Blog for Week of January 20th

 One of the strangest phenomenons, which we talked about in class for a little while, is the idea that a nation or group of people is more successful when there is a national hero/leader. I haven't really thought about this previously, but powerful nations almost always have some sort of figurehead to base their patriotism. Sorry that I don't remember who mentioned this in class, but someone something along the lines of "it's easier to rally around a person rather than an undeveloped national culture." From that, I reached a mental breakthrough and realized why countries like Mexico were not as successful at creating a national identity.  Off the top of my head, countries/cultures such as the United States (Washington), South America (Bolivar), Soviet Union (Lenin), North Korea (Kim family), Britain (monarch), and ancient Egypt (Pharoah) all had leaders that were easily identifiable culturally. Additionally, all of these leaders have two things in common: they gained power and then used that power to create dramatic impacts in a unique but prolonged time frame of an unclear cultural unity. Although Miguel Hidalgo initiated great change in Mexico, he did not sustain power long enough to be held as a founding figurehead. Furthermore, Jose Maria Morelos failed to gain the support of all the people (specifically Creoles). Both of these leaders were not dominant enough to not only enact change but to maintain their power to progress their ideas. Consistency is very important at the beginning of any stage of progression. By having two leaders already fail, the roots of instability had already been established in Mexican society. Future leaders would look at the situation and see that previous attempts of controlling power and change failed, so, as a result, think it would be easy to seize power and lead according to self-interest. We can see this power dynamic continue with the constant leadership changes for the next few decades of Mexican independence. The longer that Mexico would go without a steady figurehead, the further it would stray from being supported by the population themselves. Without unconditional support from the Mexican people, the only way for the government to establish control would be to establish extreme laws and regulations, which further compounded Mexico's lack of patriotic identity through a central character.

Comments

  1. Seth TenElshofJanuary 21, 2022 at 8:36 AM

    That's really interesting, Ben! You are completely right - countries without a strong leader do tend to fall apart. Maybe that's because without being able to put a face to the ideas of national culture, people start to form different opinions of what national culture should be. Like you say, consistency is key - when there is a leader who constantly reminds the people what they stand for, this is invaluable to national identity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Professor StarkFebruary 3, 2022 at 2:13 PM

    Thank you, Ben, for the post. I like the discussion of a country's need for a hero if it is to be successful and thrive. Do you see a country's hero as achieving heroic status as a result of independence or accomplishing significant societal changes. If so, this might be why Mexico lacks a hero to this day, except perhaps Benito Juarez but we will see in a few weeks that he is controversial.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog for Week of Sept. 23

I need to come up with some sort of name to address the people who are reading my posts. It's boring just saying hey everyone. Anyways, something that caught my attention during the week was the story of Ferdinand van Olmen. In 1487, only a few years prior to Columbus, van Olmen was given permission to sail west with the hopes of discovering new resources and land for Portugal. He attempted to go west across the Atlantic Ocean with high hopes, but he ran into difficult winds and storms that made the voyage impossible. Strangely enough, the weather had a tremendous impact on our world history. Since van Olmen set sail in winter, the winds were pushing against his ships. Columbus, to his fortune, set sail when the winds were in his favor and helping him towards what would become the New World. Imagine if van Olmen had succeeded and ended up discovering the New World for Portugal. The entire structure of Latin America would be based on Portuguese culture and language. The people today...
Read more

My Response to Annika's Post Week of October 28th

 I really like how you compared the example from the movie to today's standards. It's interesting how materialistic objects can portray what someone is worth or at least appear that way. Much of what is perceived by others of ourselves is what we like. Just because someone takes an interest in something doesn't mean their personality is always the same. I think that humans are too quick to judge each other based on outward appearance instead of personal interactions.
Read more

Blog for Week of October 28th

 I thought the city of Potosí in current-day Bolivia was very similar to many towns in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. People tend to live around where the money is, and in both Michigan's U.P. and Potosí, there was labor needed for the mining industry. Although Potosí and the U.P. had very different primary mining resources available in copper and silver, the results of the mining industry remained the same. Large populations developed around the mining communities because that was where resources were most necessary. Additionally, many of the miners in both Potosí and the U.P. had to deal with extremely difficult conditions. A lot of the work was done by immigrants or people who had come from far away for the work. The miners did not have many other choices other than to work in the mines because of their social statuses and backgrounds. Consequently, the mining industry in both communities created booming trade industries. The Upper Peninsula would grow as a series of mining tow...
Read more