Mexico and Cuba underwent major revolutions led by rebels who opposed their current presidents. The revolutionaries in both countries were mainly concerned with the industrialization and modernization that was occurring within their countries. The uprisings resulted in the countries shared beliefs against foreign imperialism, against elites having so much control on their counties and push for land reforms. In the long run Mexico faired better after their revolution than Cuba. Cuba still experiences hostile tensions with the U.S. today and still practices rationing.
Prior to the revolution, Mexicans were unhappy under the government of Porfirio Diaz. After the revolution, many decades of one-party rule continued in Mexico. There were some similar components between the Russian Revolution and the Mexican Revolution. Both of these revolutions were influenced by a system of ideas that would benefit the lower classes. They both started after disloyalty to an all-powerful political leader.
All three of these revolutions were caused by political instability in the country these revolutions took place in. Such as in Mexico leaders were tyrannical and changed laws in order to keep them in power, just as Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna did. In a different way, there was political instability in Britain due to there being high taxes, little representation in
Porfirio Diaz was the dictator of Mexico, in the years of 1884 to 1911, who sought to modernize Mexico through a series of economic and social policies he had emplaced onto the country–the country consisted of the rural population and the prosperous upper class. Due to political stability, and lack of wealth–under the reign of Porfirio–there was commotion, especially amongst the middle and lower classes. Until Diaz took over and decided it was best to improve the economic stability of the country since the mexican economy was far underdeveloped. In Diaz’ journey for modernization, foreign investments originated from the implemented policies which would ultimately build Mexico back up and into a thriving country. Some Historians have assumed
For one, the lasting legacy of feudalism continued as liberalism and conservatism strived to prove each other unworthy, and Caudillo powers gave military elements to newly-pronounced governments. The shifts between dictatorship and civilian government were frequent and often fierce, and the “criteria” of ruling legitimacy fell heavily on the economic performance of a state, which often fluctuated due to the state’s economic dependency on basic, raw material exports to Europe. In the Caudillo era of several states including 1858-1863 Venezuela, Mexico under Santa Anna, and early Peru years, leaders became military dictators, and civil rebellions flamed. To this extent, a military seed had been planted in Latin America, which, according to Alfred Stepan, may have given some clue to the 1960s tide of New Professionalism also aimed at internal security as well as military politicization. The political and economic instability greatly disturbed the development of life quality in Latin America as a
Since there was debt because of the war, the economy was already very bad in Britain – therefore they taxed the colonies. When the colonies started boycotting British products and threatened to stop trading with them all together, it was successful because Britain’s economy wasn’t strong enough to handle those things. The merchants in Britain couldn’t afford to have trade with America end. If the British merchants were hurt, this would thus hurt The economy as a whole in Britain. In later decades, in the War of 1812, America would try to stop trade with Britain again using a method called embargo, which would not be effective because they did not have the debt that the War had caused.
The clip Revolutionary Leaders is about the Mexican revolution, what caused the war and the two main leaders of this war. The revolutionary leaders were Emiliano Zapata, who was in charge of the south and Francisco (‘Pancho’) Villa, who was in charge of the north. Both men wanted land reform and a weaker central government, but had different views for the land reforms. The people of Mexico were not happy with their government. A Zapatista veteran explained that, “the oppression was tremendous.
This leads to the next problem of the country’s economic failure, oil dependency. Venezuela is highly dependant on it’s oil production that it diversified neither its economy nor its electricity supply. Also, the excessive printing of money did not help in any way but losing it’s value and brought the country down with it. Venezuelans are unhappy with the lifestyle they have been facing up till this day. Will Venezuela be able to fight and end the hyperinflation like how Zimbabwe
The independence of Latin America was marked by the destruction of population, farms, mines, and trade. Consequently, Latin America lacked the resources needed to develop itself and was largely dependent on foreign investment from Europe and America. Strayer supports this by arguing that “Latin America as a whole became more closely integrated into a world economy driven by the industrialization of Western Europe and North America” Hence Latin America was not able to partake in the industrialization or create an ecosystem supportive of local innovation and depended on foreign investment for technology. Moreover, this meant that the technology introduced to Latin America was limited to the interests of these foreign investors in Latin America which were mainly related to agriculture. Strayer further supplements this argument as “By l9IO, U.S. business interests controlled 40% of Mexican property and produced half of its oil.” Therefore, Latin America never really escaped the control of Europe or North America and remained reliant on to them through technology and as a result became less
As the country experienced shortage in goods, the government relied on the oil revenue. By using the oli revenue Venezuela offset the shortage. The problem was that oil sales were the only solution to stabilize their economic. In other words they were considerably dependent on oil sales. As the oil price fell, the government weren’t able to solve the shortage of goods.