For The First Paper, Use Only The Class Materials 816404 ✓ Solved

For The First Paper You Should Use Only The Class Materials Provided

For the first paper, you should use only the class materials provided. No outside sources are allowed except for the current event discussed in your conclusion. Make sure to demonstrate that you have read the material and clearly state your thesis in the introduction and the conclusion. Please write: “MY THESIS IS” so I know that you have one. Your essay should be at least 6-7 pages double-spaced or 3-4 pages single-spaced with 1-inch margins. You don't need a cover sheet. Use Chicago Citation Style, following Purdue Owl guidelines. Cite your sources correctly; any quotes longer than three lines should be single-spaced (block quotes, no quotation marks). Quotes three lines or less should have quotation marks. You should cite the sources (Hellman and Vanden/Prewost/Hamilton) even if paraphrasing. You can use footnotes or in-text parenthetical citations at your choice.

According to Collier (Basta! Land and the Zapatista Rebellion, 1994), when in 1992 President Salinas de Gortari halted land reform—a key issue for his party—it marked an abrupt end to a traditional government contract with the peasantry, depriving peasants of both livelihoods and political power. The Zapatistas aim to reclaim that constituency (Collier, 1994:8). This quote highlights the relationship between the peasant sector and the Mexican state after the Mexican Revolution, and suggests a link between Mexico’s economic restructuring and the rise of the Zapatista rebellion.

The transition to neoliberal economic policies and the adoption of a free-market model significantly transformed lives across Mexico's social sectors. These changes were social, political, and economic. With this context, discuss the significance of the Mexican Revolution in shaping the transition to the New Economic Model (neoliberalism). How did the Revolution address the problem of “two Mexicos” that emerged under Diaz? What were the main goals of the Revolution? How did the meaning of the Revolution change during Salinas de Gortari’s presidency? How do Hellman’s testimonials offer insight into how NAFTA’s free-market mechanisms affected individuals? Did all sectors experience these impacts equally? (Hellman addresses this point.) Have Mexico’s disparities of “two Mexicos” re-emerged? Where does Mexico stand today in its political and economic development? Explain your view using recent events in the conclusion, placing Mexico in its historical context and referencing the Mexican Revolution, the rise of PRI and ISI policies, and neoliberal reforms.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The Mexican Revolution, which began in 1910, was a pivotal event that reshaped the social, political, and economic landscape of Mexico. It aimed to resolve deep-rooted inequalities and establish a more equitable society, addressing the profound division encapsulated in the concept of “two Mexicos”—the wealthy, urban elites and the impoverished peasantry and working classes. Over the course of the 20th century, Mexico's political trajectory has been marked by a series of revolutionary goals that sought to reconcile these disparities, culminating in the long-standing dominance of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) and state-led development policies like Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI). However, by the late 20th century, economic crises and global neoliberal reforms ushered in a new model—neoliberalism—whose policies aimed at opening markets and attracting foreign investment. This essay explores the enduring impact of the Mexican Revolution, the evolution of its objectives over time, the influence of neoliberal reforms under Salinas de Gortari, and the social outcomes of free-market mechanisms like NAFTA, as depicted through Hellman’s testimonials.

The Mexican Revolution and the “Two Mexicos”

The revolution’s core objective was social justice, land redistribution, and the end of dictatorial rule, primarily targeting the vast inequalities perpetuated since Porfirio Diaz’s era. Diaz’s rule had accentuated the divide between the urban wealthy and rural poor, fostering a social landscape fractured along class lines. The revolution sought to dismantle these disparities through land reforms and the establishment of social rights. Yet, despite these efforts, the post-revolutionary state struggled to fully reconcile these divides, which persisted as two distinct “Mexcicos”: the modern, urban, and industrial sector, and the traditional, rural, and marginalized peasantry.

This duality was entrenched by policies that focused on industrial growth and urbanization, leaving rural areas underdeveloped. The revolution addressed the “two Mexicos” by advocating for land reform and social justice, but the PRI government’s later policies, notably ISI, often reinforced this divide through protectionism and state control over key sectors, neglecting rural needs in favor of urban industrialization.

Goals of the Revolution and Shifting Meanings

The primary goals included land redistribution, social equity, ending dictatorship, and establishing political stability. These aims were embodied in landmark reforms such as Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution, which guaranteed land rights. Over time, however, the interpretation of the Revolution’s goals shifted. Under Salinas de Gortari, the Revolution’s revolutionary spirit was repackaged to justify policies aligning with globalizing trends—free markets, privatization, and deregulation. This shift was evident in the signing of NAFTA, which aimed to integrate Mexico into global supply chains, ostensibly to foster economic growth but also to deepen dependency and inequality.

Hellman’s Testimonials and the Impact of Neoliberalism

Hellman’s work provides several testimonials illustrating the nuanced impacts of NAFTA and neoliberal reforms. For instance, her interviews with Mexican workers and farmers reveal a spectrum of experiences. Some celebrated new opportunities for employment and modernized markets, while others experienced displacement, loss of livelihoods, or marginalization. These testimonials illustrate that neoliberal reforms did not benefit all sectors equally, often exacerbating regional disparities and social inequalities.

Such disparities are encapsulated in Hellman’s discussion of rural communities, where mechanization and market pressures led to increased vulnerability among peasants, many of whom were displaced or rendered into informal labor markets. Conversely, urban sectors experienced growth in manufacturing and services, highlighting the uneven benefits of neoliberal policies.

The Revival of “Two Mexicos” and Contemporary Mexico

Despite the supposed integrative power of neoliberal reforms, Mexico’s society still bears the scars of inequality. Recent protests, economic disparities, and political unrest showcase that the ‘two Mexicos’ persist—rich versus poor, urban versus rural, formal versus informal sectors. For example, the wave of recent protests in 2023, prompted by economic austerity measures and social injustice, reflect ongoing divisions. While the government promotes economic growth, a significant portion of the population remains marginalized, with limited access to quality education, healthcare, and stable employment.

Reflecting on recent events such as the controversial energy reforms and the ongoing migration crisis underscores these persistent disparities. Mexico’s current political and economic landscape reveals a nation still grappling with the legacies of revolution and neoliberal reform, striving for social inclusion amidst economic inequality. The country remains characterized by stark differences between regions, sectors, and classes, indicating that, although significant progress has been made, the ideal of reconciling the “two Mexicos” remains elusive.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Mexican Revolution was instrumental in shaping Mexico’s foundational social contract and addressing disparities. Nonetheless, the post-revolutionary reliance on state-led development and the subsequent shift to neoliberalism under Salinas de Gortari have transformed the social fabric, often in ways that reassert the divide between Mexico’s “two Mexicos.” The testimonials presented by Hellman underscore how free-market mechanisms like NAFTA impacted various sectors differently, deepening inequalities rather than alleviating them. Today, Mexico continues to confront these persistent inequalities, as evidenced by recent social protests and economic policies. The nation remains at a crossroads, balancing globalization with the pursuit of social justice, seeking to forge a more unified Mexico where economic growth benefits all sectors equally.

References

• Collier, P. (1994). Basta! Land and the Zapatista Rebellion.
• Hellman, J. (Year). [Title of Hellman’s work].
• Prewost, H. & Hamilton, S. (Year). [Title of relevant texts].
• Purdue OWL. Chicago Style Citation Guide. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/chicago_style/chicago_manual_17th_edition.html
• Additional credible sources relevant to the topic.