France, found fertile ground. With its unshakeable faith in science and rationality as a means of understanding and transforming society, this ideology was adopted by many Latin American intellectuals and leaders. In Brazil, for example, positivism has left an indelible mark. The national motto, "Ordem e Progresso", is a direct testimony to this influence. Brazilian positivists were convinced of the need for an enlightened elite to guide the country towards modernity. In Mexico, under the regime of Porfirio Díaz, known as the Porfiriato, a positivist approach was adopted to modernise the country. This involved massive investment in infrastructure, education and industry, but was also accompanied by political repression. The adoption of positivism in Latin America can also be seen as a response to the rise of American imperialism. With policies such as the Monroe Doctrine and Theodore Roosevelt's "Big Stick" policy, the United States was seen as an imminent threat. Positivism offered Latin American countries a path to internal development and modernisation, without having to submit to American influence or intervention.

Positivism, with its roots in Europe, found a particular resonance in Latin America at the end of the 19th century. This philosophy, which emphasised science, rationality and progress, became the mainstay of many Latin American leaders seeking to transform their nations. Positivism's appeal lay largely in its promise of modernity. At a time when Latin America was seeking to define itself after decades of colonial and post-colonial struggles, positivism offered a clear model for national development. Leaders believed that, by adopting a scientific and rational approach to governance, they could accelerate modernisation while establishing much-needed stability. The state became the principal actor in this transformation. Under the influence of positivism, many governments sought to centralise power, in the belief that a strong state was essential to achieve the ambitions of modernisation. This centralisation aimed to eliminate inefficiencies and create a more coherent structure for implementing public policy. Infrastructure became a major priority. Governments invested in building railways, ports, roads and telegraphs, facilitating trade, communication and national integration. These projects were not only symbols of progress, but were essential for integrating previously isolated regions and stimulating the economy. Education and public health also received renewed attention. Positivist leaders firmly believed that education was the key to progress. Schools were built, curricula reformed and efforts were made to increase literacy rates. Similarly, recognising the link between health, productivity and progress, initiatives were launched to improve public hygiene, combat disease and establish hospitals.

Despite its promises of progress and modernisation, positivism also had sombre consequences in Latin America. Under the guise of rationality and order, this philosophy was often misused to justify authoritarian and repressive policies. The central idea of positivism was that society should progress through defined stages, based on science and rationality. However, this linear vision of progress led some leaders to believe that everything considered "backward" or "primitive" had to be eliminated if society was to progress. In this context, political dissent, often associated with "backward" or "chaotic" ideas, was seen as an obstacle to progress. As a result, many positivist regimes repressed or even eliminated political opponents in the name of "Order and Progress". Moreover, the positivist vision of progress was often tainted by ethnocentric prejudices. Indigenous cultures, with their distinct traditions and ways of life, were often seen as vestiges of an "inferior" stage of development. This perspective led to policies of forced assimilation, where indigenous populations were encouraged, or often forced, to abandon their traditions in favour of the dominant culture. In some cases, this even led to forced displacement and genocidal policies. At the same time, to 'whiten' the population and make it more homogenous, many states encouraged European migration. The underlying idea was that the arrival of European migrants, seen as carriers of culture and progress, would dilute indigenous and Afro-Latin American influences and accelerate modernisation.

In the mid-19th century, Latin America underwent major transformations that stimulated its economy and strengthened its role on the world stage. The expansion of communication routes and population growth were key factors in this upward economic dynamic, particularly as regards the production and export of raw materials. The construction of railways was one of the most transformative innovations of this period. These railways crossed previously inaccessible terrain, linking remote regions with urban centres and ports. This not only facilitated the extraction of precious minerals such as silver, gold and copper, but also made it possible to transport these resources to ports for export. Railways also stimulated the development of commercial agriculture, allowing products such as coffee, sugar, cocoa and rubber to be transported more efficiently and at lower cost. Roads, although less revolutionary than railways, also played a crucial role, particularly in areas where railways were not present or economically viable. They facilitated the movement of goods and people, strengthening economic links between towns and the countryside. Ports, meanwhile, have been modernised to meet the growing demand for exports. These improved port infrastructures have made it possible to accommodate larger ships and increase export capacity, facilitating trade with Europe, the United States and other regions. Population growth also played a key role. With a growing population, there was a more abundant workforce to work in the mines, plantations and fledgling industries. In addition, immigration, particularly from Europe, brought skills, technology and capital that helped modernise the economy.

Population growth in Latin America in the 19th century had a profound impact on the region's economy. A growing population means increased demand for goods and services, and in the Latin American context, this translated into increased demand for raw materials and agricultural products. At a national level, population growth has led to increased demand for food, clothing and other essential goods. Demand for agricultural products such as maize, wheat, coffee, sugar and cocoa has grown, stimulating the expansion of farmland and the introduction of more intensive and specialised farming methods. This internal demand also encouraged the development of local industries to transform these raw materials into finished products, such as sugar mills and coffee roasters. Internationally, the industrial era in Europe and North America created an unprecedented demand for raw materials. Industrialised countries were looking for reliable sources of raw materials to feed their factories, and Latin America, with its vast natural resources, became a key supplier. Amazonian rubber, for example, was essential for tyre manufacture in European and North American factories, while minerals such as silver and copper were exported to meet the needs of the metallurgical industry. The expansion of these industries had a major economic impact. It created jobs for thousands of people, from farm workers and miners to tradesmen and entrepreneurs. This employment growth in turn stimulated other sectors of the economy. For example, with more people earning wages, there was an increased demand for goods and services, which encouraged the development of trade and services.

The boom in the production and export of raw materials in the 19th century transformed Latin America into a key player in the global economy. However, this transformation has had double-edged consequences for the region. Dependence on the export of raw materials has created what is often referred to as a "cash economy". In this model, a country relies heavily on one or a few resources for its export earnings. While this can be lucrative during periods of high demand and high prices, it also exposes the country to great volatility. If commodity prices fall on the world market, this can lead to economic crises. Many Latin American countries have experienced this on several occasions, where a fall in the price of a key resource has led to recessions, debt and economic instability. This dependence also reinforced unequal economic structures. Export industries were often controlled by a national elite or foreign interests. These groups accumulated enormous wealth from the export of resources, while the majority of the population saw little or no benefit. In many cases, workers in these industries were poorly paid, worked in difficult conditions and had no access to social benefits or labour protection. In addition, the concentration of investment and resources in export industries often neglected the development of other sectors of the economy. This has limited economic diversification and reinforced dependence on raw materials.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the gap between Latin America and the northern and western United States widened considerably, reflecting divergent development trajectories influenced by a combination of economic, political and social factors. In economic terms, while the United States and Western Europe were undergoing rapid industrialisation, most Latin American countries remained largely agrarian, heavily dependent on the export of raw materials. This dependence exposed them to the volatility of world prices. Foreign investment in Latin America, although substantial, was often concentrated in extractive sectors such as mining. Moreover, a large proportion of the profits generated by these investments went back to the investing countries, limiting the economic benefits for Latin American countries. In terms of infrastructure, although investments were made, they were mainly focused on supporting export industries, sometimes neglecting the development of a robust domestic market. Politically, the relative stability enjoyed by the US and Western Europe contrasted sharply with the frequent instability of many Latin American countries, marked by coups d'état, revolutions and frequent changes of government. In addition, US foreign policy, notably the Monroe Doctrine and the 'Big Stick' policy, strengthened its influence in the region, often to the detriment of local interests. Socially, Latin America has continued to struggle against deeply rooted structures of inequality inherited from the colonial period. These inequalities, where a narrow elite held much of the wealth and power, hindered inclusive economic development and were often the source of social and political tensions. Moreover, unlike the United States and Western Europe, which invested heavily in education, Latin America offered limited access to education, particularly for its rural and indigenous populations.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the economic, political and social differences between Latin America and the northern and western United States became increasingly marked, reflecting divergent development trajectories and influencing their relations on the international stage. Economically, the US North and West had succeeded in diversifying their economies, moving away from an exclusive dependence on raw materials to embrace industrialisation. This diversification offered a degree of protection against the vagaries of the global market. Latin America, on the other hand, with its increased dependence on the export of raw materials, was at the mercy of international price fluctuations. This economic vulnerability not only slowed the region's growth, but also contributed to widening the wealth gap with the more industrialised nations, exacerbating the disparities in living standards between the two regions. Politically, the stability and democratic nature of government in the United States has created a favourable environment for business, attracting foreign investment and immigrants in search of better opportunities and civil liberties. Latin America, on the other hand, with its often authoritarian regimes, has experienced periods of political instability, marked by coups d'état, revolutions and, in many cases, flagrant violations of human rights. These conditions not only discouraged foreign investment, but also led many Latin Americans to seek refuge elsewhere, particularly in the United States. On the social front, the United States had invested heavily in developing its education and health systems, leading to a general improvement in living standards for a large proportion of its population. Latin America, despite its cultural and natural riches, was struggling with major inequalities. A small elite held much of the wealth and power, while the majority of the population faced challenges such as limited access to quality education, adequate healthcare and economic opportunities.

At the turn of the twentieth century, the geopolitical and economic landscape of the Americas underwent significant changes. While Britain had historically been the main trading partner and investor in Latin America, the rise of the United States changed this dynamic. The United States, having consolidated its own industrial and economic development, began to look southwards to extend its influence and economic interests. This transition from British to American influence in Latin America was not simply a question of trade and investment. It was part of a wider context of projecting power and influence. The United States, with the Monroe Doctrine and later the "Big Stick" policy, made clear its intention to play a dominant role in the Western Hemisphere. Economically, the US invested heavily in key infrastructure in Latin America, including railways, ports and, emblematically, the Panama Canal. These investments have certainly helped to modernise parts of Latin America and facilitate trade. However, they have often been made on terms that are advantageous to US companies, sometimes to the detriment of local interests. Politically, the growing influence of the United States has had varied consequences. In some cases, it has supported or installed regimes favourable to its interests, even if this meant suppressing democratic or nationalist movements. This has sometimes led to periods of instability or authoritarian regimes that have neglected the rights and needs of their own people. Culturally, American influence began to be felt in many areas, from music and film to fashion and language. This paved the way for an enriching cultural exchange, but also raised concerns about the erosion of local cultures and cultural homogenisation.

The influence of Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism, a misguided interpretation of Charles Darwin's evolutionary theories, had a profound and often damaging influence on American thought in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. By extrapolating the ideas of 'survival of the fittest' to human society, some argued that certain races or ethnic groups were naturally superior to others. In the United States, this ideology was used to support the idea that the economic and political dominance of the Anglo-Saxons was the result of their biological superiority. This belief has had profoundly discriminatory consequences for many groups in the United States. Immigrants, particularly those from Eastern and Southern Europe, were seen as biologically inferior and less suitable for American citizenship. African-Americans, already oppressed by the system of slavery, were confronted with a new pseudo-scientific justification for segregation and racial discrimination. Native Americans, for their part, were portrayed as an "endangered race", justifying their forced removal and forced assimilation. Social Darwinism has also influenced American policy. Immigration laws, for example, were shaped by beliefs in racial superiority, restricting immigration from regions considered "biologically inferior". Racial segregation, particularly in the South, was justified not only by open prejudice, but also by pseudo-scientific beliefs about racial superiority.

The influence of Social Darwinism was not limited to North America. In Latin America, the ideology also found fertile ground, profoundly influencing social policies and attitudes during a critical period of modernisation and national change. The ethnic and cultural complexity of Latin America, with its mix of indigenous, African and European heritages, was interpreted through the prism of Social Darwinism. Elites, often of European descent, have adopted this ideology to justify and perpetuate their economic and political domination. By asserting that groups of African and Amerindian descent were biologically inferior, they were able to rationalise gross inequalities and underdevelopment as the inevitable result of the region's ethnic make-up. This ideology had devastating consequences for indigenous and Afro-Latin American populations. Indigenous cultures, with their languages, traditions and beliefs, have been actively suppressed. In many countries, policies of forced assimilation were implemented, seeking to "civilise" these populations by integrating them into the dominant culture. Indigenous land was often seized, forcing them to work in conditions akin to servitude for the landed elites. Afro-Latin Americans were also victims of this ideology. Despite their significant contribution to the region's culture, economy and society, they were relegated to subordinate positions, often facing discrimination, marginalisation and poverty. The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite was justified by this belief in biological superiority. The elites used Social Darwinism as a shield against criticism, arguing that inequalities were natural and inevitable.

During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, an intellectual transformation took place in Latin America. The elites, faced with the reality of their nations' relative underdevelopment compared with certain European powers and North America, sought to understand and rectify this situation. Contrary to certain fatalistic interpretations that might have attributed backwardness to divine will or immutable factors, many Latin American thinkers and leaders adopted a more proactive perspective. They saw backwardness not as an inevitability, but as the result of historical actions, decisions and circumstances. This perspective was partly influenced by the European currents of thought of the time, such as positivism, which valued reason, science and progress. If backwardness was the result of human choices, then it could also be overcome by deliberate human actions. This belief led to a series of modernisation efforts across the continent. Governments invested in infrastructure, such as railways and ports, to facilitate trade and economic integration. They have sought to reform education systems, promote industrialisation and attract foreign investment. Many also adopted immigration policies to 'whiten' their populations, in the hope that the arrival of European settlers would stimulate economic and social development. However, these modernisation efforts were not without their contradictions. Despite seeking to transform their societies, many elites maintained unequal social and economic structures. Indigenous and Afro-Latin American populations were often marginalised or directly oppressed in this process of modernisation. Moreover, attempts to imitate European or North American models have sometimes led to unexpected or undesirable results.

The history of the United States is marked by a tension between the declared ideal of equality and the realities of discrimination and oppression. Part of this tension can be attributed to the way in which religious beliefs have been interpreted and used to justify existing power structures. In the United States, Protestantism, particularly in its Evangelical and Puritan forms, has played a central role in the formation of national identity. The early Puritan settlers believed that they had made a covenant with God to establish a "city on a hill", an exemplary society based on Christian principles. Over time, this idea of a special divine mission evolved into a form of manifest destiny, the belief that the United States was destined by God to expand and dominate the North American continent. This belief in a divine mission was often intertwined with notions of racial and cultural superiority. Anglo-Saxon Protestant elites, particularly in the nineteenth century, often saw their economic and political success as proof of divine favour. In this context, domination over other groups, whether Native Americans, African-Americans or non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, was often seen not only as natural, but also as ordained by God. This interpretation of faith was used to justify a range of policies and actions, from westward expansion and the dispossession of Native American lands, to racial segregation and discriminatory laws against immigrants. It also acted as a counterweight to reform movements. For example, during the post-Civil War Reconstruction period, many white Southerners used religious arguments to oppose civil rights for African-Americans.

The history of Latin America is deeply marked by racial and social hierarchies inherited from the colonial period. After the independence of Latin American nations in the early nineteenth century, these hierarchies persisted and were often reinforced by modern ideologies, including Social Darwinism and other forms of racial thinking. Latin American elites, often of European descent or "criolla" (descendants of Spanish colonists born in America), played a central role in the formation of the new republics. These elites often saw their position of power and privilege as the result of their cultural and racial superiority. In this context, indigenous, mestizo and Afro-Latin American populations were often perceived as inferior, not only in terms of race, but also in terms of culture, education and ability to contribute to national progress. This perception had profound consequences for the region's politics and development. Elites have often sought to 'improve' the racial composition of their countries by encouraging European immigration, in the hope that this would stimulate economic development and 'whiten' the population. In some countries, such as Argentina and Uruguay, these policies have had a significant impact on demographic composition. Indigenous populations, in particular, have been the victims of forced assimilation policies. Their lands have been seized, their cultures and languages actively repressed, and they have been encouraged or forced to adopt 'Western' lifestyles. In many countries, indigenous people were seen as obstacles to modernisation, and their lands and resources were coveted for economic development. Mestizos and Afro-Latin Americans were also marginalised, although they often played a central role in the economy and society. They were often relegated to subordinate positions, facing discrimination and exclusion from the political and economic spheres of power.

Positivism, introduced to Latin America mainly in the 19th century, was enthusiastically embraced by many of the region's elites. Inspired by the work of European thinkers such as Auguste Comte, these elites saw positivism as a solution to the challenges facing their fledgling republics. For them, positivism offered a systematic and rational approach to guiding national development. The central idea was that, through the application of the scientific method to governance and society, the "irrationalities" and "archaisms" that impeded progress could be overcome. These 'irrationalities' were often associated with the cultures and traditions of indigenous, mestizo and Afro-Latin American populations. Positivism was thus both an ideology of modernisation and a tool for strengthening elite control over society.

The 'order and progress' regimes that emerged in this context had several features in common:

Centralisation of power: These regimes often sought to centralise power in the hands of a strong government, reducing regional and local autonomy.
Modernisation of infrastructure: They invested heavily in infrastructure projects such as railways, ports and education systems, with the aim of integrating their national economies and promoting development.
Promoting education: Convinced that education was the key to progress, these elites sought to establish modern education systems, often inspired by European models.
Public health reform: Modernising health systems was also seen as essential to improving quality of life and promoting economic development.

However, these efforts at modernisation were often accompanied by policies of forced assimilation towards indigenous populations and other marginalised groups. Moreover, although positivism advocated rationality and science, it was often used to justify authoritarian policies and to repress dissent.

The adoption by Latin American elites of the mantra of "order and progress", although inspired by intentions of modernisation and development, has often had harmful consequences for large sections of the population. Positivist principles, while advocating rationality and science, were misused to justify policies that reinforced existing inequalities. Under the pretext of maintaining order and promoting progress, many regimes repressed all forms of dissent. Political opponents, trade unionists, human rights activists and other groups were persecuted, imprisoned, tortured or even executed. These actions were often justified by the need to preserve stability and eliminate "disruptive elements" from society. At the same time, the indigenous populations, already marginalised since the colonial period, were further oppressed. Their land has been confiscated for development projects or large-scale farming. Their cultures and traditions have been devalued or actively repressed as part of efforts to assimilate them. Workers, particularly in the extractive and agricultural industries, have been subjected to precarious and often dangerous working conditions. Attempts to organise or demand rights were violently repressed. At the same time, economic policies often favoured the interests of the elite, leading to further concentration of wealth. Large landowners, industrialists and financiers benefited from subsidies, concessions and other advantages, leaving the majority of the population to continue living in poverty. Despite the economic growth that some countries experienced during this period, the benefits were not equitably distributed. Large segments of the population remained excluded from the benefits of development. The lessons learned from this period remain relevant today, reminding us of the potential dangers of the uncritical adoption of foreign ideologies without taking into account the local context and the needs of the population as a whole.

The positivist philosophy

Positivism, developed by the French philosopher Auguste Comte in the mid-19th century, was born against a backdrop of profound social and intellectual upheaval in Europe. The Industrial Revolution was radically transforming societies, and political revolutions were challenging established orders. Faced with these changes, Comte sought to establish a solid foundation for knowledge and social progress. In the first phase, the theological stage, individuals attempt to explain the world around them through the prism of religion. Natural and social phenomena are understood to be the result of the will of the gods or of a superior god. It was a period dominated by faith and supernatural beliefs. As society evolved, it entered the metaphysical stage. Supernatural explanations gave way to more abstract ideas. Although people begin to look for more abstract explanations for phenomena, these ideas remain speculative and are not necessarily based on empirical reality. Eventually, society reaches the scientific or positive stage, which Comte sees as the ultimate stage of human development. People recognise that the true understanding of the world comes from scientific observation and the experimental method. Beliefs and actions are then based on facts and tangible evidence, and society is guided by scientific laws. Comte hoped that by adopting a positivist approach, society could overcome the disorder caused by the social upheavals of his time. He envisaged the creation of a 'science of society', sociology, which would apply the same rigour to the study of society as was used in the natural sciences to study the physical world. Although positivism has had a considerable influence, it has also been criticised for its deterministic view of social progression and its sometimes blind faith in science as the cure for all social ills.

Auguste Comte, in his positivist vision, conceptualised the development of human society as an orderly progression through distinct stages. This idea of progression was deeply rooted in his belief in a natural order and in the linear evolution of society. He saw society as a living organism, subject to natural laws similar to those that govern the physical world. Just as biological species evolve through natural selection, Comte believed that societies would advance through a similar process. Societies that were able to adapt, integrate and develop advanced social and intellectual structures would prosper, while those that could not adapt would be left behind. Social integration, for Comte, was a key indicator of progress. An integrated society was one in which individuals and institutions worked in harmony for the common good. Conflict and disorder were seen as symptoms of a less evolved society or one in transition. The degree of scientific knowledge was another essential criterion for measuring progress. Comte firmly believed that science and rationality were the ultimate tools for understanding and improving the world. Thus, a society that embraced scientific thought and rejected superstition and religious dogma was, in his eyes, more advanced.

The adoption of positivism in Latin America in the 19th and early 20th centuries was in part a response to the quest for modernisation and progress. Latin American elites, impressed by the industrial and technological advances of the United States and Europe, saw positivism as a roadmap for development. They hoped that, by following positivist principles, their nations could also achieve rapid and significant progress. However, this adoption was not without geopolitical ulterior motives. With the rise of American imperialism, many Latin American countries felt the need to modernise rapidly in order to resist American domination or influence. Positivism, with its emphasis on rationality, science and progress, seemed to offer a route to this modernisation. But the implementation of positivism in Latin America had unexpected and often harmful consequences. Rather than simply serving as a guide to development, it was used as a tool of political control. Regimes that proclaimed themselves champions of "Order and Progress" often used these ideals to justify the repression of dissidents and the centralisation of power. Progress", as it was conceived, required strict order and clear direction, which often led to violations of human rights. In addition, positivism, with its emphasis on science and rationality, was often interpreted as being in opposition to indigenous cultures, which were seen as "backward" or "superstitious". This led to efforts to assimilate or eradicate these cultures, with the aim of creating a more 'modern' and 'rational' society. Finally, the modernisation and industrialisation encouraged by positivism often benefited a small elite, who were able to consolidate their wealth and power. Large landowners, industrialists and financiers prospered, while the majority of the population remained on the margins of the benefits of economic growth.

Positivism, with its emphasis on rationality, science and progress, was often associated with liberal economic ideas during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Economic liberalism, which advocates minimal state intervention in the economy and values private property rights, was seen by many as the most effective means of promoting economic development and, consequently, social progress. From this perspective, the market, if left free of excessive intervention, would be the most efficient engine of economic growth. Market forces, through competition and innovation, would lead to an optimal allocation of resources, stimulating production, investment and employment. Positivists believed that this economic growth, in turn, would facilitate society's transition to the positive stage, where rationality and science would dominate thinking and decision-making. The protection of private property rights was also seen as essential. By guaranteeing property rights, the state encouraged investment and innovation. Entrepreneurs would be more inclined to invest if they were assured that their investments would be protected against expropriation or arbitrary intervention.

Despite its emphasis on rationality and science, positivism often carried with it a mistrust of the ability of the masses to make informed and rational decisions. This mistrust was partly a product of the period in which positivism developed, a period marked by social upheaval, revolutions and a rapid transformation of traditional social structures. Positivists, in general, felt that society needed enlightened leadership to navigate through these changes. They believed that an educated elite, imbued with the principles of science and rationality, would be best placed to guide society towards the positive stage. This elite, they believed, would be able to take decisions for the common good, unhindered by the prejudices, superstitions or vested interests that could influence the masses. In Latin America, this perspective was adopted by many ruling elites, who saw positivism as a justification for their authoritarian regimes. Order and Progress" regimes were often characterised by a centralisation of power in the hands of a small elite, who saw themselves as the guardians of progress and modernisation. These regimes often implemented policies aimed at modernising their economies, developing infrastructure and promoting education. However, they also suppressed political dissent, often forcefully, in order to maintain order and guarantee the stability necessary for progress. The suppression of dissent was justified by the belief that criticism and opposition were obstacles to progress. Positivist regimes in Latin America often regarded social movements, indigenous demands or workers' demands as threats to the established order and, consequently, as obstacles to the march towards progress.

In its quest for rationality and progress, positivism often adopted a hierarchical vision of society. This hierarchy was based on the idea that certain groups were more 'advanced' or 'civilised' than others. In the Latin American context, this perspective was often used to marginalise and oppress groups considered 'inferior' or 'backward', such as indigenous peoples, mestizos, Afro-Latin Americans and the working classes. The positivist notion of progress often implied the homogenisation of society. The ruling elites, influenced by positivism, believed that for a nation to progress, it had to get rid of its "backward" elements. This often meant the forced assimilation of indigenous cultures, the suppression of local traditions and languages, and the promotion of a unified national culture and identity. In economic terms, this perspective was often used to justify policies that favoured the interests of the elite at the expense of the working classes. The rejection of the protection of workers' rights was partly based on the idea that workers' demands were an obstacle to economic progress. The elites believed that modernising the economy required a flexible workforce unencumbered by regulations or trade union rights. This led to practices such as forced labour and debt peonage, where workers were often tied to the land or to an employer and could not leave their jobs without repaying a debt, often at exorbitant rates. These systems kept workers in conditions akin to servitude and allowed the elites to enrich themselves at the expense of the working classes. The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite was a direct consequence of these policies. While the elite grew rich through the exploitation of resources and labour, the majority of the population remained on the margins, without access to education, health or economic opportunities.

Positivism, as a doctrine, offered an attractive solution for the Latin American elites of the 19th and early 20th centuries. It promised modernisation and progress while preserving the existing social order. For these elites, it was an ideal combination: they could present themselves as agents of change and progress while retaining their privileges and power. Modernisation, as envisaged by these elites, did not necessarily mean a democratisation of society or a redistribution of wealth. Instead, it often involved the development of infrastructure, industrialisation and the adoption of Western technologies and methods. These changes could, in theory, improve the economic and international position of their countries without threatening the dominant position of the elites. The positivist notion of order was particularly attractive. Order, in this context, meant social and political stability. The elites feared that popular movements or the demands of the working classes would destabilise society and threaten their position. Positivism, with its emphasis on rationality and science, offered a justification for maintaining order and repressing dissent in the name of progress. The question of full citizenship was also problematic. Granting full rights to the working classes, indigenous populations or African-Latin Americans would mean challenging the existing social order. It might also mean sharing political and economic power, which many elites were unwilling to do. Positivism, with its belief in a natural hierarchy and its contempt for the 'backward' elements of society, provided an ideological justification for this exclusion.

Positivism, as a doctrine, offered an attractive solution to the Latin American elites of the 19th and early 20th centuries. It promised modernisation and progress while preserving the existing social order. For these elites, it was an ideal combination: they could present themselves as agents of change and progress while retaining their privileges and power. Modernisation, as envisaged by these elites, did not necessarily mean a democratisation of society or a redistribution of wealth. Instead, it often involved the development of infrastructure, industrialisation and the adoption of Western technologies and methods. These changes could, in theory, improve the economic and international position of their countries without threatening the dominant position of the elites. The positivist notion of order was particularly attractive. Order, in this context, meant social and political stability. The elites feared that popular movements or the demands of the working classes would destabilise society and threaten their position. Positivism, with its emphasis on rationality and science, offered a justification for maintaining order and repressing dissent in the name of progress. The question of full citizenship was also problematic. Granting full rights to the working classes, indigenous populations or African-Latin Americans would mean challenging the existing social order. It might also mean sharing political and economic power, which many elites were unwilling to do. Positivism, with its belief in a natural hierarchy and its contempt for the 'backward' elements of society, provided an ideological justification for this exclusion.

The adoption of positivism by Latin American elites had profound and often harmful consequences for large sections of the population. Under the pretext of pursuing "order and progress", many regimes introduced authoritarian policies that trampled on the fundamental rights of citizens. Political dissent, often perceived as a threat to the established order and therefore to modernisation, was brutally repressed. Journalists, intellectuals, trade unionists and other social actors who dared to criticise the regime or propose alternatives were often imprisoned, tortured or even executed. This repression created a climate of fear that stifled public debate and limited democratic participation. Indigenous populations and the working class were particularly hard hit. Population "whitening" policies, which aimed to assimilate or eliminate indigenous cultures in favour of a homogenous national culture, often resulted in the loss of land, traditions and rights for indigenous peoples. Similarly, workers who demanded better wages or working conditions were often repressed or marginalised. Concentration of wealth was another direct consequence of these policies. While the elites enjoyed the benefits of modernisation, such as access to new markets and technologies, the majority of the population did not see the benefits of this growth. Inequality increased, with a small elite accumulating enormous wealth while the majority remained in poverty.

Positivism in Latin America

The adoption of positivism in Latin America was no mere accident, but rather a response to the challenges and aspirations of the region at the time. With the independence of the Latin American nations at the beginning of the 19th century, there was a burning desire to define a national identity and chart a course towards progress and modernity. The elites, who had often been educated in Europe and exposed to European ideas, saw positivism as a response to these aspirations. Positivism, with its emphasis on science, rationality and progress, seemed to offer a model for development and modernisation. It promised an orderly, progressive and modern society, guided by reason rather than superstition or tradition. For Latin American elites, this represented an opportunity to shape their nations along "modern" and "civilised" lines. However, there was also a more pragmatic aspect to the adoption of positivism. The elites, aware of their minority but privileged position in society, were often reluctant to share power or resources with the majority of the population. Positivism, with its belief in a natural hierarchy and its contempt for the 'backward' elements of society, provided an ideological justification for this exclusion. It allowed the elites to present themselves as the guardians of progress and rationality, while maintaining existing power structures. In practice, this often meant that the benefits of modernisation - whether in terms of improved infrastructure, education or health - were unevenly distributed. The elites enjoyed these benefits, while the majority of the population remained on the margins. Moreover, any dissent or criticism of this established order was often suppressed in the name of 'progress' and 'order'.

The adoption of positivism by Latin America's elites had profound and often harmful consequences for large sections of the population. Although positivism promised progress and modernisation, its implementation was often tinged with authoritarianism, justified by the belief that only enlightened elites were capable of guiding society towards its 'positive' future. Political repression has become commonplace in many countries in the region. Dissenting voices, whether intellectuals, journalists, trade unionists or ordinary citizens, were often silenced through intimidation, censorship, imprisonment or even violence. This suppression of freedom of expression and dissent created a climate of fear, preventing genuine democratic debate and limiting the participation of citizens in the affairs of their country. Indigenous populations and the working class have been particularly affected by these policies. Efforts to 'modernise' the economy have often resulted in the confiscation of land belonging to indigenous communities, displacing them from their ancestral lands and depriving them of their traditional means of subsistence. Similarly, workers who demanded better wages or working conditions were often repressed, and their fundamental rights, such as the right to strike or to organise, were violated. The concentration of wealth was another direct consequence of these policies. While the elites enjoyed the benefits of modernisation, such as access to new markets and technologies, the majority of the population did not see the benefits of this growth. Inequalities widened, with a small elite accumulating enormous wealth while the majority remained in poverty.

Latin America, with its complex history of colonisation, independence and the quest for national identity, has seen its elites use and adapt various ideologies to maintain their hold on power and resources. Economic and political liberalism, while theoretically advocating equality and individual freedom, has often been hijacked to serve the interests of these elites. The concentration of land ownership is a striking example of this manipulation. In many Latin American countries, vast tracts of land were held by a handful of families or companies, often inherited from colonial times. These landowners exerted considerable influence over politics and the economy, and often used their power to oppose any attempt at agrarian reform or land redistribution. Labour, meanwhile, was often exploited and denied basic rights. Workers, particularly in the agricultural and mining sectors, were subjected to precarious working conditions with little or no social protection. Any attempt to organise or demand better rights was often repressed, sometimes violently. The elites used the threat of violence or economic coercion to prevent the formation of unions or challenges to working conditions. The socio-racial hierarchy inherited from the colonial era was also maintained and reinforced. The elites, often of European or white origin, considered the indigenous, mestizo and Afro-Latin American populations to be inferior and kept them in subordinate positions. These racial prejudices were used to justify the economic exploitation and political marginalisation of these groups.

Brazilian flag with the words "ORDEM E PROGRESSO", the motto of the positivist movement founded by the French philosopher Auguste Comte.

This period, marked by the rise of the "regimes of order and progress", was characterised by a striking duality. On the one hand, there was a frantic quest for modernisation, industrialisation and integration into the world market. The elites, inspired by the economic successes of the Western powers, aspired to transform their nations into prosperous, modern economies. Cities began to transform with the advent of new infrastructures such as railways, modern ports and imposing buildings. Education and public health became priorities, at least in theory, and there was a general sense of optimism about the future. However, this quest for progress came at a cost. Liberal economic policies favoured the interests of elites and foreign investors, often to the detriment of local populations. Concentration of land ownership remained a major problem, with vast tracts of land in the hands of a few, while many peasants were landless or worked in conditions approaching servitude. Industrialisation, while creating new jobs, often led to the exploitation of workers in precarious conditions. Democracy, as a concept, was largely absent or limited during this period. Authoritarian regimes, under the pretext of maintaining order and guaranteeing progress, repressed all forms of dissent. Elections, when they were held, were often manipulated, and the voices of the majority were marginalised. Indigenous populations, in particular, were subjected to policies of forced assimilation, their land confiscated and their cultures often devalued or suppressed. The irony of this period is that, although elites sought to emulate Western models of development, they often ignored or rejected the democratic principles that accompanied these models in their countries of origin. Instead, they opted for a model that consolidated their power and privilege, while promising progress and modernisation. The result was a period of economic growth for some, but profound inequality, political repression and marginalisation for the majority.

At the turn of the twentieth century, Latin America was a mosaic of nations seeking to define themselves in the wake of the independence movements that had overthrown the colonial yoke. However, despite the formal end of colonialism, many vestiges of the colonial era remained, notably the socio-economic structures that favoured a dominant white elite. This elite, often of European descent, had inherited vast tracts of land and economic resources. Land, in particular, was a symbol of power and wealth. By controlling huge estates, these elites were able to exert considerable influence over the economy and politics of their respective countries. Small farmers and indigenous populations were often marginalised, their land confiscated or bought for a pittance, leaving them without resources or means of subsistence. Labour was another precious resource that the elite sought to control. Workers, particularly in the agricultural and mining sectors, were often subjected to precarious working conditions. Any attempt to organise, to demand better wages or working conditions, was suppressed. Strikes were broken, often violently, and trade unions were either banned or closely monitored. Political repression was another tool used by the elite to maintain its grip on power. Opposition parties were often banned, elections rigged and dissenting voices silenced. Journalists, academics and activists who dared to criticise the status quo were often imprisoned, exiled or, in some cases, murdered. Behind this repression lay a deep-seated fear: the fear of losing power and privilege. The elite knew that their position was precarious. In a continent marked by deep inequalities and a history of revolts and revolutions, maintaining order was seen as essential to the survival of the elite.

Latin America, during the period of the "Order and Progress" regimes, was the scene of a profound transformation. The elites, often influenced by positivist ideals and Western models, sought to modernise their nations. However, this modernisation has often been at the expense of the fundamental rights of the majority of the population. Violations of human rights were commonplace. Dissenting voices were silenced, often by force. Indigenous peoples, in particular, were subjected to policies of forced assimilation, their land confiscated and their cultures often devalued or suppressed. The working class, for its part, was exploited, its rights trampled underfoot in the name of economic progress. This concentration of power and wealth in the hands of an elite has widened the gap between rich and poor, exacerbating socio-economic inequalities. However, it is crucial not to paint the entire elite with the same brush. While many took advantage of these policies to bolster their power and privilege, others were genuinely concerned about the welfare of their nation and its citizens. These progressive elites often advocated reforms in areas such as education, health and infrastructure. Thanks to their efforts, many Latin American countries made significant advances in these areas during this period. For example, education has been expanded to include wider segments of the population, and higher education institutions have been created or strengthened. Science and technology also benefited from investment, with the creation of research centres and the development of new technologies adapted to local needs.

The vision of progress adopted by Latin American elites at the turn of the 20th century was strongly influenced by the economic and social models of the European colonial and post-colonial powers. For these elites, progress was synonymous with modernisation, and modernisation was often measured in terms of economic growth, industrialisation and integration into the world market. Latin America possessed immense natural resources, from fertile land to rich mineral deposits. The elites saw the export of these resources - in particular tropical products such as coffee, sugar, rubber and bananas, as well as minerals such as silver and copper - as a golden opportunity to stimulate economic growth. These exports were facilitated by the construction of new infrastructure, such as railways and ports, often financed by foreign investors. However, this vision of progress came at a high human cost. To maximise agricultural and mining production, vast tracts of land were confiscated, often by force or through dubious legal means. Small farmers and indigenous communities, who depended on this land for their livelihoods, were displaced, marginalised or reduced to a state of virtual servitude. Large landowners, often in collusion with political and economic elites, consolidated their power and wealth, exacerbating socio-economic inequalities. For the elites, these actions were justified in the name of the "common good". They believed that modernisation and economic growth would ultimately benefit society as a whole. In practice, however, the benefits of this growth were unevenly distributed, and the social and environmental costs were often ignored.

The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw a surge of modernisation in Latin America, inspired largely by industrial and technological advances in Europe and the United States. At the heart of this modernisation were infrastructure projects, in particular the construction of railways, which were seen as the ultimate symbol of progress and modernity. Railways had the potential to radically transform a country's economy. They enabled goods to be transported quickly and efficiently over long distances, opening up vast inland regions to farming and mining. Cities, meanwhile, were modernised to reflect the image of a progressive nation, with new buildings, improved public services and better connectivity. These projects were attractive to foreign investors, particularly Europeans and North Americans, who saw Latin America as fertile ground for their capital. Latin American governments, eager to attract these investments, often offered generous incentives, such as land concessions and tax exemptions. However, there was a downside. The construction of railways required huge tracts of land, often obtained by confiscation or purchase at derisory prices. Small farmers and indigenous communities, whose land rights were often precarious or unrecognised, found themselves displaced from their ancestral lands. This land was then often sold or leased to large landowners or companies, leading to an even greater concentration of land ownership. In addition, the modernisation of cities was often carried out without regard for the most vulnerable populations. Poor neighbourhoods were regularly razed to make way for new developments, displacing thousands of people without offering adequate rehousing solutions.

At the turn of the 20th century, industrialisation and modernisation were major objectives for many developing countries. Driven by the success stories of industrialised nations and the desire to integrate into the global economy, many governments adopted policies that promoted rapid economic growth. However, these policies were often implemented without sufficient consideration for their social impacts. In Latin America, the construction of railways, the modernisation of infrastructure and the expansion of extractive industries were seen as essential means of stimulating the economy. However, these developments have often required vast tracts of land, displacing small farmers and indigenous communities. Without land to farm and without access to their traditional resources, these populations have often found themselves marginalised, living in poverty and without viable livelihoods. The concentration of land and resources in the hands of an economic elite has exacerbated existing inequalities. While this elite enjoyed the fruits of economic growth, the majority of the population was left behind, with little access to education, health or economic opportunities. It is important to note that these trends were not unique to Latin America. In many parts of the world, from Africa to Asia, similar policies were implemented. Colonial expansion and industrialisation often led to the confiscation of land, the displacement of populations and the concentration of wealth and power. The consequences of these policies are still felt today, with deep inequalities and persistent social tensions in many parts of the world.

The phrase "Order and Progress", although largely associated with the Brazilian flag, became emblematic of the approach of many regimes in Latin America in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These regimes sought to modernise their countries by drawing inspiration from European and North American models, while maintaining strict control over the population. The concept of "order" was central to this vision. For these regimes, order meant not only peace and stability, but also strict, hierarchical control of society. The army played a crucial role in this respect. In many Latin American countries, the army was transformed, modernised and strengthened, often with the help of foreign military missions, particularly from Germany, which was then considered to have one of the most efficient and best organised armies in the world. These military missions trained Latin American officers in modern military tactics, strategies and organisation. But they also instilled a vision of the role of the army in society that went far beyond mere national defence. The army was seen as the guarantor of order and stability, and therefore as a crucial political player. With this new power and role, the army became an essential tool for the ruling elites to maintain their control. Political dissidents, labour movements, indigenous communities and other forms of dissent were often suppressed with force. The army was used to disperse demonstrations, arrest and imprison opposition leaders, and sometimes even conduct large-scale campaigns of repression.

The Catholic Church has played a central role in the history and culture of Latin America since colonial times. However, in the 19th century, many countries in the region experienced liberal movements that sought to reduce the influence of the Church in public life, separate Church and State and promote secularism. These liberal reforms often led to the confiscation of church property, the restriction of its role in education and the curtailment of its political influence. However, with the advent of the "regimes of Order and Progress" at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, the pendulum swung back. These regimes, seeking to establish a stable social order and counteract liberal and radical influences, often saw the Catholic Church as a natural ally. For these regimes, the Church represented not only a source of moral authority, but also a means of instilling conservative values and order in the population. As a result, many of the Church's prerogatives that had been abolished or restricted by previous liberal governments were restored. The Church regained a prominent place in education, with the return of denominational schools and the promotion of an education based on Catholic values. The Church's influence in public life has also been strengthened, with greater visibility for religious ceremonies and Church events. At the same time as the Church's influence was restored, there was a crackdown on religious minorities, particularly Protestants, who were often seen as agents of foreign influence, particularly from the United States. Secular movements, which advocated a stricter separation of church and state and were often associated with liberal or radical ideas, were also repressed.

The rise of the "Regimes of Order and Progress" in Latin America was marked by a series of measures aimed at consolidating power in the hands of a restricted elite. These measures, although presented as necessary to ensure stability and progress, have often had devastating consequences for democracy and human rights in the region. Censorship has become a common tool for controlling public discourse. Newspapers, writers and intellectuals who criticised the government or its policies were often subjected to sanctions ranging from closure of publications to imprisonment or even exile. This censorship not only stifled freedom of expression, but also created an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship among those who might have opposed the government's actions. The return of censal voting was another tactic used to limit political participation. By restricting the right to vote to those who owned a certain amount of property or met other economic criteria, the elites were able to ensure that only those whose interests aligned with their own could participate in the political process. This excluded the vast majority of the population from the decision-making process. But perhaps most disturbing was the way these regimes treated those who dared to openly oppose them. Workers, small farmers and other marginalised groups who mobilised to demand their rights were often met with brutal repression. Strikes were violently repressed, union and community leaders were arrested or murdered, and whole communities could be punished for the actions of a few.

The positivist regimes of Latin America, inspired by the ideas of "Order and Progress", sought to modernise their nations based on scientific and rational principles. These regimes were often characterised by strong centralisation of power, rapid economic modernisation and suppression of dissent. Although each country had its own particularities, certain common themes can be identified. Rafael Reyes, who ruled Colombia from 1904 to 1909, sought to modernise the Colombian economy by encouraging foreign investment, particularly in the oil and mining sectors. He also promoted the construction of railways to facilitate the transport of goods. However, Reyes strengthened executive power at the expense of the other branches of government. He also reduced the autonomy of the regions by placing them under the direct control of the central government. On the political front, Reyes did not hesitate to use force to suppress opposition, implementing strict censorship and often imprisoning or exiling his political opponents. Manuel Estrada Cabrera, who ruled Guatemala from 1898 to 1920, favoured the interests of American fruit companies, particularly the United Fruit Company. He granted huge concessions to these companies, enabling them to exert considerable influence over the Guatemalan economy. Estrada Cabrera also encouraged the construction of roads and railways to facilitate trade. However, his governance was notoriously brutal in its repression of the opposition. He used both the army and private militias to eliminate his opponents, and under his regime torture, imprisonment and executions were commonplace for those who dared to oppose him. In both cases, although the regimes managed to achieve some progress in economic modernisation, they did so at the expense of human rights and democracy. Centralisation of power and repression of dissent were common features of positivist regimes in Latin America, reflecting the influence of "Order and Progress" ideas.

In Brazil, the period known as the "República Velha" (1889-1930) was also marked by "Order and Progress" regimes. Inspired by positivism, these regimes sought to modernise the country by following the model of industrialised Western nations. Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca, who led the coup that overthrew the Brazilian monarchy in 1889, was the first President of the Republic and embodied this philosophy. Under his leadership and that of his successors, Brazil underwent a period of rapid modernisation, with the expansion of the railways, the promotion of industrialisation and the restructuring of education along positivist lines. However, as in Mexico under Díaz, economic progress in Brazil was accompanied by a concentration of political power. The "coronels", or large landowners, exerted considerable influence over regional and national politics. They often controlled the vote in their respective regions, guaranteeing the loyalty of elected politicians. This period, although marked by economic advances, was also characterised by widespread political corruption and the marginalisation of the working classes.

The First Brazilian Republic, also known as the "República Velha", was a period of major transformation for the country. After the proclamation of the Republic in 1889, which put an end to the monarchy, Brazil sought to modernise and align itself with the global trends of the time. The influence of positivism was palpable, as evidenced by the adoption of the motto "Ordem e Progresso" on the national flag. Industrialisation began to take root in the main cities, particularly São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. Railways, ports and other infrastructure were developed to facilitate trade and exports, particularly of coffee, which became the country's main export. The agrarian elites, particularly the coffee barons, played a central role in national politics, consolidating their power and influence. However, despite these economic advances, the First Republic was far from democratic. The political system was dominated by agrarian elites and "coronels", who controlled the vote in their respective regions. The "café com leite" policy reflected the alternation of power between the elites of São Paulo (coffee producers) and Minas Gerais (milk producers). In addition, the majority of the population, particularly Afro-Brazilians, rural workers and indigenous peoples, were largely excluded from decision-making processes. Repression of dissent was commonplace. Social movements, such as the "Revolta da Vacina" in 1904 or the "Canudos War" between 1896 and 1897, were violently repressed by the government. These events demonstrate the tension between the modernising aspirations of the elites and the needs and desires of the majority of the population.

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 in Mexican history that lasted from 1876 to 1911 and was characterised by the strong authoritarian power of President Porfirio Díaz. This regime was strongly influenced by positivism, which emphasised scientific and rational thinking as a means of promoting social progress. Under Porfiriato, Mexico underwent significant transformations. Díaz sought to modernise the country by drawing inspiration from European and North American models. Infrastructure, including railways, telegraphs and ports, was considerably developed, facilitating domestic trade and exports. These advances attracted foreign investment, particularly from the United States and Great Britain, which played a crucial role in the Mexican economy at the time. The Díaz regime also favoured the expansion of large haciendas or plantations, often to the detriment of indigenous communities and small farmers. The latter were often dispossessed of their land, increasing socio-economic inequalities. Commercial agriculture, focused on products such as coffee, sisal and rubber, became predominant, while agricultural production for local consumption was neglected. Politically, Díaz established an authoritarian system that suppressed all forms of opposition. Although elections were held, they were widely regarded as rigged, and Díaz remained in power through a combination of military control, political manipulation and censorship. Press freedom was limited, and opponents of the regime were often imprisoned or exiled. Despite the apparent stability and economic growth of the Porfiriato, underlying tensions built up. Growing inequality, the concentration of land in the hands of a few, the marginalisation of indigenous communities and political repression created widespread discontent. These tensions finally erupted with the Mexican Revolution of 1910, a major conflict that sought to address the many social, economic and political problems left by the Porfiriato.

The Porfiriato, under the leadership of Porfirio Díaz, was a period of rapid change for Mexico. Díaz's vision for the country was that of a modern Mexico, aligned with Western standards of development and progress. To achieve this goal, he encouraged foreign investment, particularly in sectors such as railways, mining and agriculture. These investments transformed the Mexican economy, linking it more closely to the global market. The construction of railways not only facilitated the transport of goods within the country, but also enabled agricultural and mining products to be exported to foreign markets, particularly the United States and Europe. This has stimulated economic growth, but it has also led to the confiscation of land belonging to indigenous communities and small farmers, who have been displaced to make way for large infrastructure projects and haciendas. The emphasis on foreign investment has also had consequences. While this has brought capital and technical expertise, it has also increased Mexico's economic dependence on foreign powers. What's more, a large proportion of the profits generated by these investments went back abroad rather than being reinvested in the country. Socially, Díaz's policies exacerbated inequalities. The concentration of land in the hands of a landed elite has left many peasants landless and without a means of subsistence. These displaced peasants often found themselves working in precarious conditions on haciendas or in fledgling industries, without rights or protection. Politically, Díaz maintained a firm grip on power. While advocating modernisation and progress, he suppressed press freedom, imprisoned opponents and manipulated elections to ensure his longevity in power. This political repression has created a climate of fear and mistrust.

Although the Porfiriato sought to modernise Mexico along Western lines, it also strengthened certain traditional structures, in particular the role of the Catholic Church. After the liberal reforms of the mid-nineteenth century, which had sought to limit the power of the Church in state affairs, the Díaz regime adopted a more conciliatory approach towards the Church. In exchange for its support, the Church was allowed to regain some of its influence in public life, particularly in the areas of education and charity. This resurgence of the Church's influence had consequences for religious minorities and secular movements. Protestants, Jews and other minority groups were often marginalised or persecuted. Secular movements, which sought to further separate church and state, were also repressed. Secular schools, for example, faced challenges from Church-backed educational institutions. The relationship between the Díaz regime and the Church was not simply an alliance of convenience. It also reflected Díaz's vision of a Mexico where order and stability were paramount. For him, the Church, with its profound influence and hierarchical structures, was a natural partner in maintaining that order. However, this alliance with the Church and the suppression of secular movements and religious minorities were at odds with the ideals of progress and modernisation that Díaz claimed to promote. Furthermore, although the regime promoted economic growth, its benefits were not equitably distributed. The majority of the population, particularly the working classes and indigenous communities, remained poor and marginalised. Economic inequality, combined with political repression and the marginalisation of minority groups, created a climate of discontent that eventually led to the Mexican Revolution of 1910.

The Mexican Revolution, which began in 1910, was a response to decades of authoritarianism, socio-economic inequality and growing discontent with the regime of Porfirio Díaz. Although the Porfiriato brought a degree of stability and modernisation to Mexico, it did so at the expense of civil rights, social justice and democracy. The immediate trigger for the revolution was the controversial re-election of Díaz in 1910, after he had promised not to seek another term. Francisco Madero, a wealthy and educated landowner, opposed Díaz in these elections and, after being imprisoned and then exiled, called for an armed revolt against Díaz. The revolution evolved rapidly, attracting a variety of leaders and movements with different agendas. Among them, Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa became emblematic figures. Zapata, in particular, advocated radical land reform and the return of land to peasant communities. As the conflict progressed, it became clear that the revolution was not just a fight against Díaz, but a profound challenge to Mexico's social, economic and political structures. Demands ranged from land reform and nationalisation of resources to workers' rights and education. After a decade of conflict, betrayal and changes of leadership, the revolution culminated in the Constitution of 1917. This constitution, still in force today, established Mexico as a federal republic and introduced major reforms, including the nationalisation of subsoil resources, the protection of workers' rights and land reform. The Mexican Revolution is often regarded as one of the first major social movements of the twentieth century and had a profound influence on Mexico's political, social and economic development over the following century. It also served as a model and inspiration for other revolutionary movements in Latin America and around the world.

The Mexican-American War, which took place between 1846 and 1848, marked a decisive turning point in Mexico's history. Following the Mexican defeat, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in 1848, obliging Mexico to cede a vast and rich territory to the United States, encompassing the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas and Oklahoma. This cession of territory represented around 55% of pre-war Mexican territory. The loss of these territories had a profound impact on Mexico. Economically, the ceded territories were endowed with abundant natural resources, notably gold in California. Mexico thus lost a major opportunity for income and economic growth. Demographically, many Mexicans living in these territories found themselves under US jurisdiction. Some opted for US citizenship, while others preferred to return to Mexico. Psychologically, this territorial loss was perceived as a profound humiliation for Mexico. It fuelled anti-American sentiment and reinforced the desire for a strong national identity, underlining the need to consolidate the country on all fronts to avoid further setbacks. The defeat also highlighted Mexico's internal weaknesses, leading to urgent calls for reform. This eventually led to the La Reforma reforms of the 1850s and 1860s, led by Benito Juárez. In terms of foreign policy, distrust of the United States became a central feature. Mexico, seeking to diversify its alliances, strengthened its relations with other nations, particularly in Europe. In short, the loss of these territories shaped Mexico for decades, influencing its identity, politics and economy.

In addition to this territorial loss, Mexico has also undergone significant changes in terms of land ownership and property rights. The Lerdo Law, officially known as the "Ley de Desamortización de Bienes de Corporaciones Civiles y Eclesiásticas", was one of the most controversial reforms of the 19th century in Mexico. It was part of a series of liberal reforms aimed at modernising the Mexican economy and reducing the power of the Catholic Church and traditional structures that were hindering the country's economic development. The main aim of the law was to put an end to the concentration of land ownership in the hands of the Church and indigenous communities, and to stimulate agricultural development through private investment. In theory, this was to promote economic growth by encouraging land development and increasing agricultural production. In practice, however, the law has had unintended consequences. The rapid privatisation of land has led to a concentration of land ownership in the hands of an economic elite, often to the detriment of small farmers and indigenous communities. Many of the latter have been dispossessed of their ancestral lands, leading to massive displacement and an increase in rural poverty. Foreign investors, particularly from the United States and Europe, have also taken advantage of this law to acquire vast tracts of land at derisory prices. This has led to an increase in foreign influence in the Mexican economy, particularly in the agricultural sector. The Lerdo law, although conceived with good intentions, has exacerbated socio-economic inequalities in Mexico. It laid the foundations for land tensions and conflicts that would last for decades, culminating in the Mexican Revolution of 1910, when the issue of land reform was central.

Despite its initial intentions to modernise and stimulate the economy, the Lerdo Law had a profound impact on Mexico's social and economic structure. By privatising land that had traditionally belonged to indigenous communities and the Church, it created a new land landscape dominated by large landowners and foreign investors. Small farmers, who depended on these lands for their livelihoods, found themselves marginalised, exacerbating existing inequalities. Indigenous communities, in particular, have been hard hit. For these communities, land was not only a source of subsistence, but also a central element of their cultural and spiritual identity. The loss of their ancestral lands had a devastating impact on their way of life and well-being. Over time, discontent with these inequalities and injustices has intensified. Demands for land reform, land restitution and greater social justice became central to the protest and resistance movements. These tensions finally culminated in the Mexican Revolution of 1910, a major conflict that sought to right the wrongs of decades of land injustice and establish a more equitable society. The revolution was marked by emblematic figures such as Emiliano Zapata, who argued for the return of land to peasants and indigenous communities. The slogan "Tierra y Libertad" (Land and Freedom) became the rallying cry of many revolutionaries, reflecting the central importance of the land question in the conflict.

Díaz began his military career fighting for the Liberal government during the War of Reformation and against French intervention in Mexico. He distinguished himself as an able military leader during the defence of the city of Puebla against French forces in 1863. However, it was his decisive victory at the Battle of Puebla on 5 May 1862, now commemorated as Cinco de Mayo, that catapulted him to national prominence. After the fall of the French-backed Emperor Maximilian, Díaz became dissatisfied with the leadership of President Benito Juárez and his successor, Sebastián Lerdo de Tejada. In 1876, Díaz launched a coup, known as the Plan of Tuxtepec, and became President of Mexico. Under Díaz's presidency, Mexico enjoyed a period of stability and economic growth, often referred to as the "Porfiriato". Díaz encouraged foreign investment, modernised the country's infrastructure, notably by building railways, and promoted industrialisation. However, this economic growth was not evenly distributed and often benefited a small elite, while the majority of the population remained poor. Díaz maintained peace and order using authoritarian methods. He suppressed political dissent, controlled the press and used the army to maintain control. Although elections were held, they were often manipulated, and Díaz remained in power for seven consecutive terms. Over time, discontent with Díaz's dictatorship grew. Economic inequality, the concentration of land in the hands of a small elite, the suppression of political rights and the perceived excessive influence of foreign investors fuelled tensions. These tensions finally erupted in 1910 with the start of the Mexican Revolution, which eventually led to Díaz's resignation in 1911. Porfirio Díaz remains a controversial figure in Mexican history. While some praise him for bringing stability and modernisation to Mexico, others criticise him for his authoritarian methods and the economic inequalities that persisted under his regime.

Under Porfiriato, Mexico underwent a major economic transformation. Díaz encouraged foreign investment, particularly from the United States and Europe, in key sectors such as oil, mining and railways. These investments led to rapid economic growth, but they also increased Mexico's dependence on foreign capital.

The modernisation of the country was visible, particularly in urban areas. The capital, Mexico City, was transformed with the construction of grand boulevards, parks and imposing buildings. Railways linked the country's main cities, facilitating trade and the movement of people. However, this modernisation came at a high social cost. Díaz's land policy favoured large landowners and foreign investors at the expense of small farmers and indigenous communities. Vast tracts of communal land were sold or confiscated, displacing thousands of peasants who became landless agricultural workers or migrated to the cities in search of work. Politically, Díaz used a combination of persuasion, corruption and brute force to maintain his grip on power. Elections were regularly rigged, and political opposition was often suppressed. The press was censored, and critics of the regime were quickly silenced. Despite the apparent stability of the Porfiriato, underlying tensions built up. Dissatisfaction with economic inequality, land loss, rampant corruption and a lack of democratic freedoms eventually led to the Mexican Revolution of 1910, a bloody conflict that lasted a decade and transformed Mexico's political, social and economic landscape.

The Porfiriato, the period of Porfirio Díaz's rule, is often seen as a time of contradictions. On the one hand, Mexico underwent unprecedented modernisation. Cities, particularly the capital, Mexico City, were transformed with the introduction of new infrastructure, public services and modern architecture. Railways have linked previously isolated regions, facilitating trade and national integration. Education and public health have also benefited from significant investment, with the creation of schools, universities and hospitals. However, these advances were made against a backdrop of centralised power and political repression. Díaz maintained an authoritarian grip on the country, using the army and police to suppress all forms of dissent. Elections were often manipulated, and press freedom was severely restricted. Economically, although the country grew, the benefits were not fairly distributed. Díaz's land policy favoured large landowners, often to the detriment of small farmers and indigenous communities. Vast tracts of communal land were sold or confiscated, displacing thousands of peasants. These policies exacerbated existing inequalities, with a rich and powerful elite prospering while the majority of the population remained in poverty. Positivism, with its emphasis on rationality and progress, provided an ideological justification for these policies. For Díaz and his circle of elites, progress justified sacrifice, even if it meant marginalising and exploiting large sections of the population. They firmly believed that Mexico had to follow the model of the industrialised nations in order to modernise, even if this meant sacrificing the rights and welfare of many Mexicans. Ultimately, the tensions and inequalities accumulated during the Porfiriato were one of the main catalysts for the Mexican Revolution, a movement that sought to right the wrongs of that era and create a more equitable and democratic Mexico.

The Mexican Revolution, which began in 1910, was a direct response to the many years of authoritarianism and socio-economic inequality under the Porfiriato. The underlying tensions, exacerbated by the concentration of wealth and power and the marginalisation of the working classes and indigenous communities, finally erupted in the form of a vast revolutionary movement. The immediate trigger for the revolution was the controversial re-election of Díaz in 1910, after he had promised not to stand again. Francisco Madero, a wealthy landowner who had opposed Díaz in the election, called for an armed revolt against the regime. What began as a series of local uprisings quickly grew into a national movement. As the revolution progressed, various leaders and factions emerged, each with their own vision of what a post-revolutionary Mexico should be. Emblematic figures such as Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa became symbols of the Mexican people's desire for social justice and land reform. Zapata, in particular, argued for the return of land to peasant communities, reflecting the cry of "Tierra y Libertad" (Land and Freedom). The revolution was marked by shifting alliances, battles and counter-revolutions. In 1917, after years of conflict, the new Mexican Constitution was promulgated, laying the foundations for a modern Mexico. This constitution incorporated numerous social and political reforms, including guarantees for workers' rights, land reform and limiting the power of the Catholic Church. Porfirio Díaz, who had ruled Mexico for so many years, eventually went into exile in France, where he died in 1915. The Mexican Revolution, although it brought about significant changes, left a complex legacy. While it succeeded in ending the authoritarianism of the Porfiriato and introducing important reforms, it also brought great instability and suffering to many Mexicans.

The "científicos" were fervent supporters of the application of science and rationality to the governance and modernisation of Mexico. They firmly believed that the country's development and progress depended on the adoption of scientific and rational methods in all areas, from the economy to education. Inspired by European ideas of positivism, they saw science as the main engine of progress and rejected tradition and superstition. Under the influence of the "científicos", the Díaz regime adopted a series of reforms aimed at modernising Mexico. This included building railways, promoting industrialisation, improving urban infrastructure and modernising the education system. They also encouraged foreign investment, believing that this would stimulate the economy and speed up modernisation. However, their approach also had controversial aspects. The "científicos" were often criticised for their disregard for Mexican traditions and their insensitivity to the needs and rights of the working classes and indigenous communities. Their unshakeable faith in scientific and economic progress often blinded them to the social consequences of their policies. For example, their emphasis on economic development has often favoured the interests of elites and foreign investors to the detriment of small farmers and workers.

The "científicos" were an influential group during the Porfiriato. Their name, which means "scientists", reflects their belief in science and rationality as a means of solving Mexico's social and economic problems. They were strongly influenced by positivism, a philosophy that emphasised the importance of scientific and rational thought in understanding and improving society. Under Díaz's leadership, the "científicos" played a key role in implementing reforms aimed at modernising Mexico. They promoted industrialisation, encouraged foreign investment, improved infrastructure and reformed the education system. However, their approach was often technocratic and elitist, favouring the interests of the upper classes and foreign investors over the needs of the majority of the population. Their influence was also felt in the politics of the regime. The "científicos" supported authoritarian governance, believing that Mexico was not yet ready for democracy and that only a strong government could bring about the necessary progress. This perspective justified the suppression of political opposition and the restriction of civil liberties. However, their role in Díaz's government was not without controversy. Many intellectuals and social groups criticised the "científicos" for their role in implementing policies that exacerbated social and economic inequalities. They have been accused of neglecting the rights and needs of the working classes and indigenous communities, and of favouring a concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a small elite. Criticism of the científicos intensified over time, and their influence was one of many factors contributing to the social and political instability that eventually led to the Mexican Revolution in 1910.

The Progress

Under the regime of Porfirio Díaz, Mexico experienced a period of rapid modernisation and economic expansion. However, this growth was often at the expense of the working classes, particularly small farmers and indigenous communities. Díaz's policies were aimed at attracting foreign investment and developing the country's infrastructure, including railways, mining and large-scale agriculture. The "ley de desamortización" and the "ley del español" were examples of how the Porfirian government facilitated the concentration of land in the hands of a few. The "ley de desamortización" gave landowners total control not only over their land, but also over the resources it contained. This paved the way for increased exploitation of natural resources, often by foreign companies. The "ley del español" exacerbated the confiscation of land. Many peasants and indigenous communities had no formal title to the land they had occupied for generations. The law allowed anyone who could produce a title - often falsified or obtained by dubious means - to claim the land. As a result, huge tracts of land were seized and passed into the hands of large landowners or foreign investors. These policies led to the mass displacement of small farmers and indigenous communities. Many were left landless and forced to work as farm labourers or miners, often in precarious conditions. The tensions resulting from these policies contributed to the social instability that eventually led to the Mexican Revolution in 1910.

During the Porfiriato period, Mexico underwent a major economic and social transformation. Laws such as the "ley de desamortización" and the "ley del español" facilitated the concentration of land in the hands of an economic elite, made up of both wealthy Mexican citizens and foreign investors. These vast tracts of land, once inhabited and cultivated by small farmers and indigenous communities, became plantation estates or mines exploited for profit. The direct consequence of this land concentration has been the impoverishment and marginalisation of large sections of the Mexican population. Small farmers, dispossessed of their land, were forced to become wage labourers, often in precarious conditions. Indigenous communities, in particular, have been hard hit, losing not only their land but also much of their cultural and social autonomy. It is important to note that Mexico was not unique in this respect. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many developing countries adopted similar policies, seeking to modernise their economies by attracting foreign investment. These policies often led to similar socio-economic inequalities, with an economic elite benefiting from most of the growth, while the majority of the population remained poor and marginalised. Criticism of these policies was not limited to their economic consequences. Many observers and activists pointed out that these policies violated people's fundamental rights, including the right to land, the right to a decent standard of living and the right to political participation. Economic marginalisation has often been accompanied by political repression as regimes seek to stifle opposition to their policies.

The concentration of land ownership in Mexico at the end of the 19th century had a profound and lasting impact on the country's socio-economic structure. By facilitating the privatisation of land, the laws of 1884 not only altered the agrarian landscape, but also redefined relations of power and wealth within Mexican society. With around 20% of the country's land passing from the hands of small farmers and indigenous communities to those of large landowners and foreign investors, a large part of the rural population found itself dispossessed. These small farmers, who depended on their land for their livelihood, were forced to seek work as agricultural wage labourers on the large plantations, often in precarious conditions and for derisory wages. Foreign investors, in particular, have played a crucial role in this transformation. Attracted by the investment opportunities and favourable policies of the Díaz regime, they acquired vast tracts of land, often introducing intensive, export-oriented farming methods. These large haciendas became production centres for the international market, producing crops such as coffee, sugar and rubber. The decline in the number of small farmers has also had political consequences. Deprived of their land and autonomy, these farmers became a potentially subversive political force, fuelling the discontent that would eventually lead to the Mexican Revolution in 1910. The question of agrarian reform, or land redistribution, became one of the main issues of the revolution.

The massive loss of communal land by the indigenous communities of the central plateau was one of the most devastating consequences of the Porfiriato's land policies. Communal lands, or 'ejidos', were central to the lives of indigenous communities, providing not only resources for subsistence, but also a sense of identity and belonging. These lands were managed collectively and were essential for maintaining the traditions, customs and social structures of the communities. The confiscation of these lands uprooted many communities, forcing them to adapt to new economic and social realities. Without land to farm, many were forced to work as agricultural labourers in the large haciendas, where they were often subjected to precarious working conditions and exploitation. The loss of land also meant a loss of autonomy and power for these communities, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation and marginalisation. Growing discontent with these injustices was one of the main driving forces behind the Mexican Revolution. Slogans such as "Tierra y Libertad" (Land and Freedom) resonated among the masses, reflecting a deep desire for social justice and land reform. After the revolution, the question of land became central to the reconstruction of the country. Agrarian reform laws sought to redistribute land to peasants and indigenous communities, and the ejidos were re-established as a central institution in Mexican rural life. However, the implementation of these reforms has been uneven and has faced many challenges. Nevertheless, the importance of land in Mexican history and the central role it played in the Mexican Revolution testify to the profound and lasting impact of the Porfiriato's land policies on the country.

The concentration of land in the hands of a small elite, facilitated by the laws of 1884, had profound consequences for the Mexican economy and society. While large landowners and foreign investors benefited from the rapid accumulation of wealth through land speculation, the majority of peasants and indigenous communities were dispossessed of their land, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation and poverty. Land speculation was often favoured over investment in modern farming practices. With an abundance of cheap labour, large landowners had no economic incentive to invest in modern farming technologies, such as mechanisation, which could have increased productivity. Instead, they could rely on the abundant and cheap labour of displaced peasants to work their land at very low cost. This dependence on cheap labour has meant that innovation and modernisation in Mexico's agricultural sector have been held back. Without investment in technology or training, agricultural productivity has remained stagnant, or even declined in some regions. In addition, land concentration has also limited agricultural diversification, as many large landowners have chosen to grow profitable export crops rather than food crops for the local population. The combination of land speculation, land concentration and dependence on cheap labour has created a deeply unequal and inefficient agrarian system. This structure contributed to widespread rural poverty, social instability and, ultimately, the rising tensions that led to the Mexican Revolution.

The transition to export crops, encouraged by international demand and profit opportunities, has had major consequences for Mexico. Large landowners, attracted by the high profits from export crops such as coffee, sugar, henequén and others, began to favour these crops to the detriment of traditional food crops such as maize, beans and rice. This development has had a twofold impact on Mexican society. Firstly, dependence on export crops has made the Mexican economy vulnerable to fluctuations in world markets. When export prices were high, this benefited the landed elites, but when prices fell, it could lead to economic crises, particularly affecting agricultural workers and small farmers. Secondly, the reduction in land devoted to food crops led to an increase in the price of basic foodstuffs. With a growing population and declining domestic food production, Mexico has become increasingly dependent on food imports to feed its population. This dependence exacerbated inequalities, as high food prices disproportionately affected the poor, who spent a greater proportion of their income on food. Rapid population growth, combined with declining domestic food production, created additional pressure on the country's resources and infrastructure. Cities began to develop rapidly, with rural migrants seeking better economic opportunities, but often facing precarious living conditions in urban slums. The combination of these factors - the transition to export crops, rapid population growth and urbanisation - created a tense socio-economic environment, where inequalities were glaring and frustration and discontent were growing among the working classes. These tensions would eventually contribute to the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution, a movement that sought to address these inequalities and create a more just and equitable society.

Increased dependence on export crops has had a profound effect on food security in Mexico. Maize, in particular, has always been at the heart of Mexican culture and diet, serving as the basis for many traditional dishes. Beans, another staple, are an essential source of protein for many Mexicans, particularly those who cannot afford to eat meat on a regular basis. The reduction in production of these essential foodstuffs has had a direct impact on the nutrition and health of the population. The increase in the price of basic foodstuffs, due to the fall in domestic production and the need to import more, has made these foods less accessible to many households, particularly the poorest. Families have had to spend more of their income on food, reducing their ability to meet other basic needs such as education, health and housing. Malnutrition, particularly among children, has become a major problem. Malnourished children are more likely to suffer from disease, developmental delays and learning difficulties. These problems have long-term consequences, not only for the individuals concerned, but also for society as a whole, as they reduce the country's economic and social potential. Landless and marginalised groups, who were already struggling to make ends meet, were particularly hard hit. Deprived of their land and unable to compete with the large export-oriented farms, many found themselves without a means of subsistence. Some migrated to the cities in search of work, contributing to the rapid expansion of urban shanty towns, while others joined social and political movements demanding land reform and a better distribution of resources.

The concentration of land ownership in the hands of a small elite has had profound consequences for Mexico's economy and society. With a large proportion of arable land given over to export crops, the production of food for domestic consumption has declined. This reduction in supply, combined with rising demand due to population growth, led to an increase in the price of basic foodstuffs. For the average citizen, this meant that essential products such as maize, beans and other staples became more expensive and sometimes unaffordable. At the same time as this food inflation, the labour market was flooded with landless workers, driven off their estates or unable to compete with the big farms. This oversupply of labour created a situation where employers could offer lower wages, knowing that there was always someone willing to take on work, however poorly paid. The combination of stagnant or falling wages and rising food prices led to a deterioration in living standards for a large proportion of the population. The situation has become particularly precarious for working and middle class families. Households have had to spend an increasing proportion of their income on food, reducing their ability to meet other basic needs. In addition, malnutrition has become a common problem, particularly among children, with all the health and social consequences that implies. This economic and social dynamic has created fertile ground for discontent and protest. Many Mexicans began to question a system that seemed to favour a small elite while leaving the majority in a precarious situation. These tensions contributed to the emergence of social and political movements demanding reform, laying the foundations for the revolutionary upheavals that were to follow.

The transition to export-oriented agriculture had profound consequences for food security in Mexico. While large farms prospered from the sale of produce on international markets, the local population faced a decline in the availability of staple foods. Maize and beans, the mainstay of the Mexican diet, became less accessible as the land devoted to growing them shrank. This shortage has had a dual impact. On the one hand, it has led to an increase in the price of these essential foodstuffs, making daily life more expensive for the majority of Mexicans. Secondly, it exacerbated social inequalities, as landless and marginalised groups were the hardest hit by these price rises. For these groups, buying food became a daily challenge, as their incomes did not increase at the same rate as food prices. Increased dependence on international markets has also made the Mexican economy more vulnerable to fluctuations in world prices. If the prices of export products fell, this could have negative consequences for the national economy, without benefiting local consumers in terms of lower food prices. This situation contributed to growing dissatisfaction with government policies and fuelled social tensions. Many Mexicans began to demand changes, not only in agricultural policy, but also in the way the country was governed, laying the foundations for future social and revolutionary movements.

Mexico's economic dynamics during this period created a vicious circle for the majority of its population. With land grabbing by a small elite and the transition to export-oriented agriculture, many small farmers and indigenous communities found themselves landless. This has led to mass migration to urban areas in search of jobs. However, the sudden influx of workers saturated the labour market, creating a surplus of labour. In such an environment, employers had the advantage. With more people looking for work than jobs available, they could afford to offer lower wages, knowing that workers had few options. This dynamic put downward pressure on wages, even as the cost of living, particularly the cost of food, rose. The combination of lower wages and higher living costs had a devastating impact on the standard of living of the majority of Mexicans. Many struggled to make ends meet, and poverty and insecurity became daily realities for many families. This difficult economic situation exacerbated social tensions and contributed to growing discontent with the Díaz regime, laying the foundations for the social and revolutionary movements that were to follow.

The rapid expansion of the rail network under the Díaz regime transformed Mexico's economic and social landscape. From an economic point of view, the railways facilitated internal and external trade. Remote agricultural regions were able to transport their produce to urban markets and export ports much more quickly and efficiently. It also attracted foreign investment, particularly from the United States and Europe, which saw Mexico as a promising emerging market. Foreign investors played a key role in financing and building these railways, which increased their economic and political influence in the country. Socially, the construction of the railways led to rapid urbanisation. Cities located along the railways, such as Monterrey and Guadalajara, experienced explosive growth. The ease of travel has also encouraged internal migration, with people from rural areas moving to the cities in search of better economic opportunities. This has changed the demographic composition of many regions and created new social challenges in urban areas, such as overcrowding, inadequate housing and growing inequality. Environmentally, the construction of the railways has had mixed consequences. On the one hand, it encouraged the exploitation of natural resources, particularly in the mining and forestry sectors. Forests were felled to provide timber for the construction and operation of the trains, and mines were developed to extract valuable minerals for export. On the other hand, the development of rail transport has reduced reliance on animal transport, with less impact on the environment in terms of emissions and land degradation.

The construction of railways in Mexico during the Porfiriato was a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it represented a major technological and economic advance for the country. Railways linked previously isolated regions, facilitating trade and economic expansion. Agricultural and mining products could be transported more quickly and efficiently to ports for export, attracting foreign investment and boosting the national economy. However, this progress came at a cost. Many communities, particularly those in rural and indigenous areas, were displaced to make way for the railways. These relocations were often carried out without consultation or adequate compensation, leaving many people without land or livelihoods. Construction has also led to the destruction of natural habitats, disrupting local flora and fauna. In addition, with the introduction of the railways, invasive species were introduced into new areas, further disrupting local ecosystems. The environmental impact was not the only cost. The railways, although essential for economic development, were often built in the interests of Mexican elites and foreign investors. Large companies, particularly from the United States and Europe, benefited from advantageous concessions and limited controls, allowing them to exploit the country's resources while offering few economic benefits to the local population.

The railway represented one of the advances in the Porfiriato economy and was presented to the world as a symbol of progress. Mexican culture during the Díaz era was characterised by the economy, as in this painting by José María Velasco, which depicts the Valle de México railway.

Under the regime of Porfirio Díaz, the construction of railways was a central element of the country's modernisation strategy. These railways not only facilitated trade and industrialisation, but also strengthened the central power of the state. The expansion of the rail network enabled the state apparatus to project itself more effectively into regions that had previously been isolated or difficult to access. This has strengthened the state's presence throughout the country, enabling more direct administration and more efficient tax collection. In addition, the increased mobility of the army thanks to the railways strengthened the regime's ability to maintain order, suppress dissent and control outlying regions. The construction of railways has also led to an increase in the number of civil servants needed to manage and administer this infrastructure. This created jobs and strengthened the state bureaucracy, further consolidating central power. In terms of immigration policy, the Porfirian regime sought to attract European migrants with the aim of "whitening" the population, an idea based on racist and eugenic notions of the time that associated development and modernity with the white race. The government hoped that the arrival of European migrants would help modernise the country, introduce new skills and technologies and increase agricultural and industrial production. However, despite the incentives offered, few Europeans were attracted to Mexico. There were many reasons for this: living conditions, the relative political stability in Europe at the time, and competition from other immigration destinations, particularly the United States, which offered more attractive economic opportunities.

Under the regime of Porfirio Díaz, education and public health were promoted as tools to "improve the race". These initiatives were rooted in the positivist ideas of the time, which associated progress with science, rationality and the improvement of the human race. Díaz's government believed that by educating the population and improving its health, it could raise the general level of Mexican society and reduce the number of people considered "inferior". However, these policies were not necessarily designed for the well-being of all Mexicans. Although public primary education was encouraged, access to quality education remained limited, particularly for rural and indigenous communities. Similarly, health and hygiene initiatives were often geared towards urban areas where elites and foreign investors lived, leaving out large segments of the population. The subtext of these policies was clearly racist and eugenic. The idea of "whitening" the Mexican population, whether through education, hygiene or European immigration, was based on a racial hierarchy that valued whiteness and devalued indigenous and Afro-Mexican characteristics. These ideas were commonplace at the time, not just in Mexico, but in many parts of the world. The marginalisation of indigenous and Afro-Mexican communities and the promotion of racist and eugenic ideals were widely criticised. These policies not only failed to improve the living conditions of the majority of the population, but also reinforced the social and racial inequalities that still persist in Mexico today.

The Porfirio period, which lasted from 1876 to 1911 under the leadership of Porfirio Díaz, is often referred to as the "Mexican economic miracle". The reforms and policies implemented during this period transformed Mexico from a predominantly agrarian nation into a booming economy with modern infrastructure and industrial growth. One of the main drivers of this growth was the construction of railways. Prior to the Díaz era, Mexico had a severe lack of modern transport infrastructure. The establishment of a national rail network not only made it easier to transport goods across the country, but also opened up Mexico to international markets. This has led to a rapid increase in exports, particularly of agricultural products such as coffee, sisal and rubber. Agriculture underwent a major transformation during this period. Under Díaz, vast tracts of land were sold or confiscated from small farmers and indigenous communities and then redistributed to large landowners or foreign companies. These new owners introduced modern farming methods and geared their production towards exports, in response to growing demand from international markets. At the same time, Mexican industry was also modernised. With the arrival of foreign investment, particularly from the United States and Europe, new technologies and production methods were introduced. Mining, particularly silver, and oil production have seen significant growth. However, despite these impressive figures, economic growth has not benefited all Mexicans equally. The concentration of land in the hands of an elite and the dependence on exports have created huge inequalities. Many small farmers lost their land and were forced to work as farm labourers in large haciendas. Indigenous communities were particularly hard hit, losing not only their land but also much of their cultural and economic autonomy.

The Porfirio period, from 1876 to 1911, is often cited as a turning point in Mexico's economic history. Under the leadership of Porfirio Díaz, the country underwent an unprecedented economic transformation, marked by rapid growth and large-scale modernisation. Foreign investment flooded in, attracted by the country's vast natural resources and business-friendly regime. This investment played a key role in the construction of essential infrastructure, such as railways, ports and telegraph lines, which in turn stimulated trade and industrialisation. The emphasis on exports transformed the Mexican economy. Agriculture, mining and industry grew rapidly, fuelled by demand from international markets. However, this growth was not without consequences. Although the country experienced economic expansion, the benefits were not distributed equitably. A small elite, consisting mainly of large landowners, industrialists and foreign investors, amassed considerable wealth, while the majority of the population remained on the margins, facing poverty and exploitation. Land, at the heart of Mexico's identity and economy, became a major source of conflict during this period. The land policy of the Díaz regime favoured large landowners and companies, often to the detriment of small farmers and indigenous communities. The latter saw their land confiscated, leaving them with no means of subsistence and forcing them to work in often precarious conditions. In addition, the intensive exploitation of natural resources has had lasting environmental consequences. Deforestation, soil erosion and pollution resulting from industrialisation have left scars on the Mexican landscape.

The Porfirio period, while marked by impressive economic growth, was also characterised by growing inequality and increased dependence on foreign investment. Porfirio Díaz's economic policies favoured large landowners, industrialists and foreign investors, often to the detriment of small farmers, workers and indigenous communities. The influence of foreign investors, particularly from the United States, increased significantly during this period. They were attracted by Mexico's vast natural resources and by the business-friendly policies of the Díaz regime. These investors gained considerable control over key sectors of the Mexican economy, such as mining, oil, railways and agriculture. Although these investments contributed to the country's modernisation and economic growth, they also reinforced Mexico's dependence on foreign capital. The concentration of wealth was evident not only in the ownership of resources, but also in the distribution of income. The majority of Mexicans worked in precarious conditions, with low wages and few or no social rights. Small farmers and indigenous communities, in particular, were hard hit by the regime's land policies, which favoured large landowners and corporations. Many were dispossessed of their land and forced to work as agricultural labourers or in mines, often in exploitative conditions. This economic inequality was exacerbated by political inequality. The Díaz regime suppressed political opposition and maintained authoritarian control over power, limiting the ability of marginalised groups to advocate their rights or challenge existing economic structures.

Under the regime of Porfirio Díaz, Mexico underwent a rapid economic transformation, but this growth was not equitably distributed. Modernisation and industrialisation, while beneficial for some sectors of society, had devastating consequences for others. Small farmers and indigenous communities, who made up a significant proportion of the population, were among the hardest hit. Land policies favouring large landowners and foreign investors led to massive land concentration. Many people were dispossessed of their ancestral lands, which not only destroyed their livelihoods, but also disrupted their traditions and cultures. With no land to farm and few economic opportunities, many have been forced into poverty or migration to the cities in search of work. Mexico's dependence on foreign investment and the export of natural resources has also had environmental consequences. Forests have been felled, mines have been exploited without regard for the environment, and farmland has been over-exploited. These actions not only degraded the environment, but also left the country vulnerable to fluctuations in world markets. Critics of the Díaz regime point out that, although the country has experienced economic growth, it has not been inclusive. Benefits were concentrated in the hands of a small elite, while the majority of the population saw no significant improvement in their living conditions. The ideals of "progress" and "order" proclaimed by the regime were in flagrant contradiction with the reality experienced by many Mexicans.

The northern region of Mexico, on the other hand, underwent a rapid economic transformation thanks to its proximity to the US border. Foreign investment has poured into the region, leading to the development of vast cattle ranches, mines and other export-oriented industries. Railways, built largely with foreign capital, linked northern Mexico to US markets, facilitating the export of raw materials and the import of manufactured goods. However, this economic growth in the north did not necessarily benefit the local population. Many were displaced from their lands, and those who found work in the new industries often faced difficult working conditions and low wages. Southern Mexico, rich in natural resources, has also attracted the attention of foreign investors. Coffee, cocoa, sugar and tropical fruit plantations have developed, mainly for export. However, as in the north, economic growth has not been equitably distributed. Indigenous communities, in particular, were dispossessed of their land and forced to work on the plantations in conditions bordering on servitude. The east coast of Mexico, with its strategic ports, became a centre for imports and exports. Port cities such as Veracruz grew rapidly, attracting traders, investors and workers. However, the region was also affected by tropical diseases, and despite government efforts to improve public health, mortality remained high.

The central region of Mexico, historically fertile and suitable for agriculture, became the scene of a major agrarian transformation during the Porfirian period. Large landowners, often in collaboration with foreign investors, saw a lucrative opportunity in export crops. Sugar cane, with its growing demand on international markets, became a favoured crop. Vast haciendas, or large estates, dominated the landscape, using intensive farming methods to maximise yields. However, this concentration on export crops has had detrimental consequences for local food security. With much of the agricultural land devoted to sugar cane and other export crops, production of staple foods such as maize, wheat and beans has declined. These crops, essential to the daily diet of the majority of Mexicans, have become rarer, leading to higher prices. For rural families, particularly those who had lost their land to large landowners, this situation became untenable. Not only did they no longer have land to grow their own food, but they also had to face higher prices on local markets. Landless and marginalised groups were the hardest hit. Without access to land and with stagnant or falling wages, these groups struggled to make ends meet. Malnutrition and hunger became commonplace in many communities, particularly among children. Social tensions increased as many peasants saw their traditional livelihoods disappear, replaced by an agrarian system that left them behind. This agrarian transformation, combined with other social, economic and political factors, created fertile ground for discontent and dissent, laying the foundations for the Mexican Revolution that would erupt in 1910.

The central region of Mexico, once prosperous thanks to its agriculture, underwent major economic and social upheaval during the Porfiri period. Agrarian transformation, which favoured export crops at the expense of food crops, had a profound impact on the rural workforce. The land grab by large landowners and the reduction in the amount of land available for small-scale farming left many peasants landless. These displaced peasants sought work elsewhere, often in the haciendas of the large landowners or in the fledgling industries of the cities. This sudden influx of workers created a labour surplus. In a saturated labour market, employers had the advantage. They could offer lower wages, knowing that workers had few options. Competition for jobs was fierce, and many workers were prepared to accept precarious conditions and lower wages simply to provide for their families. At the same time as these labour market dynamics were taking place, the region was also experiencing rising food prices. With less land devoted to growing staple foods, the availability of products such as maize, wheat and beans has decreased, leading to higher prices. For the majority of the population, this combination of falling wages and rising living costs has been devastating. Purchasing power has fallen, making it difficult for many families to buy food and other essential goods. Deteriorating living conditions in the central region have exacerbated social tensions. Dissatisfaction with the elites and government policies intensified, fuelling protest movements and demands for land reform and a better distribution of wealth. These conditions eventually contributed to the emergence of the Mexican Revolution, a movement that sought to redress the social and economic injustices of the Porfirian regime.

During the Porfirian period, the northern region of Mexico became a real economic magnet. The vast expanses of land, combined with the discovery of rich mineral deposits, made the region a major centre for mining. Silver, copper, lead and zinc mines flourished, attracting both domestic and foreign investors. The United States, in particular, saw a lucrative opportunity in northern Mexico, and many Americans invested in the mines and haciendas, seeking to maximise their profits from the region's natural wealth. As well as mining, the northern region also saw an expansion in agriculture, particularly cotton growing. The vast expanses of flat land were ideal for growing cotton, and with increasing global demand, this crop became a major source of income for the region. However, this rapid economic growth was not without consequences. The concentration of land and resources in the hands of an elite, often foreign, exacerbated social inequalities. Many small farmers and peasants from central Mexico, displaced by the land grabbing policies of the Porfiri regime, migrated north in search of better opportunities. However, they often found themselves in precarious conditions, working as farm labourers in the large haciendas or as miners in the mines. The increased presence of Americans in the region also had cultural and social implications. While some have integrated into local society, many have remained isolated, forming distinct enclaves. Tensions between foreign investors and the local population sometimes erupted, particularly when workers' rights were violated or when resources were exploited without regard for the environment or the well-being of the community.

During the Porfirian period, the northern region of Mexico became a real economic magnet. The vast expanses of land, combined with the discovery of rich mineral deposits, made this region a major centre for mining. Silver, copper, lead and zinc mines flourished, attracting both domestic and foreign investors. The United States, in particular, saw a lucrative opportunity in northern Mexico, and many Americans invested in the mines and haciendas, seeking to maximise their profits from the region's natural wealth. As well as mining, the northern region also saw an expansion in agriculture, particularly cotton growing. The vast expanses of flat land were ideal for growing cotton, and with increasing global demand, this crop became a major source of income for the region. However, this rapid economic growth was not without consequences. The concentration of land and resources in the hands of an elite, often foreign, exacerbated social inequalities. Many small farmers and peasants from central Mexico, displaced by the land grabbing policies of the Porfiri regime, migrated north in search of better opportunities. However, they often found themselves in precarious conditions, working as farm labourers in the large haciendas or as miners in the mines. The increased presence of Americans in the region also had cultural and social implications. While some have integrated into local society, many have remained isolated, forming distinct enclaves. Tensions between foreign investors and the local population sometimes erupted, particularly when workers' rights were violated or resources were exploited without regard for the environment or the well-being of the community.

The Order

The regime of Porfirio Díaz, known as the Porfiriato, was characterised by a strong desire for modernisation and economic progress. However, to achieve these ambitions, Díaz knew he had to maintain strict control over Mexican society. To achieve this, he adopted a series of strategies and tactics aimed at consolidating his power and minimising dissent. One of his main strategies was the "divide and rule" tactic. Díaz skilfully played factions off against each other, granting favours to some groups while repressing others. For example, he sometimes supported the interests of landowners while repressing peasant movements, or vice versa, depending on what best served his interests at any given time. At the same time, he adopted a "bread or stick" approach, rewarding loyalty and punishing dissent. Those who supported the Díaz regime could expect favours, government posts or economic concessions. On the other hand, those who opposed him often faced repression, imprisonment or even exile. Control of the media was also crucial for Díaz. He exercised strict control over the media, censoring critical voices and promoting a positive image of his regime. Newspapers that supported him were favoured with government subsidies, while those that criticised him were often closed down or their editors intimidated. Militarisation was another pillar of his regime. Díaz strengthened the army and police, using them as tools to maintain order and suppress dissent. Particularly turbulent areas were often placed under martial law, with troops deployed to guarantee stability. In addition, Díaz's government had a network of spies and informers who monitored the activities of citizens, particularly those of opposition groups and activists. Finally, economic concessions played an essential role in maintaining his power. Díaz often used economic concessions as a means of winning the support of local and foreign elites. By granting exclusive rights to certain resources or industries, he secured the loyalty of these powerful groups. By combining these tactics, the Porfirian regime managed to maintain firm control over Mexico for more than three decades. However, this repression and inequality eventually led to widespread discontent, which erupted in the form of the Mexican Revolution in 1910.

Porfirio Díaz's regime skilfully used the principle of 'divide and rule' as a strategic tool to maintain its grip on power. By creating or exacerbating existing divisions within Mexican society, Díaz was able to weaken and fragment any potential opposition, making it more difficult to form a unified coalition against him. Regions that showed particular loyalty to the regime were often favoured with investments, infrastructure projects or other economic benefits. On the other hand, regions perceived as less loyal or potentially rebellious were often neglected or even punished with punitive economic measures. This approach created regional disparities, with some regions enjoying significant economic development while others languished in poverty. Within the working class, Díaz often played the interests of urban workers against those of rural workers. By offering advantages or concessions to one group while neglecting or repressing the other, he was able to prevent the formation of a unified workers' front that could challenge his rule. Similarly, Mexico's indigenous communities, which had already been marginalised for centuries, were further divided under the Díaz regime. By favouring certain communities or indigenous leaders while repressing others, Díaz created divisions and rivalries within the indigenous population, making it more difficult for them to unite against the regime. Using these tactics, Díaz was able to weaken the opposition, strengthen his own power and maintain firm control over Mexico for more than three decades. However, these divisions and inequalities ultimately contributed to the instability and discontent that led to the Mexican Revolution.

Under the regime of Porfirio Díaz, the principle of "bread or stick" became a central element of governance. This dualistic strategy enabled Díaz to maintain a delicate balance between the carrot and the stick, guaranteeing the loyalty of some while discouraging opposition from others. Incentives, or 'bread', were often used to win the support of key groups or influential individuals. For example, land, government jobs or lucrative contracts could be offered to those prepared to support the regime. These rewards not only ensured the loyalty of many individuals and groups, but also served as an example of the benefits of cooperating with the Díaz regime. However, for those who were not seduced by these incentives or who actively chose to oppose the regime, Díaz did not hesitate to use the "stick". Repression was brutal for those who dared to challenge the regime. Demonstrations were often violently repressed, opposition leaders were arrested or exiled, and in some cases entire communities suffered reprisals for the actions of a few. The army and police, strengthened and modernised under Díaz, were the main instruments of this repression. This combination of incentives and repression enabled Díaz to consolidate his power and govern Mexico for more than three decades. However, this approach also sowed the seeds of discord and discontent, which would eventually erupt in the form of the Mexican Revolution, bringing the era of the Porfiriato to an end.

The regime of Porfirio Díaz, although often praised for its efforts at modernisation and industrialisation, was also marked by strong political repression and restrictions on civil liberties. Stability and order were top priorities for Díaz, and he was prepared to take draconian measures to maintain them. Censorship was omnipresent. Newspapers, magazines and other publications were closely monitored, and any content deemed subversive or critical of the government was quickly suppressed. Journalists who dared to criticise the regime were often harassed, arrested or even exiled. This censorship was not limited to the print media; public gatherings, plays and even some forms of art were also subject to government scrutiny and censorship. Propaganda was another key tool used by the regime to shape public opinion. Díaz's government promoted an image of stability, progress and modernity, often in contrast to previous regimes, which were portrayed as chaotic and regressive. This propaganda was omnipresent, from school textbooks to newspapers and public speeches. Surveillance was also commonplace. Government intelligence services kept a close eye on the activities of citizens, particularly those of groups considered 'problematic' or 'subversive'. Indigenous communities, trade unions, opposition political groups and others were often infiltrated by government informers. Repression was most severe for those who dared to openly challenge the regime. Strikes were brutally suppressed, trade union and political leaders were arrested or murdered, and communities that opposed the government were often collectively punished.

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

The Porfirian regime's "bread or stick" approach to maintaining order and controlling society was aimed primarily 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 it and were prepared to cooperate with it. The aim was to "buy" the support of certain members of the elite and prevent them from opposing the regime. On the other hand, those who refused to cooperate or who were perceived as a threat to the regime were dealt with severely. The "stick" represented repression, force and punishment. The army and police were used to suppress all opposition, whether real or perceived. Dissidents were often arrested, tortured, exiled or even executed. Property could be confiscated and the families of opponents persecuted. The Church, as a powerful and influential institution in Mexico, was another important pillar of the regime. Díaz understood the importance of maintaining good relations with the Church to ensure the stability of his regime. Although relations between the state and the Church were strained at times, Díaz often sought to cooperate with the Church and secure its support. In return, the Church enjoyed privileges and protections under Díaz. Ultimately, the "bread or stick" approach was a way for Díaz to consolidate his power and maintain control over Mexico. By offering rewards and incentives to those who supported him and severely punishing those who opposed him, Díaz managed to maintain relative stability for most of his reign. However, this approach also sowed the seeds of discontent and revolution, as many Mexicans felt oppressed and marginalised by Díaz's authoritarian rule.

Díaz's strategy for maintaining control in rural areas was simple but effective: he used brute force to crush any form of resistance. The rurales, a paramilitary force created by Díaz, were often deployed in these areas to monitor and control local communities. They were feared for their brutality and lack of accountability, and were often involved in acts of violence against the civilian population. Indigenous communities, in particular, were hard hit by these repressive tactics. Historically marginalised and oppressed, these communities had their land confiscated and were often forced to work in slave-like conditions in the haciendas of large landowners. Any attempt at resistance or revolt was brutally suppressed. Indigenous traditions, languages and cultures were also often targeted in an attempt to assimilate and "civilise" them. The working class was not spared repression either. With the industrialisation and modernisation of Mexico under Díaz, the working class grew, particularly in the cities. However, working conditions were often precarious, wages low and workers' rights almost non-existent. Strikes and demonstrations were common, but were often violently repressed by the army and police.

Díaz knew that the regular army, with its diverse loyalties and regional affiliations, might not be entirely reliable in a crisis. The "rurales", on the other hand, were a specially trained force loyal directly to Díaz and his regime. They were often recruited from among veterans and trusted men, which guaranteed their loyalty to the president. The "rurales" were feared for their brutal efficiency. They were often used to suppress resistance movements, hunt down bandits and maintain order in areas where central government control was weak. Their presence was a constant reminder of the reach and power of the Díaz regime, even in the most remote parts of the country. In addition, Díaz used the "rurales" as a counterweight to the regular army. By maintaining a powerful and loyal parallel force, he could ensure that the army would not become too powerful or threaten his regime. It was a clever strategy for balancing power and preventing coups d'état or internal rebellion. However, the creation and use of "rurales" also had negative consequences. Their brutality and lack of accountability often led to abuses against the civilian population. Moreover, their presence reinforced the authoritarian nature of the Díaz regime, where force and repression were often favoured over dialogue or negotiation.

Porfirio Díaz was an astute political strategist, and he understood the crucial importance of the army for the stability of his regime. The army, as an institution, had the potential to overthrow the government, as had been the case in many other Latin American countries at the time. Díaz, aware of this threat, took steps to ensure the army's loyalty. Increasing pay and benefits was a direct way of winning the loyalty of soldiers and officers. By offering better pay and improved living conditions, Díaz ensured that the army had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. What's more, by modernising the army with new weapons and equipment, he strengthened not only the army's ability to maintain order, but also its prestige and status within Mexican society. The presence of the "rurales" added another dimension to Díaz's strategy. By maintaining a powerful parallel force, he could play on the competition between the two groups. If the regular army became too ambitious or threatening, Díaz could rely on the "rurales" to counterbalance this threat. Conversely, if the "rurales" became too powerful or independent, Díaz could rely on the regular army. This "divide and rule" strategy was effective for Díaz for most of his reign. It prevented coups and maintained a delicate balance between the different factions of military power. However, this approach also reinforced the authoritarian nature of the regime, with an increased reliance on military force to maintain order and control.

Yaqui uprising - Retreating Yaqui warriors, 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 anti-clerical provisions of the liberal constitution of 1857, but preferred to ignore them. Diaz returned to the Catholic Church the monasteries and religious schools that had been confiscated under the previous liberal regime, and allowed the Church to continue to play an important role in society. In return, the Catholic Church supported the Díaz regime, preaching stability and order and discouraging dissent. This pragmatic alliance between state and church benefited both sides. For Díaz, it allowed him to consolidate his power and gain the support of a powerful and influential institution. For the Church, it allowed it to regain some of the influence and property that had been lost during earlier periods of reform. However, this relationship was not without its tensions. Although Díaz allowed the Church to regain some of its influence, he ensured that it did not become too powerful or threaten his regime. He maintained strict control over education, ensuring that the state had the final say on what was taught in schools, and limited the power of the Church in other areas of society.

The Catholic Church, with its deep influence and historical roots in Mexico, was a major player in the country's social and political dynamics. Recognising this, Díaz saw the importance of maintaining a peaceful relationship with the Church. By avoiding open conflict with the Church, Díaz was able to avoid a potential source of dissent and opposition to his regime. The Church, for its part, had its own reasons for supporting Díaz. Having suffered significant losses in terms of property and influence under previous liberal regimes, it was keen to protect its interests and regain some of its power and influence. By supporting Díaz, the Church was able to operate in a more favourable environment, where it could continue to play a central role in the lives of Mexicans. This mutually beneficial arrangement contributed to the stability of the Díaz regime. However, it is also important to note that, although the Church supported Díaz, it also maintained a certain distance from the government, thereby preserving its institutional independence. This allowed the Church to continue to play a central role in the lives of Mexicans, while avoiding being too closely associated with the excesses and controversies of the Porfirian regime.

The agreement between Díaz and the Catholic Church was not without consequences. For many critics, the fact that the Church was able to operate without hindrance meant that it had a disproportionate influence on Mexico's political and social life. The Church, with its vast resources and influence, was able to influence political decisions, often to the detriment of the separation of church and state, a fundamental principle of liberal democracy. The suppression of religious freedoms was another concern. Although the Catholic Church enjoyed greater freedom under Díaz, other religious groups were often marginalised or persecuted. This created an environment where religious freedom was limited, and the Catholic Church had a de facto monopoly on religious life. Education was also affected. With the Church playing a greater role in education, there were concerns about curriculum and teaching. Critics argued that education had become less secular and more oriented towards the teachings of the Church. This had implications for the development of critical and independent thinking among students. Finally, the Church's support for Díaz was seen by many as a betrayal. The Church, as an institution that was supposed to defend moral and ethical values, supported a regime that was often criticised for its repression and abuses. For many Mexicans, this discredited the Church as an institution and reinforced the idea that it was more concerned with power and influence than with the well-being of its faithful.

Porfirio Díaz skilfully navigated Mexico's political and economic landscape to consolidate his power. His policy of selective repression was a deliberate strategy to balance the needs and desires of the economic elites while neutralising potential threats to his authority. Large landowners, bankers and entrepreneurs were essential to Mexico's economic growth and the stability of the Díaz regime. By allowing them to prosper, Díaz ensured their support and loyalty. These economic elites enjoyed a stable environment for their investments and businesses, and in return they supported the Díaz regime, both financially and politically. However, Díaz was well aware that these same elites, with their vast resources and influence, could potentially become a threat to his power if they became dissatisfied or saw an opportunity to gain more power for themselves. So, while allowing them to prosper, Díaz also put mechanisms in place to ensure that they did not become too powerful or politically influential. He kept a close eye on them, making sure they didn't form alliances that could threaten him. On the other hand, those who openly opposed Díaz or posed a threat to his regime, such as trade union activists, critical journalists or dissident political leaders, were often the targets of his repression. They were arrested, imprisoned, exiled or sometimes even killed. This selective repression sent a clear message to Mexican society: support for Díaz was rewarded, while opposition was severely punished.

Porfirio Díaz mastered the art of transactional politics. By offering land, concessions and other benefits to his allies, he created a system of loyalty that strengthened his regime. These rewards were powerful incentives for Mexico's economic elite, encouraging them to support Díaz and invest in the country. In return, they enjoyed a stable business environment and protection from competition or territorial claims. However, this generosity was not without conditions. Díaz expected unwavering loyalty from his allies. Those who betrayed that trust or appeared to oppose him were quickly targeted. Repression could take many forms, from confiscation of property to imprisonment and even execution. This combination of carrot and stick was effective in maintaining order and stability for most of his reign. In addition, by selectively distributing land and concessions, Díaz was also able to control the concentration of economic power. By fragmenting wealth and resources, he ensured that no individual or group became powerful enough to challenge his authority. If an individual or family became too influential, Díaz had the means to reduce them to a more manageable size. This strategy was essential in maintaining the balance of power in Mexico during the Porfiriato. While it allowed for some economic stability and growth, it also created deep inequalities and sowed the seeds of discontent. Díaz's reliance on these tactics ultimately contributed to the instability and revolution that followed the end of his regime.

The massive expansion of infrastructure under Porfirio Díaz required a larger and more efficient state administration. The bureaucracy grew at an unprecedented rate during this period, with the creation of numerous civil service posts to oversee, manage and maintain infrastructure projects. The expansion of the rail network is a particularly striking example of this bureaucratic growth. Railways not only developed as transport routes for goods and people, they also became a strategic tool for the government. With an extensive rail network, the government could quickly move troops to quell rebellions or unrest in remote areas, reinforcing Díaz's centralised control over the vast Mexican territory. To manage this complex network, numerous positions were created, ranging from engineers and technicians responsible for designing and maintaining the tracks, to administrators overseeing operations and logistics. In addition, the rail network has necessitated the creation of a rail police force to guarantee the safety of the tracks and stations, as well as to protect property and passengers. State expansion has not been limited to the railways. Other infrastructure projects, such as the construction of ports, roads, dams and irrigation systems, also required an expanded state administration. These projects created employment opportunities for a new class of trained and educated civil servants, who became essential to Porfiriato's state machinery.

The ability to respond quickly to unrest was a key part of Díaz's strategy for maintaining his grip on Mexico. Before the expansion of the railway network, Mexico's vast territory, with its difficult terrain and long distances, made it difficult for the central government to respond quickly to rebellions or uprisings. Revolts could last for months, or even years, before the government could mobilise enough troops to put them down. With the advent of the railways, this dynamic changed. Troops could be moved quickly from one region to another, enabling a rapid response to any insurrection. This not only enabled rebellions to be effectively suppressed, but also acted as a deterrent, as potential rebels knew that the government could quickly send reinforcements. In addition, the railway network enabled better communication between the different regions of the country. Information about rebel movements, unrest or potential threats could be quickly transmitted to the capital, allowing Díaz's government to plan and coordinate its responses. However, this increased capacity for repression also had negative consequences. It reinforced the authoritarian nature of the Díaz regime, with an increased reliance on military force to maintain order. Many Mexicans became dissatisfied with this constant repression, which contributed to the build-up of tension and discontent that eventually led to the Mexican Revolution of 1910.

The situation of the Yaquis during the Porfirian regime is a poignant example of the tensions and conflicts that emerged in response to Díaz's policies of modernisation and centralisation. The Yaquis, originally from the Yaqui river valley in the state of Sonora, had a long history of resistance to Spanish and later Mexican rule. Under the Díaz regime, the pressure to develop and modernise the country led to an increase in demand for land for agriculture and livestock, particularly in rich and fertile regions such as the Yaqui. The land in the Yaqui valley was particularly sought after for its fertility and access to water, both of which were essential to support large-scale agriculture. The Díaz government, in collaboration with private landowners, began expropriating land from the Yaquis, often by coercive or fraudulent means. These actions displaced many Yaquis from their ancestral lands, disrupting their traditional way of life based on agriculture and fishing. In response to these expropriations, the Yaquis resisted in every way possible. They launched several revolts against the Mexican government, using guerrilla tactics and seeking to reclaim their land. Díaz's government responded with brutal force, launching military campaigns to suppress Yaqui resistance. These campaigns were often accompanied by violence, forced displacement and, in some cases, the expulsion of Yaquis from their homeland to henequén plantations in the Yucatán or other remote areas of the country, where they were often subjected to slave-like working conditions. The resistance of the Yaquis and the brutal repression by the government became emblematic of the wider tensions that emerged in Mexico during the Porfirian regime. Although the Díaz regime brought a degree of stability and modernisation to the country, it often did so at the expense of indigenous and rural communities, who paid a heavy price in terms of land, culture and human lives.

The Díaz government's response to the Yaquis uprisings is a grim example of the regime's treatment of dissidents and ethnic minorities. Military repression was brutal, and communities that resisted were often subjected to extreme violence. Massacres were common, and survivors, rather than simply being released, were often forcibly moved to remote parts of the country. The deportation of the Yaquis to the Yucatán peninsula is one of the most tragic episodes of this period. In Yucatán, demand for labour for the henequén plantations was high. Henequén, also known as sisal, was a lucrative crop used to make rope and other products. Working conditions on these plantations were appalling, with long and exhausting working days, poor living conditions and little or no pay. The deported Yaquis were often treated like slaves, working in inhumane conditions with no possibility of returning home. For the Díaz regime and the plantation owners, it was a win-win situation: the government got rid of a rebel group, and the plantation owners got cheap labour. These actions have been widely criticised, both then and now, for their brutality and lack of humanity. They are an example of how the Díaz regime, despite its efforts at modernisation and development, often acted at the expense of the most vulnerable groups in Mexican society.

The scale of the deportation of the Yaquis is staggering and demonstrates the brutality of the Díaz regime towards indigenous groups who resisted his rule. The mass deportation of the Yaquis was not only a punitive measure, but also a lucrative business for the officials and plantation owners involved. The fact that the Yucatán planters paid for each Yaqui deported shows the extent to which this operation was systematised and commercialised. The colonel, as intermediary, received a commission for each Yaqui deported, while the rest of the money went directly to the War Ministry. This shows that the deportation of the Yaquis was not only a strategy to eliminate potential resistance, but also a way for the Díaz regime to generate revenue. The deportation of the Yaquis to Yucatán had devastating consequences for the community. Many died as a result of the inhumane working conditions on the henequén plantations, while others succumbed to disease. The culture and identity of the Yaquis were also severely affected, as they were uprooted from their homeland and dispersed to a foreign region. This tragedy is an example of how the Díaz regime has often prioritised economic and political interests over the rights and well-being of Mexico's indigenous peoples. It is a sombre reminder of the consequences of Díaz's policy of "modernisation" when implemented without regard for human rights and social justice.

The policy of deportation and forced labour implemented by the Díaz regime against the Yaquis is a glaring example of the exploitation and marginalisation of indigenous peoples in Mexico during this period. The Yaquis, like many other indigenous groups, were seen as obstacles to the progress and modernisation that Díaz sought to bring about. Their resistance to the confiscation of their lands and government interference in their affairs was met with brutal force and systematic repression. The deportation of the Yaquis was not only a punitive measure, but also an economic strategy. By moving them to Yucatán, the Díaz regime was able to provide cheap, exploitable labour for the henequén plantations, while simultaneously weakening Yaqui resistance in the north. This dual motivation - political and economic - made the deportation all the more cruel and ruthless. The destruction of Yaqui communities, culture and traditional ways of life had lasting consequences. Not only did it uproot a people from their ancestral land, it also erased part of Mexico's indigenous history and culture. The loss of land, which is intrinsically linked to the identity and spirituality of indigenous peoples, was a devastating blow to the Yaquis. Díaz's policy towards the Yaquis was just one example of his regime's treatment of indigenous peoples and other marginalised groups. Although the Díaz regime was hailed for its economic achievements and modernisation of Mexico, it was also responsible for serious human rights violations and social injustices. These policies, and others like them, sowed the seeds of discontent that would eventually culminate in the Mexican Revolution of 1910.

The Porfirio period, although marked by economic modernisation and relative stability, was also characterised by severe repression of all forms of dissent. The regime of Porfirio Díaz was determined to maintain order and stability at all costs, even if this meant violating the fundamental rights of its citizens. Workers, particularly those in the mining and infant industries, were often faced with dangerous working conditions, long hours and poor pay. When they tried to organise strikes or demonstrations to demand better pay or working conditions, they were often met with brutal violence. The strikes in Cananea in 1906 and Rio Blanco in 1907 are notable examples of how the regime responded to labour dissent with force. In both cases, the strikes were violently repressed by the army, leaving many workers dead or injured. Political opponents, be they liberals, anarchists or others, were also targeted. Newspapers and publications critical of the regime were often censored or closed down, and their editors and journalists were arrested or exiled. Elections were rigged, and those who dared to run against Díaz or his allies were often intimidated or even eliminated. Indigenous communities, such as the Yaquis, were particularly vulnerable to repression. In addition to deportations and massacres, many communities saw their land confiscated in favour of large landowners or foreign companies. These actions were often justified in the name of progress and modernisation, but had devastating consequences for the communities affected.

The regime of Porfirio Díaz, although often praised for its modernisation of Mexico, was also marked by severe political repression. Stability, often referred to as "Paz Porfiriana", was maintained largely by suppressing dissenting voices and eliminating potential threats to Díaz's power. Political opponents, whether radical liberals, critical journalists, activists or even members of the elite who disagreed with Díaz's policies, often faced serious consequences. Arbitrary arrests were commonplace, and Mexican prisons at the time were full of political prisoners. Many were held without trial, and torture in custody was not uncommon. Exile was another tactic commonly used by the Díaz regime. Many political opponents were forced to leave the country to escape persecution. Some continued to oppose the regime from abroad, organising opposition groups or publishing critical writings. Censorship was also omnipresent. Newspapers and publishers that dared to criticise the government were closed down or pressured to moderate their tone. Journalists who did not comply were often arrested or threatened. This censorship created an environment where the media were largely controlled by the state, and where criticism of the government was rarely, if ever, heard. This climate of fear and intimidation had a paralysing effect on Mexican society. Many were afraid to speak out against the regime, to take part in demonstrations or even to discuss politics in private. The repression also prevented the emergence of an organised political opposition, as opposition groups were often infiltrated by government informers and their members arrested.

The longevity of the Porfirio Díaz regime is impressive. However, despite his ability to hold on to power for so long, a series of internal and external factors eventually led to his downfall. One of the major problems was socio-economic inequality. Despite significant economic growth, the fruits of this prosperity were not distributed equitably. A small elite held much of the country's land and wealth, leaving the majority of the population poor and landless. This growing inequality fuelled discontent among the working classes. Political repression was another key factor. Díaz constantly suppressed freedom of expression and political opposition, creating a climate of mistrust and fear. However, this repression also led to an underground opposition and resistance that sought ways to overthrow the regime. In addition, the confiscation of communal land and its handover to private landowners or foreign companies provoked the anger of rural and indigenous communities, making land reform a central issue. The growing influence of foreign investment, particularly from the United States, has also been a source of concern. Mexico's dependence on such investment has raised concerns about national sovereignty and fuelled anti-imperialist sentiment. At the same time, although the Díaz regime experienced periods of economic growth, it also went through periods of recession, which exacerbated social tensions. Social and cultural changes also played a role. Education and modernisation led to the emergence of a middle class and an intelligentsia that increasingly disagreed with Díaz's authoritarian policies. Moreover, in 1910, Díaz, then aged over 80, sparked speculation about his succession, leading to power struggles within the ruling elite. His decision to stand for re-election, despite an earlier promise not to do so, and the subsequent allegations of electoral fraud, were the catalyst that sparked the Mexican Revolution.

Firstly, there was the growing discontent of the working classes and peasants, due to the concentration of land ownership and the suppression of labour rights. The gap between the rich elite and the poor majority was widening, and many Mexicans were struggling to make a living. In addition, the lack of political representation and the suppression of dissent led to public frustration and anger. Secondly, foreign influence, particularly from the United States, in the Mexican economy was a source of tension. Foreign investors owned large swathes of land, mines, railways and other key infrastructure. Although these investments contributed to Mexico's modernisation, they also reinforced the feeling that the country was losing its economic autonomy and sovereignty. Many Mexicans felt that the benefits of these investments went mainly to foreign interests and a national elite, rather than to the population as a whole. Thirdly, Díaz's policy on relations with the Catholic Church also played a role. Although Díaz adopted a pragmatic approach, allowing the Church to regain some of its influence in exchange for his support, this relationship was criticised by radical liberals who felt that the Church had too much influence, and by conservatives who felt that Díaz did not go far enough in restoring the Church's power. Finally, the very nature of Díaz's authoritarian regime was itself a source of tension. By suppressing freedom of the press, imprisoning opponents and using force to suppress demonstrations and strikes, Díaz created a climate of fear and mistrust. While these tactics may have maintained order in the short term, they also sowed the seeds of revolt. When tensions finally boiled over, they led to a revolution that ended nearly thirty years of Díaz rule and transformed Mexico for decades to come.

Under Porfirio Diaz, Mexico faced a series of challenges that eventually led to his downfall. One of the main problems was the country's economic dependence on exports of raw materials. Although these exports initially stimulated economic growth, they also left the country vulnerable to fluctuations in world markets. When demand for these raw materials plummeted, the Mexican economy was hit hard, leading to economic stagnation and growing discontent among the population. Diaz's handling of law and order was also a source of tension. His brutal response to strikes and political opposition not only provoked anger, but also reinforced the idea that the regime was oppressive and indifferent to the needs and rights of its citizens. The situation of indigenous peoples, forced into migration and forced labour, was particularly tragic. These actions not only destroyed entire communities, but also reinforced the feeling that the Diaz regime was putting economic interests ahead of human rights. Finally, the longevity of Diaz's rule and his blatant manipulation of the electoral system have eroded any illusion of democracy in Mexico. After more than three decades in power, many Mexicans were frustrated by the lack of political renewal and the feeling that Diaz was more of a dictator than a democratically elected president. This growing discontent, combined with the other challenges facing the country, created an environment conducive to revolution and change.

The Mexican Revolution, which began in 1910, was a direct response to the many years of authoritarianism and socio-economic inequality under the regime of Porfirio Díaz. It was fuelled by the growing discontent of various sectors of Mexican society, ranging from the oppressed working and peasant classes to intellectuals and the middle classes who aspired to genuine democracy and land reform. Francisco Madero, a wealthy landowner and opponent of Díaz, was one of the first to openly challenge the regime. After being imprisoned for contesting the 1910 elections, he called for an armed revolt against Díaz. What began as a series of local uprisings quickly developed into a full-fledged revolution, with various revolutionary leaders, such as Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa, joining the cause with their own armies and agendas. The revolution was marked by a series of battles, coups and changes of leadership. It saw the rise and fall of several governments, each with its own vision of what a post-porfirien Mexico should be. Emiliano Zapata, for example, advocated radical land reform and the return of land to peasant communities, while other leaders had different visions for the country's future. After a decade of conflict and instability, the revolution finally led to the promulgation of the 1917 Constitution, which established the framework for modern Mexico. This constitution incorporated numerous social and political reforms, such as land reform, workers' rights and public education, while limiting the power and influence of the Church and foreign corporations.

The First Republic of Brazil: 1889 - 1930

The proclamation of the Republic, by Benedito Calixto.

La fin de l'esclavage en 1888 avec la "Lei Áurea" (Loi d'Or) a posé un défi majeur à l'économie brésilienne, en particulier dans les secteurs du café et de la canne à sucre qui dépendaient fortement de la main-d'œuvre esclave. Avec l'abolition, l'élite brésilienne a dû trouver des moyens de remplacer cette main-d'œuvre. L'une des solutions adoptées a été d'encourager l'immigration européenne, principalement d'Italie, du Portugal, d'Espagne et d'Allemagne. Ces immigrants étaient souvent attirés par la promesse de terres et d'opportunités, et ils sont venus en grand nombre pour travailler dans les plantations de café de l'État de São Paulo et d'autres régions. L'immigration a également été encouragée pour "blanchir" la population, car il y avait une croyance répandue parmi l'élite que les immigrants européens apporteraient une "amélioration" à la composition raciale et culturelle du Brésil. La transition vers la République en 1889 a également marqué un tournant dans la politique brésilienne. La nouvelle constitution a cherché à centraliser le pouvoir, réduisant l'autonomie des provinces. Cela a été fait dans le but de moderniser le pays et de le rendre plus compétitif sur la scène internationale. Le nouveau régime républicain a également cherché à promouvoir l'industrialisation, en encourageant les investissements étrangers et en modernisant les infrastructures, telles que les chemins de fer et les ports. Cependant, malgré ces efforts de modernisation, la République a été marquée par des inégalités socio-économiques persistantes. L'élite terrienne et industrielle a continué à dominer la politique et l'économie, tandis que la majorité de la population, y compris les anciens esclaves et les travailleurs ruraux, est restée marginalisée. De plus, la politique sous la Première République (1889-1930) a été caractérisée par le "coronelismo", un système dans lequel les "coronéis" (chefs locaux) exerçaient un contrôle quasi féodal sur les régions rurales, en échange de leur soutien au gouvernement central.

La Première République du Brésil (1889-1930) a été une période de transformation significative pour le pays. Après l'abolition de la monarchie, le Brésil a cherché à se positionner comme une nation moderne et progressiste sur la scène internationale. Pour ce faire, le gouvernement a adopté une série de mesures visant à moderniser l'économie et la société. L'investissement dans les infrastructures a été l'une des principales priorités. La construction de chemins de fer était essentielle pour relier les vastes régions du pays et faciliter le transport des marchandises, en particulier le café, qui était le principal produit d'exportation du Brésil à l'époque. Les ports ont également été modernisés pour faciliter le commerce extérieur, permettant une exportation plus efficace des produits brésiliens et une importation plus fluide des biens et technologies étrangers. La création d'une banque nationale a été une autre étape importante. Elle a permis de stabiliser la monnaie, de réguler le crédit et de financer des projets de développement. Cette institution a joué un rôle clé dans la centralisation de l'économie et la promotion de la croissance économique. L'encouragement des investissements étrangers était également crucial. Le Brésil, riche en ressources naturelles mais manquant de capitaux et de technologies avancées, a vu en l'investissement étranger une opportunité de modernisation. De nombreuses entreprises étrangères, en particulier britanniques et américaines, ont investi dans des secteurs tels que les chemins de fer, les services publics et l'industrie. Enfin, la politique d'immigration était une partie essentielle de la stratégie de modernisation du Brésil. Le gouvernement a cherché à attirer des immigrants européens, en particulier d'Italie, du Portugal, d'Espagne et d'Allemagne, pour remplacer la main-d'œuvre esclave après l'abolition de l'esclavage en 1888. Ces immigrants étaient censés apporter des compétences, des connaissances et une éthique de travail qui contribueraient à la modernisation du pays. De plus, il y avait une croyance répandue parmi l'élite que l'immigration européenne "blanchirait" la population et améliorerait la composition raciale et culturelle du Brésil.

La Première République du Brésil a été marquée par une série de politiques qui, bien qu'elles visaient la modernisation et le développement économique, ont également renforcé les inégalités existantes et ont été influencées par des idéologies préjudiciables. L'élite brésilienne de l'époque, composée principalement de grands propriétaires terriens, d'industriels et de militaires, avait une vision claire de la direction dans laquelle elle souhaitait orienter le pays. Cette vision était fortement influencée par les idées du darwinisme social, une théorie selon laquelle certaines races étaient naturellement supérieures à d'autres. Cette croyance a été utilisée pour justifier une série de politiques qui favorisaient les immigrants européens blancs au détriment des populations autochtones et afro-brésiliennes. Le gouvernement a activement encouragé l'immigration européenne, offrant des incitations telles que des terres gratuites et des subventions pour les voyages. L'idée sous-jacente était que ces immigrants, en raison de leur origine ethnique, apporteraient des compétences, une éthique de travail et une culture considérées comme supérieures, et contribueraient ainsi à "améliorer" la population brésilienne. Cette politique a eu pour effet de marginaliser davantage les Afro-Brésiliens et les peuples autochtones, qui étaient déjà désavantagés en raison de siècles de colonialisme et d'esclavage. Les Afro-Brésiliens, en particulier, se sont retrouvés dans une situation précaire après l'abolition de l'esclavage en 1888. Sans terres ni ressources, beaucoup ont été contraints de travailler dans des conditions proches de l'esclavage dans les plantations ou de migrer vers les villes où ils ont rejoint les rangs des pauvres urbains. Les politiques du gouvernement, loin d'aider ces communautés, ont exacerbé leur marginalisation. De même, les peuples autochtones ont continué à être dépossédés de leurs terres et marginalisés. Les politiques de développement, telles que la construction de chemins de fer et l'expansion de l'agriculture, ont souvent empiété sur leurs territoires, les forçant à se déplacer ou à s'assimiler.

La Première République du Brésil, tout en cherchant à moderniser le pays, a également mis en place un système politique qui a renforcé le pouvoir de l'élite tout en marginalisant la majorité de la population. Le contrôle étroit exercé par le gouvernement sur la sphère politique a été un élément clé de cette stratégie. L'élite au pouvoir, soucieuse de préserver ses intérêts et de maintenir le statu quo, a adopté une série de mesures pour supprimer toute forme d'opposition. Les partis politiques d'opposition, les mouvements sociaux et les syndicats ont été surveillés, harcelés et souvent réprimés. Les médias étaient également sous surveillance, et toute critique du gouvernement ou de ses politiques était rapidement censurée. Les élections, lorsqu'elles avaient lieu, étaient souvent manipulées, avec des cas de fraude électorale, d'intimidation des électeurs et d'exclusion des candidats d'opposition. Cette centralisation du pouvoir a eu plusieurs conséquences. Tout d'abord, elle a créé un climat de peur et de méfiance, où les citoyens étaient réticents à exprimer ouvertement leurs opinions ou à s'engager dans des activités politiques. Deuxièmement, elle a renforcé les inégalités existantes, car l'élite au pouvoir a continué à promouvoir des politiques qui favorisaient ses propres intérêts au détriment de la majorité de la population. Enfin, elle a créé un sentiment de frustration et de mécontentement parmi la population, qui se sentait exclue du processus politique et impuissante face aux décisions du gouvernement. Le manque de représentation politique et la suppression de la dissidence ont également conduit à un manque de responsabilité du gouvernement. Sans une opposition forte pour contester ses décisions ou proposer des alternatives, le gouvernement n'avait aucune incitation à répondre aux besoins ou aux préoccupations de la majorité de la population. Cela a créé un fossé entre le gouvernement et les citoyens, et a semé les graines de la méfiance et de la désillusion envers le système politique.

La Première République du Brésil, qui a débuté en 1889 avec la chute de la monarchie et s'est terminée en 1930, a été une période de transformations majeures pour le pays. Cependant, ces transformations n'ont pas toujours été bénéfiques pour la majorité de la population. L'élite au pouvoir, composée principalement de grands propriétaires terriens, d'industriels et de chefs militaires, a cherché à moderniser le pays sur le modèle des nations occidentales industrialisées. Cela a entraîné une croissance économique significative, en particulier dans les secteurs de l'agriculture, de l'industrie et des infrastructures. Cependant, cette croissance économique n'a pas profité à tous. La majorité de la population, en particulier les travailleurs, les petits agriculteurs, les Afro-Brésiliens et les peuples autochtones, n'a pas bénéficié des fruits de cette prospérité. Au contraire, ils ont souvent été exploités pour soutenir cette croissance, avec des salaires bas, des conditions de travail précaires et peu ou pas de droits sociaux ou politiques. L'élite a également adopté des politiques qui ont favorisé les immigrants européens au détriment des populations locales, dans le but de "blanchir" la population et de promouvoir le "progrès". En outre, la Première République a été marquée par un manque flagrant de démocratie et de représentation politique. Le gouvernement a souvent recouru à la fraude électorale, à la censure et à la répression pour maintenir son pouvoir. Les partis d'opposition et les mouvements sociaux ont été marginalisés, et la voix de la majorité de la population a été largement ignorée. Ces inégalités économiques et politiques ont créé un profond mécontentement parmi la population. De nombreux groupes sociaux, des travailleurs urbains aux paysans sans terre, en passant par les classes moyennes éduquées, ont commencé à s'organiser et à demander des changements. Les tensions ont culminé à la fin des années 1920, lorsque la crise économique mondiale a frappé le Brésil, exacerbant les problèmes existants. En 1930, une coalition de forces politiques et sociales mécontentes, dirigée par Getúlio Vargas, a renversé le gouvernement de la Première République. Vargas promettait une nouvelle ère de réformes sociales et économiques, et son arrivée au pouvoir a marqué la fin de la Première République et le début d'une nouvelle phase dans l'histoire du Brésil.

La Première République du Brésil a été une période de transformation profonde, marquée par une volonté d'industrialisation et de modernisation. Cependant, cette modernisation s'est faite de manière inégale, favorisant principalement l'élite au pouvoir. Le positivisme, avec sa devise "Ordre et Progrès", a été adopté comme idéologie officielle, justifiant la centralisation du pouvoir et la mise en œuvre de réformes top-down. Cette philosophie, qui valorisait la science, le progrès et l'ordre, a été utilisée pour légitimer les actions du gouvernement et renforcer l'autorité de l'élite. L'investissement dans les infrastructures, comme les chemins de fer et les ports, a certainement stimulé la croissance économique. Cependant, ces projets ont souvent bénéficié aux grands propriétaires terriens et aux industriels, qui ont pu augmenter leur production et accéder à de nouveaux marchés. De même, l'encouragement des investissements étrangers a conduit à une dépendance accrue vis-à-vis des capitaux étrangers, ce qui a renforcé le pouvoir de l'élite économique tout en marginalisant davantage les petits producteurs et les travailleurs. La politique d'immigration, qui visait à attirer des travailleurs européens, était également problématique. Bien qu'elle ait été présentée comme un moyen de promouvoir le développement et la modernisation, elle avait également pour objectif sous-jacent de "blanchir" la population brésilienne. Les immigrants européens étaient souvent favorisés par rapport aux Afro-Brésiliens et aux peuples autochtones, qui étaient marginalisés et discriminés. Malgré la croissance économique, la majorité de la population n'a pas bénéficié des fruits de cette prospérité. Les inégalités se sont creusées, avec une élite de plus en plus riche et une majorité de plus en plus pauvre. De plus, la centralisation du pouvoir politique entre les mains d'une petite élite a conduit à un manque de représentation démocratique. Les élections étaient souvent manipulées, et l'opposition politique était réprimée.

La configuration géographique du Brésil, avec ses vastes étendues intérieures et ses zones côtières densément peuplées, a joué un rôle déterminant dans la manière dont le pays s'est développé pendant la Première République. Les régions côtières, avec leurs ports et leur accès aux marchés internationaux, étaient naturellement favorisées pour le commerce et l'industrialisation. De plus, ces régions avaient déjà une infrastructure établie, des centres urbains et une population relativement dense, ce qui les rendait plus attrayantes pour les investissements et les projets de développement. L'État du Minas Gerais, riche en minéraux, était un autre centre d'activité économique. Historiquement, cet État avait été le cœur de la ruée vers l'or au Brésil au XVIIIe siècle, et il est resté économiquement important grâce à ses ressources minérales et à son agriculture. En revanche, l'intérieur du pays, avec ses vastes étendues de terres et ses défis logistiques, a été largement négligé. Les infrastructures y étaient limitées, et le coût de développement de ces régions était considérablement plus élevé. De plus, l'intérieur manquait de la main-d'œuvre nécessaire pour soutenir une expansion économique à grande échelle. Ces disparités régionales ont eu des conséquences politiques. Les régions côtières et l'État du Minas Gerais, en tant que centres économiques, avaient également une influence politique disproportionnée. L'intérieur, en revanche, était souvent sous-représenté et marginalisé dans les décisions politiques. Cette concentration du pouvoir économique et politique a renforcé les inégalités existantes et a créé des tensions entre les différentes régions du pays. Au fil du temps, ces disparités régionales ont contribué à un sentiment d'aliénation et de négligence parmi les populations de l'intérieur. Elles ont également renforcé les divisions socio-économiques, avec une élite côtière prospère d'un côté, et une population intérieure largement rurale et marginalisée de l'autre. Ces tensions ont finalement joué un rôle dans les événements politiques et sociaux qui ont suivi la fin de la Première République.

La première République du Brésil a été une période de transition majeure pour le pays, marquée par des bouleversements socio-économiques. L'un des changements les plus significatifs a été le déplacement du centre économique du pays. Historiquement, le Nord-Est du Brésil, avec ses vastes plantations de sucre, était le cœur économique du pays. Cependant, au cours de cette période, la dynamique a changé. La montée de la culture du café dans les États de Minas Gerais et de São Paulo a transformé ces régions en nouveaux centres économiques. Le café est devenu l'une des principales exportations du Brésil, générant d'énormes revenus. Ces revenus ont été réinvestis pour développer d'autres secteurs de l'économie. Les propriétaires de plantations de café, qui sont devenus extrêmement riches, ont commencé à investir dans des industries naissantes, notamment dans le textile, la métallurgie et d'autres secteurs manufacturiers. São Paulo, en particulier, a connu une croissance explosive. La ville est rapidement devenue un centre industriel majeur, attirant une main-d'œuvre de l'intérieur du pays et même de l'étranger. Cette croissance rapide de la population a créé une demande accrue de biens et de services, stimulant davantage l'économie locale. La ville est devenue un symbole de modernité et de progrès, contrastant avec les régions agricoles traditionnelles du pays. Avec cette croissance économique est venue une transformation sociale. L'élite traditionnelle, composée principalement de propriétaires terriens du Nord-Est, a commencé à perdre de son influence au profit d'une nouvelle élite urbaine. Ces nouveaux magnats de l'industrie, entrepreneurs et financiers, souvent basés à São Paulo, sont devenus les nouveaux détenteurs de pouvoir économique du pays. Cette transition n'était pas sans tensions. L'élite traditionnelle, habituée à dominer la scène économique et politique du Brésil, a vu son pouvoir décliner. En revanche, la nouvelle élite, bien que riche et influente, devait encore naviguer dans le paysage politique complexe du Brésil pour consolider son pouvoir. Ces dynamiques ont façonné la politique, l'économie et la société brésiliennes pendant la première République et ont jeté les bases des transformations majeures qui allaient suivre dans les décennies à venir.

La Première République du Brésil (1889-1930) a été une période de contradictions. Bien que le pays ait adopté le nom et la structure d'une république, la réalité politique était loin d'être démocratique. Les "coronéis", ou grands propriétaires terriens, exerçaient une influence démesurée, en particulier dans les régions rurales. Ces élites, en particulier les barons du café de São Paulo, ont joué un rôle prépondérant dans la politique nationale, consolidant leur pouvoir et leurs intérêts. La structure politique de cette période, souvent appelée "politique du café avec du lait", reflétait l'alliance entre les producteurs de café de São Paulo et les producteurs laitiers de Minas Gerais. Ces deux États ont dominé la scène politique, alternant souvent la présidence entre eux. Cette domination a renforcé le caractère fédéraliste du pays, où chaque État jouissait d'une grande autonomie, souvent au détriment d'une véritable unité nationale. Le système électoral de l'époque était également profondément inégalitaire. Les restrictions basées sur l'alphabétisation, l'âge et la richesse ont privé la grande majorité des Brésiliens de leur droit de vote. Cette exclusion a renforcé le pouvoir des élites, car elles pouvaient facilement manipuler un électorat restreint pour maintenir leur emprise sur le pouvoir. Cependant, à mesure que le 20ème siècle progressait, les tensions sociales et politiques se sont intensifiées. La croissance rapide des centres urbains, l'émergence d'une classe ouvrière organisée et l'influence croissante des idées populistes et socialistes ont créé un environnement de mécontentement. Les inégalités flagrantes, l'exclusion politique et les abus de pouvoir des élites ont alimenté la frustration et la colère parmi les masses. La crise économique mondiale de 1929, qui a gravement affecté l'économie brésilienne, en particulier le secteur du café, a été le coup de grâce pour la Première République. La combinaison de l'instabilité économique et des tensions sociales a créé un climat propice au changement. En 1930, Getúlio Vargas, soutenu par une coalition de forces militaires et politiques mécontentes, a renversé le gouvernement, mettant fin à la Première République et inaugurant une nouvelle ère dans l'histoire brésilienne.

Le Progrès

La Première République du Brésil a été une période de transformations urbaines majeures, en particulier dans les grandes villes comme Rio de Janeiro et São Paulo. Inspirés par les idéaux du progrès et de la modernisation, les dirigeants de cette époque ont cherché à transformer ces villes en métropoles modernes qui pourraient rivaliser avec les grandes capitales européennes. L'influence de Paris était particulièrement évidente. À cette époque, la capitale française était considérée comme le summum de la modernité et de la sophistication urbaines. Le préfet de la Seine, Georges-Eugène Haussmann, avait radicalement transformé Paris dans les années 1850 et 1860, créant de larges boulevards, des parcs et des places publiques. Ces rénovations haussmanniennes sont devenues un modèle pour d'autres villes à travers le monde. Au Brésil, des figures comme le maire de Rio, Pereira Passos, ont cherché à reproduire ce modèle. Sous sa direction, de vastes zones de la vieille ville ont été rasées pour faire place à de larges avenues, des parcs et des bâtiments monumentaux. Ces projets visaient à améliorer la circulation, la santé publique et l'image de la ville. Cependant, ils ont également eu des conséquences sociales majeures. De nombreux habitants des quartiers pauvres ont été déplacés, souvent sans compensation adéquate, et ont été contraints de s'installer dans des favelas ou des bidonvilles en périphérie. São Paulo, en tant que centre montant de l'industrie et du commerce, a également connu des transformations majeures. Des bâtiments plus grands et plus modernes ont commencé à dominer le paysage urbain, et la ville a cherché à améliorer ses infrastructures pour soutenir sa croissance rapide. Cependant, ces projets de modernisation n'étaient pas sans critiques. Si d'un côté ils ont contribué à l'amélioration des infrastructures et à la modernisation de l'apparence des villes, de l'autre, ils ont souvent favorisé les intérêts des élites au détriment des classes populaires. Les quartiers historiques et les communautés ont été détruits, et de nombreux habitants ont été déplacés sans avoir leur mot à dire dans le processus.

L'abolition de l'esclavage au Brésil en 1888, bien que constituant une étape historique majeure, n'a pas été suivie d'une intégration significative des Afro-Brésiliens dans la société. La "Lei Áurea" (Loi d'Or), signée par la princesse Isabel, a mis fin à près de 300 ans d'esclavage, faisant du Brésil le dernier pays des Amériques à abolir cette pratique. Cependant, la manière dont cette abolition a été mise en œuvre a laissé de nombreux défis non résolus. Les anciens esclaves se sont retrouvés libres, mais sans ressources, sans éducation et sans terres. Contrairement à d'autres pays qui ont mis en place des programmes de reconstruction ou de réparations après l'abolition, le Brésil n'a offert aucune compensation ou soutien aux anciens esclaves. Cela les a laissés dans une situation précaire, où la seule option viable pour beaucoup était de retourner travailler pour leurs anciens maîtres, mais cette fois en tant que travailleurs pauvres, sans droits ni protection. La marginalisation des Afro-Brésiliens ne s'est pas limitée à l'économie. Malgré leur nombre important, ils ont été largement exclus des structures de pouvoir politique du pays. Les élites, principalement d'origine européenne, ont continué à dominer la politique, l'économie et la culture du Brésil, perpétuant des structures de pouvoir et des inégalités raciales qui perdurent encore aujourd'hui. La Première République du Brésil, malgré ses ambitions de modernisation et de progrès, a largement ignoré les besoins et les droits des Afro-Brésiliens. Les investissements dans l'infrastructure et l'industrie ont principalement profité à l'élite et aux investisseurs étrangers, renforçant les inégalités socio-économiques.

La Première République du Brésil, malgré ses promesses de modernisation et de progrès, a largement continué les politiques d'accaparement des terres qui avaient été initiées pendant la période coloniale et la monarchie. L'Amazonie, avec ses vastes étendues de terres et ses ressources naturelles, est devenue une cible privilégiée pour les exploitants et les investisseurs. La ruée vers le caoutchouc à la fin du XIXe et au début du XXe siècle a transformé la région amazonienne. Les barons du caoutchouc ont établi de vastes plantations, exploitant la demande mondiale croissante pour cette ressource précieuse. Cependant, la croissance rapide de l'industrie du caoutchouc s'est faite au détriment des populations autochtones. Beaucoup ont été contraints de travailler dans des conditions qui rappelaient l'esclavage, avec des heures de travail exténuantes, des mauvais traitements et peu ou pas de rémunération. Les maladies introduites par les colons ont également eu un impact dévastateur sur les populations indigènes, beaucoup d'entre elles n'ayant aucune immunité contre ces maladies. Parallèlement à l'exploitation de l'Amazonie, la Première République a également favorisé la concentration des terres entre les mains d'une élite restreinte. Les grands propriétaires terriens, ou "fazendeiros", ont continué à étendre leurs domaines, souvent aux dépens des petits agriculteurs et des communautés indigènes. Ces politiques ont non seulement déplacé de nombreuses personnes, mais ont également renforcé les inégalités socio-économiques existantes.

La Première République du Brésil, bien qu'elle ait cherché à se moderniser en s'inspirant des modèles européens, n'a pas réussi à attirer un grand nombre d'immigrants européens. Les raisons de cette faible immigration sont multiples : la réputation du pays en tant que nation esclavagiste, les conditions difficiles de la vie rurale, et la concurrence avec d'autres destinations d'immigration comme les États-Unis et l'Argentine. Ainsi, la composition démographique du Brésil est restée dominée par les descendants d'esclaves africains et les populations indigènes. L'élite brésilienne, composée principalement de propriétaires terriens, d'industriels et de militaires, a continué à consolider son pouvoir et sa richesse, laissant une grande partie de la population dans la pauvreté. Les structures socio-économiques héritées de la période coloniale et de la monarchie, où une petite élite contrôlait la majeure partie des terres et des ressources, ont persisté. Les tentatives de modernisation économique ont principalement bénéficié à cette élite, tandis que la majorité de la population n'a vu que peu d'améliorations dans sa qualité de vie. La répression politique et la marginalisation économique de la majorité de la population ont créé un climat de mécontentement. Les grèves, les manifestations et les révoltes sont devenues courantes, et le gouvernement a souvent répondu par la force. La frustration croissante face à l'inégalité, à la corruption et à l'autoritarisme du gouvernement a finalement culminé dans le renversement de la Première République en 1930, ouvrant la voie à une nouvelle ère de la politique brésilienne.

La Première République du Brésil a tenté de moderniser le pays en encourageant l'immigration européenne, espérant que cela stimulerait l'économie et apporterait une main-d'œuvre qualifiée pour les industries naissantes. Cependant, la réalité était bien différente. Beaucoup de ces immigrants, attirés par la promesse d'une vie meilleure, se sont retrouvés confrontés à une réalité brutale. Au lieu de trouver des opportunités dans les villes en expansion, ils se sont souvent retrouvés dans les plantations de café, travaillant dans des conditions difficiles et pour des salaires dérisoires. La structure socio-économique du Brésil était profondément enracinée dans des siècles d'inégalités, avec une élite puissante qui contrôlait la majeure partie des terres et des ressources. Malgré l'arrivée de nouveaux immigrants, la hiérarchie basée sur la race et la classe sociale est restée largement intacte. Les Afro-Brésiliens et les populations indigènes, malgré leur nombre, étaient toujours marginalisés et privés de droits économiques et politiques. L'élite brésilienne a bénéficié de la modernisation économique, consolidant sa richesse et son pouvoir. Cependant, pour la majorité de la population, les promesses de progrès et de prospérité sont restées hors de portée. Les inégalités se sont creusées, avec une élite qui prospérait tandis que la majorité luttait pour survivre. Cette situation a créé un terreau fertile pour le mécontentement social, jetant les bases des troubles politiques qui allaient suivre.

L’Ordre

La Première République du Brésil a été une période de transformations profondes, marquée par une volonté d'industrialisation et de modernisation. Cependant, ces transformations ont été mises en œuvre d'une manière qui a renforcé les inégalités existantes et créé de nouvelles formes de marginalisation. Les planteurs et les élites économiques des États du sud, en particulier São Paulo, ont vu une opportunité dans l'immigration européenne. En encourageant la migration, ils espéraient non seulement répondre à la demande de main-d'œuvre après l'abolition de l'esclavage en 1888, mais aussi "blanchir" la population brésilienne, en accord avec les idéologies racistes de l'époque qui associaient le progrès et la civilisation à la race blanche. Les fonds publics ont été utilisés pour faciliter l'arrivée de ces migrants européens, qui étaient souvent attirés par la promesse de terres et d'opportunités. Cependant, une fois au Brésil, beaucoup se sont retrouvés à travailler dans des conditions précaires, bien que préférables à celles des Afro-Brésiliens. Les Afro-Brésiliens, qui venaient de sortir de plusieurs siècles d'esclavage, ont été systématiquement marginalisés. Les migrants européens, même s'ils étaient souvent pauvres et sans éducation, étaient préférés pour les emplois dans les nouvelles industries et l'artisanat. Les Afro-Brésiliens, en revanche, ont été relégués aux emplois les moins désirables et les moins rémunérés. Cette marginalisation économique a été accompagnée d'une marginalisation sociale. Les Afro-Brésiliens avaient un accès limité à l'éducation, aux soins de santé et à d'autres services essentiels. Ils étaient également victimes de discrimination et de racisme dans la vie quotidienne. La stratégie d'encouragement de l'immigration européenne, tout en marginalisant les Afro-Brésiliens, a eu des conséquences durables. Elle a renforcé les inégalités raciales et économiques, créant une société profondément divisée. Même après la fin de la Première République, ces inégalités ont persisté, et le Brésil continue de lutter contre les séquelles de cette période.

La période post-abolitionniste au Brésil est un exemple frappant de la manière dont le racisme institutionnalisé peut façonner les structures socio-économiques d'une nation. Bien que l'esclavage ait été officiellement aboli en 1888, les séquelles de cette institution ont perduré, influençant profondément la dynamique socio-économique du pays. Les Afro-Brésiliens, malgré leur libération officielle, ont été confrontés à une discrimination systémique qui a entravé leur accès à l'éducation, à la propriété foncière et aux opportunités économiques. Cette discrimination n'était pas basée sur leur capacité ou leur qualification, mais plutôt sur la couleur de leur peau. En effet, de nombreux Afro-Brésiliens possédaient des compétences et des connaissances acquises au cours de générations de travail dans divers secteurs, de l'agriculture à l'artisanat. Cependant, avec l'arrivée des immigrants européens, encouragée par l'élite brésilienne dans le but de "blanchir" la population, les Afro-Brésiliens ont été de plus en plus marginalisés. Malgré le fait que de nombreux immigrants européens n'avaient pas les compétences ou l'éducation que possédaient certains Afro-Brésiliens, ils étaient préférés pour des emplois simplement en raison de leur origine ethnique. Cette préférence n'était pas basée sur la méritocratie, mais plutôt sur une idéologie raciste qui valorisait la blancheur et dévalorisait la noirceur. Cette marginalisation des Afro-Brésiliens a eu des conséquences durables. Elle a renforcé les inégalités socio-économiques, créant une société où la race déterminait largement l'accès aux opportunités. Cette histoire est un rappel puissant de la manière dont le racisme et la discrimination peuvent perpétuer l'inégalité, même en l'absence de lois formelles soutenant ces préjugés.

L'héritage de l'esclavage au Brésil a laissé des cicatrices profondes qui continuent d'affecter la société brésilienne de nombreuses façons. Bien que l'esclavage ait été aboli en 1888, les structures socio-économiques qui ont été mises en place pendant cette période ont persisté, marginalisant les Afro-Brésiliens et les empêchant d'accéder aux mêmes opportunités que leurs compatriotes blancs. La première République du Brésil, malgré ses proclamations de modernisation et de progrès, a largement ignoré les besoins et les droits des Afro-Brésiliens. Les politiques de l'époque, qu'il s'agisse de l'encouragement à l'immigration européenne ou de la marginalisation économique des Afro-Brésiliens, ont renforcé les inégalités raciales. Les hommes afro-brésiliens, malgré leurs compétences et leur expérience, étaient souvent confinés à des emplois manuels peu rémunérés ou à des travaux agricoles dans des conditions précaires. Les femmes, quant à elles, étaient souvent cantonnées au travail domestique, un secteur qui, bien qu'essentiel, était sous-évalué et mal rémunéré. Cette marginalisation économique a eu des conséquences durables. Sans accès à des emplois décents et à des salaires équitables, de nombreuses familles afro-brésiliennes ont été piégées dans des cycles de pauvreté. De plus, l'exclusion des Afro-Brésiliens des sphères politiques et éducatives a limité leurs opportunités de mobilité sociale et d'amélioration de leur situation. Aujourd'hui, bien que le Brésil ait fait des progrès significatifs en matière de droits civils et d'égalité, les répercussions de cette période de discrimination et d'exclusion se font encore sentir. Les Afro-Brésiliens sont toujours disproportionnellement représentés parmi les pauvres et ont un accès limité à l'éducation de qualité et aux opportunités économiques. La lutte pour l'égalité raciale au Brésil est loin d'être terminée, et la première République offre un aperçu précieux des origines de ces inégalités persistantes.

La structure familiale est un élément fondamental de la société, et tout changement ou perturbation dans cette structure peut avoir des répercussions profondes sur la dynamique sociale et culturelle d'une communauté. Pour les Afro-Brésiliens pendant la Première République, la discrimination économique et l'exclusion du marché du travail ont non seulement entravé leur capacité à subvenir aux besoins de leur famille, mais ont également remis en question les rôles traditionnels au sein de la famille. Dans de nombreuses cultures, le père est traditionnellement considéré comme le principal soutien de famille, celui qui apporte les ressources nécessaires pour subvenir aux besoins de la famille. Cependant, en raison des défis économiques auxquels étaient confrontés les Afro-Brésiliens, de nombreuses mères ont dû assumer ce rôle, souvent en travaillant dans des emplois mal rémunérés comme le service domestique. Cette inversion des rôles a pu créer des tensions au sein de la famille, car elle allait à l'encontre des normes culturelles et sociales établies. Les pères, en étant incapables de remplir leur rôle traditionnel de pourvoyeurs, pouvaient se sentir émasculés ou dévalorisés. Cette situation pouvait également entraîner des sentiments de honte, de frustration ou de ressentiment, ce qui pouvait à son tour affecter la dynamique familiale et la relation entre les parents et leurs enfants. De plus, cette érosion de la structure patriarcale traditionnelle a pu avoir des conséquences plus larges sur la communauté afro-brésilienne. Les rôles et les attentes traditionnels étant bouleversés, cela pouvait conduire à une remise en question des normes et des valeurs culturelles, créant ainsi une incertitude quant à l'identité et au rôle de chacun au sein de la société.

Le Brésil, avec sa riche histoire de métissage et sa réputation de "melting pot" racial, est souvent perçu comme une nation sans préjugés raciaux. Cependant, cette perception est en contradiction avec la réalité vécue par de nombreux Afro-Brésiliens. Le positivisme racial, qui a été influent pendant la période de la Première République et au-delà, a façonné les attitudes et les politiques en matière de race, en promouvant l'idée que le "blanchiment" de la population, à travers la migration européenne et l'assimilation, serait bénéfique pour le pays. Bien que le Brésil n'ait pas adopté de lois de ségrégation comparables à celles des États-Unis, le racisme y est profondément ancré dans les structures sociales, économiques et politiques. Les Afro-Brésiliens sont souvent relégués dans des quartiers défavorisés, appelés favelas, où l'accès aux services de base est limité. De plus, ils sont souvent victimes de discrimination sur le marché du travail, où les emplois bien rémunérés sont majoritairement occupés par des Brésiliens blancs. L'éducation est un autre domaine où les inégalités raciales sont évidentes. Les écoles des quartiers défavorisés, où vivent de nombreux Afro-Brésiliens, sont souvent sous-financées et offrent une éducation de moindre qualité. Cela limite les opportunités d'éducation supérieure et, par conséquent, les perspectives d'emploi pour de nombreux Afro-Brésiliens. La violence policière est également un problème majeur, les Afro-Brésiliens étant disproportionnellement ciblés et victimes de brutalités et de meurtres. Cette violence est souvent justifiée par des stéréotypes raciaux qui associent les Afro-Brésiliens à la criminalité. En dépit de ces défis, de nombreux Afro-Brésiliens ont réussi à surmonter ces obstacles et à contribuer de manière significative à la société brésilienne dans divers domaines, tels que la musique, les arts, le sport et la politique. Cependant, le combat pour l'égalité raciale et la justice sociale au Brésil est loin d'être terminé.

Le concept de "démocratie raciale" au Brésil, popularisé par des sociologues comme Gilberto Freyre, suggère que la coexistence et le métissage entre différentes races ont créé une société sans préjugés raciaux. Cependant, cette idée est largement contestée par la réalité vécue par de nombreux Afro-Brésiliens. Bien que le Brésil n'ait pas eu de lois de ségrégation formelles comme d'autres pays, le racisme structurel et institutionnel est profondément enraciné dans la société. L'élite brésilienne, qui est majoritairement blanche, utilise souvent l'ascension sociale de quelques Afro-Brésiliens comme preuve de l'absence de racisme. Cependant, ces exceptions sont souvent brandies pour masquer les inégalités systémiques qui persistent. Les Afro-Brésiliens sont sous-représentés dans les sphères du pouvoir, de l'éducation supérieure et des professions prestigieuses. De plus, ils sont surreprésentés dans les statistiques de pauvreté, de chômage et de violence. La marginalisation des Afro-Brésiliens est également visible dans les médias. Les telenovelas brésiliennes, par exemple, qui sont extrêmement populaires, présentent souvent des acteurs blancs dans les rôles principaux, tandis que les Afro-Brésiliens sont cantonnés à des rôles secondaires ou stéréotypés. La reconnaissance de cette réalité est essentielle pour aborder et combattre le racisme au Brésil. Ignorer ou nier l'existence du racisme ne fait que perpétuer les inégalités et empêche le pays de réaliser son plein potentiel en tant que nation véritablement inclusive et égalitaire.

La notion de "démocratie raciale" au Brésil est complexe et a des racines historiques profondes. Gilberto Freyre, un sociologue brésilien, a popularisé cette idée dans les années 1930 avec son livre "Maison-Grande & Senzala". Il soutenait que le Brésil, contrairement à d'autres pays, avait créé une harmonie unique entre les races grâce au métissage. Cette idée a été largement acceptée et a façonné l'identité nationale du Brésil pendant de nombreuses années. Cependant, cette notion a servi à masquer les inégalités raciales profondément enracinées dans la société brésilienne. En présentant le Brésil comme une démocratie raciale, l'élite a pu nier l'existence du racisme institutionnel et structurel. Cela a permis de justifier l'absence de politiques spécifiques visant à rectifier les inégalités raciales, car, selon cette logique, si le racisme n'existe pas, il n'y a pas besoin de telles politiques. La réalité est que les Afro-Brésiliens ont été, et sont toujours, systématiquement désavantagés dans presque tous les aspects de la société, de l'éducation à l'emploi, en passant par le logement et l'accès aux soins de santé. Les taux de violence et d'incarcération sont également nettement plus élevés pour les Afro-Brésiliens que pour leurs homologues blancs. L'idée que les Afro-Brésiliens sont responsables de leur propre condition socio-économique est une manifestation du racisme. Elle ignore les structures de pouvoir et les politiques qui ont historiquement favorisé les Brésiliens blancs au détriment des Afro-Brésiliens. Cette mentalité perpétue le statu quo et empêche le pays de s'attaquer aux véritables causes des inégalités raciales.

La notion de "démocratie raciale" au Brésil, bien qu'elle semble positive en surface, a en réalité servi à masquer et à perpétuer les inégalités raciales profondes qui existent dans le pays. En niant l'existence du racisme, l'élite et l'État ont pu éviter de prendre des mesures concrètes pour aborder et rectifier ces inégalités. Le mythe de la démocratie raciale a créé une fausse perception selon laquelle le Brésil est exempt de préjugés raciaux, ce qui a rendu difficile pour les Afro-Brésiliens de dénoncer et de lutter contre la discrimination qu'ils subissent. Cela a également renforcé l'idée que leur situation socio-économique est le résultat de leur propre incapacité ou de leur propre faute, plutôt que le produit d'un système discriminatoire. Les stéréotypes raciaux, renforcés par ce récit, ont des conséquences concrètes sur la vie des Afro-Brésiliens. Ils sont souvent perçus comme inférieurs, moins intelligents ou moins capables, ce qui limite leurs opportunités d'emploi et d'éducation. De plus, ils sont souvent confrontés à des discriminations institutionnelles, comme des taux d'incarcération plus élevés et un accès limité aux soins de santé de qualité. La marginalisation des Afro-Brésiliens n'est pas seulement un problème économique, mais aussi un problème social profond. Elle affecte leur estime de soi, leur identité et leur sentiment d'appartenance à la société brésilienne. Pour briser ce cercle vicieux, il est essentiel de reconnaître et de démanteler le mythe de la démocratie raciale et de mettre en œuvre des politiques qui abordent directement les inégalités raciales.

La transition du Brésil de la monarchie à la république et de l'esclavage à un système de travail libre a été une période de changements profonds et rapides. Cependant, malgré ces changements, les structures de pouvoir et les inégalités socio-raciales ont persisté. La notion de "démocratie raciale" a été promue comme une manière de projeter une image positive du Brésil sur la scène internationale, en tant que nation harmonieuse et intégrée, où toutes les races coexistaient pacifiquement. Cette idée était séduisante pour l'élite brésilienne, car elle permettait de présenter le Brésil comme un pays moderne et progressiste, tout en évitant d'aborder les problèmes profondément enracinés de discrimination et d'inégalité. En outre, elle servait à justifier l'absence de politiques spécifiques pour aborder les inégalités raciales, car si le racisme n'existait pas, il n'y avait pas besoin de telles politiques. Le mythe de la démocratie raciale a également servi à consolider le pouvoir de l'élite. En niant l'existence du racisme, ils ont pu maintenir le statu quo et éviter les revendications des Afro-Brésiliens pour une plus grande égalité et représentation. Cela a également permis à l'élite de contrôler le récit national et de définir l'identité brésilienne d'une manière qui les favorisait. Cependant, la réalité était bien différente. Les Afro-Brésiliens étaient toujours marginalisés, discriminés et exclus des structures de pouvoir. Ils étaient souvent relégués à des emplois mal rémunérés, avaient un accès limité à l'éducation et aux soins de santé, et étaient souvent victimes de violences et de préjugés. Le mythe de la démocratie raciale a masqué cette réalité et a rendu plus difficile pour les Afro-Brésiliens de revendiquer leurs droits et de lutter contre la discrimination.

La promotion de l'idée de la démocratie raciale était une stratégie habile pour détourner l'attention des inégalités flagrantes qui persistaient dans la société brésilienne. En projetant une image d'harmonie raciale, l'élite pouvait justifier son pouvoir et sa richesse tout en évitant d'aborder les problèmes structurels de racisme et de discrimination. C'était une manière de légitimer le statu quo et de résister aux appels à une réforme sociale plus profonde. L'ordre et le progrès, les mots inscrits sur le drapeau brésilien, étaient les maîtres mots de cette période. L'ordre faisait référence à la stabilité politique et à la suppression de toute dissidence, tandis que le progrès évoquait le développement économique et la modernisation. Cependant, pour l'élite, le progrès signifiait principalement leur propre enrichissement et consolidation du pouvoir, tandis que l'ordre était maintenu par la répression de toute opposition. Les Afro-Brésiliens, malgré leur libération formelle de l'esclavage, se sont retrouvés dans une position subordonnée, souvent contraints de travailler dans des conditions qui ressemblaient beaucoup à celles de l'esclavage. Ils étaient souvent payés des salaires de misère, vivaient dans des conditions précaires et étaient privés de droits fondamentaux. Leur marginalisation était justifiée par des stéréotypes raciaux qui les dépeignaient comme naturellement inférieurs et donc destinés à occuper des positions subalternes dans la société. L'éducation, qui aurait pu être un moyen d'ascension sociale pour les Afro-Brésiliens, était souvent hors de portée, car les écoles étaient peu nombreuses, mal équipées et souvent discriminatoires. De même, l'accès aux soins de santé était limité, ce qui a entraîné des taux de mortalité plus élevés et une espérance de vie plus courte pour les Afro-Brésiliens par rapport à leurs homologues blancs. En utilisant le récit de la démocratie raciale, l'élite a pu détourner l'attention des inégalités structurelles et présenter le Brésil comme une nation où tous avaient une chance égale de réussir. C'était une illusion soigneusement construite qui cachait la réalité d'une société profondément divisée par la race et la classe.

Le Brésil, dernier pays des Amériques à abolir l'esclavage en 1888, a dû faire face à un défi majeur : comment intégrer des millions d'anciens esclaves dans une société qui les avait historiquement considérés comme inférieurs ? La réponse a été trouvée dans la promotion de l'idée de la "démocratie raciale". Selon cette notion, le Brésil était une nation où toutes les races vivaient en harmonie, sans préjugés ni discriminations. C'était une vision séduisante, surtout pour une nation désireuse de se moderniser et de se présenter comme progressiste sur la scène internationale. Cependant, en réalité, cette idée servait à masquer les inégalités profondes et systémiques qui persistaient. Les Afro-Brésiliens étaient libres en théorie, mais en pratique, ils étaient confrontés à d'énormes obstacles économiques, sociaux et politiques. L'élite, principalement composée de descendants d'Européens, a utilisé le mythe de la démocratie raciale pour éviter d'aborder les problèmes structurels de racisme et de discrimination. En promouvant cette idée, ils pouvaient maintenir leur position privilégiée tout en évitant la critique. La transition d'une monarchie à une république a offert une opportunité de redéfinir l'identité nationale. L'État et l'élite ont saisi cette chance pour promouvoir une vision du Brésil comme une nation unie, où la race n'était pas un facteur de division. Cependant, cette vision était en contradiction avec la réalité quotidienne de nombreux Afro-Brésiliens, qui étaient souvent relégués aux emplois les plus bas, vivaient dans des favelas ou des bidonvilles et étaient régulièrement confrontés à la discrimination et à la violence.

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

References

[1] Aline Helg - UNIGE

[2] Aline Helg - Academia.edu

[3] Aline Helg - Wikipedia

[4] Aline Helg - Afrocubaweb.com

[5] Aline Helg - Researchgate.net

[6] Aline Helg - Cairn.info

[7] Aline Helg - Google Scholar

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

@@ Ligne 202 : / Ligne 202 : @@
 == The Order ==
-Le régime de Porfirio Díaz, connu sous le nom de Porfiriato, a été caractérisé par un fort désir de modernisation et de progrès économique. Cependant, pour réaliser ces ambitions, Díaz savait qu'il devait maintenir un contrôle strict sur la société mexicaine. Pour ce faire, il a adopté une série de stratégies et de tactiques qui visaient à consolider son pouvoir et à minimiser la dissidence. L'une de ses principales stratégies était la tactique "diviser pour régner". Díaz a habilement joué les factions les unes contre les autres, en accordant des faveurs à certains groupes tout en en réprimant d'autres. Par exemple, il a parfois soutenu les intérêts des propriétaires terriens tout en réprimant les mouvements paysans, ou vice versa, selon ce qui servait le mieux ses intérêts à un moment donné. En parallèle, il a adopté l'approche du "pain ou le bâton", récompensant la loyauté et punissant la dissidence. Ceux qui soutenaient le régime de Díaz pouvaient s'attendre à recevoir des faveurs, des postes gouvernementaux ou des concessions économiques. En revanche, ceux qui s'opposaient à lui étaient souvent confrontés à la répression, à l'emprisonnement ou même à l'exil. Le contrôle des médias était également crucial pour Díaz. Il a exercé un contrôle strict sur les médias, censurant les voix critiques et promouvant une image positive de son régime. Les journaux qui le soutenaient étaient favorisés par des subventions gouvernementales, tandis que ceux qui le critiquaient étaient souvent fermés ou leurs rédacteurs étaient intimidés. La militarisation était un autre pilier de son régime. Díaz a renforcé l'armée et la police, les utilisant comme outils pour maintenir l'ordre et réprimer la dissidence. Les zones particulièrement turbulentes étaient souvent placées sous la loi martiale, avec des troupes déployées pour garantir la stabilité. De plus, le gouvernement de Díaz avait un réseau d'espions et d'informateurs qui surveillaient les activités des citoyens, en particulier celles des groupes d'opposition et des militants. Enfin, les concessions économiques jouaient un rôle essentiel dans le maintien de son pouvoir. Díaz a souvent utilisé des concessions économiques comme moyen de gagner le soutien des élites locales et étrangères. En accordant des droits exclusifs sur certaines ressources ou industries, il s'assurait la loyauté de ces groupes puissants. En combinant ces tactiques, le régime porfirien a réussi à maintenir un contrôle ferme sur le Mexique pendant plus de trois décennies. Cependant, cette répression et cette inégalité ont finalement conduit à un mécontentement généralisé, qui a éclaté sous la forme de la Révolution mexicaine en 1910.
+The regime of Porfirio Díaz, known as the Porfiriato, was characterised by a strong desire for modernisation and economic progress. However, to achieve these ambitions, Díaz knew he had to maintain strict control over Mexican society. To achieve this, he adopted a series of strategies and tactics aimed at consolidating his power and minimising dissent. One of his main strategies was the "divide and rule" tactic. Díaz skilfully played factions off against each other, granting favours to some groups while repressing others. For example, he sometimes supported the interests of landowners while repressing peasant movements, or vice versa, depending on what best served his interests at any given time. At the same time, he adopted a "bread or stick" approach, rewarding loyalty and punishing dissent. Those who supported the Díaz regime could expect favours, government posts or economic concessions. On the other hand, those who opposed him often faced repression, imprisonment or even exile. Control of the media was also crucial for Díaz. He exercised strict control over the media, censoring critical voices and promoting a positive image of his regime. Newspapers that supported him were favoured with government subsidies, while those that criticised him were often closed down or their editors intimidated. Militarisation was another pillar of his regime. Díaz strengthened the army and police, using them as tools to maintain order and suppress dissent. Particularly turbulent areas were often placed under martial law, with troops deployed to guarantee stability. In addition, Díaz's government had a network of spies and informers who monitored the activities of citizens, particularly those of opposition groups and activists. Finally, economic concessions played an essential role in maintaining his power. Díaz often used economic concessions as a means of winning the support of local and foreign elites. By granting exclusive rights to certain resources or industries, he secured the loyalty of these powerful groups. By combining these tactics, the Porfirian regime managed to maintain firm control over Mexico for more than three decades. However, this repression and inequality eventually led to widespread discontent, which erupted in the form of the Mexican Revolution in 1910.
-Le régime de Porfirio Díaz a habilement utilisé le principe de "diviser pour régner" comme un outil stratégique pour maintenir son emprise sur le pouvoir. En créant ou en exacerbant les divisions existantes au sein de la société mexicaine, Díaz a pu affaiblir et fragmenter toute opposition potentielle, rendant ainsi plus difficile la formation d'une coalition unifiée contre lui. Les régions qui montraient une loyauté particulière au régime étaient souvent favorisées avec des investissements, des projets d'infrastructure ou d'autres avantages économiques. En revanche, les régions perçues comme étant moins loyales ou potentiellement rebelles étaient souvent négligées ou même punies par des mesures économiques punitives. Cette approche a créé des disparités régionales, avec certaines régions bénéficiant d'un développement économique significatif tandis que d'autres languissaient dans la pauvreté. Au sein de la classe ouvrière, Díaz a souvent joué les intérêts des travailleurs urbains contre ceux des travailleurs ruraux. En offrant des avantages ou des concessions à un groupe tout en négligeant ou en réprimant l'autre, il a pu empêcher la formation d'un front ouvrier unifié qui pourrait contester son pouvoir. De même, les communautés indigènes du Mexique, qui avaient déjà été marginalisées pendant des siècles, ont été encore plus divisées sous le régime de Díaz. En favorisant certaines communautés ou certains leaders indigènes tout en réprimant d'autres, Díaz a créé des divisions et des rivalités au sein de la population indigène, rendant ainsi plus difficile leur unification contre le régime. En utilisant ces tactiques, Díaz a pu affaiblir l'opposition, renforcer son propre pouvoir et maintenir un contrôle ferme sur le Mexique pendant plus de trois décennies. Cependant, ces divisions et inégalités ont finalement contribué à l'instabilité et au mécontentement qui ont conduit à la Révolution mexicaine.
+Porfirio Díaz's regime skilfully used the principle of 'divide and rule' as a strategic tool to maintain its grip on power. By creating or exacerbating existing divisions within Mexican society, Díaz was able to weaken and fragment any potential opposition, making it more difficult to form a unified coalition against him. Regions that showed particular loyalty to the regime were often favoured with investments, infrastructure projects or other economic benefits. On the other hand, regions perceived as less loyal or potentially rebellious were often neglected or even punished with punitive economic measures. This approach created regional disparities, with some regions enjoying significant economic development while others languished in poverty. Within the working class, Díaz often played the interests of urban workers against those of rural workers. By offering advantages or concessions to one group while neglecting or repressing the other, he was able to prevent the formation of a unified workers' front that could challenge his rule. Similarly, Mexico's indigenous communities, which had already been marginalised for centuries, were further divided under the Díaz regime. By favouring certain communities or indigenous leaders while repressing others, Díaz created divisions and rivalries within the indigenous population, making it more difficult for them to unite against the regime. Using these tactics, Díaz was able to weaken the opposition, strengthen his own power and maintain firm control over Mexico for more than three decades. However, these divisions and inequalities ultimately contributed to the instability and discontent that led to the Mexican Revolution.
-Sous le régime de Porfirio Díaz, le principe du "pain ou du bâton" est devenu un élément central de la gouvernance. Cette stratégie dualiste a permis à Díaz de maintenir un équilibre délicat entre la carotte et le bâton, garantissant ainsi la loyauté de certains tout en décourageant l'opposition d'autres. Les incitations, ou le "pain", étaient souvent utilisées pour gagner le soutien de groupes clés ou d'individus influents. Par exemple, des terres, des emplois gouvernementaux ou des contrats lucratifs pouvaient être offerts à ceux qui étaient prêts à soutenir le régime. Ces récompenses ont non seulement assuré la loyauté de nombreux individus et groupes, mais ont également servi d'exemple pour montrer les avantages de la coopération avec le régime de Díaz. Cependant, pour ceux qui n'étaient pas séduits par ces incitations ou qui choisissaient activement de s'opposer au régime, Díaz n'hésitait pas à utiliser le "bâton". La répression était brutale pour ceux qui osaient défier le régime. Les manifestations étaient souvent violemment réprimées, les leaders de l'opposition étaient arrêtés ou exilés, et dans certains cas, des communautés entières subissaient des représailles pour les actions de quelques-uns. L'armée et la police, renforcées et modernisées sous Díaz, étaient les principaux instruments de cette répression. Cette combinaison d'incitations et de répression a permis à Díaz de consolider son pouvoir et de gouverner le Mexique pendant plus de trois décennies. Cependant, cette approche a également semé les graines de la discorde et du mécontentement, qui finiraient par éclater sous la forme de la Révolution mexicaine, mettant fin à l'ère du Porfiriato.
+Under the regime of Porfirio Díaz, the principle of "bread or stick" became a central element of governance. This dualistic strategy enabled Díaz to maintain a delicate balance between the carrot and the stick, guaranteeing the loyalty of some while discouraging opposition from others. Incentives, or 'bread', were often used to win the support of key groups or influential individuals. For example, land, government jobs or lucrative contracts could be offered to those prepared to support the regime. These rewards not only ensured the loyalty of many individuals and groups, but also served as an example of the benefits of cooperating with the Díaz regime. However, for those who were not seduced by these incentives or who actively chose to oppose the regime, Díaz did not hesitate to use the "stick". Repression was brutal for those who dared to challenge the regime. Demonstrations were often violently repressed, opposition leaders were arrested or exiled, and in some cases entire communities suffered reprisals for the actions of a few. The army and police, strengthened and modernised under Díaz, were the main instruments of this repression. This combination of incentives and repression enabled Díaz to consolidate his power and govern Mexico for more than three decades. However, this approach also sowed the seeds of discord and discontent, which would eventually erupt in the form of the Mexican Revolution, bringing the era of the Porfiriato to an end.
-Le régime de Porfirio Díaz, bien que souvent loué pour ses efforts de modernisation et d'industrialisation, a également été marqué par une forte répression politique et une restriction des libertés civiles. La stabilité et l'ordre étaient des priorités absolues pour Díaz, et il était prêt à prendre des mesures draconiennes pour les maintenir. La censure était omniprésente. Les journaux, les magazines et autres publications étaient étroitement surveillés, et tout contenu jugé subversif ou critique envers le gouvernement était rapidement supprimé. Les journalistes qui osaient critiquer le régime étaient souvent harcelés, arrêtés ou même exilés. Cette censure n'était pas limitée à la presse écrite ; les rassemblements publics, les pièces de théâtre et même certaines formes d'art étaient également soumis à l'examen et à la censure du gouvernement. La propagande était un autre outil clé utilisé par le régime pour façonner l'opinion publique. Le gouvernement de Díaz a promu une image de stabilité, de progrès et de modernité, souvent en contraste avec les régimes précédents, qui étaient dépeints comme chaotiques et régressifs. Cette propagande était omniprésente, des manuels scolaires aux journaux, en passant par les discours publics. La surveillance était également courante. Les services de renseignement du gouvernement surveillaient étroitement les activités des citoyens, en particulier celles des groupes considérés comme "problématiques" ou "subversifs". Les communautés indigènes, les syndicats, les groupes politiques d'opposition et d'autres étaient souvent infiltrés par des informateurs gouvernementaux. La répression était la plus sévère pour ceux qui osaient défier ouvertement le régime. Les grèves étaient brutalement réprimées, les leaders syndicaux et politiques étaient arrêtés ou assassinés, et les communautés qui s'opposaient au gouvernement étaient souvent punies collectivement.[[File:Rurales.jpg|thumb|Un détachement de Rurales en uniforme de campagne pendant l'ère Diaz.]]
+The regime of Porfirio Díaz, although often praised for its efforts at modernisation and industrialisation, was also marked by strong political repression and restrictions on civil liberties. Stability and order were top priorities for Díaz, and he was prepared to take draconian measures to maintain them. Censorship was omnipresent. Newspapers, magazines and other publications were closely monitored, and any content deemed subversive or critical of the government was quickly suppressed. Journalists who dared to criticise the regime were often harassed, arrested or even exiled. This censorship was not limited to the print media; public gatherings, plays and even some forms of art were also subject to government scrutiny and censorship. Propaganda was another key tool used by the regime to shape public opinion. Díaz's government promoted an image of stability, progress and modernity, often in contrast to previous regimes, which were portrayed as chaotic and regressive. This propaganda was omnipresent, from school textbooks to newspapers and public speeches. Surveillance was also commonplace. Government intelligence services kept a close eye on the activities of citizens, particularly those of groups considered 'problematic' or 'subversive'. Indigenous communities, trade unions, opposition political groups and others were often infiltrated by government informers. Repression was most severe for those who dared to openly challenge the regime. Strikes were brutally suppressed, trade union and political leaders were arrested or murdered, and communities that opposed the government were often collectively punished.[[File:Rurales.jpg|thumb|A detachment of Rurales in campaign uniform during the Diaz era.]]
-L'approche "du pain ou du bâton" du régime porfirien pour maintenir l'ordre et contrôler la société visait principalement l'élite et les piliers du régime, comme l'armée et l'église. Le régime offrait des incitations ou des récompenses, comme des emplois, des terres ou d'autres avantages, à ceux qui le soutenaient et étaient prêts à coopérer avec lui. Il s'agissait d'"acheter" le soutien de certains membres de l'élite et de les empêcher de s'opposer au régime. D'un autre côté, ceux qui refusaient de coopérer ou qui étaient perçus comme une menace pour le régime étaient traités avec sévérité. Le "bâton" représentait la répression, la force et la punition. L'armée et la police étaient utilisées pour réprimer toute opposition, qu'elle soit réelle ou perçue. Les dissidents étaient souvent arrêtés, torturés, exilés ou même exécutés. Les biens pouvaient être confisqués et les familles des opposants pouvaient également être persécutées. L'Église, en tant qu'institution puissante et influente au Mexique, était un autre pilier important du régime. Díaz a compris l'importance de maintenir de bonnes relations avec l'Église pour assurer la stabilité de son régime. Bien que les relations entre l'État et l'Église aient été tendues à certains moments, Díaz a souvent cherché à coopérer avec l'Église et à s'assurer de son soutien. En retour, l'Église bénéficiait de privilèges et de protections sous le régime de Díaz. En fin de compte, l'approche "du pain ou du bâton" était un moyen pour Díaz de consolider son pouvoir et de maintenir le contrôle sur le Mexique. En offrant des récompenses et des incitations à ceux qui le soutenaient et en punissant sévèrement ceux qui s'y opposaient, Díaz a réussi à maintenir une relative stabilité pendant la majeure partie de son règne. Cependant, cette approche a également semé les graines de la mécontentement et de la révolution, car de nombreux Mexicains se sont sentis opprimés et marginalisés par le régime autoritaire de Díaz.
+The Porfirian regime's "bread or stick" approach to maintaining order and controlling society was aimed primarily 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 it and were prepared to cooperate with it. The aim was to "buy" the support of certain members of the elite and prevent them from opposing the regime. On the other hand, those who refused to cooperate or who were perceived as a threat to the regime were dealt with severely. The "stick" represented repression, force and punishment. The army and police were used to suppress all opposition, whether real or perceived. Dissidents were often arrested, tortured, exiled or even executed. Property could be confiscated and the families of opponents persecuted. The Church, as a powerful and influential institution in Mexico, was another important pillar of the regime. Díaz understood the importance of maintaining good relations with the Church to ensure the stability of his regime. Although relations between the state and the Church were strained at times, Díaz often sought to cooperate with the Church and secure its support. In return, the Church enjoyed privileges and protections under Díaz. Ultimately, the "bread or stick" approach was a way for Díaz to consolidate his power and maintain control over Mexico. By offering rewards and incentives to those who supported him and severely punishing those who opposed him, Díaz managed to maintain relative stability for most of his reign. However, this approach also sowed the seeds of discontent and revolution, as many Mexicans felt oppressed and marginalised by Díaz's authoritarian rule.
-La stratégie de Díaz pour maintenir le contrôle dans les zones rurales était simple mais efficace : il utilisait la force brute pour écraser toute forme de résistance. Les rurales, une force paramilitaire créée par Díaz, étaient souvent déployées dans ces régions pour surveiller et contrôler les communautés locales. Elles étaient redoutées pour leur brutalité et leur absence de responsabilité, et elles étaient souvent impliquées dans des actes de violence contre la population civile. Les communautés indigènes, en particulier, ont été durement touchées par ces tactiques de répression. Historiquement marginalisées et opprimées, ces communautés ont vu leurs terres confisquées et ont été souvent forcées de travailler dans des conditions proches de l'esclavage dans les haciendas des grands propriétaires terriens. Toute tentative de résistance ou de révolte était brutalement réprimée. Les traditions, les langues et les cultures indigènes étaient également souvent ciblées dans une tentative de les assimiler et de les "civiliser". La classe ouvrière n'était pas non plus épargnée par la répression. Avec l'industrialisation et la modernisation du Mexique sous Díaz, la classe ouvrière s'est développée, en particulier dans les villes. Cependant, les conditions de travail étaient souvent précaires, les salaires bas et les droits des travailleurs presque inexistants. Les grèves et les manifestations étaient courantes, mais elles étaient souvent violemment réprimées par l'armée et la police.
+Díaz's strategy for maintaining control in rural areas was simple but effective: he used brute force to crush any form of resistance. The rurales, a paramilitary force created by Díaz, were often deployed in these areas to monitor and control local communities. They were feared for their brutality and lack of accountability, and were often involved in acts of violence against the civilian population. Indigenous communities, in particular, were hard hit by these repressive tactics. Historically marginalised and oppressed, these communities had their land confiscated and were often forced to work in slave-like conditions in the haciendas of large landowners. Any attempt at resistance or revolt was brutally suppressed. Indigenous traditions, languages and cultures were also often targeted in an attempt to assimilate and "civilise" them. The working class was not spared repression either. With the industrialisation and modernisation of Mexico under Díaz, the working class grew, particularly in the cities. However, working conditions were often precarious, wages low and workers' rights almost non-existent. Strikes and demonstrations were common, but were often violently repressed by the army and police.
-Díaz savait que l'armée régulière, avec ses loyautés diverses et ses affiliations régionales, pourrait ne pas être entièrement fiable en cas de crise. Les "rurales", en revanche, étaient une force spécialement formée, loyale directement à Díaz et à son régime. Ils étaient souvent recrutés parmi les vétérans et les hommes de confiance, ce qui garantissait leur fidélité au président. Les "rurales" étaient redoutés pour leur efficacité brutale. Ils étaient souvent utilisés pour réprimer les mouvements de résistance, chasser les bandits et maintenir l'ordre dans les zones où le contrôle du gouvernement central était faible. Leur présence était un rappel constant de la portée et du pouvoir du régime de Díaz, même dans les régions les plus reculées du pays. En outre, Díaz a utilisé les "rurales" comme un contrepoids à l'armée régulière. En maintenant une force parallèle puissante et loyale, il pouvait s'assurer que l'armée ne deviendrait pas trop puissante ou ne menacerait pas son régime. C'était une stratégie astucieuse pour équilibrer le pouvoir et prévenir les coups d'État ou les rébellions internes. Cependant, la création et l'utilisation des "rurales" avaient également des conséquences négatives. Leur brutalité et leur absence de responsabilité ont souvent conduit à des abus contre la population civile. De plus, leur présence a renforcé la nature autoritaire du régime de Díaz, où la force et la répression étaient souvent privilégiées par rapport au dialogue ou à la négociation.
+Díaz knew that the regular army, with its diverse loyalties and regional affiliations, might not be entirely reliable in a crisis. The "rurales", on the other hand, were a specially trained force loyal directly to Díaz and his regime. They were often recruited from among veterans and trusted men, which guaranteed their loyalty to the president. The "rurales" were feared for their brutal efficiency. They were often used to suppress resistance movements, hunt down bandits and maintain order in areas where central government control was weak. Their presence was a constant reminder of the reach and power of the Díaz regime, even in the most remote parts of the country. In addition, Díaz used the "rurales" as a counterweight to the regular army. By maintaining a powerful and loyal parallel force, he could ensure that the army would not become too powerful or threaten his regime. It was a clever strategy for balancing power and preventing coups d'état or internal rebellion. However, the creation and use of "rurales" also had negative consequences. Their brutality and lack of accountability often led to abuses against the civilian population. Moreover, their presence reinforced the authoritarian nature of the Díaz regime, where force and repression were often favoured over dialogue or negotiation.
-Porfirio Díaz était un stratège politique astucieux, et il comprenait l'importance cruciale de l'armée pour la stabilité de son régime. L'armée, en tant qu'institution, avait le potentiel de renverser le gouvernement, comme cela avait été le cas dans de nombreux autres pays d'Amérique latine à l'époque. Díaz, conscient de cette menace, a pris des mesures pour s'assurer de la loyauté de l'armée. L'augmentation des salaires et des avantages était une manière directe de gagner la loyauté des soldats et des officiers. En offrant une meilleure rémunération et des conditions de vie améliorées, Díaz s'assurait que l'armée avait un intérêt personnel à maintenir le statu quo. De plus, en modernisant l'armée avec de nouvelles armes et équipements, il renforçait non seulement la capacité de l'armée à maintenir l'ordre, mais aussi son prestige et son statut au sein de la société mexicaine. La présence des "rurales" a ajouté une autre dimension à la stratégie de Díaz. En maintenant une force parallèle puissante, il pouvait jouer sur la concurrence entre les deux groupes. Si l'armée régulière devenait trop ambitieuse ou menaçante, Díaz pouvait s'appuyer sur les "rurales" pour contrebalancer cette menace. Inversement, si les "rurales" devenaient trop puissants ou indépendants, Díaz pouvait s'appuyer sur l'armée régulière. Cette stratégie de "diviser pour régner" a été efficace pour Díaz pendant la majeure partie de son règne. Elle a permis de prévenir les coups d'État et de maintenir un équilibre délicat entre les différentes factions du pouvoir militaire. Cependant, cette approche a également renforcé la nature autoritaire du régime, avec une dépendance accrue à l'égard de la force militaire pour maintenir l'ordre et le contrôle.[[File:Uprising_of_Yaqui_Indians_Remington_1896.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Soulèvement des Indiens Yaqui - Guerriers Yaqui en retraite, par Frederic Remington, 1896.]]
+Porfirio Díaz was an astute political strategist, and he understood the crucial importance of the army for the stability of his regime. The army, as an institution, had the potential to overthrow the government, as had been the case in many other Latin American countries at the time. Díaz, aware of this threat, took steps to ensure the army's loyalty. Increasing pay and benefits was a direct way of winning the loyalty of soldiers and officers. By offering better pay and improved living conditions, Díaz ensured that the army had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. What's more, by modernising the army with new weapons and equipment, he strengthened not only the army's ability to maintain order, but also its prestige and status within Mexican society. The presence of the "rurales" added another dimension to Díaz's strategy. By maintaining a powerful parallel force, he could play on the competition between the two groups. If the regular army became too ambitious or threatening, Díaz could rely on the "rurales" to counterbalance this threat. Conversely, if the "rurales" became too powerful or independent, Díaz could rely on the regular army. This "divide and rule" strategy was effective for Díaz for most of his reign. It prevented coups and maintained a delicate balance between the different factions of military power. However, this approach also reinforced the authoritarian nature of the regime, with an increased reliance on military force to maintain order and control.[[File:Uprising_of_Yaqui_Indians_Remington_1896.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Yaqui uprising - Retreating Yaqui warriors, by Frederic Remington, 1896.]]
-Porfirio Diaz a entretenu une relation prudente et pragmatique avec l'Église catholique pendant son régime. Il n'a pas officiellement réformé la constitution pour supprimer les dispositions anticléricales de la constitution libérale de 1857, mais a préféré les ignorer. Diaz a rendu à l'Église catholique les monastères et les écoles religieuses qui avaient été confisqués sous le régime libéral précédent, et a permis à l'Église de continuer à jouer un rôle important dans la société. En retour, l'Église catholique a soutenu le régime de Díaz, prêchant la stabilité et l'ordre et décourageant la dissidence. Cette alliance pragmatique entre l'État et l'Église a été bénéfique pour les deux parties. Pour Díaz, cela lui a permis de consolider son pouvoir et de gagner le soutien d'une institution puissante et influente. Pour l'Église, cela lui a permis de retrouver une partie de son influence et de ses biens qui avaient été perdus pendant les périodes de réforme antérieures. Cependant, cette relation n'était pas sans tensions. Bien que Díaz ait permis à l'Église de retrouver une partie de son influence, il a veillé à ce qu'elle ne devienne pas trop puissante ou ne menace son régime. Il a maintenu un contrôle strict sur l'éducation, s'assurant que l'État avait le dernier mot sur ce qui était enseigné dans les écoles, et a limité le pouvoir de l'Église dans d'autres domaines de la société.
+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 anti-clerical provisions of the liberal constitution of 1857, but preferred to ignore them. Diaz returned to the Catholic Church the monasteries and religious schools that had been confiscated under the previous liberal regime, and allowed the Church to continue to play an important role in society. In return, the Catholic Church supported the Díaz regime, preaching stability and order and discouraging dissent. This pragmatic alliance between state and church benefited both sides. For Díaz, it allowed him to consolidate his power and gain the support of a powerful and influential institution. For the Church, it allowed it to regain some of the influence and property that had been lost during earlier periods of reform. However, this relationship was not without its tensions. Although Díaz allowed the Church to regain some of its influence, he ensured that it did not become too powerful or threaten his regime. He maintained strict control over education, ensuring that the state had the final say on what was taught in schools, and limited the power of the Church in other areas of society.
-L'Église catholique, avec son influence profonde et ses racines historiques au Mexique, était un acteur majeur dans la dynamique sociale et politique du pays. En reconnaissant cela, Díaz a vu l'importance de maintenir une relation pacifique avec l'Église. En évitant les conflits ouverts avec l'Église, Díaz a pu éviter une source potentielle de contestation et d'opposition à son régime. L'Église, pour sa part, avait ses propres raisons de soutenir Díaz. Après avoir subi des pertes importantes en termes de propriété et d'influence sous les régimes libéraux précédents, elle était désireuse de protéger ses intérêts et de retrouver une partie de son pouvoir et de son influence. En soutenant Díaz, l'Église a pu opérer dans un environnement plus favorable, où elle pouvait continuer à jouer un rôle central dans la vie des Mexicains. Cet arrangement mutuellement bénéfique a contribué à la stabilité du régime de Díaz. Cependant, il est également important de noter que, bien que l'Église ait soutenu Díaz, elle a également maintenu une certaine distance par rapport au gouvernement, préservant ainsi son indépendance institutionnelle. Cela a permis à l'Église de continuer à jouer un rôle central dans la vie des Mexicains, tout en évitant d'être trop étroitement associée aux excès et aux controverses du régime porfirien.
+The Catholic Church, with its deep influence and historical roots in Mexico, was a major player in the country's social and political dynamics. Recognising this, Díaz saw the importance of maintaining a peaceful relationship with the Church. By avoiding open conflict with the Church, Díaz was able to avoid a potential source of dissent and opposition to his regime. The Church, for its part, had its own reasons for supporting Díaz. Having suffered significant losses in terms of property and influence under previous liberal regimes, it was keen to protect its interests and regain some of its power and influence. By supporting Díaz, the Church was able to operate in a more favourable environment, where it could continue to play a central role in the lives of Mexicans. This mutually beneficial arrangement contributed to the stability of the Díaz regime. However, it is also important to note that, although the Church supported Díaz, it also maintained a certain distance from the government, thereby preserving its institutional independence. This allowed the Church to continue to play a central role in the lives of Mexicans, while avoiding being too closely associated with the excesses and controversies of the Porfirian regime.
-L'entente entre Díaz et l'Église catholique n'était pas sans conséquences. Pour de nombreux critiques, le fait que l'Église ait pu opérer sans entrave a signifié qu'elle avait une influence disproportionnée sur la vie politique et sociale du Mexique. L'Église, avec ses vastes ressources et son influence, pouvait peser sur les décisions politiques, souvent au détriment de la séparation de l'Église et de l'État, un principe fondamental de la démocratie libérale. La suppression des libertés religieuses était une autre préoccupation. Bien que l'Église catholique ait bénéficié d'une plus grande liberté sous Díaz, d'autres groupes religieux ont souvent été marginalisés ou persécutés. Cela a créé un environnement où la liberté religieuse était limitée, et où l'Église catholique avait un monopole de facto sur la vie religieuse. L'éducation a également été touchée. Avec l'Église jouant un rôle plus important dans l'éducation, il y avait des préoccupations concernant le curriculum et l'enseignement. Les critiques ont soutenu que l'éducation était devenue moins laïque et plus orientée vers les enseignements de l'Église. Cela a eu des implications pour le développement d'une pensée critique et indépendante parmi les étudiants. Enfin, le soutien de l'Église à Díaz a été vu par beaucoup comme une trahison. L'Église, en tant qu'institution censée défendre les valeurs morales et éthiques, soutenait un régime souvent critiqué pour sa répression et ses abus. Pour de nombreux Mexicains, cela a discrédité l'Église en tant qu'institution et a renforcé l'idée qu'elle était plus préoccupée par le pouvoir et l'influence que par le bien-être de ses fidèles.
+The agreement between Díaz and the Catholic Church was not without consequences. For many critics, the fact that the Church was able to operate without hindrance meant that it had a disproportionate influence on Mexico's political and social life. The Church, with its vast resources and influence, was able to influence political decisions, often to the detriment of the separation of church and state, a fundamental principle of liberal democracy. The suppression of religious freedoms was another concern. Although the Catholic Church enjoyed greater freedom under Díaz, other religious groups were often marginalised or persecuted. This created an environment where religious freedom was limited, and the Catholic Church had a de facto monopoly on religious life. Education was also affected. With the Church playing a greater role in education, there were concerns about curriculum and teaching. Critics argued that education had become less secular and more oriented towards the teachings of the Church. This had implications for the development of critical and independent thinking among students. Finally, the Church's support for Díaz was seen by many as a betrayal. The Church, as an institution that was supposed to defend moral and ethical values, supported a regime that was often criticised for its repression and abuses. For many Mexicans, this discredited the Church as an institution and reinforced the idea that it was more concerned with power and influence than with the well-being of its faithful.
-Porfirio Díaz a habilement navigué dans le paysage politique et économique du Mexique pour consolider son pouvoir. Sa politique de répression sélective était une stratégie délibérée pour équilibrer les besoins et les désirs des élites économiques tout en neutralisant les menaces potentielles à son autorité. Les grands propriétaires terriens, les banquiers et les entrepreneurs étaient essentiels à la croissance économique du Mexique et à la stabilité du régime de Díaz. En leur permettant de prospérer, Díaz s'assurait de leur soutien et de leur loyauté. Ces élites économiques bénéficiaient d'un environnement stable pour leurs investissements et leurs entreprises, et en retour, elles soutenaient le régime de Díaz, tant financièrement que politiquement. Cependant, Díaz était bien conscient que ces mêmes élites, avec leurs vastes ressources et leur influence, pourraient potentiellement devenir une menace pour son pouvoir s'ils étaient mécontents ou s'ils voyaient une opportunité de gagner plus de pouvoir pour eux-mêmes. Ainsi, tout en les laissant prospérer, Díaz a également mis en place des mécanismes pour s'assurer qu'ils ne deviennent pas trop puissants ou influents sur le plan politique. Il a gardé un œil attentif sur eux, s'assurant qu'ils ne formaient pas d'alliances qui pourraient le menacer. D'un autre côté, ceux qui s'opposaient ouvertement à Díaz ou qui représentaient une menace pour son régime, comme les militants syndicaux, les journalistes critiques ou les leaders politiques dissidents, étaient souvent la cible de sa répression. Ils étaient arrêtés, emprisonnés, exilés ou parfois même tués. Cette répression sélective a envoyé un message clair à la société mexicaine : le soutien à Díaz était récompensé, tandis que l'opposition était sévèrement punie.
+Porfirio Díaz skilfully navigated Mexico's political and economic landscape to consolidate his power. His policy of selective repression was a deliberate strategy to balance the needs and desires of the economic elites while neutralising potential threats to his authority. Large landowners, bankers and entrepreneurs were essential to Mexico's economic growth and the stability of the Díaz regime. By allowing them to prosper, Díaz ensured their support and loyalty. These economic elites enjoyed a stable environment for their investments and businesses, and in return they supported the Díaz regime, both financially and politically. However, Díaz was well aware that these same elites, with their vast resources and influence, could potentially become a threat to his power if they became dissatisfied or saw an opportunity to gain more power for themselves. So, while allowing them to prosper, Díaz also put mechanisms in place to ensure that they did not become too powerful or politically influential. He kept a close eye on them, making sure they didn't form alliances that could threaten him. On the other hand, those who openly opposed Díaz or posed a threat to his regime, such as trade union activists, critical journalists or dissident political leaders, were often the targets of his repression. They were arrested, imprisoned, exiled or sometimes even killed. This selective repression sent a clear message to Mexican society: support for Díaz was rewarded, while opposition was severely punished.
-Porfirio Díaz a maîtrisé l'art de la politique transactionnelle. En offrant des terres, des concessions et d'autres avantages à ses alliés, il a créé un système de loyauté qui a renforcé son régime. Ces récompenses étaient des incitations puissantes pour l'élite économique du Mexique, les encourageant à soutenir Díaz et à investir dans le pays. En retour, ils bénéficiaient d'un environnement stable pour leurs affaires et d'une protection contre la concurrence ou les revendications territoriales. Cependant, cette générosité n'était pas sans conditions. Díaz attendait de ses alliés une loyauté indéfectible. Ceux qui trahissaient cette confiance ou qui semblaient s'opposer à lui étaient rapidement ciblés. La répression pouvait prendre de nombreuses formes, allant de la confiscation de biens à l'emprisonnement, voire à l'exécution. Cette combinaison de carotte et de bâton a été efficace pour maintenir l'ordre et la stabilité pendant la majeure partie de son règne. En outre, en distribuant des terres et des concessions de manière sélective, Díaz pouvait également contrôler la concentration du pouvoir économique. En fragmentant la richesse et les ressources, il s'assurait qu'aucun individu ou groupe ne devienne suffisamment puissant pour contester son autorité. Si un individu ou une famille devenait trop influent, Díaz avait les moyens de les réduire à une taille plus gérable. Cette stratégie a été essentielle pour maintenir l'équilibre du pouvoir au Mexique pendant le Porfiriato. Bien que cela ait permis une certaine stabilité et croissance économique, cela a également créé des inégalités profondes et a semé les graines du mécontentement. La dépendance de Díaz à l'égard de ces tactiques a finalement contribué à l'instabilité et à la révolution qui a suivi la fin de son régime.
+Porfirio Díaz mastered the art of transactional politics. By offering land, concessions and other benefits to his allies, he created a system of loyalty that strengthened his regime. These rewards were powerful incentives for Mexico's economic elite, encouraging them to support Díaz and invest in the country. In return, they enjoyed a stable business environment and protection from competition or territorial claims. However, this generosity was not without conditions. Díaz expected unwavering loyalty from his allies. Those who betrayed that trust or appeared to oppose him were quickly targeted. Repression could take many forms, from confiscation of property to imprisonment and even execution. This combination of carrot and stick was effective in maintaining order and stability for most of his reign. In addition, by selectively distributing land and concessions, Díaz was also able to control the concentration of economic power. By fragmenting wealth and resources, he ensured that no individual or group became powerful enough to challenge his authority. If an individual or family became too influential, Díaz had the means to reduce them to a more manageable size. This strategy was essential in maintaining the balance of power in Mexico during the Porfiriato. While it allowed for some economic stability and growth, it also created deep inequalities and sowed the seeds of discontent. Díaz's reliance on these tactics ultimately contributed to the instability and revolution that followed the end of his regime.
-L'expansion massive des infrastructures sous le régime de Porfirio Díaz a nécessité une administration étatique plus grande et plus efficace. La bureaucratie a connu une croissance sans précédent pendant cette période, avec la création de nombreux postes de fonctionnaires pour superviser, gérer et entretenir les projets d'infrastructure. L'expansion du réseau ferroviaire est un exemple particulièrement frappant de cette croissance bureaucratique. Les chemins de fer ne se sont pas seulement développés comme des voies de transport pour les marchandises et les personnes, mais ils sont également devenus un outil stratégique pour le gouvernement. Avec un réseau ferroviaire étendu, le gouvernement pouvait rapidement déplacer des troupes pour réprimer des rébellions ou des troubles dans des régions éloignées, renforçant ainsi le contrôle centralisé de Díaz sur le vaste territoire mexicain. Pour gérer ce réseau complexe, de nombreux postes ont été créés, allant des ingénieurs et des techniciens chargés de la conception et de la maintenance des voies, aux administrateurs supervisant les opérations et la logistique. De plus, le réseau ferroviaire a nécessité la création d'une force de police ferroviaire pour garantir la sécurité des voies et des gares, ainsi que pour protéger les biens et les passagers. En outre, l'expansion de l'État ne s'est pas limitée aux chemins de fer. D'autres projets d'infrastructure, tels que la construction de ports, de routes, de barrages et de systèmes d'irrigation, ont également nécessité une administration étatique élargie. Ces projets ont créé des opportunités d'emploi pour une nouvelle classe de fonctionnaires formés et éduqués, qui sont devenus essentiels à la machine étatique du Porfiriato.
+The massive expansion of infrastructure under Porfirio Díaz required a larger and more efficient state administration. The bureaucracy grew at an unprecedented rate during this period, with the creation of numerous civil service posts to oversee, manage and maintain infrastructure projects. The expansion of the rail network is a particularly striking example of this bureaucratic growth. Railways not only developed as transport routes for goods and people, they also became a strategic tool for the government. With an extensive rail network, the government could quickly move troops to quell rebellions or unrest in remote areas, reinforcing Díaz's centralised control over the vast Mexican territory. To manage this complex network, numerous positions were created, ranging from engineers and technicians responsible for designing and maintaining the tracks, to administrators overseeing operations and logistics. In addition, the rail network has necessitated the creation of a rail police force to guarantee the safety of the tracks and stations, as well as to protect property and passengers. State expansion has not been limited to the railways. Other infrastructure projects, such as the construction of ports, roads, dams and irrigation systems, also required an expanded state administration. These projects created employment opportunities for a new class of trained and educated civil servants, who became essential to Porfiriato's state machinery.
-La capacité de réagir rapidement à des troubles était un élément clé de la stratégie de Díaz pour maintenir son emprise sur le Mexique. Avant l'expansion du réseau ferroviaire, le vaste territoire mexicain, avec ses terrains difficiles et ses longues distances, rendait difficile pour le gouvernement central de répondre rapidement aux rébellions ou aux soulèvements. Les révoltes pouvaient durer des mois, voire des années, avant que le gouvernement ne puisse mobiliser suffisamment de troupes pour les réprimer. Avec l'avènement des chemins de fer, cette dynamique a changé. Les troupes pouvaient être rapidement déplacées d'une région à l'autre, permettant une réponse rapide à toute insurrection. Cela a non seulement permis de réprimer efficacement les rébellions, mais a également servi de dissuasion, car les potentiels rebelles savaient que le gouvernement pouvait rapidement envoyer des renforts. De plus, le réseau ferroviaire a permis une meilleure communication entre les différentes régions du pays. Les informations sur les mouvements rebelles, les troubles ou les menaces potentielles pouvaient être rapidement transmises à la capitale, permettant au gouvernement de Díaz de planifier et de coordonner ses réponses. Cependant, cette capacité accrue de répression a également eu des conséquences négatives. Elle a renforcé la nature autoritaire du régime de Díaz, avec une dépendance accrue à l'égard de la force militaire pour maintenir l'ordre. De nombreux Mexicains sont devenus mécontents de cette répression constante, ce qui a contribué à l'accumulation de tensions et de mécontentements qui ont finalement conduit à la Révolution mexicaine de 1910.
+The ability to respond quickly to unrest was a key part of Díaz's strategy for maintaining his grip on Mexico. Before the expansion of the railway network, Mexico's vast territory, with its difficult terrain and long distances, made it difficult for the central government to respond quickly to rebellions or uprisings. Revolts could last for months, or even years, before the government could mobilise enough troops to put them down. With the advent of the railways, this dynamic changed. Troops could be moved quickly from one region to another, enabling a rapid response to any insurrection. This not only enabled rebellions to be effectively suppressed, but also acted as a deterrent, as potential rebels knew that the government could quickly send reinforcements. In addition, the railway network enabled better communication between the different regions of the country. Information about rebel movements, unrest or potential threats could be quickly transmitted to the capital, allowing Díaz's government to plan and coordinate its responses. However, this increased capacity for repression also had negative consequences. It reinforced the authoritarian nature of the Díaz regime, with an increased reliance on military force to maintain order. Many Mexicans became dissatisfied with this constant repression, which contributed to the build-up of tension and discontent that eventually led to the Mexican Revolution of 1910.
-La situation des Yaquis pendant le régime porfirien est un exemple poignant des tensions et des conflits qui ont émergé en réponse aux politiques de modernisation et de centralisation de Díaz. Les Yaquis, originaires de la vallée du fleuve Yaqui dans l'État de Sonora, avaient une longue histoire de résistance à la domination espagnole et, plus tard, à la domination mexicaine. Sous le régime de Díaz, la pression pour développer et moderniser le pays a conduit à une augmentation de la demande de terres pour l'agriculture et l'élevage, en particulier dans les régions riches et fertiles comme celle des Yaquis. Les terres de la vallée du Yaqui étaient particulièrement convoitées en raison de leur fertilité et de leur accès à l'eau, des éléments essentiels pour soutenir l'agriculture à grande échelle. Le gouvernement de Díaz, en collaboration avec des propriétaires terriens privés, a commencé à exproprier les terres des Yaquis, souvent par des moyens coercitifs ou frauduleux. Ces actions ont déplacé de nombreux Yaquis de leurs terres ancestrales, perturbant leur mode de vie traditionnel basé sur l'agriculture et la pêche. En réponse à ces expropriations, les Yaquis ont résisté par tous les moyens possibles. Ils ont lancé plusieurs révoltes contre le gouvernement mexicain, utilisant des tactiques de guérilla et cherchant à reprendre leurs terres. Le gouvernement de Díaz a répondu avec une force brutale, lançant des campagnes militaires pour réprimer la résistance Yaqui. Ces campagnes étaient souvent accompagnées de violences, de déplacements forcés et, dans certains cas, d'expulsion des Yaquis de leur territoire natal vers des plantations de henequén dans le Yucatán ou d'autres régions éloignées du pays, où ils étaient souvent soumis à des conditions de travail proches de l'esclavage. La résistance des Yaquis et la répression brutale du gouvernement sont devenues emblématiques des tensions plus larges qui ont émergé au Mexique pendant le régime porfirien. Bien que le régime de Díaz ait apporté une certaine stabilité et modernisation au pays, il l'a souvent fait aux dépens des communautés indigènes et rurales, qui ont payé un lourd tribut en termes de terres, de culture et de vies humaines.
+The situation of the Yaquis during the Porfirian regime is a poignant example of the tensions and conflicts that emerged in response to Díaz's policies of modernisation and centralisation. The Yaquis, originally from the Yaqui river valley in the state of Sonora, had a long history of resistance to Spanish and later Mexican rule. Under the Díaz regime, the pressure to develop and modernise the country led to an increase in demand for land for agriculture and livestock, particularly in rich and fertile regions such as the Yaqui. The land in the Yaqui valley was particularly sought after for its fertility and access to water, both of which were essential to support large-scale agriculture. The Díaz government, in collaboration with private landowners, began expropriating land from the Yaquis, often by coercive or fraudulent means. These actions displaced many Yaquis from their ancestral lands, disrupting their traditional way of life based on agriculture and fishing. In response to these expropriations, the Yaquis resisted in every way possible. They launched several revolts against the Mexican government, using guerrilla tactics and seeking to reclaim their land. Díaz's government responded with brutal force, launching military campaigns to suppress Yaqui resistance. These campaigns were often accompanied by violence, forced displacement and, in some cases, the expulsion of Yaquis from their homeland to henequén plantations in the Yucatán or other remote areas of the country, where they were often subjected to slave-like working conditions. The resistance of the Yaquis and the brutal repression by the government became emblematic of the wider tensions that emerged in Mexico during the Porfirian regime. Although the Díaz regime brought a degree of stability and modernisation to the country, it often did so at the expense of indigenous and rural communities, who paid a heavy price in terms of land, culture and human lives.
-La réponse du gouvernement de Díaz aux révoltes des Yaquis est un exemple sombre de la manière dont le régime a traité les dissidents et les minorités ethniques. La répression militaire était brutale, et les communautés qui résistaient étaient souvent soumises à des violences extrêmes. Les massacres étaient courants, et les survivants, plutôt que d'être simplement relâchés, étaient souvent déplacés de force vers des régions éloignées du pays. La déportation des Yaquis vers la péninsule du Yucatán est l'un des épisodes les plus tragiques de cette période. Dans le Yucatán, la demande de main-d'œuvre pour les plantations de henequén était élevée. Le henequén, également connu sous le nom de sisal, était une culture lucrative, utilisée pour fabriquer des cordes et d'autres produits. Les conditions de travail dans ces plantations étaient épouvantables, avec des journées de travail longues et épuisantes, des conditions de vie médiocres et peu ou pas de rémunération. Les Yaquis déportés étaient souvent traités comme des esclaves, travaillant dans des conditions inhumaines et sans possibilité de retourner chez eux. Pour le régime de Díaz et les propriétaires de plantations, c'était une situation gagnant-gagnant : le gouvernement se débarrassait d'un groupe rebelle, et les propriétaires de plantations obtenaient une main-d'œuvre bon marché. Ces actions ont été largement critiquées, tant à l'époque qu'aujourd'hui, pour leur brutalité et leur manque d'humanité. Elles sont un exemple de la manière dont le régime de Díaz, malgré ses efforts de modernisation et de développement, a souvent agi aux dépens des groupes les plus vulnérables de la société mexicaine.
+The Díaz government's response to the Yaquis uprisings is a grim example of the regime's treatment of dissidents and ethnic minorities. Military repression was brutal, and communities that resisted were often subjected to extreme violence. Massacres were common, and survivors, rather than simply being released, were often forcibly moved to remote parts of the country. The deportation of the Yaquis to the Yucatán peninsula is one of the most tragic episodes of this period. In Yucatán, demand for labour for the henequén plantations was high. Henequén, also known as sisal, was a lucrative crop used to make rope and other products. Working conditions on these plantations were appalling, with long and exhausting working days, poor living conditions and little or no pay. The deported Yaquis were often treated like slaves, working in inhumane conditions with no possibility of returning home. For the Díaz regime and the plantation owners, it was a win-win situation: the government got rid of a rebel group, and the plantation owners got cheap labour. These actions have been widely criticised, both then and now, for their brutality and lack of humanity. They are an example of how the Díaz regime, despite its efforts at modernisation and development, often acted at the expense of the most vulnerable groups in Mexican society.
-L'ampleur de la déportation des Yaquis est stupéfiante et témoigne de la brutalité du régime de Díaz à l'égard des groupes indigènes qui résistaient à son autorité. La déportation massive des Yaquis n'était pas seulement une mesure punitive, mais aussi une entreprise lucrative pour les fonctionnaires et les propriétaires de plantations impliqués. Le fait que les planteurs du Yucatán aient payé pour chaque Yaqui déporté montre à quel point cette opération était systématisée et commercialisée. Le colonel, en tant qu'intermédiaire, recevait une commission pour chaque Yaqui déporté, tandis que le reste de l'argent allait directement au ministère de la Guerre. Cela montre que la déportation des Yaquis était non seulement une stratégie pour éliminer une résistance potentielle, mais aussi un moyen pour le régime de Díaz de générer des revenus. La déportation des Yaquis vers le Yucatán a eu des conséquences dévastatrices pour la communauté. Beaucoup sont morts en raison des conditions de travail inhumaines dans les plantations de henequén, tandis que d'autres ont succombé aux maladies. La culture et l'identité des Yaquis ont également été gravement affectées, car ils ont été arrachés à leur terre natale et dispersés dans une région étrangère. Cette tragédie est un exemple de la manière dont le régime de Díaz a souvent privilégié les intérêts économiques et politiques au détriment des droits et du bien-être des peuples indigènes du Mexique. Elle est un rappel sombre des conséquences de la politique de "modernisation" de Díaz lorsqu'elle est mise en œuvre sans égard pour les droits de l'homme et la justice sociale.
+The scale of the deportation of the Yaquis is staggering and demonstrates the brutality of the Díaz regime towards indigenous groups who resisted his rule. The mass deportation of the Yaquis was not only a punitive measure, but also a lucrative business for the officials and plantation owners involved. The fact that the Yucatán planters paid for each Yaqui deported shows the extent to which this operation was systematised and commercialised. The colonel, as intermediary, received a commission for each Yaqui deported, while the rest of the money went directly to the War Ministry. This shows that the deportation of the Yaquis was not only a strategy to eliminate potential resistance, but also a way for the Díaz regime to generate revenue. The deportation of the Yaquis to Yucatán had devastating consequences for the community. Many died as a result of the inhumane working conditions on the henequén plantations, while others succumbed to disease. The culture and identity of the Yaquis were also severely affected, as they were uprooted from their homeland and dispersed to a foreign region. This tragedy is an example of how the Díaz regime has often prioritised economic and political interests over the rights and well-being of Mexico's indigenous peoples. It is a sombre reminder of the consequences of Díaz's policy of "modernisation" when implemented without regard for human rights and social justice.
-La politique de déportation et de travail forcé mise en œuvre par le régime de Díaz à l'encontre des Yaquis est un exemple flagrant de l'exploitation et de la marginalisation des peuples indigènes au Mexique pendant cette période. Les Yaquis, comme de nombreux autres groupes indigènes, ont été considérés comme des obstacles au progrès et à la modernisation que Díaz cherchait à instaurer. Leur résistance à la confiscation de leurs terres et à l'ingérence du gouvernement dans leurs affaires a été rencontrée par une force brutale et une répression systématique. La déportation des Yaquis n'était pas seulement une mesure punitive, mais aussi une stratégie économique. En les déplaçant vers le Yucatán, le régime de Díaz a pu fournir une main-d'œuvre bon marché et exploitable aux plantations de henequén, tout en affaiblissant simultanément la résistance Yaqui dans le nord. Cette double motivation - politique et économique - a rendu la déportation d'autant plus cruelle et impitoyable. La destruction des communautés, de la culture et des modes de vie traditionnels des Yaquis a eu des conséquences durables. Non seulement cela a-t-il déraciné un peuple de sa terre ancestrale, mais cela a également effacé une partie de l'histoire et de la culture indigènes du Mexique. La perte de la terre, qui est intrinsèquement liée à l'identité et à la spiritualité des peuples indigènes, a été un coup dévastateur pour les Yaquis. La politique de Díaz à l'égard des Yaquis n'était qu'un exemple parmi d'autres de la manière dont son régime traitait les peuples indigènes et d'autres groupes marginalisés. Bien que le régime de Díaz ait été salué pour ses réalisations économiques et sa modernisation du Mexique, il est également responsable de graves violations des droits de l'homme et d'injustices sociales. Ces politiques, et d'autres semblables, ont semé les graines du mécontentement qui culmineront finalement dans la Révolution mexicaine de 1910.
+The policy of deportation and forced labour implemented by the Díaz regime against the Yaquis is a glaring example of the exploitation and marginalisation of indigenous peoples in Mexico during this period. The Yaquis, like many other indigenous groups, were seen as obstacles to the progress and modernisation that Díaz sought to bring about. Their resistance to the confiscation of their lands and government interference in their affairs was met with brutal force and systematic repression. The deportation of the Yaquis was not only a punitive measure, but also an economic strategy. By moving them to Yucatán, the Díaz regime was able to provide cheap, exploitable labour for the henequén plantations, while simultaneously weakening Yaqui resistance in the north. This dual motivation - political and economic - made the deportation all the more cruel and ruthless. The destruction of Yaqui communities, culture and traditional ways of life had lasting consequences. Not only did it uproot a people from their ancestral land, it also erased part of Mexico's indigenous history and culture. The loss of land, which is intrinsically linked to the identity and spirituality of indigenous peoples, was a devastating blow to the Yaquis. Díaz's policy towards the Yaquis was just one example of his regime's treatment of indigenous peoples and other marginalised groups. Although the Díaz regime was hailed for its economic achievements and modernisation of Mexico, it was also responsible for serious human rights violations and social injustices. These policies, and others like them, sowed the seeds of discontent that would eventually culminate in the Mexican Revolution of 1910.
-La période porfirienne, bien que marquée par une modernisation économique et une stabilité relative, était également caractérisée par une répression sévère de toute forme de dissidence. Le régime de Porfirio Díaz était déterminé à maintenir l'ordre et à assurer la stabilité à tout prix, même si cela signifiait violer les droits fondamentaux de ses citoyens. Les travailleurs, en particulier ceux du secteur minier et des industries naissantes, étaient souvent confrontés à des conditions de travail dangereuses, à de longues heures de travail et à des salaires insuffisants. Lorsqu'ils tentaient d'organiser des grèves ou des manifestations pour revendiquer de meilleurs salaires ou conditions de travail, ils étaient souvent confrontés à une violence brutale. Les grèves de Cananea en 1906 et de Rio Blanco en 1907 sont des exemples notables de la manière dont le régime a répondu par la force à la dissidence ouvrière. Dans les deux cas, les grèves ont été violemment réprimées par l'armée, faisant de nombreux morts et blessés parmi les travailleurs. Les opposants politiques, qu'ils soient libéraux, anarchistes ou autres, étaient également ciblés. Les journaux et les publications qui critiquaient le régime étaient souvent censurés ou fermés, et leurs rédacteurs et journalistes étaient arrêtés ou exilés. Les élections étaient truquées, et ceux qui osaient se présenter contre Díaz ou ses alliés étaient souvent intimidés, voire éliminés. Les communautés indigènes, comme les Yaquis, étaient particulièrement vulnérables à la répression. Outre les déportations et les massacres, de nombreuses communautés ont vu leurs terres confisquées au profit de grands propriétaires terriens ou d'entreprises étrangères. Ces actions ont souvent été justifiées au nom du progrès et de la modernisation, mais elles ont eu des conséquences dévastatrices pour les communautés touchées.
+The Porfirio period, although marked by economic modernisation and relative stability, was also characterised by severe repression of all forms of dissent. The regime of Porfirio Díaz was determined to maintain order and stability at all costs, even if this meant violating the fundamental rights of its citizens. Workers, particularly those in the mining and infant industries, were often faced with dangerous working conditions, long hours and poor pay. When they tried to organise strikes or demonstrations to demand better pay or working conditions, they were often met with brutal violence. The strikes in Cananea in 1906 and Rio Blanco in 1907 are notable examples of how the regime responded to labour dissent with force. In both cases, the strikes were violently repressed by the army, leaving many workers dead or injured. Political opponents, be they liberals, anarchists or others, were also targeted. Newspapers and publications critical of the regime were often censored or closed down, and their editors and journalists were arrested or exiled. Elections were rigged, and those who dared to run against Díaz or his allies were often intimidated or even eliminated. Indigenous communities, such as the Yaquis, were particularly vulnerable to repression. In addition to deportations and massacres, many communities saw their land confiscated in favour of large landowners or foreign companies. These actions were often justified in the name of progress and modernisation, but had devastating consequences for the communities affected.
-Le régime de Porfirio Díaz, bien que souvent loué pour sa modernisation du Mexique, a également été marqué par une répression politique sévère. La stabilité, souvent appelée "Paz Porfiriana", était maintenue en grande partie par la suppression des voix dissidentes et l'élimination des menaces potentielles au pouvoir de Díaz. Les opposants politiques, qu'ils soient des libéraux radicaux, des journalistes critiques, des activistes ou même des membres de l'élite qui n'étaient pas en phase avec les politiques de Díaz, étaient souvent confrontés à des conséquences graves. Les arrestations arbitraires étaient courantes, et les prisons mexicaines de l'époque étaient remplies de prisonniers politiques. Beaucoup d'entre eux étaient détenus sans procès, et la torture en détention n'était pas rare. L'exil était une autre tactique couramment utilisée par le régime de Díaz. De nombreux opposants politiques ont été contraints de quitter le pays pour échapper à la persécution. Certains d'entre eux ont continué à s'opposer au régime depuis l'étranger, en organisant des groupes d'opposition ou en publiant des écrits critiques. La censure était également omniprésente. Les journaux et les éditeurs qui osaient critiquer le gouvernement étaient fermés ou subissaient des pressions pour modérer leur ton. Les journalistes qui ne se conformaient pas étaient souvent arrêtés ou menacés. Cette censure a créé un environnement où les médias étaient largement contrôlés par l'État, et où la critique du gouvernement était rarement, voire jamais, entendue. Ce climat de peur et d'intimidation a eu un effet paralysant sur la société mexicaine. Beaucoup craignaient de s'exprimer ouvertement contre le régime, de participer à des manifestations ou même de discuter de politique en privé. La répression a également empêché l'émergence d'une opposition politique organisée, car les groupes d'opposition étaient souvent infiltrés par des informateurs gouvernementaux et leurs membres étaient arrêtés.
+The regime of Porfirio Díaz, although often praised for its modernisation of Mexico, was also marked by severe political repression. Stability, often referred to as "Paz Porfiriana", was maintained largely by suppressing dissenting voices and eliminating potential threats to Díaz's power. Political opponents, whether radical liberals, critical journalists, activists or even members of the elite who disagreed with Díaz's policies, often faced serious consequences. Arbitrary arrests were commonplace, and Mexican prisons at the time were full of political prisoners. Many were held without trial, and torture in custody was not uncommon. Exile was another tactic commonly used by the Díaz regime. Many political opponents were forced to leave the country to escape persecution. Some continued to oppose the regime from abroad, organising opposition groups or publishing critical writings. Censorship was also omnipresent. Newspapers and publishers that dared to criticise the government were closed down or pressured to moderate their tone. Journalists who did not comply were often arrested or threatened. This censorship created an environment where the media were largely controlled by the state, and where criticism of the government was rarely, if ever, heard. This climate of fear and intimidation had a paralysing effect on Mexican society. Many were afraid to speak out against the regime, to take part in demonstrations or even to discuss politics in private. The repression also prevented the emergence of an organised political opposition, as opposition groups were often infiltrated by government informers and their members arrested.
-La longévité du régime de Porfirio Díaz est impressionnante. Cependant, malgré sa capacité à maintenir le pouvoir pendant une si longue période, une série de facteurs internes et externes ont finalement conduit à sa chute. L'un des problèmes majeurs était les inégalités socio-économiques. Malgré une croissance économique notable, les fruits de cette prospérité n'étaient pas répartis équitablement. Une élite restreinte détenait une grande partie des terres et des richesses du pays, laissant la majorité de la population dans la pauvreté et sans terre. Cette inégalité croissante a alimenté le mécontentement parmi les classes populaires. La répression politique était un autre facteur clé. Díaz a constamment supprimé la liberté d'expression et l'opposition politique, créant un climat de méfiance et de peur. Cependant, cette répression a également conduit à une opposition souterraine et à une résistance qui cherchaient des moyens de renverser le régime. De plus, la confiscation des terres communales et leur remise à des propriétaires terriens privés ou à des entreprises étrangères ont provoqué la colère des communautés rurales et indigènes, faisant de la réforme agraire une question centrale. L'influence croissante des investissements étrangers, en particulier des États-Unis, a également été source de préoccupation. La dépendance du Mexique à l'égard de ces investissements a suscité des inquiétudes quant à la souveraineté nationale et a alimenté un sentiment anti-impérialiste. Parallèlement, bien que le régime de Díaz ait connu des périodes de croissance économique, il a également traversé des moments de récession qui ont exacerbé les tensions sociales. Les changements sociaux et culturels ont également joué un rôle. L'éducation et la modernisation ont conduit à l'émergence d'une classe moyenne et d'une intelligentsia qui étaient de plus en plus en désaccord avec les politiques autoritaires de Díaz. De plus, en 1910, Díaz, alors âgé de plus de 80 ans, a suscité des spéculations sur sa succession, entraînant des luttes de pouvoir au sein de l'élite dirigeante. Sa décision de se présenter à nouveau aux élections, malgré une promesse antérieure de ne pas le faire, et les allégations de fraude électorale qui ont suivi, ont été le catalyseur qui a déclenché la Révolution mexicaine.
+The longevity of the Porfirio Díaz regime is impressive. However, despite his ability to hold on to power for so long, a series of internal and external factors eventually led to his downfall. One of the major problems was socio-economic inequality. Despite significant economic growth, the fruits of this prosperity were not distributed equitably. A small elite held much of the country's land and wealth, leaving the majority of the population poor and landless. This growing inequality fuelled discontent among the working classes. Political repression was another key factor. Díaz constantly suppressed freedom of expression and political opposition, creating a climate of mistrust and fear. However, this repression also led to an underground opposition and resistance that sought ways to overthrow the regime. In addition, the confiscation of communal land and its handover to private landowners or foreign companies provoked the anger of rural and indigenous communities, making land reform a central issue. The growing influence of foreign investment, particularly from the United States, has also been a source of concern. Mexico's dependence on such investment has raised concerns about national sovereignty and fuelled anti-imperialist sentiment. At the same time, although the Díaz regime experienced periods of economic growth, it also went through periods of recession, which exacerbated social tensions. Social and cultural changes also played a role. Education and modernisation led to the emergence of a middle class and an intelligentsia that increasingly disagreed with Díaz's authoritarian policies. Moreover, in 1910, Díaz, then aged over 80, sparked speculation about his succession, leading to power struggles within the ruling elite. His decision to stand for re-election, despite an earlier promise not to do so, and the subsequent allegations of electoral fraud, were the catalyst that sparked the Mexican Revolution.
-Tout d'abord, le mécontentement croissant des classes ouvrières et des paysans, dû à la concentration de la propriété foncière et à la suppression des droits du travail. Le fossé entre l'élite riche et la majorité pauvre se creusait, et de nombreux Mexicains avaient du mal à gagner leur vie. En outre, le manque de représentation politique et la suppression de la dissidence ont suscité la frustration et la colère de la population.  Deuxièmement, l'influence étrangère, en particulier des États-Unis, dans l'économie mexicaine était une source de tension. Les investisseurs étrangers possédaient d'importantes portions de terres, de mines, de chemins de fer et d'autres infrastructures clés. Bien que ces investissements aient contribué à la modernisation du Mexique, ils ont également renforcé le sentiment que le pays perdait son autonomie économique et sa souveraineté. De nombreux Mexicains ont ressenti que les bénéfices de ces investissements allaient principalement à des intérêts étrangers et à une élite nationale, plutôt qu'à la population dans son ensemble. Troisièmement, la politique de Díaz en matière de relations avec l'Église catholique a également joué un rôle. Bien que Díaz ait adopté une approche pragmatique, permettant à l'Église de retrouver une partie de son influence en échange de son soutien, cette relation a été critiquée par les libéraux radicaux qui estimaient que l'Église avait trop d'influence, et par les conservateurs qui estimaient que Díaz n'allait pas assez loin pour restaurer le pouvoir de l'Église. Enfin, la nature même du régime autoritaire de Díaz était en elle-même une source de tension. En supprimant la liberté de la presse, en emprisonnant les opposants et en utilisant la force pour réprimer les manifestations et les grèves, Díaz a créé un climat de peur et de méfiance. Bien que ces tactiques aient pu maintenir l'ordre à court terme, elles ont également semé les graines de la révolte. Lorsque les tensions ont finalement éclaté, elles ont conduit à une révolution qui a mis fin à près de trente ans de règne de Díaz et a transformé le Mexique pour les décennies à venir.
+Firstly, there was the growing discontent of the working classes and peasants, due to the concentration of land ownership and the suppression of labour rights. The gap between the rich elite and the poor majority was widening, and many Mexicans were struggling to make a living. In addition, the lack of political representation and the suppression of dissent led to public frustration and anger. Secondly, foreign influence, particularly from the United States, in the Mexican economy was a source of tension. Foreign investors owned large swathes of land, mines, railways and other key infrastructure. Although these investments contributed to Mexico's modernisation, they also reinforced the feeling that the country was losing its economic autonomy and sovereignty. Many Mexicans felt that the benefits of these investments went mainly to foreign interests and a national elite, rather than to the population as a whole. Thirdly, Díaz's policy on relations with the Catholic Church also played a role. Although Díaz adopted a pragmatic approach, allowing the Church to regain some of its influence in exchange for his support, this relationship was criticised by radical liberals who felt that the Church had too much influence, and by conservatives who felt that Díaz did not go far enough in restoring the Church's power. Finally, the very nature of Díaz's authoritarian regime was itself a source of tension. By suppressing freedom of the press, imprisoning opponents and using force to suppress demonstrations and strikes, Díaz created a climate of fear and mistrust. While these tactics may have maintained order in the short term, they also sowed the seeds of revolt. When tensions finally boiled over, they led to a revolution that ended nearly thirty years of Díaz rule and transformed Mexico for decades to come.
-Sous le régime de Porfirio Diaz, le Mexique a connu une série de défis qui ont finalement conduit à sa chute. L'un des principaux problèmes était la dépendance économique du pays à l'égard des exportations de matières premières. Bien que ces exportations aient initialement stimulé la croissance économique, elles ont également rendu le pays vulnérable aux fluctuations des marchés mondiaux. Lorsque la demande de ces matières premières a chuté, l'économie mexicaine a été durement touchée, entraînant une stagnation économique et une montée du mécontentement parmi la population. La manière dont Diaz a géré l'ordre public a également été source de tensions. Sa réponse brutale aux grèves et à l'opposition politique a non seulement suscité la colère, mais aussi renforcé l'idée que le régime était oppressif et indifférent aux besoins et aux droits de ses citoyens. La situation des peuples indigènes, contraints à la migration et au travail forcé, a été particulièrement tragique. Ces actions ont non seulement détruit des communautés entières, mais ont également renforcé le sentiment que le régime de Diaz privilégiait les intérêts économiques sur les droits humains. Enfin, la longévité du règne de Diaz et sa manipulation flagrante du système électoral ont érodé toute illusion de démocratie au Mexique. Après plus de trois décennies au pouvoir, de nombreux Mexicains étaient frustrés par le manque de renouvellement politique et le sentiment que Diaz était plus un dictateur qu'un président démocratiquement élu. Ce mécontentement croissant, combiné aux autres défis auxquels le pays était confronté, a créé un environnement propice à la révolution et au changement.
+Under Porfirio Diaz, Mexico faced a series of challenges that eventually led to his downfall. One of the main problems was the country's economic dependence on exports of raw materials. Although these exports initially stimulated economic growth, they also left the country vulnerable to fluctuations in world markets. When demand for these raw materials plummeted, the Mexican economy was hit hard, leading to economic stagnation and growing discontent among the population. Diaz's handling of law and order was also a source of tension. His brutal response to strikes and political opposition not only provoked anger, but also reinforced the idea that the regime was oppressive and indifferent to the needs and rights of its citizens. The situation of indigenous peoples, forced into migration and forced labour, was particularly tragic. These actions not only destroyed entire communities, but also reinforced the feeling that the Diaz regime was putting economic interests ahead of human rights. Finally, the longevity of Diaz's rule and his blatant manipulation of the electoral system have eroded any illusion of democracy in Mexico. After more than three decades in power, many Mexicans were frustrated by the lack of political renewal and the feeling that Diaz was more of a dictator than a democratically elected president. This growing discontent, combined with the other challenges facing the country, created an environment conducive to revolution and change.
-La Révolution mexicaine, qui a débuté en 1910, a été une réponse directe aux nombreuses années d'autoritarisme et d'inégalités socio-économiques sous le régime de Porfirio Díaz. Elle a été alimentée par le mécontentement croissant de divers secteurs de la société mexicaine, allant des classes ouvrières et paysannes opprimées aux intellectuels et aux classes moyennes qui aspiraient à une véritable démocratie et à une réforme agraire. Francisco Madero, un propriétaire terrien aisé et un opposant à Díaz, a été l'un des premiers à défier ouvertement le régime. Après avoir été emprisonné pour avoir contesté les élections de 1910, il a appelé à une révolte armée contre Díaz. Ce qui a commencé comme une série de soulèvements locaux s'est rapidement transformé en une révolution à part entière, avec divers leaders révolutionnaires, tels qu'Emiliano Zapata et Pancho Villa, rejoignant la cause avec leurs propres armées et agendas. La révolution a été marquée par une série de batailles, de coups d'État et de changements de leadership. Elle a vu la montée et la chute de plusieurs gouvernements, chacun avec sa propre vision de ce que devrait être le Mexique post-porfirien. Emiliano Zapata, par exemple, a plaidé pour une réforme agraire radicale et la restitution des terres aux communautés paysannes, tandis que d'autres leaders avaient des visions différentes pour l'avenir du pays. Après une décennie de conflit et d'instabilité, la révolution a finalement abouti à la promulgation de la Constitution de 1917, qui a établi le cadre pour le Mexique moderne. Cette constitution a incorporé de nombreuses réformes sociales et politiques, telles que la réforme agraire, les droits des travailleurs et l'éducation publique, tout en limitant le pouvoir et l'influence de l'Église et des entreprises étrangères.
+The Mexican Revolution, which began in 1910, was a direct response to the many years of authoritarianism and socio-economic inequality under the regime of Porfirio Díaz. It was fuelled by the growing discontent of various sectors of Mexican society, ranging from the oppressed working and peasant classes to intellectuals and the middle classes who aspired to genuine democracy and land reform. Francisco Madero, a wealthy landowner and opponent of Díaz, was one of the first to openly challenge the regime. After being imprisoned for contesting the 1910 elections, he called for an armed revolt against Díaz. What began as a series of local uprisings quickly developed into a full-fledged revolution, with various revolutionary leaders, such as Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa, joining the cause with their own armies and agendas. The revolution was marked by a series of battles, coups and changes of leadership. It saw the rise and fall of several governments, each with its own vision of what a post-porfirien Mexico should be. Emiliano Zapata, for example, advocated radical land reform and the return of land to peasant communities, while other leaders had different visions for the country's future. After a decade of conflict and instability, the revolution finally led to the promulgation of the 1917 Constitution, which established the framework for modern Mexico. This constitution incorporated numerous social and political reforms, such as land reform, workers' rights and public education, while limiting the power and influence of the Church and foreign corporations.
-= La Première République du Brésil : 1889 - 1930 =
+= The First Republic of Brazil: 1889 - 1930 =
-[[File:Benedito Calixto - Proclamação da República, 1893.jpg|thumb|left|200px|La proclamation de la République, par Benedito Calixto.]]
+[[File:Benedito Calixto - Proclamação da República, 1893.jpg|thumb|left|200px|The proclamation of the Republic, by Benedito Calixto.]]
 La fin de l'esclavage en 1888 avec la "Lei Áurea" (Loi d'Or) a posé un défi majeur à l'économie brésilienne, en particulier dans les secteurs du café et de la canne à sucre qui dépendaient fortement de la main-d'œuvre esclave. Avec l'abolition, l'élite brésilienne a dû trouver des moyens de remplacer cette main-d'œuvre. L'une des solutions adoptées a été d'encourager l'immigration européenne, principalement d'Italie, du Portugal, d'Espagne et d'Allemagne. Ces immigrants étaient souvent attirés par la promesse de terres et d'opportunités, et ils sont venus en grand nombre pour travailler dans les plantations de café de l'État de São Paulo et d'autres régions. L'immigration a également été encouragée pour "blanchir" la population, car il y avait une croyance répandue parmi l'élite que les immigrants européens apporteraient une "amélioration" à la composition raciale et culturelle du Brésil. La transition vers la République en 1889 a également marqué un tournant dans la politique brésilienne. La nouvelle constitution a cherché à centraliser le pouvoir, réduisant l'autonomie des provinces. Cela a été fait dans le but de moderniser le pays et de le rendre plus compétitif sur la scène internationale. Le nouveau régime républicain a également cherché à promouvoir l'industrialisation, en encourageant les investissements étrangers et en modernisant les infrastructures, telles que les chemins de fer et les ports. Cependant, malgré ces efforts de modernisation, la République a été marquée par des inégalités socio-économiques persistantes. L'élite terrienne et industrielle a continué à dominer la politique et l'économie, tandis que la majorité de la population, y compris les anciens esclaves et les travailleurs ruraux, est restée marginalisée. De plus, la politique sous la Première République (1889-1930) a été caractérisée par le "coronelismo", un système dans lequel les "coronéis" (chefs locaux) exerçaient un contrôle quasi féodal sur les régions rurales, en échange de leur soutien au gouvernement central.

« Regimes of Order and Progress in Latin America: 1875 - 1910 » : différence entre les versions