Losing Too Much Land In Mexico Essay

Until recently in the world, land has equaled wealth. Land represents the harvest and the ability to grow goods that sell and sustain. Back before Diaz and his predecessor (Santa Anna), Mexico included modern day Texas and California, and owned its utilities and land. However, when Santa Anna sold these immense territories to the U.S.,the reduction in the landmass of Mexico caused much dissent in Mexico. People lost their homes, fields, and jobs. Soon after this event, Diaz implemented capitalist laws that took away communal lands and offered it to the highest bidder. Although this does give everyone a chance to buy this land, most people’s wealth was their land, meaning they did not possess the cash. So, a majority of Mexicans lost their land without hope of buying it back, and this became part of the

Most of Mexico was owned by foreign investors, and the remainder was owned by a few wealthy families. Students need to understand the consequences of this decision, since it resulted in the majority of the people owning little or no land. The lack of land was a major component of the revolution, since landless people were like slaves to the landowners. Peasants had to rent land from the landowners, or work for foreign companies which dominated Mexico. Diaz greatly valued foreign investment, encouraging foreigners to take over the rail lines, industries, and fruit production. He, like many others, believed that foreigners with lighter skin were superior to local dark-skinned Mexicans. This ideology shaped his policies regarding foreign investment, and it was these policies that ruined many lives. When a president does not value his citizens, he will cause much unrest and dissent. In the case of Mexico, the dissent burst into a revolution. A revolution where the concept of valuing the people of Mexico more than foreigners became very