根据 Aline Helg 的演讲改编^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]

Languages

Deutsch English Español Français Italiano

二十世纪之交，拉丁美洲出现了一些倡导 "秩序与进步 "的政权。在实证主义和现代化理想的激励下，这些政权往往由专制统治者领导，力图实现国家工业化、刺激经济增长并建立强有力的中央集权。这些政权在推动基础设施现代化和改善公共服务等值得称赞的举措的同时，也是政治压迫、践踏人权、权力和财富集中于狭隘精英阶层的代名词。

墨西哥就是一个典型的例子。1876 年至 1910 年，在波菲里奥-迪亚斯的统治下，墨西哥迅速实现了现代化，修建了铁路并吸引了外国投资。然而，在这个被称为 "波菲里奥时代 "的时期，不平等、严厉镇压和侵犯人权的现象也日益加剧，不满情绪愈演愈烈，最终导致了 1910-1920 年的墨西哥革命。

这一时期还受到西方意识形态的影响，特别是种族主义和社会达尔文主义。这些观念常常被用来为剥削土著人和非裔拉美人等边缘群体辩护。即使在奴隶制正式废除之后，这些意识形态仍强化了强迫劳动等剥削行为。

经济自由主义虽然主张尽量减少国家干预，但实际上在拉丁美洲的表现是国家积极支持，有利于大地主和工业家。与此同时，还制定了移民政策，鼓励欧洲移民，目的是 "美白 "人口，这反映了当时的种族偏见和统治精英的利益。

实证主义意识形态

拉丁美洲的背景

19 世纪最后一个季度，刚刚结束独立战争的拉丁美洲正在寻找建立年轻共和国的模式。在对现代化的渴望以及政治和社会不稳定的背景下，主要由法国奥古斯特-孔德（Auguste Comte）提出的实证主义哲学找到了肥沃的土壤。实证主义坚信科学和理性是理解和改造社会的手段，因此被许多拉美知识分子和领导人所采用。例如，实证主义在巴西留下了不可磨灭的印记。巴西的国家格言 "秩序与进步"（Ordem e Progresso）就是这种影响的直接见证。巴西的实证主义者深信，需要一个开明的精英来引导国家走向现代化。在墨西哥，波菲里奥-迪亚斯（Porfirio Díaz）政权（被称为 "波菲里亚托"（Porfiriato））采用实证主义方法来实现国家现代化。这涉及对基础设施、教育和工业的大规模投资，但同时也伴随着政治压迫。实证主义在拉丁美洲的采用也可以看作是对美帝国主义崛起的回应。通过门罗主义和西奥多-罗斯福的 "大棒 "政策，美国被视为迫在眉睫的威胁。实证主义为拉美国家提供了一条实现内部发展和现代化的道路，而无需屈服于美国的影响或干预。

实证主义源于欧洲，19 世纪末在拉丁美洲引起了特别的共鸣。这种强调科学、理性和进步的哲学成为许多拉美领导人寻求国家变革的支柱。实证主义的吸引力主要在于其对现代性的承诺。当时，拉丁美洲在经历了几十年的殖民地和后殖民斗争之后，正在寻求自我定位，实证主义为国家发展提供了一个清晰的模式。领导人相信，通过采取科学合理的治理方法，他们可以加快现代化进程，同时建立急需的稳定。国家成为这场变革的主要参与者。在实证主义的影响下，许多政府试图集中权力，因为他们相信，要实现现代化的雄心壮志，一个强大的国家是必不可少的。中央集权的目的是消除低效率现象，建立一个更加协调一致的结构来执行公共政策。基础设施建设成为重中之重。政府投资建设铁路、港口、公路和电报，促进贸易、通信和国家一体化。这些项目不仅是进步的象征，而且对于整合以前孤立的地区和刺激经济至关重要。教育和公共卫生也再次受到关注。实证主义领导人坚信，教育是进步的关键。他们修建学校，改革课程，努力提高识字率。同样，由于认识到健康、生产力和进步之间的联系，他们还发起了改善公共卫生、防治疾病和建立医院的倡议。

尽管实证主义承诺进步和现代化，但它在拉丁美洲也带来了令人担忧的后果。在理性和秩序的幌子下，这种哲学常常被滥用来为专制和镇压政策辩护。实证主义的核心思想是，社会应在科学和理性的基础上，通过确定的阶段取得进步。然而，这种线性的进步观导致一些领导人认为，如果社会要进步，就必须消除一切被视为 "落后 "或 "原始 "的东西。在这种情况下，政治异见往往与 "落后 "或 "混乱 "的思想联系在一起，被视为进步的障碍。因此，许多实证主义政权以 "秩序与进步 "的名义镇压甚至消灭政治反对派。此外，实证主义的进步观往往带有种族中心主义的偏见。具有独特传统和生活方式的本土文化往往被视为 "劣等 "发展阶段的残余。这种观点导致了强制同化政策，即鼓励或经常强迫土著居民放弃自己的传统，转而接受主流文化。在某些情况下，这甚至导致强迫流离失所和种族灭绝政策。与此同时，为了 "美白 "人口，使其更加同质化，许多国家鼓励欧洲移民。其基本理念是，欧洲移民被视为文化和进步的载体，他们的到来将冲淡土著和非裔拉美人的影响，加速现代化进程。

19 世纪中叶，拉丁美洲经历了重大变革，刺激了经济发展，加强了在世界舞台上的作用。交通路线的扩展和人口的增长是经济增长的关键因素，特别是在原材料的生产和出口方面。铁路建设是这一时期最具变革性的创新之一。这些铁路穿越以前无法到达的地形，将偏远地区与城市中心和港口连接起来。这不仅促进了银、金和铜等贵重矿产的开采，还使将这些资源运往港口出口成为可能。铁路还促进了商业性农业的发展，使咖啡、糖、可可和橡胶等产品的运输效率更高、成本更低。公路虽然没有铁路那么具有革命性，但也发挥了至关重要的作用，特别是在没有铁路或铁路在经济上不可行的地区。公路促进了货物和人员的流动，加强了城镇与农村之间的经济联系。与此同时，港口也实现了现代化，以满足日益增长的出口需求。港口基础设施的改善使其能够容纳更大的船只，提高了出口能力，促进了与欧洲、美国和其他地区的贸易。人口增长也发挥了关键作用。随着人口的增长，矿山、种植园和新兴工业的劳动力更加充足。此外，移民，尤其是来自欧洲的移民，带来了技能、技术和资金，帮助实现了经济现代化。

19 世纪拉丁美洲的人口增长对该地区的经济产生了深远影响。人口增长意味着对商品和服务的需求增加，在拉丁美洲，这意味着对原材料和农产品的需求增加。在国家一级，人口增长导致对食品、服装和其他必需品的需求增加。对玉米、小麦、咖啡、糖和可可等农产品的需求增长，刺激了农田面积的扩大，并引入了更加集约化和专业化的耕作方法。这种内部需求也促进了当地工业的发展，将这些原材料转化为成品，如制糖厂和咖啡烘焙厂。在国际上，欧洲和北美的工业时代创造了前所未有的原材料需求。工业化国家都在寻找可靠的原材料来源为其工厂提供原料，而拥有丰富自然资源的拉丁美洲则成为了重要的供应商。例如，亚马逊河流域的橡胶是欧洲和北美工厂生产轮胎的必需品，而银和铜等矿产则用于出口，以满足冶金工业的需求。这些产业的扩张对经济产生了重大影响。它为成千上万的人创造了就业机会，从农场工人和矿工到商人和企业家。就业增长反过来又刺激了其他经济部门。例如，随着赚取工资的人越来越多，对商品和服务的需求也随之增加，从而促进了贸易和服务业的发展。

19 世纪原材料生产和出口的繁荣使拉丁美洲成为全球经济的重要参与者。然而，这种转变给该地区带来了双刃剑般的后果。对原材料出口的依赖造成了通常所说的 "现金经济"。在这种模式下，一个国家的出口收入严重依赖一种或几种资源。虽然在高需求和高价格时期，这种模式会带来丰厚的利润，但也会使国家面临巨大的波动。如果世界市场商品价格下跌，就会导致经济危机。许多拉美国家曾多次经历过这种情况，主要资源价格下跌导致经济衰退、债务和经济不稳定。这种依赖性还强化了不平等的经济结构。出口产业往往由国家精英或外国利益集团控制。这些集团从资源出口中积累了巨额财富，而大多数人却很少或根本没有受益。在许多情况下，这些行业的工人工资微薄，工作条件艰苦，无法享受社会福利或劳动保护。此外，投资和资源集中在出口行业往往忽视了其他经济部门的发展。这限制了经济多样化的发展，加剧了对原材料的依赖。

19 世纪末和 20 世纪初，拉丁美洲与美国北部和西部之间的差距显著扩大，反映了受经济、政治和社会因素综合影响的不同发展轨迹。在经济方面，当美国和西欧正在经历快速工业化的时候，大多数拉美国家仍以农业为主，严重依赖原材料出口。这种依赖性使它们受到世界价格波动的影响。外国在拉美的投资虽然数额巨大，但往往集中在采矿等采掘业。此外，这些投资所产生的大部分利润都回到了投资国，限制了拉美国家的经济利益。在基础设施方面，虽然进行了投资，但主要集中在支持出口产业上，有时忽视了发展强大的国内市场。在政治上，美国和西欧享有的相对稳定与许多拉美国家的频繁动荡形成鲜明对比，政变、革命和政府更迭频繁。此外，美国的外交政策，特别是门罗主义和 "大棒 "政策，加强了其在该地区的影响力，这往往损害了当地的利益。在社会方面，拉丁美洲继续与殖民时期遗留下来的根深蒂固的不平等结构作斗争。在这些不平等中，少数精英掌握了大部分财富和权力，阻碍了包容性经济发展，往往也是社会和政治紧张局势的根源。此外，美国和西欧在教育方面投入巨资，但拉丁美洲与之不同，受教育的机会有限，尤其是农村人口和土著人口。

19 世纪末和 20 世纪初，拉丁美洲与美国北部和西部在经济、政治和社会方面的差异日益明显，反映了不同的发展轨迹，并影响了它们在国际舞台上的关系。在经济上，美国北部和西部成功地实现了经济多元化，摆脱了对原材料的完全依赖，走上了工业化道路。这种多样化在一定程度上抵御了全球市场的变幻莫测。另一方面，拉丁美洲对原材料出口的依赖性增加，受制于国际价格波动。这种经济上的脆弱性不仅减缓了该地区的增长速度，而且还扩大了与工业化程度较高国家之间的贫富差距，加剧了两个地区之间生活水平的差距。在政治上，美国政府的稳定和民主性质为商业创造了有利环境，吸引了外国投资和寻求更好机会和公民自由的移民。另一方面，拉丁美洲的政权往往是专制的，经历过政治不稳定时期，政变、革命以及在许多情况下公然侵犯人权的事件时有发生。这些情况不仅阻碍了外国投资，还导致许多拉美人到其他地方，特别是美国寻求避难。在社会方面，美国投入巨资发展教育和卫生系统，使其大部分人口的生活水平普遍提高。拉丁美洲尽管拥有丰富的文化和自然资源，但仍在与严重的不平等作斗争。少数精英阶层掌握着大部分财富和权力，而大多数人口则面临着各种挑战，如难以获得优质教育、适当的医疗保健和经济机会。

二十世纪之交，美洲的地缘政治和经济格局发生了重大变化。虽然英国在历史上一直是拉丁美洲的主要贸易伙伴和投资者，但美国的崛起改变了这一态势。美国在巩固了自身的工业和经济发展之后，开始将目光投向南方，以扩大其影响力和经济利益。从英国到美国在拉丁美洲影响力的转变，不仅仅是一个贸易和投资问题。它是更广泛的权力和影响力投射的一部分。美国通过门罗主义和后来的 "大棒 "政策，明确表示要在西半球发挥主导作用。在经济上，美国对拉丁美洲的关键基础设施进行了大量投资，包括铁路、港口和标志性的巴拿马运河。这些投资无疑有助于拉丁美洲部分地区的现代化和贸易便利化。然而，这些投资往往是以对美国公司有利的条件进行的，有时会损害当地利益。在政治上，美国日益增长的影响力产生了各种后果。在某些情况下，美国支持或扶植有利于其利益的政权，即使这意味着镇压民主或民族主义运动。这有时会导致不稳定时期或专制政权忽视本国人民的权利和需求。在文化方面，从音乐和电影到时尚和语言，许多领域都开始感受到美国的影响。这为丰富的文化交流铺平了道路，但也引发了对当地文化受到侵蚀和文化同质化的担忧。

社会达尔文主义的影响

社会达尔文主义是对查尔斯-达尔文进化论的错误解读，对 19 世纪末 20 世纪初的美国思想产生了深远的、往往是破坏性的影响。一些人将 "适者生存 "的思想推及人类社会，认为某些种族或族裔群体天生优于其他种族或族裔群体。在美国，这种思想被用来支持这样一种观点，即盎格鲁-撒克逊人在经济和政治上的统治地位是其生物优越性的结果。这种观念对美国许多群体产生了深刻的歧视性后果。移民，尤其是来自东欧和南欧的移民，被视为生物劣等，不适合成为美国公民。已经受到奴隶制压迫的非裔美国人，又面临着一种新的伪科学理由来为种族隔离和种族歧视辩护。美国原住民则被描绘成 "濒临灭绝的种族"，这为他们被强制迁移和强制同化提供了理由。社会达尔文主义也影响了美国的政策。例如，移民法就是根据种族优越的信念制定的，限制来自被认为 "生物劣等 "地区的移民。种族隔离，尤其是在南方，不仅有公开的偏见，还有关于种族优越性的伪科学信仰。

社会达尔文主义的影响不仅限于北美。在拉丁美洲，这种意识形态也找到了肥沃的土壤，在现代化和国家变革的关键时期对社会政策和态度产生了深远的影响。社会达尔文主义从多棱镜的角度解释了拉丁美洲复杂的种族和文化，包括土著人、非洲人和欧洲人。往往是欧洲后裔的精英们采用这种意识形态来证明其经济和政治统治的合理性并使之永久化。通过断言非洲和美洲印第安人后裔群体在生物学上低人一等，他们能够将严重的不平等和欠发达合理化，认为这是该地区种族构成的必然结果。这种意识形态对土著居民和非裔拉丁美洲人造成了毁灭性的后果。土著文化及其语言、传统和信仰受到积极压制。许多国家实施强迫同化政策，试图通过将这些人口融入主流文化来 "文明化 "他们。土著人的土地往往被没收，迫使他们在类似奴役的条件下为地主精英工作。非裔拉美人也是这种意识形态的受害者。尽管他们对该地区的文化、经济和社会做出了重大贡献，但却被置于从属地位，经常面临歧视、边缘化和贫困。财富和权力集中在少数精英手中，这种生物优越性的信念为这种现象提供了理由。精英们以社会达尔文主义为挡箭牌，辩称不平等是自然的、不可避免的。

19 世纪和 20 世纪初，拉丁美洲发生了一场思想变革。与某些欧洲强国和北美相比，拉美国家发展相对落后，面对这一现实，拉美的精英们试图理解并改变这种状况。与某些可能将落后归咎于天意或不可改变因素的宿命论解释相反，许多拉美思想家和领导人采取了更加积极主动的观点。他们认为落后不是不可避免的，而是历史行为、决定和环境造成的。这种观点部分受到当时欧洲思潮的影响，如实证主义，它重视理性、科学和进步。如果说落后是人类选择的结果，那么落后也可以通过人类有意识的行动加以克服。这种信念促使整个非洲大陆开展了一系列现代化工作。各国政府投资建设铁路和港口等基础设施，以促进贸易和经济一体化。它们努力改革教育体系，促进工业化，吸引外国投资。许多国家还采取移民政策来 "美白 "本国人口，希望欧洲移民的到来能刺激经济和社会发展。然而，这些现代化努力并非没有矛盾。尽管寻求社会转型，但许多精英仍然维持着不平等的社会和经济结构。在这一现代化进程中，原住民和拉美黑人往往被边缘化或直接受到压迫。此外，模仿欧洲或北美模式的尝试有时会导致意想不到或不理想的结果。

在美国历史上，平等的理想与歧视和压迫的现实之间存在着紧张关系。这种紧张关系部分可归因于宗教信仰被解释和用于为现有权力结构辩护的方式。在美国，新教，尤其是福音派和清教徒形式的新教，在国家认同的形成过程中发挥了核心作用。早期的清教徒定居者相信，他们与上帝立约，要建立一座 "山上之城"，一个以基督教原则为基础的模范社会。随着时间的推移，这种特殊神圣使命的观念逐渐演变成一种 "显命论"，即认为上帝注定要让美国扩张并主宰北美大陆。这种对神圣使命的信仰往往与种族和文化优越性的观念交织在一起。盎格鲁-撒克逊新教精英，尤其是 19 世纪的精英，常常将自己在经济和政治上的成功视为神明眷顾的证明。在这种情况下，对其他群体的统治，无论是对美洲原住民、非裔美国人还是对非盎格鲁-撒克逊移民，往往不仅被视为自然而然的，而且被视为上帝的旨意。这种对信仰的解释被用来为一系列政策和行动辩护，从西进扩张、剥夺美洲原住民的土地，到种族隔离和针对移民的歧视性法律。它还成为改革运动的制衡力量。例如，在南北战争后的重建时期，许多南方白人利用宗教论据反对非裔美国人的民权。

拉丁美洲的历史深深打上了殖民时期遗留下来的种族和社会等级制度的烙印。19 世纪初拉美国家独立后，这些等级制度依然存在，并常常被现代意识形态，包括社会达尔文主义和其他形式的种族思想所强化。拉美精英通常是欧洲后裔或 "克里奥尔人"（出生在美洲的西班牙殖民者的后裔），他们在新共和国的形成过程中发挥了核心作用。这些精英往往将其权力和特权地位视为其文化和种族优越性的结果。在这种情况下，原住民、混血儿和非裔拉美人往往被视为低人一等，不仅在种族方面，而且在文化、教育和促进国家进步的能力方面都是如此。这种观念对该地区的政治和发展产生了深远的影响。精英们往往试图通过鼓励欧洲移民来 "改善 "本国的种族构成，希望以此刺激经济发展，使人口 "白化"。在阿根廷和乌拉圭等一些国家，这些政策对人口构成产生了重大影响。土著居民尤其是强制同化政策的受害者。他们的土地被强占，他们的文化和语言受到压制，他们被鼓励或强迫采用 "西方 "生活方式。在许多国家，原住民被视为现代化的障碍，他们的土地和资源成为经济发展的觊觎对象。混血儿和非裔拉美人也被边缘化，尽管他们往往在经济和社会中发挥着核心作用。他们往往被置于从属地位，在政治和经济权力领域受到歧视和排斥。

实证主义主要在 19 世纪传入拉丁美洲，受到该地区许多精英的热烈追捧。受奥古斯特-孔德等欧洲思想家著作的启发，这些精英将实证主义视为应对其新生共和国所面临挑战的一种解决方案。对他们来说，实证主义为指导国家发展提供了一种系统而理性的方法。其核心思想是，通过将科学方法应用于治理和社会，可以克服阻碍进步的 "不合理之处 "和 "陈旧观念"。这些 "不合理 "往往与土著、混血和非裔拉丁美洲人的文化和传统有关。因此，实证主义既是现代化的意识形态，也是加强精英对社会控制的工具。

在此背景下出现的 "秩序与进步 "政权有几个共同特点：

权力集中：这些政权往往试图将权力集中在一个强有力的政府手中，从而削弱地区和地方的自治权。
基础设施现代化：它们在铁路、港口和教育系统等基础设施项目上投入巨资，目的是整合国民经济，促进发展。
促进教育：这些精英深信教育是进步的关键，因此寻求建立现代教育体系，其灵感往往来自欧洲模式。
公共卫生改革：卫生系统的现代化也被视为提高生活质量和促进经济发展的关键。

然而，这些现代化的努力往往伴随着对土著居民和其他边缘群体的强制同化政策。此外，尽管实证主义倡导理性和科学，但它往往被用来为专制政策辩护和镇压异己。

拉美精英采用 "秩序与进步 "的口号，虽然是出于现代化和发展的意图，但往往对大部分人口造成有害的后果。实证主义原则在倡导理性和科学的同时，也被滥用于为强化现有不平等的政策辩护。在维持秩序和促进进步的借口下，许多政权镇压一切形式的异议。政治反对派、工会成员、人权活动家和其他团体遭到迫害、监禁、酷刑甚至处决。这些行动往往以维护稳定和消除社会 "破坏分子 "的需要为理由。与此同时，自殖民时期起就已被边缘化的土著居民进一步受到压迫。他们的土地被没收，用于开发项目或大规模耕作。作为同化努力的一部分，他们的文化和传统被贬低或积极压制。工人，尤其是采掘业和农业工人的工作条件不稳定，而且往往很危险。试图组织起来或要求权利的努力遭到暴力镇压。与此同时，经济政策往往有利于精英阶层的利益，导致财富进一步集中。大地主、工业家和金融家从补贴、优惠和其他好处中获益，而大多数人则继续生活在贫困之中。尽管一些国家在此期间实现了经济增长，但利益分配并不公平。大部分人口仍被排除在发展惠益之外。从这一时期汲取的经验教训今天仍然具有现实意义，它提醒我们不加批判地采纳外国意识形态而不考虑当地情况和全体人民的需求所带来的潜在危险。

实证主义哲学

实证主义是法国哲学家奥古斯特-孔德在 19 世纪中期提出的，它诞生的背景是欧洲深刻的社会和思想动荡。工业革命从根本上改变了社会，政治革命挑战着既有秩序。面对这些变化，孔德试图为知识和社会进步奠定坚实的基础。在第一阶段，即神学阶段，人们试图通过宗教的棱镜来解释周围的世界。自然和社会现象被理解为诸神或更高神意志的结果。这是一个由信仰和超自然信念主导的时期。随着社会的发展，它进入了形而上学阶段。超自然的解释让位于更为抽象的观念。尽管人们开始为各种现象寻找更抽象的解释，但这些想法仍然是推测性的，并不一定基于经验现实。最终，社会进入科学或积极阶段，孔德认为这是人类发展的终极阶段。人们认识到，对世界的真正理解来自科学观察和实验方法。人们的信仰和行动建立在事实和具体证据的基础上，社会以科学规律为指导。孔德希望，通过采用实证主义方法，社会能够克服他所处时代的社会动荡所造成的混乱。他设想创建一门 "社会科学"--社会学，以自然科学研究物理世界的严谨态度来研究社会。尽管实证主义产生了相当大的影响，但它也因其对社会进步的决定论观点以及有时盲目相信科学是治疗一切社会弊病的良药而受到批评。

奥古斯特-孔德（Auguste Comte）在他的实证主义视野中，将人类社会的发展概念化为通过不同阶段的有序发展。这种发展理念深深植根于他对自然秩序和社会线性进化的信念。他认为社会是一个有生命的有机体，受制于类似于物理世界的自然法则。正如生物物种通过自然选择进化一样，孔德认为社会也将通过类似的过程进步。能够适应、融合和发展先进的社会和知识结构的社会将繁荣昌盛，而不能适应的社会将被抛在后面。在孔德看来，社会融合是社会进步的一个关键指标。在一个融合的社会中，个人和机构为了共同的利益而和谐共处。冲突和无序被视为社会进化程度较低或社会处于转型期的表现。科学知识的程度是衡量进步的另一个重要标准。孔德坚信，科学和理性是理解和改善世界的终极工具。因此，在他看来，一个接受科学思想、摒弃迷信和宗教教条的社会是更先进的社会。

19 世纪和 20 世纪初，实证主义在拉丁美洲的应用在一定程度上是对追求现代化和进步的回应。美国和欧洲的工业和技术进步给拉美精英留下了深刻印象，他们将实证主义视为发展的路线图。他们希望，通过遵循实证主义原则，他们的国家也能取得快速而显著的进步。然而，采用实证主义并非没有地缘政治动机。随着美帝国主义的崛起，许多拉美国家感到有必要迅速实现现代化，以抵制美国的统治或影响。实证主义强调理性、科学和进步，似乎为这种现代化提供了一条途径。但实证主义在拉丁美洲的实施却带来了意想不到的后果，而且往往是有害的。实证主义不仅没有成为发展的指南，反而被用作政治控制的工具。自诩为 "秩序与进步 "拥护者的政权往往利用这些理想来为镇压异己和集权辩护。进步 "的概念要求严格的秩序和明确的方向，这往往导致侵犯人权。此外，实证主义强调科学和理性，常常被解释为与本土文化相对立，因为本土文化被视为 "落后 "或 "迷信"。这导致人们努力同化或根除这些文化，以创造一个更加 "现代 "和 "理性 "的社会。最后，实证主义所鼓励的现代化和工业化往往使少数精英受益，他们能够巩固自己的财富和权力。大地主、实业家和金融家繁荣昌盛，而大多数人仍处于经济增长利益的边缘。

实证主义强调理性、科学和进步，在 19 世纪和 20 世纪初经常与自由主义经济思想联系在一起。经济自由主义主张尽量减少国家对经济的干预，重视私有产权，被许多人视为促进经济发展、进而推动社会进步的最有效手段。从这个角度看，市场如果不受过度干预，将成为经济增长最有效的引擎。市场力量通过竞争和创新，将实现资源的优化配置，刺激生产、投资和就业。实证主义者认为，这种经济增长反过来又会促进社会向积极阶段过渡，在积极阶段，理性和科学将主导思维和决策。保护私有产权也被视为至关重要。通过保障产权，国家鼓励投资和创新。如果企业家确信他们的投资将受到保护，不会被征用或任意干预，他们就会更愿意投资。

尽管实证主义强调理性和科学，但它往往对大众做出知情和理性决策的能力持不信任态度。这种不信任在一定程度上是实证主义发展时期的产物，而这一时期的特点是社会动荡、革命和传统社会结构的快速转型。实证主义者普遍认为，社会需要开明的领导来驾驭这些变革。他们认为，受过教育、掌握科学和理性原则的精英最有能力引导社会走向积极的阶段。他们认为，这种精英能够为共同利益做出决定，而不受可能影响大众的偏见、迷信或既得利益的阻碍。在拉丁美洲，许多统治精英都采纳了这一观点，他们将实证主义视为建立专制政权的理由。秩序与进步 "政权的特点往往是权力集中在少数精英手中，他们将自己视为进步和现代化的守护者。这些政权通常实施旨在实现经济现代化、发展基础设施和促进教育的政策。然而，为了维持秩序和保证进步所需的稳定，他们也会镇压不同政见，而且往往是武力镇压。压制不同政见的理由是，他们认为批评和反对是进步的障碍。拉丁美洲的实证主义政权往往将社会运动、土著人的要求或工人的要求视为对既定秩序的威胁，因此也是迈向进步的障碍。

实证主义在追求理性和进步的过程中，往往采用一种等级森严的社会观。这种等级观念的基础是某些群体比其他群体更 "先进 "或更 "文明"。在拉丁美洲，这种观点经常被用来排挤和压迫被认为 "低等 "或 "落后 "的群体，如土著人、混血儿、非裔拉丁美洲人和工人阶级。实证主义的进步概念往往意味着社会的同质化。受实证主义影响的统治精英认为，一个国家要想进步，就必须摆脱 "落后 "因素。这往往意味着强制同化本土文化，压制地方传统和语言，促进统一的民族文化和身份认同。在经济方面，这种观点往往被用来为那些牺牲工人阶级利益、有利于精英阶层利益的政策辩护。拒绝保护工人权利的部分原因是认为工人的要求是经济进步的障碍。精英阶层认为，经济现代化需要一支不受法规或工会权利约束的灵活的劳动力队伍。这导致了强迫劳动和债役等做法，在这些做法中，工人往往与土地或雇主捆绑在一起，如果不偿还债务，就不能离开工作岗位，而且往往要偿还高额债务。这些制度使工人处于类似奴役的条件下，并使精英阶层能够以牺牲工人阶级的利益为代价发家致富。财富和权力集中在少数精英手中是这些政策的直接后果。当精英阶层通过剥削资源和劳动力致富时，大多数人仍处于社会边缘，无法获得教育、医疗或经济机会。

实证主义作为一种学说，为 19 世纪和 20 世纪初的拉美精英提供了一种极具吸引力的解决方案。它承诺在维护现有社会秩序的同时实现现代化和进步。对这些精英来说，这是一个理想的组合：他们既能以变革和进步的推动者自居，又能保留自己的特权和权力。这些精英所设想的现代化并不一定意味着社会的民主化或财富的重新分配。相反，现代化往往涉及基础设施的发展、工业化以及西方技术和方法的采用。从理论上讲，这些变革可以改善国家的经济和国际地位，同时又不会威胁到精英阶层的统治地位。实证主义的秩序概念尤其具有吸引力。在这种情况下，秩序意味着社会和政治稳定。精英们担心民众运动或工人阶级的要求会破坏社会稳定，威胁到他们的地位。实证主义强调理性和科学，为以进步的名义维护秩序和压制异见提供了理由。正式公民权的问题也很成问题。给予工人阶级、土著居民或非洲裔美国人充分的权利意味着挑战现有的社会秩序。这也可能意味着分享政治和经济权力，而许多精英并不愿意这样做。实证主义信奉自然等级制度，蔑视社会中的 "落后 "因素，为这种排斥提供了意识形态上的理由。

实证主义作为一种学说，为 19 世纪和 20 世纪初的拉美精英提供了一种极具吸引力的解决方案。它承诺在维护现有社会秩序的同时实现现代化和进步。对这些精英来说，这是一个理想的组合：他们可以把自己打扮成变革和进步的推动者，同时保留自己的特权和权力。这些精英所设想的现代化并不一定意味着社会的民主化或财富的重新分配。相反，现代化往往涉及基础设施的发展、工业化以及西方技术和方法的采用。从理论上讲，这些变革可以改善国家的经济和国际地位，同时又不会威胁到精英阶层的统治地位。实证主义的秩序概念尤其具有吸引力。在这种情况下，秩序意味着社会和政治稳定。精英们担心民众运动或工人阶级的要求会破坏社会稳定，威胁到他们的地位。实证主义强调理性和科学，为以进步的名义维护秩序和压制异见提供了理由。正式公民权的问题也很成问题。给予工人阶级、土著居民或非洲裔美国人充分的权利意味着挑战现有的社会秩序。这也可能意味着分享政治和经济权力，而许多精英并不愿意这样做。实证主义信奉自然等级制度，蔑视社会中的 "落后 "分子，为这种排斥提供了意识形态上的理由。

拉美精英采用实证主义对大部分人口产生了深远的、往往是有害的后果。许多政权以追求 "秩序和进步 "为借口，推行专制政策，践踏公民的基本权利。政治异见往往被视为对既有秩序的威胁，因而也是对现代化的威胁，因此遭到残酷镇压。敢于批评政权或提出替代方案的记者、知识分子、工会成员和其他社会行动者往往遭到监禁、酷刑甚至处决。这种镇压造成了一种恐惧气氛，扼杀了公众辩论，限制了民主参与。土著居民和工人阶级受到的打击尤为严重。人口 "白化 "政策的目的是同化或消除土著文化，以有利于同质化的民族文化，这往往导致土著人民丧失土地、传统和权利。同样，要求改善工资或工作条件的工人往往受到压制或边缘化。财富集中是这些政策的另一个直接后果。虽然精英阶层享受到了现代化带来的好处，如进入新市场和获得新技术，但大多数人并没有从这种增长中获益。不平等现象加剧，少数精英积累了巨额财富，而大多数人仍然生活在贫困之中。

拉丁美洲的实证主义

实证主义在拉丁美洲的采用绝非偶然，而是对该地区当时所面临的挑战和愿望的回应。随着拉丁美洲国家在 19 世纪初获得独立，人们迫切希望确定民族身份，并制定一条通往进步和现代化的道路。精英们通常在欧洲接受教育并接触欧洲思想，他们认为实证主义是对这些愿望的回应。实证主义强调科学、理性和进步，似乎为发展和现代化提供了一种模式。它承诺建立一个以理性而非迷信或传统为指导的有序、进步的现代社会。对于拉丁美洲的精英们来说，这是一个按照 "现代 "和 "文明 "路线塑造自己国家的机会。然而，实证主义的采用也有更加务实的一面。精英们意识到自己在社会中虽然是少数，但却享有特权，因此往往不愿与大多数人分享权力或资源。实证主义相信自然的等级制度，蔑视社会中的 "落后 "分子，为这种排斥提供了意识形态上的理由。它使精英们能够以进步和理性的守护者自居，同时维持现有的权力结构。在实践中，这往往意味着现代化带来的好处--无论是在改善基础设施、教育还是卫生方面--分配不均。精英们享受着这些好处，而大多数人却仍然处于边缘地位。此外，对这一既定秩序的任何异议或批评往往以 "进步 "和 "秩序 "的名义加以压制。

拉丁美洲的精英们采用实证主义对大部分人口产生了深远的、往往是有害的后果。虽然实证主义承诺进步和现代化，但其实施往往带有专制主义色彩，因为人们相信只有开明的精英才有能力引导社会走向 "积极 "的未来。政治压迫在该地区许多国家已司空见惯。无论是知识分子、记者、工会成员还是普通公民，不同的声音往往通过恐吓、审查、监禁甚至暴力而被压制。这种对表达自由和异议的压制造成了一种恐惧气氛，阻碍了真正的民主辩论，限制了公民对国家事务的参与。土著居民和工人阶级尤其受到这些政策的影响。经济'现代化'的努力往往导致属于土著社区的土地被没收，使他们离开祖先的土地，并剥夺了他们传统的生存手段。同样，要求提高工资或改善工作条件的工人往往遭到镇压，他们的基本权利，如罢工权或组织权，也遭到侵犯。财富集中是这些政策的另一个直接后果。虽然精英阶层享受到了现代化带来的好处，如进入新市场和获得新技术，但大多数人并没有从这种增长中获益。不平等扩大了，少数精英积累了巨额财富，而大多数人仍然生活在贫困之中。

拉丁美洲有着复杂的殖民化、独立和寻求民族认同的历史，其精英们利用和调整各种意识形态来维持他们对权力和资源的控制。经济和政治自由主义虽然在理论上主张平等和个人自由，但往往被劫持来为这些精英的利益服务。土地所有权的集中就是这种操纵的一个突出例子。在许多拉美国家，大片土地被少数家族或公司所拥有，这些土地往往是从殖民时代继承下来的。这些土地所有者对政治和经济施加了相当大的影响，并经常利用其权力反对任何土地改革或土地再分配的尝试。与此同时，劳工往往受到剥削，基本权利被剥夺。工人，尤其是农业和采矿业的工人，工作条件不稳定，几乎没有社会保障。任何组织起来或要求更好权利的尝试往往都会遭到镇压，有时甚至是暴力镇压。精英们利用暴力威胁或经济胁迫来阻止成立工会或挑战工作条件。殖民时代遗留下来的社会种族等级制度也得到了维持和加强。精英们通常是欧洲人或白人，他们认为土著人、混血人和非裔拉丁美洲人低人一等，并将他们置于从属地位。这些种族偏见被用来作为对这些群体进行经济剥削和政治边缘化的理由。

巴西国旗上的 "ORDEM E PROGRESSO "字样，是法国哲学家奥古斯特-孔德创立的实证主义运动的座右铭。

这一时期以 "秩序与进步制度 "的兴起为标志，具有惊人的双重性。一方面，人们疯狂追求现代化、工业化和融入世界市场。精英们受到西方列强经济成就的鼓舞，渴望将自己的国家转变为繁荣的现代经济体。随着铁路、现代化港口和宏伟建筑等新基础设施的出现，城市开始转型。教育和公共卫生成为优先事项，至少在理论上是这样，人们对未来普遍感到乐观。然而，追求进步是有代价的。自由经济政策有利于精英阶层和外国投资者的利益，但往往损害了当地民众的利益。土地所有权集中仍然是一个大问题，大片土地掌握在少数人手中，而许多农民没有土地或在接近奴役的条件下工作。工业化虽然创造了新的就业机会，但往往导致工人在不稳定的条件下遭受剥削。在这一时期，民主作为一个概念，在很大程度上是不存在的或有限的。专制政权以维持秩序和保证进步为借口，压制一切形式的异议。即使举行了选举，也往往受到操纵，大多数人的声音被边缘化。土著居民尤其受到强制同化政策的影响，他们的土地被没收，他们的文化往往被贬低或压制。这一时期具有讽刺意味的是，虽然精英们试图效仿西方的发展模式，但他们往往忽视或拒绝在其原籍国伴随这些模式而来的民主原则。相反，他们选择了一种巩固其权力和特权的模式，同时承诺进步和现代化。其结果是，一些国家实现了经济增长，但大多数国家却遭受了严重的不平等、政治压迫和边缘化。

二十世纪之交，拉丁美洲各国在推翻殖民枷锁的独立运动之后，纷纷寻求自我定位。然而，尽管殖民主义正式结束，殖民时代的许多残余却依然存在，特别是有利于占统治地位的白人精英的社会经济结构。这些精英通常是欧洲后裔，继承了大片土地和经济资源。土地尤其是权力和财富的象征。通过控制巨大的庄园，这些精英能够对各自国家的经济和政治施加相当大的影响。小农和原住民往往被边缘化，他们的土地被没收或以微薄的价格被买走，使他们失去资源或生存手段。劳动力是精英阶层试图控制的另一种宝贵资源。工人，尤其是农业和采矿业的工人，工作条件往往朝不保夕。任何组织起来、要求改善工资或工作条件的尝试都会遭到镇压。罢工经常被暴力破坏，工会要么被取缔，要么受到严密监视。政治压迫是精英阶层用来维持其权力控制的另一个工具。反对党经常被取缔，选举被操纵，不同声音被压制。敢于批评现状的记者、学者和活动家往往遭到监禁、流放，有时甚至被谋杀。镇压的背后是一种根深蒂固的恐惧：害怕失去权力和特权。精英们知道，他们的地位岌岌可危。在这个不平等现象严重、起义和革命频发的大陆，维持秩序被视为精英阶层生存的必要条件。

在 "秩序与进步 "政权时期，拉丁美洲发生了一场深刻的变革。精英们往往受到实证主义理想和西方模式的影响，寻求实现国家的现代化。然而，这种现代化往往以牺牲大多数人的基本权利为代价。侵犯人权的现象屡见不鲜。不同的声音被压制，往往是通过武力。尤其是原住民，他们的土地被没收，文化往往被贬低或压制。工人阶级则受到剥削，他们的权利被以经济进步的名义践踏在脚下。权力和财富集中在精英阶层手中，扩大了贫富差距，加剧了社会经济不平等。然而，关键是不能用同一支笔来描绘整个精英阶层。虽然许多人利用这些政策来巩固自己的权力和特权，但也有一些人真正关心国家和公民的福祉。这些进步的精英往往主张在教育、卫生和基础设施等领域进行改革。在他们的努力下，这一时期许多拉美国家在这些领域取得了重大进展。例如，教育得到了扩大，纳入了更广泛的人口群体，高等教育机构也得到了创建或加强。科学和技术也从投资中受益，建立了研究中心，开发了适合当地需要的新技术。

20 世纪之交，拉美精英对进步的看法深受欧洲殖民地和后殖民国家经济和社会模式的影响。对这些精英来说，进步就是现代化，而现代化通常是以经济增长、工业化和融入世界市场来衡量的。拉丁美洲拥有丰富的自然资源，从肥沃的土地到丰富的矿藏。精英们将这些资源--尤其是咖啡、糖、橡胶和香蕉等热带产品以及银和铜等矿产--的出口视为刺激经济增长的良机。铁路和港口等新基础设施的建设为这些出口提供了便利，这些基础设施通常由外国投资者提供资金。然而，这种进步的愿景是以高昂的人力成本为代价的。为了最大限度地提高农业和矿业产量，大片土地被没收，通常是通过武力或可疑的法律手段。依靠这些土地为生的小农和原住民社区流离失所、被边缘化或沦为实际上的奴役。大地主往往与政治和经济精英勾结，巩固其权力和财富，加剧了社会经济不平等。对精英们来说，这些行为是以 "共同利益 "的名义进行的。他们相信，现代化和经济增长最终将惠及整个社会。然而，在实践中，经济增长带来的利益分配不均，社会和环境成本往往被忽视。

19 世纪末 20 世纪初，主要受欧洲和美国工业和技术进步的启发，拉丁美洲掀起了一股现代化浪潮。现代化的核心是基础设施项目，尤其是铁路建设，铁路被视为进步和现代化的终极象征。铁路有可能从根本上改变一个国家的经济。铁路使货物能够快速、高效地远距离运输，为农业和采矿业开辟了广阔的内陆地区。与此同时，城市也实现了现代化，以反映一个进步国家的形象，拥有了新的建筑、更好的公共服务和更佳的连通性。这些项目吸引了外国投资者，尤其是欧洲和北美投资者，他们认为拉丁美洲是其资本的沃土。拉美各国政府急于吸引这些投资，往往提供慷慨的激励措施，如土地优惠和免税。然而，这样做也有弊端。修建铁路需要大量土地，而这些土地往往是通过没收或以低价购买获得的。小农和原住民社区的土地权往往岌岌可危或得不到承认，他们发现自己被赶出了祖先的土地。这些土地随后往往被出售或租赁给大地主或公司，导致土地所有权更加集中。此外，城市的现代化建设往往不顾及最弱势的人群。贫困街区经常被夷为平地，为新的开发项目让路，成千上万的人流离失所，却没有提供适当的安置方案。

20 世纪之交，工业化和现代化是许多发展中国家的主要目标。在工业化国家成功经验和融入全球经济愿望的推动下，许多政府采取了促进经济快速增长的政策。然而，这些政策在实施过程中往往没有充分考虑其社会影响。在拉丁美洲，铁路建设、基础设施现代化和采掘业扩张被视为刺激经济的重要手段。然而，这些发展往往需要大片土地，使小农和土著社区流离失所。由于没有土地耕种，也无法获得传统资源，这些人常常发现自己被边缘化，生活贫困，没有可行的生计。土地和资源集中在经济精英手中，加剧了现有的不平等。在这些精英享受经济增长成果的同时，大多数人却被抛在后面，几乎无法获得教育、医疗或经济机会。必须指出，这些趋势并非拉丁美洲独有。从非洲到亚洲，世界许多地方都实施了类似的政策。殖民扩张和工业化往往导致土地被没收、人口流离失所以及财富和权力的集中。这些政策的后果今天仍可感受到，在世界许多地方存在着严重的不平等和持续的社会紧张局势。

秩序与进步 "这句话虽然主要与巴西国旗联系在一起，但在 19 世纪末 20 世纪初却成为拉丁美洲许多政权方针的象征。这些政权试图从欧洲和北美模式中汲取灵感，实现国家的现代化，同时保持对民众的严格控制。秩序 "的概念是这一愿景的核心。对这些政权来说，秩序不仅意味着和平与稳定，还意味着对社会严格的等级控制。军队在这方面发挥着至关重要的作用。在许多拉美国家，军队都得到了改造、现代化和加强，这通常是在外国军事使团的帮助下实现的，尤其是德国，因为德国当时被认为拥有世界上最高效、组织最严密的军队之一。这些军事使团对拉美军官进行了现代军事战术、战略和组织方面的培训。但他们也灌输了一种军队在社会中的作用理念，这种理念远远超出了单纯的国防范畴。军队被视为秩序和稳定的保障者，因此也是至关重要的政治角色。凭借这一新的权力和角色，军队成为统治精英维持控制的重要工具。持不同政见者、劳工运动、土著社区和其他形式的异议往往遭到武力镇压。军队被用来驱散示威活动，逮捕和监禁反对派领导人，有时甚至进行大规模的镇压活动。

自殖民时代以来，天主教会一直在拉丁美洲的历史和文化中发挥着核心作用。然而，在 19 世纪，该地区的许多国家都经历了自由主义运动，试图削弱教会在公共生活中的影响力，实现政教分离，推行世俗主义。这些自由主义改革往往导致没收教会财产、限制教会在教育中的作用以及削弱教会的政治影响力。然而，随着十九世纪末二十世纪初 "秩序与进步政权 "的出现，钟摆又摆了回来。这些政权寻求建立稳定的社会秩序，抵制自由主义和激进主义的影响，往往将天主教会视为天然的盟友。对这些政权来说，教会不仅是道德权威的来源，也是向民众灌输保守价值观和秩序的手段。因此，以前被自由派政府废除或限制的许多教会特权得以恢复。随着教派学校的回归和基于天主教价值观的教育的推广，教会重新获得了教育领域的重要地位。教会在公共生活中的影响力也得到了加强，宗教仪式和教会活动的能见度有所提高。在教会恢复影响力的同时，对宗教少数群体，尤其是新教徒进行了镇压，他们往往被视为外国势力的代理人，尤其是来自美国的势力。主张更严格的政教分离、往往与自由或激进思想有关的世俗运动也遭到镇压。

拉丁美洲 "秩序与进步政权 "崛起的标志是一系列旨在巩固受限制精英手中权力的措施。这些措施虽然被说成是确保稳定和进步所必需的，但往往对该地区的民主和人权造成破坏性后果。新闻检查已成为控制公共言论的常用工具。批评政府或其政策的报纸、作家和知识分子往往会受到制裁，从关闭出版物到监禁甚至流放。这种审查制度不仅扼杀了言论自由，还在那些可能反对政府行为的人中间营造了一种恐惧和自我审查的氛围。恢复审查投票是另一种限制政治参与的手段。通过限制那些拥有一定数量财产或符合其他经济标准的人的投票权，精英们能够确保只有那些与他们利益一致的人才能参与政治进程。这就把绝大多数人排除在决策过程之外。但也许最令人不安的是这些政权对待那些敢于公开反对他们的人的方式。工人、小农和其他边缘群体动员起来要求自己的权利，却往往遭到残酷镇压。罢工遭到暴力镇压，工会和社区领袖被逮捕或杀害，整个社区都可能因少数人的行为而受到惩罚。

拉丁美洲的实证主义政权受 "秩序与进步 "思想的启发，寻求在科学和理性原则的基础上实现国家现代化。这些政权的特点往往是权力高度集中、经济迅速现代化和压制不同政见。尽管每个国家都有自己的特点，但还是可以找出某些共同的主题。拉斐尔-雷耶斯（Rafael Reyes）于 1904 年至 1909 年统治哥伦比亚，他试图通过鼓励外国投资，尤其是在石油和采矿业的投资，来实现哥伦比亚经济的现代化。他还推动铁路建设，促进货物运输。然而，雷耶斯加强了行政权力，牺牲了政府其他部门的权力。他还削弱了各地区的自治权，将其置于中央政府的直接控制之下。在政治方面，雷耶斯毫不犹豫地使用武力镇压反对派，实施严格的审查制度，经常监禁或流放政治反对派。1898 年至 1920 年统治危地马拉的曼努埃尔-埃斯特拉达-卡夫雷拉（Manuel Estrada Cabrera）偏袒美国水果公司的利益，尤其是联合水果公司。他给予这些公司巨大的特许权，使它们能够对危地马拉的经济施加相当大的影响。埃斯特拉达-卡夫雷拉还鼓励修建公路和铁路，以促进贸易。然而，他在执政期间对反对派的残酷镇压是出了名的。他利用军队和私人民兵消灭反对者，在他的政权下，对那些敢于反对他的人实施酷刑、监禁和处决是家常便饭。在这两种情况下，虽然政权都设法在经济现代化方面取得了一些进展，但都是以牺牲人权和民主为代价的。集权和镇压异己是拉丁美洲实证主义政权的共同特征，反映了 "秩序与进步 "思想的影响。

在巴西，被称为 "大共和国"（1889-1930 年）的时期也是 "秩序与进步 "政权的时期。受实证主义的启发，这些政权试图效仿西方工业化国家的模式，实现国家的现代化。德奥多罗-达丰塞卡元帅（Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca）领导了 1889 年推翻巴西君主制的政变，他是共和国的第一任总统，体现了这一理念。在他和他的继任者的领导下，巴西经历了一个快速现代化的时期，铁路扩张，工业化推进，教育也按照实证主义的思路进行了重组。然而，与迪亚斯统治下的墨西哥一样，巴西的经济进步也伴随着政治权力的集中。大地主 "对地区和国家政治具有相当大的影响力。他们往往控制着各自地区的选票，保证了当选政治家的忠诚。这一时期，虽然经济取得了进步，但政治腐败盛行，工人阶级被边缘化。

巴西第一共和国（又称 "大共和国"）是巴西发生重大变革的时期。1889 年共和国宣告成立，结束了君主制，此后，巴西努力实现现代化，与当时的世界潮流接轨。实证主义的影响是显而易见的，国旗上采用的座右铭 "Ordem e Progresso "就是明证。工业化开始在主要城市扎根，尤其是圣保罗和里约热内卢。铁路、港口和其他基础设施的发展促进了贸易和出口，尤其是咖啡，咖啡已成为该国的主要出口产品。农业精英，尤其是咖啡大亨，在国家政治中发挥了核心作用，巩固了他们的权力和影响力。然而，尽管取得了这些经济进步，第一共和国却远非民主。政治体制由农业精英和 "冕下 "主导，他们控制着各自地区的选票。咖啡与牛奶 "政策反映了圣保罗（咖啡生产商）和米纳斯吉拉斯（牛奶生产商）精英之间的权力交替。此外，大多数人口，特别是非裔巴西人、农村工人和土著人民，在很大程度上被排除在决策过程之外。镇压不同政见者司空见惯。1904 年的 "Vacina 革命 "或 1896 至 1897 年的 "卡努多斯战争 "等社会运动都遭到了政府的暴力镇压。这些事件表明了精英阶层的现代化愿望与大多数民众的需求和愿望之间的矛盾。

墨西哥的波菲里奥-迪亚斯政权：1876-1911 年

波菲里奥-迪亚斯将军

波菲里奥-迪亚斯政权（Porfiriato）又称波菲里奥-迪亚斯政权，是墨西哥历史上的一个时期，从 1876 年持续到 1911 年，其特点是波菲里奥-迪亚斯总统拥有强大的专制权力。该政权深受实证主义的影响，强调以科学和理性思维推动社会进步。在波菲里奥执政期间，墨西哥经历了重大变革。迪亚斯试图从欧洲和北美模式中汲取灵感，实现国家现代化。包括铁路、电报和港口在内的基础设施得到极大发展，促进了国内贸易和出口。这些进步吸引了外国投资，尤其是来自美国和英国的投资，它们在当时的墨西哥经济中发挥了至关重要的作用。迪亚斯政权还倾向于扩大大庄园或种植园，这往往损害了土著社区和小农的利益。后者往往被剥夺土地，加剧了社会经济不平等。以咖啡、剑麻和橡胶等产品为重点的商业性农业占据了主导地位，而供当地消费的农业生产则被忽视。在政治上，迪亚斯建立了专制制度，镇压一切形式的反对派。虽然举行了选举，但人们普遍认为选举是被操纵的，迪亚斯通过军事控制、政治操纵和新闻检查等手段继续掌权。新闻自由受到限制，政权的反对者经常被监禁或流放。尽管波菲里亚托表面上稳定，经济也有所增长，但潜在的紧张局势却日益加剧。日益加剧的不平等、土地集中在少数人手中、土著社区被边缘化以及政治压迫引发了广泛的不满。这些紧张局势最终在 1910 年的墨西哥革命中爆发，这场重大冲突旨在解决波菲里亚托留下的诸多社会、经济和政治问题。

波菲里奥-迪亚斯领导下的波菲里亚托时期是墨西哥快速变革的时期。迪亚斯的国家愿景是建设一个现代化的墨西哥，与西方的发展和进步标准接轨。为实现这一目标，他鼓励外国投资，特别是在铁路、采矿和农业等领域。这些投资改变了墨西哥的经济，使其与全球市场更加紧密地联系在一起。铁路建设不仅促进了国内货物运输，还使农产品和矿产品得以出口到国外市场，特别是美国和欧洲。这刺激了经济增长，但也导致土著社区和小农的土地被没收，他们被赶出家园，为大型基础设施项目和庄园让路。对外国投资的重视也产生了后果。虽然这带来了资金和技术专长，但也增加了墨西哥在经济上对外国势力的依赖。更重要的是，这些投资所产生的大部分利润都流回了国外，而不是再投资于本国。在社会方面，迪亚斯的政策加剧了不平等。土地集中在地主精英手中，使许多农民失去土地，没有谋生手段。这些流离失所的农民经常发现自己在庄园或新兴工业中工作，条件岌岌可危，没有权利或保护。在政治上，迪亚斯牢牢掌控着政权。在倡导现代化和进步的同时，他压制新闻自由、监禁反对者并操纵选举，以确保自己能够长期执政。这种政治压迫造成了恐惧和不信任的气氛。

虽然波菲里亚托试图按照西方的路线使墨西哥现代化，但它也加强了某些传统结构，尤其是天主教会的作用。19 世纪中叶的自由主义改革试图限制教会在国家事务中的权力，在此之后，迪亚斯政权对教会采取了更加和解的态度。为了换取教会的支持，政府允许教会恢复其在公共生活中的部分影响力，尤其是在教育和慈善领域。教会影响力的恢复对宗教少数群体和世俗运动产生了影响。新教徒、犹太人和其他少数群体往往被边缘化或受到迫害。寻求进一步政教分离的世俗运动也受到压制。例如，世俗学校就面临着教会支持的教育机构的挑战。迪亚斯政权与教会之间的关系不仅仅是权宜之计。它还反映了迪亚斯对秩序和稳定至上的墨西哥的愿景。对他来说，拥有深远影响和等级结构的教会是维护这种秩序的天然合作伙伴。然而，这种与教会的联盟以及对世俗运动和宗教少数派的压制与迪亚斯声称要推动的进步和现代化理想相悖。此外，虽然政权促进了经济增长，但其利益分配并不公平。大多数人口，尤其是工人阶级和土著社区，仍然处于贫困和边缘化状态。经济上的不平等，加上政治压迫和少数群体的边缘化，造成了一种不满的气氛，最终导致了 1910 年的墨西哥革命。

墨西哥革命始于 1910 年，是对几十年来专制主义、社会经济不平等以及对波菲里奥-迪亚斯政权日益不满的回应。虽然波菲里奥-迪亚斯政权给墨西哥带来了一定程度的稳定和现代化，但这是以牺牲公民权利、社会正义和民主为代价的。革命的直接导火索是迪亚斯在承诺不再寻求连任后，于 1910 年再次当选，这引起了争议。弗朗西斯科-马德罗（Francisco Madero）是一位富有且受过良好教育的地主，他在选举中反对迪亚斯，在被监禁后又被流放，他呼吁对迪亚斯发动武装起义。革命迅速发展，吸引了不同议程的领导人和运动。其中，埃米利亚诺-萨帕塔（Emiliano Zapata）和潘乔-比利亚（Pancho Villa）成为标志性人物。萨帕塔尤其主张进行激进的土地改革，将土地归还给农民社区。随着冲突的发展，人们逐渐认识到，革命不仅仅是反对迪亚斯的斗争，而是对墨西哥社会、经济和政治结构的深刻挑战。从土地改革和资源国有化到工人权利和教育，要求不一而足。经过十年的冲突、背叛和领导层更迭，革命最终颁布了 1917 年宪法。这部宪法至今仍然有效，它将墨西哥确立为联邦共和国，并引入了重大改革，包括底土资源国有化、保护工人权利和土地改革。墨西哥革命通常被视为二十世纪最早的重大社会运动之一，对墨西哥随后一个世纪的政治、社会和经济发展产生了深远影响。它还成为拉丁美洲和世界各地其他革命运动的典范和灵感来源。

1846 至 1848 年间发生的美墨战争标志着墨西哥历史上一个决定性的转折点。墨西哥战败后，于 1848 年签署了《瓜达卢佩-伊达尔戈条约》，迫使墨西哥将广袤富饶的领土割让给美国，包括今天的加利福尼亚州、内华达州、犹他州、亚利桑那州、新墨西哥州、科罗拉多州、怀俄明州、堪萨斯州和俄克拉荷马州。这些割让的领土约占战前墨西哥领土的 55%。这些领土的丧失对墨西哥产生了深远的影响。在经济上，割让的领土拥有丰富的自然资源，特别是加利福尼亚的黄金。墨西哥因此失去了获得收入和经济增长的重要机会。在人口方面，许多生活在这些领土上的墨西哥人发现自己处于美国的管辖之下。一些人选择加入美国国籍，而另一些人则倾向于返回墨西哥。在心理上，这一领土损失被视为墨西哥的奇耻大辱。它激起了反美情绪，强化了对强大国家认同的渴望，强调了在各条战线上巩固国家的必要性，以避免进一步的挫折。战败也凸显了墨西哥的内部弱点，导致人们迫切要求改革。这最终导致了 19 世纪 50 年代和 60 年代由贝尼托-华雷斯领导的 La Reforma 改革。在外交政策方面，对美国的不信任成为一个核心特征。墨西哥为了使其联盟多样化，加强了与其他国家的关系，尤其是与欧洲国家的关系。总之，这些领土的丧失塑造了墨西哥数十年，影响了墨西哥的身份认同、政治和经济。

除了领土的丧失，墨西哥在土地所有权和财产权方面也发生了重大变化。Lerdo 法》的正式名称是 "Ley de Desamortización de Bienes de Corporaciones Civiles y Eclesiásticas"，是墨西哥 19 世纪最具争议的改革之一。它是一系列自由主义改革的一部分，旨在使墨西哥经济现代化，削弱天主教会和阻碍国家经济发展的传统机构的权力。该法的主要目的是结束土地所有权集中在教会和土著社区手中的局面，并通过私人投资刺激农业发展。从理论上讲，这是为了通过鼓励土地开发和提高农业产量来促进经济增长。但在实践中，该法却产生了意想不到的后果。土地迅速私有化导致土地所有权集中在经济精英手中，往往损害了小农和土著社区的利益。许多原住民被剥夺了祖传土地，导致大批人流离失所，农村贫困加剧。外国投资者，尤其是来自美国和欧洲的投资者，也利用这一法律以低廉的价格获得了大片土地。这导致外国对墨西哥经济，尤其是农业部门的影响增加。尽管 Lerdo 法的初衷是好的，但它却加剧了墨西哥的社会经济不平等。它为持续数十年的土地紧张局势和冲突奠定了基础，最终导致了 1910 年的墨西哥革命，当时土地改革是革命的核心问题。

尽管《勒多法》的初衷是实现现代化和刺激经济，但它对墨西哥的社会和经济结构产生了深远影响。通过将传统上属于土著社区和教会的土地私有化，它创造了一个由大地主和外国投资者主导的新土地格局。以这些土地为生的小农被边缘化，加剧了现有的不平等。土著社区尤其受到严重打击。对这些社区而言，土地不仅是生计的来源，也是其文化和精神认同的核心要素。失去祖先的土地对他们的生活方式和福祉造成了毁灭性的影响。随着时间的推移，对这些不平等和不公正现象的不满日益加剧。要求土地改革、归还土地和更大的社会正义成为抗议和抵抗运动的核心。这些紧张局势最终导致了 1910 年的墨西哥革命，这场重大冲突旨在纠正几十年来土地不公的错误，建立一个更加公平的社会。这场革命的标志性人物是埃米利亚诺-萨帕塔（Emiliano Zapata），他主张将土地归还给农民和土著社区。土地与自由"（Tierra y Libertad）的口号成为许多革命者的集结号，反映了土地问题在冲突中的核心重要性。

迪亚斯的军事生涯始于改革战争期间为自由党政府作战，反对法国对墨西哥的干涉。1863 年，他在保卫普埃布拉市抵抗法军的战斗中表现出色，成为一名干练的军事领导人。然而，1862 年 5 月 5 日，他在普埃布拉战役中取得了决定性的胜利，使他一举成名。法国支持的马克西米利安皇帝倒台后，迪亚斯对贝尼托-华雷斯总统及其继任者塞巴斯蒂安-莱尔多-德-特哈达的领导感到不满。1876 年，迪亚斯发动了一场名为 "图斯特佩克计划 "的政变，成为墨西哥总统。在迪亚斯担任总统期间，墨西哥经历了一段稳定和经济增长的时期，通常被称为 "Porfiriato"。迪亚斯鼓励外国投资，对国家基础设施进行现代化改造，特别是修建铁路，并推动了工业化进程。然而，这种经济增长的分布并不均衡，往往只惠及少数精英阶层，而大多数人仍然生活在贫困之中。迪亚斯使用独裁手段维持和平与秩序。他镇压不同政见者，控制新闻界，并利用军队来维持控制。虽然举行了选举，但选举经常受到操纵，迪亚斯连续七次掌权。随着时间的推移，人们对迪亚斯独裁统治的不满与日俱增。经济不平等、土地集中在少数精英手中、政治权利受到压制以及人们认为外国投资者的影响力过大，都加剧了紧张局势。这些紧张局势最终在 1910 年随着墨西哥革命的爆发而爆发，最终导致迪亚斯于 1911 年辞职。波菲里奥-迪亚斯仍然是墨西哥历史上一个颇具争议的人物。一些人称赞他为墨西哥带来了稳定和现代化，而另一些人则批评他的独裁手段以及其政权下持续存在的经济不平等。

在波菲里亚托执政期间，墨西哥经历了一场重大的经济变革。迪亚斯鼓励外国投资，尤其是来自美国和欧洲的投资，投资领域包括石油、采矿和铁路等关键部门。这些投资带来了快速的经济增长，但也增加了墨西哥对外国资本的依赖。

墨西哥的现代化进程有目共睹，尤其是在城市地区。随着林荫大道、公园和宏伟建筑的修建，首都墨西哥城发生了翻天覆地的变化。铁路将全国主要城市连接起来，促进了贸易和人员流动。然而，这种现代化是以高昂的社会代价换来的。迪亚斯的土地政策有利于大地主和外国投资者，却牺牲了小农和土著社区的利益。大片公有土地被出售或没收，成千上万的农民流离失所，成为没有土地的农业工人或迁移到城市寻找工作。在政治上，迪亚斯综合运用说服、腐败和蛮力等手段来维持对权力的控制。选举经常被操纵，政治反对派经常遭到镇压。新闻受到审查，对政权持批评意见的人很快就被压制了。尽管波菲里亚托表面上很稳定，但潜在的紧张局势却日益加剧。对经济不平等、土地流失、腐败猖獗和缺乏民主自由的不满最终导致了 1910 年的墨西哥革命，这场持续了十年的血腥冲突改变了墨西哥的政治、社会和经济面貌。

波菲里奥-迪亚斯统治时期通常被视为一个充满矛盾的时期。一方面，墨西哥经历了前所未有的现代化。随着新基础设施、公共服务和现代建筑的引入，城市，尤其是首都墨西哥城发生了翻天覆地的变化。铁路将以前孤立的地区连接起来，促进了贸易和国家一体化。教育和公共卫生也得益于大量投资，学校、大学和医院应运而生。然而，这些进步是在中央集权和政治压迫的背景下取得的。迪亚斯对国家实行独裁统治，动用军队和警察镇压一切形式的异议。选举经常被操纵，新闻自由受到严格限制。在经济上，虽然国家实现了增长，但利益分配并不公平。迪亚斯的土地政策有利于大地主，但往往损害了小农和土著社区的利益。大片公有土地被出售或没收，成千上万的农民流离失所。这些政策加剧了现有的不平等现象，使富裕和有权有势的精英阶层繁荣昌盛，而大多数人仍然生活在贫困之中。实证主义强调理性和进步，为这些政策提供了意识形态上的理由。对于迪亚斯和他的精英圈子来说，进步就是牺牲的理由，即使这意味着边缘化和剥削大部分人口。他们坚信，为了实现现代化，墨西哥必须效仿工业化国家的模式，即使这意味着牺牲许多墨西哥人的权利和福利。最终，波菲里亚托时期积累的紧张局势和不平等成为墨西哥革命的主要催化剂之一，这场运动旨在纠正那个时代的错误，建立一个更加公平和民主的墨西哥。

墨西哥革命始于 1910 年，是对波菲里亚托统治下多年的独裁统治和社会经济不平等的直接回应。财富和权力的集中以及工人阶级和土著社区的边缘化加剧了潜在的紧张局势，最终以一场大规模革命运动的形式爆发。革命的直接导火索是迪亚斯在承诺不再参选后，于 1910 年再次当选，这引起了争议。在选举中反对迪亚斯的富裕地主弗朗西斯科-马德罗号召对政权发动武装起义。起初只是一系列地方起义，但很快就发展成为一场全国运动。随着革命的发展，出现了各种领导人和派别，每个人都对革命后的墨西哥有着自己的看法。埃米利亚诺-萨帕塔（Emiliano Zapata）和潘乔-比利亚（Pancho Villa）等标志性人物成为墨西哥人民渴望社会正义和土地改革的象征。特别是萨帕塔，他主张将土地归还给农民社区，反映了 "土地与自由"（Tierra y Libertad）的呼声。革命的标志是不断变化的联盟、战斗和反革命。经过多年冲突后，1917 年颁布了新的《墨西哥宪法》，为现代墨西哥奠定了基础。这部宪法纳入了多项社会和政治改革，包括保障工人权利、土地改革和限制天主教会的权力。统治墨西哥多年的波菲里奥-迪亚斯最终流亡法国，并于 1915 年在法国去世。墨西哥革命虽然带来了重大变革，但也留下了复杂的遗产。虽然它成功地结束了波菲里亚托的专制统治并引入了重要的改革，但也给许多墨西哥人带来了巨大的不稳定和痛苦。

科学主义者 "是将科学和理性应用于墨西哥治理和现代化的狂热支持者。他们坚信，国家的发展和进步有赖于在从经济到教育的各个领域采用科学和理性的方法。受欧洲实证主义思想的启发，他们将科学视为进步的主要动力，反对传统和迷信。在 "科学主义者 "的影响下，迪亚斯政权采取了一系列旨在实现墨西哥现代化的改革措施。这包括修建铁路、促进工业化、改善城市基础设施和教育系统现代化。他们还鼓励外国投资，认为这将刺激经济并加快现代化进程。然而，他们的做法也有争议之处。科学主义者 "经常因为无视墨西哥传统、对工人阶级和土著社区的需求和权利麻木不仁而受到批评。他们对科学和经济进步的坚定信念往往使他们对其政策的社会后果视而不见。例如，他们对经济发展的重视往往有利于精英阶层和外国投资者的利益，却损害了小农和工人的利益。

在波菲里奥时期，"科学家 "是一个有影响力的群体。他们的名字意为 "科学家"，反映了他们相信科学和理性是解决墨西哥社会和经济问题的手段。他们深受实证主义的影响，实证主义哲学强调科学和理性思维对理解和改善社会的重要性。在迪亚斯的领导下，"科学主义者 "在实施旨在实现墨西哥现代化的改革中发挥了关键作用。他们推动工业化，鼓励外国投资，改善基础设施，改革教育体系。然而，他们的做法往往是技术官僚和精英主义的，偏向于上层阶级和外国投资者的利益，而不是大多数人的需求。他们的影响也体现在政权的政治方面。科学家 "支持独裁统治，认为墨西哥还没有做好民主的准备，只有强大的政府才能带来必要的进步。这种观点为镇压政治反对派和限制公民自由提供了理由。然而，他们在迪亚斯政府中的作用并非没有争议。许多知识分子和社会团体批评 "知识分子 "在实施加剧社会和经济不平等的政策中所扮演的角色。他们被指责忽视工人阶级和土著社区的权利和需求，支持权力和财富集中在少数精英手中。随着时间的推移，对知识分子的批评愈演愈烈，他们的影响是导致社会和政治不稳定的众多因素之一，最终导致了 1910 年的墨西哥革命。

进步

在波菲里奥-迪亚斯执政时期，墨西哥经历了一个快速现代化和经济扩张的时期。然而，这种增长往往以牺牲工人阶级的利益为代价，尤其是小农和土著社区。迪亚斯的政策旨在吸引外国投资和发展国家基础设施，包括铁路、采矿和大规模农业。土地改革法 "和 "西班牙语法 "就是波黑政府如何促进土地集中在少数人手中的例子。土改法 "不仅使土地所有者完全控制了他们的土地，还控制了土地上的资源。这为更多的自然资源开发铺平了道路，而这些开发往往是由外国公司进行的。西班牙法律 "加剧了土地没收。许多农民和土著社区对他们世代居住的土地没有正式的所有权。法律允许任何能够出示地契（通常是伪造的或通过可疑手段获得的）的人对土地提出所有权要求。结果，大片土地被没收，落入大地主或外国投资者手中。这些政策导致小农和土著社区大规模流离失所。许多人失去了土地，被迫成为农场工人或矿工，工作条件往往岌岌可危。这些政策造成的紧张局势加剧了社会动荡，最终导致了 1910 年的墨西哥革命。

波菲里亚托时期，墨西哥经历了一场重大的经济和社会变革。土地改革法 "和 "西班牙语法 "等法律促进了土地向由富有的墨西哥公民和外国投资者组成的经济精英集中。这些曾经由小农和土著社区居住和耕种的大片土地变成了种植园或矿场，被用来牟利。土地集中的直接后果是墨西哥大部分人口的贫困化和边缘化。被剥夺了土地的小农被迫成为雇佣劳动者，他们的生活条件往往岌岌可危。土著社区受到的打击尤其严重，他们不仅失去了土地，还失去了大部分文化和社会自主权。必须指出，墨西哥在这方面并非独一无二。19 世纪末 20 世纪初，许多发展中国家都采取了类似的政策，试图通过吸引外国投资来实现经济现代化。这些政策往往导致类似的社会经济不平等，经济精英从大部分增长中获益，而大多数人口仍然贫穷和被边缘化。对这些政策的批评不仅限于其经济后果。许多观察家和活动家指出，这些政策侵犯了人民的基本权利，包括土地权、体面生活权和政治参与权。经济边缘化往往伴随着政治压迫，因为政权试图压制反对其政策的声音。

19 世纪末墨西哥土地所有权的集中对该国的社会经济结构产生了深远而持久的影响。通过促进土地私有化，1884 年的法律不仅改变了农业格局，还重新定义了墨西哥社会的权力和财富关系。随着全国约 20% 的土地从小农和土著社区手中转到大地主和外国投资者手中，大部分农村人口发现自己被剥夺了土地。这些以土地为生的小农被迫到大种植园当农业工人，工作条件往往不稳定，工资也很低。在这一转变过程中，外国投资者尤其发挥了关键作用。在迪亚斯政权的投资机会和优惠政策的吸引下，他们获得了大片土地，通常采用集约化、出口导向型的耕作方式。这些大庄园成为国际市场的生产中心，生产咖啡、糖和橡胶等作物。小农数量的减少也带来了政治后果。这些农民被剥夺了土地和自主权，成为一股潜在的颠覆性政治力量，加剧了不满情绪，最终导致了 1910 年的墨西哥革命。土地改革或土地再分配问题成为革命的主要议题之一。

中部高原土著社区大量丧失公有土地，这是波菲利亚托土地政策造成的最具破坏性的后果之一。公有土地（或称 "ejidos"）是土著社区生活的核心，不仅提供了生存资源，还提供了认同感和归属感。这些土地由集体管理，对于维持社区的传统、习俗和社会结构至关重要。没收这些土地使许多社区背井离乡，迫使他们适应新的经济和社会现实。由于没有土地耕种，许多人被迫在大庄园里从事农业劳动，工作条件不稳定，经常受到剥削。失去土地也意味着这些社区失去自主权和权力，使他们容易受到剥削和边缘化。对这些不公正现象日益增长的不满情绪是墨西哥革命的主要推动力之一。土地与自由"（Tierra y Libertad）等口号在群众中引起共鸣，反映了人们对社会公正和土地改革的深切渴望。革命后，土地问题成为国家重建的核心问题。土地改革法试图将土地重新分配给农民和土著社区，并重新建立了作为墨西哥农村生活核心机构的 "埃吉多"（ejidos）。然而，这些改革的实施情况参差不齐，面临许多挑战。然而，土地在墨西哥历史上的重要性及其在墨西哥革命中发挥的核心作用证明了波菲利亚托的土地政策对该国产生了深远而持久的影响。

在 1884 年法律的推动下，土地集中在少数精英手中，对墨西哥经济和社会产生了深远影响。大地主和外国投资者通过土地投机迅速积累财富，从中获益，而大多数农民和土著社区却被剥夺了土地，使他们容易遭受剥削和贫困。土地投机往往优于对现代耕作方式的投资。由于拥有大量廉价劳动力，大地主在经济上没有动力投资现代农业技术，如机械化，因为这本可以提高生产率。相反，他们可以依靠流离失所的农民的大量廉价劳动力，以极低的成本在自己的土地上耕作。对廉价劳动力的依赖意味着墨西哥农业部门的创新和现代化受到了阻碍。由于没有技术或培训方面的投资，农业生产率一直停滞不前，在某些地区甚至有所下降。此外，土地集中也限制了农业的多样化，因为许多大地主选择种植有利可图的出口作物，而不是为当地居民种植粮食作物。土地投机、土地集中和对廉价劳动力的依赖相结合，形成了一种极不平等和低效的土地制度。这种结构造成了普遍的农村贫困、社会不稳定，并最终导致紧张局势加剧，引发了墨西哥革命。

在国际需求和获利机会的鼓励下，向出口作物的转型给墨西哥带来了重大影响。大地主被咖啡、蔗糖、henequén 等出口作物的高额利润所吸引，开始偏爱这些作物，而忽视玉米、豆类和大米等传统粮食作物。这一发展对墨西哥社会产生了双重影响。首先，对出口作物的依赖使墨西哥经济容易受到世界市场波动的影响。当出口价格较高时，这有利于地主精英，但当价格下跌时，则可能导致经济危机，尤其是影响到农业工人和小农。其次，用于种植粮食作物的土地减少导致基本食品价格上涨。随着人口的增长和国内粮食产量的下降，墨西哥越来越依赖粮食进口来养活人口。这种依赖性加剧了不平等，因为高粮价对穷人的影响尤为严重，他们将收入的更大一部分用于购买食品。人口的快速增长，加上国内粮食产量的下降，给该国的资源和基础设施造成了额外的压力。城市开始迅速发展，农村移民开始寻求更好的经济机会，但往往在城市贫民窟面临不稳定的生活条件。这些因素（向出口作物过渡、人口快速增长和城市化）共同造成了紧张的社会经济环境，其中不平等现象十分明显，工人阶级的挫折感和不满情绪与日俱增。这些紧张局势最终导致了墨西哥革命的爆发，这场运动旨在解决这些不平等问题，建立一个更加公正和公平的社会。

对出口作物的日益依赖对墨西哥的粮食安全产生了深远影响。尤其是玉米，它一直是墨西哥文化和饮食的核心，是许多传统菜肴的基础。豆类是另一种主食，是许多墨西哥人，特别是那些不能经常吃肉的人的重要蛋白质来源。这些基本食品的减产直接影响了人口的营养和健康。由于国内产量下降和需要进口更多的基本食品，这些食品的价格上涨，使许多家庭，特别是最贫穷的家庭，更难获得这些食品。家庭不得不将更多的收入用于购买食品，从而降低了满足教育、卫生和住房等其他基本需求的能力。营养不良，尤其是儿童营养不良，已成为一个重大问题。营养不良的儿童更容易患病、发育迟缓和学习困难。这些问题不仅对相关个人，而且对整个社会都有长期影响，因为它们削弱了国家的经济和社会潜力。本已入不敷出的无地群体和边缘化群体受到的打击尤为严重。他们被剥夺了土地，无法与以出口为导向的大型农场竞争，许多人发现自己失去了生存手段。一些人迁移到城市寻找工作，导致城市棚户区迅速扩张，另一些人则加入了要求土地改革和更好地分配资源的社会和政治运动。

土地所有权集中在少数精英手中对墨西哥的经济和社会产生了深远影响。由于大部分耕地被用于种植出口作物，供国内消费的粮食产量下降。供应的减少，加上人口增长导致的需求上升，导致基本食品价格上涨。对于普通民众来说，这意味着玉米、豆类和其他主食等基本产品变得更加昂贵，有时甚至难以承受。在食品价格上涨的同时，劳动力市场充斥着被赶出庄园或无法与大农场竞争的无地工人。这种劳动力供过于求的局面导致雇主可以降低工资，因为他们知道，无论工资多低，总有人愿意接活。工资停滞或下降，加上食品价格上涨，导致大部分人口的生活水平下降。对于工薪阶层和中产阶级家庭来说，这种情况尤其不稳定。家庭不得不将越来越多的收入用于购买食品，这削弱了他们满足其他基本需求的能力。此外，营养不良已成为一个普遍问题，尤其是在儿童中，并带来了各种健康和社会后果。这种经济和社会动态为不满和抗议创造了肥沃的土壤。许多墨西哥人开始质疑这种似乎有利于少数精英而使大多数人处于不稳定状况的制度。这些紧张局势促成了要求改革的社会和政治运动的出现，为后来的革命动荡奠定了基础。

向出口导向型农业的转型对墨西哥的粮食安全产生了深远影响。虽然大农场通过在国际市场上销售农产品获得了繁荣，但当地人口却面临主食供应下降的问题。玉米和豆类是墨西哥人的主食，但随着用于种植玉米和豆类的土地减少，人们越来越难以获得这些食物。这种短缺产生了双重影响。一方面，它导致这些基本食品价格上涨，使大多数墨西哥人的日常生活更加昂贵。其次，它加剧了社会不平等，因为无地群体和边缘化群体受价格上涨的冲击最大。对于这些群体来说，购买食品成为一项日常挑战，因为他们的收入并没有与食品价格同步增长。对国际市场依赖的增加也使墨西哥经济更容易受到世界价格波动的影响。如果出口产品价格下跌，可能会对国民经济造成负面影响，而当地消费者却不会因食品价格下降而受益。这种情况导致对政府政策的不满与日俱增，并加剧了社会紧张局势。许多墨西哥人开始要求改变，不仅是农业政策，还包括国家治理方式，这为未来的社会和革命运动奠定了基础。

在此期间，墨西哥的经济动态对大多数人口造成了恶性循环。随着少数精英抢夺土地和向出口导向型农业转型，许多小农和土著社区发现自己失去了土地。这导致大量人口迁移到城市地区寻找工作。然而，工人的突然涌入使劳动力市场饱和，造成劳动力过剩。在这种环境下，雇主占据了优势。由于找工作的人多于可提供的工作，他们知道工人的选择很少，因此可以提供较低的工资。这种态势给工资带来了下行压力，即使在生活成本，尤其是食品成本上升的情况下也是如此。较低的工资和较高的生活成本对大多数墨西哥人的生活水平产生了破坏性影响。许多人入不敷出，贫困和不安全成为许多家庭的日常现实。这种困难的经济状况加剧了社会紧张局势，使人们对迪亚斯政权的不满情绪日益高涨，为后来的社会运动和革命运动奠定了基础。

迪亚斯政权时期铁路网的迅速扩张改变了墨西哥的经济和社会面貌。从经济角度看，铁路促进了内外贸易。偏远的农业地区能够更快、更高效地将农产品运往城市市场和出口港口。铁路还吸引了外国投资，特别是来自美国和欧洲的投资，它们认为墨西哥是一个前景广阔的新兴市场。外国投资者在这些铁路的融资和建设中发挥了关键作用，从而增强了他们在墨西哥的经济和政治影响力。在社会方面，铁路建设带来了快速的城市化。蒙特雷和瓜达拉哈拉等铁路沿线城市经历了爆炸式增长。交通的便利也鼓励了国内移民，农村地区的人们为了寻求更好的经济机会而迁往城市。这改变了许多地区的人口构成，并给城市地区带来了新的社会挑战，如过度拥挤、住房不足和日益加剧的不平等。在环境方面，铁路建设带来了喜忧参半的后果。一方面，它鼓励了自然资源的开发，特别是在采矿和林业部门。森林被砍伐，为火车的建造和运行提供木材，矿山被开发，以开采宝贵的矿产出口。另一方面，铁路运输的发展减少了对动物运输的依赖，减少了排放和土地退化对环境的影响。

波菲里亚托时期墨西哥的铁路建设是一把双刃剑。一方面，它代表了墨西哥在技术和经济方面的重大进步。铁路将以前孤立的地区连接起来，促进了贸易和经济扩张。农产品和矿产品可以更快、更高效地运往港口出口，吸引了外国投资，促进了国民经济的发展。然而，这一进步是有代价的。为了修建铁路，许多社区，特别是农村和土著地区的社区被迫搬迁。这些搬迁往往是在没有协商或适当补偿的情况下进行的，导致许多人失去土地或生计。施工还导致自然栖息地遭到破坏，扰乱了当地的动植物群。此外，随着铁路的引入，入侵物种也被引入新的地区，进一步破坏了当地的生态系统。环境影响并不是唯一的代价。铁路虽然对经济发展至关重要，但往往是为了墨西哥精英和外国投资者的利益而修建的。大公司，尤其是来自美国和欧洲的大公司，从有利的特许权和有限的控制中获益，使他们能够开采该国的资源，却很少给当地居民带来经济利益。

铁路代表了波菲里亚托经济的进步之一，并作为进步的象征向世界展示。迪亚斯时代的墨西哥文化以经济为特色，何塞-玛丽亚-贝拉斯科（José María Velasco）的这幅画就描绘了墨西哥山谷铁路。

在波菲里奥-迪亚斯执政时期，铁路建设是国家现代化战略的核心要素。这些铁路不仅促进了贸易和工业化，还加强了国家的中央权力。铁路网络的扩展使国家机器能够更有效地将自己投射到以前与世隔绝或难以进入的地区。这加强了国家在全国各地的存在，使行政管理更加直接，税收更加高效。此外，铁路提高了军队的机动性，从而加强了政权维持秩序、镇压异己和控制外围地区的能力。铁路的修建也导致管理和经管这些基础设施所需的公务员人数增加。这既创造了就业机会，又加强了国家官僚机构，进一步巩固了中央权力。在移民政策方面，波菲利亚政权试图吸引欧洲移民，目的是使人口 "白化"，这种想法基于当时的种族主义和优生学观念，将发展和现代化与白种人联系在一起。政府希望欧洲移民的到来能够帮助国家实现现代化，引进新的技能和技术，提高农业和工业生产。然而，尽管提供了各种激励措施，但很少有欧洲人被吸引到墨西哥。造成这种情况的原因有很多：生活条件、当时欧洲相对稳定的政治局势，以及来自其他移民目的地的竞争，尤其是美国，因为美国提供的经济机会更具吸引力。

在波菲里奥-迪亚斯（Porfirio Díaz）执政时期，教育和公共卫生被作为 "改善种族 "的工具加以推广。这些举措植根于当时的实证主义思想，将进步与科学、理性和人类进步联系在一起。迪亚斯政府相信，通过教育民众和改善其健康状况，可以提高墨西哥社会的整体水平，减少被视为 "劣等人 "的人数。然而，这些政策并不一定是为了所有墨西哥人的福祉而设计的。虽然公共初等教育受到鼓励，但获得优质教育的机会仍然有限，特别是农村和土著社区。同样，健康和卫生方面的举措往往面向精英和外国投资者居住的城市地区，将大部分人口排除在外。这些政策的潜台词显然是种族主义和优生学。无论是通过教育、卫生还是欧洲移民来 "美白 "墨西哥人口的想法，都是建立在种族等级制度基础之上的，这种等级制度重视白人，贬低土著人和非洲裔墨西哥人的特征。这些观念在当时不仅在墨西哥，而且在世界许多地方都很普遍。原住民和非裔墨西哥人社区被边缘化，种族主义和优生优育理念受到广泛批评。这些政策不仅未能改善大多数人口的生活条件，还加剧了社会和种族不平等，而这些不平等在墨西哥至今依然存在。

波菲里奥时期从 1876 年持续到 1911 年，在波菲里奥-迪亚斯的领导下，这一时期通常被称为 "墨西哥经济奇迹"。这一时期实施的改革和政策将墨西哥从一个以农业为主的国家转变为一个拥有现代化基础设施和工业增长的繁荣经济体。这一增长的主要推动力之一是铁路建设。在迪亚斯时代之前，墨西哥严重缺乏现代交通基础设施。全国铁路网的建立不仅方便了全国各地的货物运输，还打开了墨西哥进入国际市场的大门。这使得出口迅速增长，尤其是咖啡、剑麻和橡胶等农产品。在此期间，农业经历了重大变革。迪亚斯执政期间，小农和土著社区的大片土地被出售或没收，然后重新分配给大地主或外国公司。这些新业主引进了现代耕作方法，并将生产转向出口，以应对国际市场日益增长的需求。与此同时，墨西哥工业也实现了现代化。随着外国投资的到来，特别是来自美国和欧洲的投资，新的技术和生产方法被引进。采矿业（尤其是银）和石油生产有了显著增长。然而，尽管这些数字令人印象深刻，经济增长并没有让所有墨西哥人平等受益。土地集中在精英阶层手中以及对出口的依赖造成了巨大的不平等。许多小农失去了土地，被迫在大庄园里做农工。土著社区受到的打击尤为严重，他们不仅失去了土地，还失去了大部分文化和经济自主权。

波菲里奥时期（1876-1911 年）经常被视为墨西哥经济史上的转折点。在波菲里奥-迪亚斯的领导下，墨西哥经历了前所未有的经济转型，其特点是快速增长和大规模现代化。在墨西哥丰富的自然资源和商业友好型制度的吸引下，外国投资大量涌入。这些投资在铁路、港口和电报线路等重要基础设施的建设中发挥了关键作用，反过来又刺激了贸易和工业化。对出口的重视改变了墨西哥的经济。在国际市场需求的推动下，农业、采矿业和工业迅速发展。然而，这种增长并非没有后果。虽然国家经历了经济扩张，但利益分配并不公平。主要由大土地所有者、工业家和外国投资者组成的少数精英阶层积累了大量财富，而大多数人口仍处于社会边缘，面临贫困和剥削。土地作为墨西哥身份和经济的核心，成为这一时期冲突的主要根源。迪亚斯政权的土地政策有利于大地主和大公司，但往往损害了小农和土著社区的利益。小农和土著社区的土地被没收，使他们无法维持生计，被迫在往往朝不保夕的条件下工作。此外，对自然资源的大量开采也造成了持久的环境后果。工业化导致的森林砍伐、水土流失和污染给墨西哥的景观留下了伤痕。

波菲里奥时期的经济增长令人印象深刻，但不平等现象也日益严重，对外国投资的依赖性增加。波菲里奥-迪亚斯的经济政策有利于大地主、工业家和外国投资者，但往往损害了小农、工人和土著社区的利益。在此期间，外国投资者，尤其是来自美国的投资者的影响力显著增加。他们被墨西哥丰富的自然资源和迪亚斯政权的商业友好政策所吸引。这些投资者在很大程度上控制了墨西哥经济的关键部门，如采矿、石油、铁路和农业。虽然这些投资为墨西哥的现代化和经济增长做出了贡献，但也加强了墨西哥对外国资本的依赖。财富的集中不仅体现在资源的所有权上，也体现在收入的分配上。大多数墨西哥人的工作条件不稳定，工资低，几乎没有社会权利。特别是小农和原住民社区受到了该政权有利于大地主和大公司的土地政策的沉重打击。许多人被剥夺了土地，被迫充当农业工人或在矿山工作，而且往往是在受剥削的条件下工作。政治上的不平等加剧了这种经济上的不平等。迪亚斯政权镇压政治反对派，维持对权力的专制控制，限制了边缘化群体维护自身权利或挑战现有经济结构的能力。

在波菲里奥-迪亚斯政权下，墨西哥经历了快速的经济转型，但这种增长并没有得到公平分配。现代化和工业化在给社会某些部门带来好处的同时，也给另一些部门带来了破坏性后果。占人口很大比例的小农和土著社区受到的冲击最大。有利于大地主和外国投资者的土地政策导致土地大规模集中。许多人被剥夺了祖先的土地，这不仅破坏了他们的生计，也破坏了他们的传统和文化。由于无地可耕，经济机会少，许多人被迫陷入贫困或迁移到城市寻找工作。墨西哥对外国投资和自然资源出口的依赖也造成了环境后果。森林被砍伐，矿山开采不顾环境，农田被过度开发。这些行为不仅造成了环境退化，还使国家容易受到世界市场波动的影响。对迪亚斯政权的批评者指出，虽然国家实现了经济增长，但这种增长并不具有包容性。利益集中在少数精英手中，而大多数人的生活条件并没有得到明显改善。该政权所宣称的 "进步 "和 "秩序 "的理想与许多墨西哥人所经历的现实公然相悖。

另一方面，由于毗邻美国边境，墨西哥北部地区经历了快速的经济转型。外资涌入该地区，带动了大片牧场、矿山和其他出口导向型产业的发展。主要由外国资本修建的铁路将墨西哥北部与美国市场连接起来，促进了原材料的出口和制成品的进口。然而，北部的经济增长并不一定惠及当地居民。许多人背井离乡，而那些在新兴产业找到工作的人往往面临着艰苦的工作条件和低工资。墨西哥南部自然资源丰富，也吸引了外国投资者的目光。咖啡、可可、糖和热带水果种植园已经发展起来，主要用于出口。然而，与北部一样，经济增长并没有得到公平分配。尤其是土著社区，他们被剥夺了土地，被迫在种植园工作，其条件近乎奴役。拥有战略港口的墨西哥东海岸成为进出口中心。韦拉克鲁斯等港口城市迅速发展，吸引了贸易商、投资者和工人。然而，该地区也受到热带疾病的影响，尽管政府努力改善公共卫生，但死亡率仍然居高不下。

墨西哥中部地区历来土地肥沃，适合农业生产，但在波菲里安时期却发生了重大的农业变革。大地主往往与外国投资者合作，从出口作物中看到了有利可图的机会。甘蔗在国际市场上的需求不断增长，成为一种受青睐的作物。巨大的庄园（或称大庄园）占据了整个地貌，他们采用密集耕作的方法来最大限度地提高产量。然而，这种集中种植出口作物的做法对当地的粮食安全造成了不利影响。由于大部分农田用于种植甘蔗和其他出口作物，玉米、小麦和豆类等主食的产量下降。这些作物是大多数墨西哥人日常饮食的必需品，但却越来越少，导致价格上涨。对于农村家庭，尤其是那些失去了大地主土地的家庭来说，这种情况变得难以维持。他们不仅不再有土地种植自己的粮食，还不得不面对当地市场上更高的价格。无地群体和边缘化群体受到的打击最大。由于无法获得土地，工资停滞不前或不断下降，这些群体入不敷出。营养不良和饥饿在许多社区变得司空见惯，尤其是儿童。许多农民眼睁睁地看着自己的传统生计消失，取而代之的是将他们抛在身后的土地制度，这加剧了社会紧张局势。这种土地改革，加上其他社会、经济和政治因素，为不满和异议创造了肥沃的土壤，为 1910 年爆发的墨西哥革命奠定了基础。

墨西哥中部地区曾经因农业而繁荣，但在波菲里时期经历了重大的经济和社会动荡。以牺牲粮食作物为代价、偏向出口作物的土地改革对农村劳动力产生了深远影响。大地主攫取土地，小规模农业用地减少，导致许多农民失去土地。这些流离失所的农民到其他地方寻找工作，通常是在大地主的庄园或城市的新兴工业中。工人的突然涌入造成了劳动力过剩。在劳动力市场饱和的情况下，雇主占据了优势。他们可以提供较低的工资，因为他们知道工人的选择很少。就业竞争非常激烈，许多工人为了养家糊口，愿意接受不稳定的工作条件和较低的工资。在这些劳动力市场动态发生的同时，该地区的粮食价格也在不断上涨。由于用于种植主食的土地减少，玉米、小麦和豆类等产品的供应减少，导致价格上涨。对于大多数人来说，工资下降和生活成本上升的双重打击是毁灭性的。购买力下降，使许多家庭难以购买食品和其他必需品。中部地区日益恶化的生活条件加剧了社会紧张局势。对精英阶层和政府政策的不满加剧，从而引发了抗议运动，要求进行土地改革和更好地分配财富。这些情况最终促成了墨西哥革命的出现，这场运动旨在纠正波菲里安政权在社会和经济方面的不公正。

在波菲利时期，墨西哥北部地区成为真正的经济磁石。广袤的土地加上丰富的矿藏，使该地区成为主要的采矿中心。银矿、铜矿、铅矿和锌矿蓬勃发展，吸引了国内外投资者。尤其是美国，他们看到了墨西哥北部有利可图的机会，许多美国人投资于矿山和庄园，试图从该地区的自然财富中获取最大利润。除了采矿，北部地区的农业也在扩张，尤其是棉花种植。广袤的平地是种植棉花的理想之地，随着全球需求的增加，棉花种植成为该地区的主要收入来源。然而，这种快速的经济增长并非没有后果。土地和资源集中在精英（通常是外国精英）手中，加剧了社会不平等。许多来自墨西哥中部的小农和农民因波菲里政权的土地掠夺政策而流离失所，他们向北迁移以寻求更好的机会。然而，他们往往发现自己的处境岌岌可危，要么在大庄园里当农工，要么在矿场里当矿工。美国人在该地区的增加也产生了文化和社会影响。虽然一些美国人融入了当地社会，但许多人仍然与世隔绝，形成了独特的飞地。外国投资者与当地居民之间的紧张关系时有爆发，尤其是当工人的权利受到侵犯或资源开采无视环境或社区福祉时。

在波菲利时期，墨西哥北部地区成为真正的经济磁石。广袤的土地加上丰富矿藏的发现，使这一地区成为主要的采矿中心。银矿、铜矿、铅矿和锌矿蓬勃发展，吸引了国内外投资者。尤其是美国，他们看到了墨西哥北部有利可图的机会，许多美国人投资于矿山和庄园，试图从该地区的自然财富中获取最大利润。除了采矿，北部地区的农业也在扩张，尤其是棉花种植。广袤的平地是种植棉花的理想之地，随着全球需求的增加，棉花种植成为该地区的主要收入来源。然而，这种快速的经济增长并非没有后果。土地和资源集中在精英（通常是外国精英）手中，加剧了社会不平等。许多来自墨西哥中部的小农和农民因波菲里政权的土地掠夺政策而流离失所，他们向北迁移以寻求更好的机会。然而，他们往往发现自己的处境岌岌可危，要么在大庄园里当农工，要么在矿场里当矿工。美国人在该地区的增加也产生了文化和社会影响。虽然一些美国人融入了当地社会，但许多人仍然与世隔绝，形成了独特的飞地。外国投资者与当地居民之间的紧张关系时有爆发，特别是当工人的权利受到侵犯或资源被开采而不顾环境或社区福祉时。

状况

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.

The end of slavery in 1888 with the "Lei Áurea" (Golden Law) posed a major challenge to the Brazilian economy, particularly in the coffee and sugar cane sectors, which were heavily dependent on slave labour. With abolition, the Brazilian elite had to find ways of replacing this workforce. One solution was to encourage European immigration, mainly from Italy, Portugal, Spain and Germany. These immigrants were often attracted by the promise of land and opportunity, and came in large numbers to work on the coffee plantations in the state of São Paulo and other regions. Immigration was also encouraged to "whiten" the population, as there was a widespread belief among the elite that European immigrants would bring an "improvement" to the racial and cultural make-up of Brazil. The transition to the Republic in 1889 also marked a turning point in Brazilian politics. The new constitution sought to centralise power, reducing the autonomy of the provinces. This was done with the aim of modernising the country and making it more competitive on the international stage. The new republican regime also sought to promote industrialisation, encouraging foreign investment and modernising infrastructure such as railways and ports. However, despite these modernisation efforts, the Republic was marked by persistent socio-economic inequalities. The landed and industrial elite continued to dominate politics and the economy, while the majority of the population, including former slaves and rural workers, remained marginalised. Moreover, politics under the First Republic (1889-1930) was characterised by "coronelismo", a system in which "coronéis" (local chiefs) exercised quasi-feudal control over rural areas in exchange for their support of the central government.

The First Republic of Brazil (1889-1930) was a period of significant transformation for the country. Following the abolition of the monarchy, Brazil sought to position itself as a modern, progressive nation on the international stage. To achieve this, the government adopted a series of measures aimed at modernising the economy and society. Investment in infrastructure was one of the main priorities. The construction of railways was essential to connect the vast regions of the country and facilitate the transport of goods, particularly coffee, which was Brazil's main export at the time. Ports were also modernised to facilitate foreign trade, allowing Brazilian products to be exported more efficiently and foreign goods and technologies to be imported more smoothly. The creation of a national bank was another important step. It stabilised the currency, regulated credit and financed development projects. This institution played a key role in centralising the economy and promoting economic growth. Encouraging foreign investment was also crucial. Brazil, rich in natural resources but lacking in capital and advanced technologies, saw foreign investment as an opportunity for modernisation. Many foreign companies, particularly British and American, invested in sectors such as railways, public services and industry. Finally, immigration policy was an essential part of Brazil's modernisation strategy. The government sought to attract European immigrants, particularly from Italy, Portugal, Spain and Germany, to replace the slave workforce following the abolition of slavery in 1888. These immigrants were expected to bring skills, knowledge and a work ethic that would contribute to the modernisation of the country. In addition, there was a widespread belief among the elite that European immigration would "whiten" the population and improve Brazil's racial and cultural make-up.

Brazil's First Republic was marked by a series of policies which, although aimed at modernisation and economic development, also reinforced existing inequalities and were influenced by prejudicial ideologies. The Brazilian elite of the time, composed mainly of large landowners, industrialists and the military, had a clear vision of the direction in which they wanted to take the country. This vision was strongly influenced by the ideas of Social Darwinism, a theory that certain races were naturally superior to others. This belief was used to justify a series of policies that favoured white European immigrants at the expense of indigenous and Afro-Brazilian populations. The government actively encouraged European immigration, offering incentives such as free land and travel subsidies. The underlying idea was that these immigrants, because of their ethnic origin, would bring skills, a work ethic and a culture that were considered superior, and would thus help to 'improve' the Brazilian population. The effect of this policy was to further marginalise Afro-Brazilians and indigenous peoples, who were already disadvantaged by centuries of colonialism and slavery. Afro-Brazilians, in particular, found themselves in a precarious situation following the abolition of slavery in 1888. Without land or resources, many were forced to work in slave-like conditions on plantations or migrate to the cities, where they joined the ranks of the urban poor. Government policies, far from helping these communities, have exacerbated their marginalisation. Similarly, indigenous peoples continued to be dispossessed of their land and marginalised. Development policies, such as railway construction and agricultural expansion, often encroached on their territories, forcing them to move or assimilate.

Brazil's First Republic, while seeking to modernise the country, also put in place a political system that reinforced the power of the elite while marginalising the majority of the population. The tight control exercised by the government over the political sphere was a key element of this strategy. The ruling elite, anxious to preserve its interests and maintain the status quo, has adopted a series of measures to suppress all forms of opposition. Opposition political parties, social movements and trade unions were monitored, harassed and often repressed. The media were also under surveillance, and any criticism of the government or its policies was quickly censored. Elections, when they were held, were often manipulated, with cases of electoral fraud, intimidation of voters and exclusion of opposition candidates. This centralisation of power had several consequences. Firstly, it created a climate of fear and mistrust, where citizens were reluctant to openly express their opinions or engage in political activities. Secondly, it reinforced existing inequalities, as the ruling elite continued to promote policies that favoured their own interests at the expense of the majority of the population. Finally, it created a sense of frustration and discontent among the population, who felt excluded from the political process and powerless over government decisions. The lack of political representation and the suppression of dissent also led to a lack of accountability on the part of the government. Without a strong opposition to challenge its decisions or propose alternatives, the government had no incentive to respond to the needs or concerns of the majority of the population. This created a gulf between government and citizens, and sowed the seeds of mistrust and disillusionment with the political system.

Brazil's First Republic, which began in 1889 with the fall of the monarchy and ended in 1930, was a period of major transformation for the country. However, these transformations did not always benefit the majority of the population. The ruling elite, composed mainly of large landowners, industrialists and military leaders, sought to modernise the country along the lines of the industrialised Western nations. This led to significant economic growth, particularly in agriculture, industry and infrastructure. However, this economic growth has not benefited everyone. The majority of the population, particularly workers, small farmers, Afro-Brazilians and indigenous peoples, have not enjoyed the fruits of this prosperity. On the contrary, they have often been exploited to support this growth, with low wages, precarious working conditions and little or no social or political rights. The elite also adopted policies that favoured European immigrants at the expense of the local population, with the aim of 'whitening' the population and promoting 'progress'. In addition, the First Republic was marked by a flagrant lack of democracy and political representation. The government often resorted to electoral fraud, censorship and repression to maintain its power. Opposition parties and social movements were marginalised, and the voice of the majority of the population was largely ignored. These economic and political inequalities have created deep discontent among the population. Many social groups, from urban workers to landless peasants and the educated middle classes, began to organise and demand change. Tensions peaked in the late 1920s, when the global economic crisis hit Brazil, exacerbating existing problems. In 1930, a coalition of discontented political and social forces, led by Getúlio Vargas, overthrew the government of the First Republic. Vargas promised a new era of social and economic reform, and his rise to power marked the end of the First Republic and the beginning of a new phase in Brazil's history.

The First Republic of Brazil was a period of profound transformation, marked by a desire for industrialisation and modernisation. However, this modernisation was uneven, mainly favouring the ruling elite. Positivism, with its motto "Order and Progress", was adopted as the official ideology, justifying the centralisation of power and the implementation of top-down reforms. This philosophy, which valued science, progress and order, was used to legitimise the government's actions and reinforce the authority of the elite. Investment in infrastructure, such as railways and ports, certainly stimulated economic growth. However, these projects have often benefited large landowners and industrialists, who have been able to increase their production and access new markets. Similarly, the encouragement of foreign investment has led to increased dependence on foreign capital, strengthening the power of the economic elite while further marginalising small producers and workers. Immigration policy, aimed at attracting European workers, was also problematic. Although it was presented as a means of promoting development and modernisation, it also had the underlying aim of 'whitening' the Brazilian population. European immigrants were often favoured over Afro-Brazilians and indigenous peoples, who were marginalised and discriminated against. Despite economic growth, the majority of the population did not benefit from the fruits of this prosperity. Inequalities have widened, with an increasingly wealthy elite and an increasingly poor majority. In addition, the centralisation of political power in the hands of a small elite led to a lack of democratic representation. Elections were often manipulated, and political opposition was suppressed.

Brazil's geographical configuration, with its vast inland areas and densely populated coastal zones, played a decisive role in the way the country developed during the First Republic. The coastal regions, with their ports and access to international markets, were naturally favoured for trade and industrialisation. What's more, these regions already had an established infrastructure, urban centres and a relatively dense population, making them more attractive for investment and development projects. The mineral-rich state of Minas Gerais was another centre of economic activity. Historically, this state had been the heart of the Brazilian gold rush in the 18th century, and it remained economically important thanks to its mineral resources and agriculture. By contrast, the interior of the country, with its vast expanses of land and logistical challenges, was largely neglected. Infrastructure there was limited, and the cost of developing these regions was considerably higher. What's more, the interior lacked the workforce needed to support large-scale economic expansion. These regional disparities had political consequences. The coastal regions and the state of Minas Gerais, as economic centres, also had disproportionate political influence. The interior, on the other hand, was often under-represented and marginalised in political decision-making. This concentration of economic and political power reinforced existing inequalities and created tensions between the different regions of the country. Over time, these regional disparities have contributed to a sense of alienation and neglect among the populations of the interior. They also reinforced socio-economic divisions, with a prosperous coastal elite on one side, and a largely rural and marginalised inland population on the other. These tensions ultimately played a role in the political and social events that followed the end of the First Republic.

Brazil's First Republic was a period of major transition for the country, marked by socio-economic upheaval. One of the most significant changes was the shift in the country's economic centre. Historically, the north-east of Brazil, with its vast sugar plantations, was the economic heart of the country. However, during this period, the dynamic changed. The rise of coffee growing in the states of Minas Gerais and São Paulo transformed these regions into new economic centres. Coffee became one of Brazil's main exports, generating huge revenues. These revenues were reinvested to develop other sectors of the economy. The owners of coffee plantations, who became extremely wealthy, began to invest in fledgling industries such as textiles, metallurgy and other manufacturing sectors. São Paulo, in particular, experienced explosive growth. The city quickly became a major industrial centre, attracting labour from within the country and even from abroad. This rapid population growth created an increased demand for goods and services, further stimulating the local economy. The city has become a symbol of modernity and progress, contrasting with the country's traditional agricultural regions. With this economic growth came a social transformation. The traditional elite, made up mainly of landowners in the north-east, began to lose influence to a new urban elite. These new industrial tycoons, entrepreneurs and financiers, often based in São Paulo, became the country's new holders of economic power. This transition was not without its tensions. The traditional elite, accustomed to dominating Brazil's economic and political scene, saw its power decline. By contrast, the new elite, though wealthy and influential, still had to navigate Brazil's complex political landscape to consolidate its power. These dynamics shaped Brazilian politics, economy and society during the First Republic and laid the foundations for the major transformations that would follow in the decades to come.

Brazil's First Republic (1889-1930) was a period of contradictions. Although the country adopted the name and structure of a republic, the political reality was far from democratic. The "coronéis", or large landowners, exerted inordinate influence, particularly in rural areas. These elites, particularly the coffee barons of São Paulo, played a dominant role in national politics, consolidating their power and interests. The political structure of this period, often referred to as the "politics of coffee with milk", reflected the alliance between the coffee growers of São Paulo and the dairy farmers of Minas Gerais. These two states dominated the political scene, often alternating the presidency between them. This domination reinforced the federalist nature of the country, where each state enjoyed a great deal of autonomy, often to the detriment of genuine national unity. The electoral system of the time was also deeply unequal. Restrictions based on literacy, age and wealth deprived the vast majority of Brazilians of their right to vote. This exclusion strengthened the power of the elites, as they could easily manipulate a small electorate to maintain their grip on power. However, as the 20th century progressed, social and political tensions intensified. The rapid growth of urban centres, the emergence of an organised working class and the growing influence of populist and socialist ideas created an environment of discontent. Gross inequality, political exclusion and the abuse of power by elites fuelled frustration and anger among the masses. The world economic crisis of 1929, which severely affected the Brazilian economy, particularly the coffee sector, was the final blow to the First Republic. The combination of economic instability and social tensions created a climate conducive to change. In 1930, Getúlio Vargas, backed by a coalition of disgruntled military and political forces, overthrew the government, ending the First Republic and ushering in a new era in Brazilian history.

The Progress

The First Republic of Brazil was a period of major urban transformation, particularly in large cities such as Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. Inspired by the ideals of progress and modernisation, the leaders of the time sought to transform these cities into modern metropolises that could rival the great European capitals. The influence of Paris was particularly evident. At the time, the French capital was considered the pinnacle of urban modernity and sophistication. The prefect of the Seine, Georges-Eugène Haussmann, had radically transformed Paris in the 1850s and 1860s, creating wide boulevards, parks and public squares. These Haussmannian renovations became a model for other cities around the world. In Brazil, figures such as the mayor of Rio, Pereira Passos, sought to reproduce this model. Under his leadership, vast areas of the old city were razed to make way for wide avenues, parks and monumental buildings. These projects were intended to improve traffic flow, public health and the city's image. However, they also had major social consequences. Many inhabitants of poor neighbourhoods were displaced, often without adequate compensation, and were forced to settle in favelas or shanty towns on the outskirts. São Paulo, as a leading centre of industry and commerce, has also undergone major transformations. Larger, more modern buildings have begun to dominate the urban landscape, and the city has sought to improve its infrastructure to support its rapid growth. However, these modernisation projects were not without their critics. While on the one hand they helped to improve infrastructure and modernise the appearance of cities, on the other they often favoured the interests of the elite to the detriment of the working classes. Historic districts and communities were destroyed, and many inhabitants were displaced without having any say in the process.

The abolition of slavery in Brazil in 1888, although a major historical milestone, was not followed by the significant integration of Afro-Brazilians into society. The "Lei Áurea" (Golden Law), signed by Princess Isabel, put an end to almost 300 years of slavery, making Brazil the last country in the Americas to abolish the practice. However, the way in which this abolition was implemented left many challenges unresolved. Former slaves found themselves free, but without resources, education or land. Unlike other countries that set up post-abolition reconstruction or reparation programmes, Brazil offered no compensation or support to former slaves. This left them in a precarious situation, where the only viable option for many was to return to work for their former masters, but this time as working poor, without rights or protection. The marginalisation of Afro-Brazilians was not limited to the economy. Despite their large numbers, they were largely excluded from the country's political power structures. Elites, mainly of European origin, continued to dominate Brazil's politics, economy and culture, perpetuating power structures and racial inequalities that persist to this day. Brazil's First Republic, despite its ambitions for modernisation and progress, largely ignored the needs and rights of Afro-Brazilians. Investment in infrastructure and industry mainly benefited the elite and foreign investors, reinforcing socio-economic inequalities.

Brazil's First Republic, despite its promises of modernisation and progress, largely continued the land-grabbing policies that had been initiated during the colonial period and the monarchy. The Amazon, with its vast tracts of land and natural resources, has become a prime target for exploiters and investors. The rubber rush of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries transformed the Amazon region. Rubber barons established vast plantations, exploiting the growing global demand for this precious resource. However, the rapid growth of the rubber industry came at the expense of the indigenous populations. Many were forced to work in conditions reminiscent of slavery, with gruelling working hours, ill-treatment and little or no pay. Diseases introduced by the colonists also had a devastating impact on the indigenous populations, many of whom had no immunity to these diseases. As well as exploiting the Amazon, the First Republic also encouraged the concentration of land in the hands of a small elite. Large landowners, or "fazendeiros", continued to expand their estates, often at the expense of small farmers and indigenous communities. These policies not only displaced many people, but also reinforced existing socio-economic inequalities.

Although Brazil's First Republic sought to modernise itself by drawing inspiration from European models, it failed to attract large numbers of European immigrants. There were many reasons for this low level of immigration: the country's reputation as a slave-owning nation, the difficult conditions of rural life, and competition with other immigration destinations such as the United States and Argentina. As a result, Brazil's demographic composition has remained dominated by the descendants of African slaves and indigenous populations. The Brazilian elite, composed mainly of landowners, industrialists and the military, continued to consolidate its power and wealth, leaving a large part of the population in poverty. The socio-economic structures inherited from the colonial period and the monarchy, where a small elite controlled most of the land and resources, persisted. Attempts at economic modernisation have mainly benefited this elite, while the majority of the population has seen little improvement in their quality of life. Political repression and the economic marginalisation of the majority of the population have created a climate of discontent. Strikes, demonstrations and revolts have become commonplace, and the government has often responded with force. Growing frustration with inequality, corruption and government authoritarianism finally culminated in the overthrow of the First Republic in 1930, ushering in a new era in Brazilian politics.

Brazil's First Republic attempted to modernise the country by encouraging European immigration, hoping that this would stimulate the economy and provide skilled labour for the fledgling industries. However, the reality was very different. Many of these immigrants, lured by the promise of a better life, found themselves confronted with a brutal reality. Instead of finding opportunities in the growing cities, they often found themselves on coffee plantations, working in difficult conditions and for derisory wages. Brazil's socio-economic structure was deeply rooted in centuries of inequality, with a powerful elite controlling most of the land and resources. Despite the arrival of new immigrants, the hierarchy based on race and class remained largely intact. Afro-Brazilians and indigenous peoples, despite their numbers, were still marginalised and denied economic and political rights. Brazil's elite benefited from economic modernisation, consolidating their wealth and power. However, for the majority of the population, the promises of progress and prosperity remained out of reach. Inequalities grew, with the elite prospering while the majority struggled to survive. This situation created fertile ground for social discontent, laying the foundations for the political unrest that was to follow.

The Order

Brazil's First Republic was a period of profound transformation, marked by a desire for industrialisation and modernisation. However, these transformations were implemented in a way that reinforced existing inequalities and created new forms of marginalisation. The planters and economic elites of the southern states, particularly São Paulo, saw an opportunity in European immigration. By encouraging migration, they hoped not only to meet the demand for labour following the abolition of slavery in 1888, but also to "whiten" the Brazilian population, in line with the racist ideologies of the time, which associated progress and civilisation with the white race. Public funds were used to facilitate the arrival of these European migrants, who were often attracted by the promise of land and opportunities. However, once in Brazil, many found themselves working in precarious conditions, albeit preferable to those of Afro-Brazilians. Afro-Brazilians, who had just emerged from centuries of slavery, were systematically marginalised. European migrants, although often poor and uneducated, were preferred for jobs in the new industries and crafts. Afro-Brazilians, on the other hand, were relegated to the least desirable and lowest-paid jobs. This economic marginalisation was accompanied by social marginalisation. Afro-Brazilians had limited access to education, healthcare and other essential services. They were also victims of discrimination and racism in everyday life. The strategy of encouraging European immigration, while marginalising Afro-Brazilians, had lasting consequences. It reinforced racial and economic inequalities, creating a deeply divided society. Even after the end of the First Republic, these inequalities persisted, and Brazil continues to struggle with the legacy of this period.

The post-abolitionist period in Brazil is a striking example of how institutionalised racism can shape the socio-economic structures of a nation. Although slavery was officially abolished in 1888, the legacy of this institution has persisted, profoundly influencing the country's socio-economic dynamics. Despite their official liberation, Afro-Brazilians faced systemic discrimination that hindered their access to education, land ownership and economic opportunities. This discrimination was not based on their ability or qualifications, but rather on the colour of their skin. Indeed, many Afro-Brazilians possessed skills and knowledge acquired over generations of work in various sectors, from agriculture to handicrafts. However, with the arrival of European immigrants, encouraged by the Brazilian elite with the aim of 'whitening' the population, Afro-Brazilians became increasingly marginalised. Despite the fact that many European immigrants did not have the skills or education that some Afro-Brazilians possessed, they were preferred for jobs simply because of their ethnic origin. This preference was not based on meritocracy, but rather on a racist ideology that valued whiteness and devalued blackness. This marginalisation of Afro-Brazilians has had lasting consequences. It reinforced socio-economic inequalities, creating a society where race largely determined access to opportunities. This history is a powerful reminder of how racism and discrimination can perpetuate inequality, even in the absence of formal laws upholding these prejudices.

The legacy of slavery in Brazil has left deep scars that continue to affect Brazilian society in many ways. Although slavery was abolished in 1888, the socio-economic structures that were put in place during this period have persisted, marginalising Afro-Brazilians and preventing them from accessing the same opportunities as their white compatriots. The First Republic of Brazil, despite its proclamations of modernisation and progress, largely ignored the needs and rights of Afro-Brazilians. The policies of the time, from the encouragement of European immigration to the economic marginalisation of Afro-Brazilians, reinforced racial inequalities. Afro-Brazilian men, despite their skills and experience, were often confined to low-paid manual jobs or to agricultural work in precarious conditions. Women, for their part, were often confined to domestic work, a sector which, although essential, was undervalued and poorly paid. This economic marginalisation had lasting consequences. Without access to decent jobs and fair wages, many Afro-Brazilian families were trapped in cycles of poverty. In addition, the exclusion of Afro-Brazilians from political and educational spheres has limited their opportunities for social mobility and betterment. Today, although Brazil has made significant progress in terms of civil rights and equality, the repercussions of this period of discrimination and exclusion are still being felt. Afro-Brazilians are still disproportionately represented among the poor and have limited access to quality education and economic opportunities. The struggle for racial equality in Brazil is far from over, and the First Republic offers valuable insights into the origins of these persistent inequalities.

The family structure is a fundamental element of society, and any change or disruption in this structure can have profound repercussions on the social and cultural dynamics of a community. For Afro-Brazilians during the First Republic, economic discrimination and exclusion from the labour market not only hampered their ability to provide for their families, but also challenged traditional roles within the family. In many cultures, the father is traditionally seen as the main breadwinner, the one who provides the resources needed to support the family. However, due to the economic challenges faced by Afro-Brazilians, many mothers have had to take on this role, often working in low-paid jobs such as domestic service. This reversal of roles may have created tensions within the family, as it went against established cultural and social norms. Fathers, unable to fulfil their traditional role as providers, could feel emasculated or devalued. This situation could also lead to feelings of shame, frustration or resentment, which in turn could affect family dynamics and the relationship between parents and their children. In addition, this erosion of the traditional patriarchal structure may have had wider consequences for the Afro-Brazilian community. As traditional roles and expectations were disrupted, this could lead to a questioning of cultural norms and values, creating uncertainty about one's identity and role within society.

Brazil, with its rich history of miscegenation and reputation as a racial melting pot, is often perceived as a nation without racial prejudice. However, this perception is at odds with the reality experienced by many Afro-Brazilians. Racial positivism, which was influential during the period of the First Republic and beyond, shaped attitudes and policies on race, promoting the idea that the 'whitening' of the population, through European migration and assimilation, would benefit the country. Although Brazil has not adopted segregation laws comparable to those in the United States, racism is deeply rooted in the country's social, economic and political structures. Afro-Brazilians are often relegated to deprived neighbourhoods, known as favelas, where access to basic services is limited. In addition, they are often discriminated against in the labour market, where well-paid jobs are predominantly held by white Brazilians. Education is another area where racial inequalities are evident. Schools in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, where many Afro-Brazilians live, are often underfunded and offer a poorer quality of education. This limits opportunities for higher education and, consequently, employment prospects for many Afro-Brazilians. Police violence is also a major problem, with Afro-Brazilians being disproportionately targeted and subjected to brutality and murder. This violence is often justified by racial stereotypes that associate Afro-Brazilians with criminality. Despite these challenges, many Afro-Brazilians have managed to overcome these obstacles and make significant contributions to Brazilian society in various fields, such as music, the arts, sport and politics. However, the fight for racial equality and social justice in Brazil is far from over.

The concept of 'racial democracy' in Brazil, popularised by sociologists such as Gilberto Freyre, suggests that the coexistence and interbreeding of different races has created a society free of racial prejudice. However, this idea is largely contradicted by the reality experienced by many Afro-Brazilians. Although Brazil has not had formal segregation laws like other countries, structural and institutional racism is deeply rooted in society. The Brazilian elite, which is predominantly white, often uses the upward mobility of some Afro-Brazilians as proof of the absence of racism. However, these exceptions are often used to mask the systemic inequalities that persist. Afro-Brazilians are under-represented in the spheres of power, higher education and prestigious professions. They are also over-represented in statistics on poverty, unemployment and violence. The marginalisation of Afro-Brazilians is also visible in the media. Brazilian telenovelas, for example, which are extremely popular, often feature white actors in the lead roles, while Afro-Brazilians are relegated to secondary or stereotypical roles. Acknowledging this reality is essential if we are to tackle and combat racism in Brazil. Ignoring or denying the existence of racism only perpetuates inequalities and prevents the country from achieving its full potential as a truly inclusive and egalitarian nation.

The notion of 'racial democracy' in Brazil is complex and has deep historical roots. Gilberto Freyre, a Brazilian sociologist, popularised the idea in the 1930s with his book "Maison-Grande & Senzala". He argued that Brazil, unlike other countries, had created a unique harmony between the races through miscegenation. This idea was widely accepted and shaped Brazil's national identity for many years. However, this notion served to mask the deep-rooted racial inequalities in Brazilian society. By presenting Brazil as a racial democracy, the elite has been able to deny the existence of institutional and structural racism. This has made it possible to justify the absence of specific policies aimed at rectifying racial inequalities, because, according to this logic, if racism does not exist, there is no need for such policies. The reality is that Afro-Brazilians have been, and still are, systematically disadvantaged in almost every aspect of society, from education and employment to housing and access to healthcare. Rates of violence and incarceration are also significantly higher for Afro-Brazilians than for their white counterparts. The idea that Afro-Brazilians are responsible for their own socio-economic condition is a manifestation of racism. It ignores the power structures and policies that have historically favoured white Brazilians to the detriment of Afro-Brazilians. This mentality perpetuates the status quo and prevents the country from tackling the real causes of racial inequality.

The notion of 'racial democracy' in Brazil, while seemingly positive on the surface, has in reality served to mask and perpetuate the deep racial inequalities that exist in the country. By denying the existence of racism, the elite and the state have been able to avoid taking concrete steps to address and rectify these inequalities. The myth of racial democracy has created a false perception that Brazil is free from racial prejudice, which has made it difficult for Afro-Brazilians to denounce and fight against the discrimination they face. It has also reinforced the idea that their socio-economic situation is the result of their own inability or fault, rather than the product of a discriminatory system. Racial stereotypes, reinforced by this narrative, have concrete consequences on the lives of Afro-Brazilians. They are often perceived as inferior, less intelligent or less capable, which limits their employment and educational opportunities. In addition, they often face institutional discrimination, such as higher incarceration rates and limited access to quality healthcare. The marginalisation of Afro-Brazilians is not just an economic problem, but also a profound social one. It affects their self-esteem, their identity and their sense of belonging to Brazilian society. To break this vicious circle, it is essential to recognise and dismantle the myth of racial democracy and implement policies that directly address racial inequalities.

Brazil's transition from monarchy to republic and from slavery to a system of free labour was a period of profound and rapid change. However, despite these changes, power structures and socio-racial inequalities persisted. The notion of "racial democracy" was promoted as a way of projecting a positive image of Brazil on the international stage, as a harmonious and integrated nation where all races coexisted peacefully. This idea was attractive to the Brazilian elite, as it allowed Brazil to be presented as a modern and progressive country, while avoiding the deep-rooted problems of discrimination and inequality. It was also used to justify the absence of specific policies to address racial inequalities, because if racism did not exist, there was no need for such policies. The myth of racial democracy also served to consolidate the power of the elite. By denying the existence of racism, they were able to maintain the status quo and avoid Afro-Brazilians' demands for greater equality and representation. It also allowed the elite to control the national narrative and define Brazilian identity in a way that favoured them. However, the reality was very different. Afro-Brazilians were still marginalised, discriminated against and excluded from power structures. They were often relegated to low-paid jobs, had limited access to education and healthcare, and were often victims of violence and prejudice. The myth of racial democracy obscured this reality and made it more difficult for Afro-Brazilians to claim their rights and fight discrimination.

Promoting the idea of racial democracy was a clever strategy to divert attention from the glaring inequalities that persisted in Brazilian society. By projecting an image of racial harmony, the elite could justify their power and wealth while avoiding addressing the structural problems of racism and discrimination. It was a way of legitimising the status quo and resisting calls for deeper social reform. Order and progress, the words inscribed on the Brazilian flag, were the watchwords of this period. Order referred to political stability and the suppression of dissent, while progress meant economic development and modernisation. However, for the elite, progress mainly meant their own enrichment and consolidation of power, while order was maintained by the repression of all opposition. Despite their formal liberation from slavery, Afro-Brazilians found themselves in a subordinate position, often forced to work in conditions that closely resembled those of slavery. They were often paid poverty wages, lived in precarious conditions and were deprived of fundamental rights. Their marginalisation was justified by racial stereotypes that portrayed them as naturally inferior and therefore destined to occupy subordinate positions in society. Education, which could have been a means of upward social mobility for Afro-Brazilians, was often out of reach, as schools were few in number, poorly equipped and often discriminatory. Similarly, access to healthcare was limited, resulting in higher mortality rates and shorter life expectancy for Afro-Brazilians compared to their white counterparts. By using the narrative of racial democracy, the elite was able to divert attention from structural inequalities and present Brazil as a nation where everyone had an equal chance to succeed. It was a carefully constructed illusion that hid the reality of a society deeply divided by race and class.

Brazil, the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery in 1888, faced a major challenge: how to integrate millions of former slaves into a society that had historically regarded them as inferior? The answer was found in the promotion of the idea of "racial democracy". According to this notion, Brazil was a nation where all races lived in harmony, without prejudice or discrimination. It was a seductive vision, especially for a nation eager to modernise and present itself as progressive on the international stage. In reality, however, it served to mask the deep and systemic inequalities that persisted. Afro-Brazilians were free in theory, but in practice they faced enormous economic, social and political obstacles. The elite, mainly of European descent, used the myth of racial democracy to avoid addressing the structural problems of racism and discrimination. By promoting this idea, they could maintain their privileged position while avoiding criticism. The transition from monarchy to republic offered an opportunity to redefine national identity. The state and the elite seized this opportunity to promote a vision of Brazil as a united nation, where race was not a divisive factor. However, this vision was at odds with the daily reality of many Afro-Brazilians, who were often relegated to the lowest-paid jobs, lived in favelas or shantytowns and regularly faced discrimination and 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]

拉丁美洲的秩序与进步：1875 - 1910年

Sommaire