Mexico

Teacher: Nina Cerebra Due Date: 17/09/14 word count:281 Homes in Mexico and Canada are pretty similar but they have some important difference but this essay will show that homes in Mexico are safer tan homes in Canada in many ways. Although Canada has less criminal rates tan in Mexico the homes in Mexico have more security systems and fences. Other factor is the material tit the houses are constructed.

Canadian and Mexican homes have the same appearances more or less. The architecture in Mexican and Canadian homes is much the same. Homes on both countries also have a waterproof system and other protections against the elements because in both countries climates are or too hot or too cold. As its mentioned before the material in homes of both countries are toddlers. In Canada houses are made of wood and In Mexico they are made of concrete and bricks. The wood is more likely to catch fire than concrete so fires In

Mexico are very rare the only probably that a house catches fire Is a gas leak but In Canada are more common the fires In homes. Concrete Is also more solid although The security systems, fences and alarms are other things Canadian homes lack. This Is because Canadian homes don’t need that. At first appearance the Canadian and Mexican homes are practically the same but If Its really analyzed It can be find several differences between them. This essay was focus on the security and It proved that because of the dangers that Mexico has like insecurity, earthquakes and other s dangers.

The available Mexican financial sources both public and private that assist in promoting global investment for Extra Corona include shares held by a Railway Company known as Busch entertainment, Scrips and a merger called Thomson financial. The railway company takes the position of optimal financing source for Grupo Modelo. Stock exchange market of Mexico has a very important contribution whereby it necessitates the functioning of Group modelo’s public sources of financing for this organization.

This is because it is where Mexicans access Grupo Modelo’s shares, adding to the company’s economic value. This organization has been trading its shares in its home country’s stock market since the year nineteen ninety four where it as been using the symbol GMODELOC. The location of this railway company within Mexico makes it easy for it to observe proceedings of Grupo Modelo marketwise boosting it in areas where it experiences financial limitations which serves as its appropriateness as a financial source for Grupo Modelo. (Conway, 1995)

Available and Optimal Financing Sources (Bilateral or Multilateral) Outside Mexico to Promote Global Investment for Corona Extra There are financial sources for Grupo Modelo based outside Mexico including Anheuser-Busch which is the main source of funds for this organization. Grupo Modelo has a number of countries in which it quotes its shares including Spain where it is quoted as XGMD. These financial sources greatly influence operations undertaken by Grupo Modelo particularly towards achievement of increased sales for Corona Extra.

Other financial sources for Grupo Module are the markets it has for Corona Extra whose sales are very attractive within as well as outside Mexico. Anheuser-Busch which is the optimal financing source for this organization has made a substantial contribution to Corona Extra production and wide distribution since its financial support is used in transporting this product to the markets outside Mexico. Financial support provided by Anheuser-Busch is also used in supporting advertisements conducted in new markets where Corona Extra has not gained popularity.

One of the achievements that show this financial source appropriateness is the situation where new markets like New Zealand have been currently reached and Corona Extra is already being presented on tap through a beverage company known as Carlton. (Conway, 1995) Two Foreign Markets for Corona Extra and the Possibility of Extending This Product’s Life Cycle in the Selected Markets Corona Extra has a wide range of foreign markets including Europe and Asia where the highest sales of this product have been recorded in comparison to other foreign markets.

Specific areas within Europe where Corona Extra is being marketed in high rates include France, and Greece. Studies have shown that consumption of Corona Extra is rapidly increasing in these two countries within Europe. This has been made possible by the promotional activity that is so intense especially during the current economic crisis which is aimed at maintaining Corona Extra’s high level of sales. The situation in Asia is closely related with the one being experienced in Europe since market for Corona Extra is showing a positive trend.

By the year nineteen ninety nine, Corona Extra’s sales in this particular region had risen by twenty five percent and has been continually rising since that time showing that its level of sales must be quite high. The total amount of sales recorded from Corona Extra’s foreign markets by nineteen ninety eight was fifty four thousand one hundred and seventy million hectoliters. The lifecycle of Corona Extra within these two markets is portraying a positive trend whereby high levels of sales are being experienced and a similar situation is expected in future. (Cheney, 2007) Conclusion

Grupo Modelo represents an appropriate choice of a non-North American organization whose product namely Corona Extra, has reached its maturity levels within the organization’s product offerings. This organization which is located in Mexico deals with beer production that is distributed both locally as well as to markets outside Mexico. More so, it has a number of financial sources which range from local (public and Private) to foreign (multilateral or bilateral). Corona Extra has greatly contributed to Grupo Modelo’s popularity due to the high level of sales it has accumulated for the organization.

Mexico has not been spared by economic crisis being experienced worldwide but according to an observation made by the organization’s administration, it is noted that sale of Corona Extra has registered success as its market is continually enlarging. This situation where the sale of Corona Extra has been able to stand the crisis is credited to Grupo Modelo’s CEO who has shown a high level of vigilance in his control of Corona Extra’s production as well as its performance in the market. (Cheney, 2007)

REFERENCES Cheney G. (2007): The debate over corporate social responsibility, Oxford: Oxford University Press pp 45-49 Conway A. (1995): Grupo Modelo, S. A. de C. V. : Strong Competitive Advantages are Already Discounted in Shares, New York: Salomon Brothers pp 9-13 Doole I. (2007): International Marketing Strategy: Analysis, Development and Implementation, UK: Cengage Learning EMEA pp 96-105 Marron S. (2008): Outlook for the Latin American Equity Markets, California: University of California pp 69-74

In the early 1500s, the Spaniards were sent to colonize the New World, not hesitating in expanding to a much broader spectrum, even establishing a few “short-lived colonies” far up north in Florida. Since then, Mexico’s North and a few states of the United States’ South, have displayed differing characteristics from their respective countries. Woodard, an American journalist, and writer well known for American

Nations argues that their “staggeringly remote location from the centers of the Spanish American civilization” triggered a disparity between their countries in terms of culture, resulting to a floating border. On a current note, over 400 years later after the Spanish conquest, said cultural disproportion between Mexico’s North and South has been further incited by the immigration flow from Mexico’s South to the US since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. The alienation subsequently created a floating border with hybrid zones and no well-established culture up North, where a mestizo culture established with both “Mexicanidad” and “American way of Life”.

THE TWO REGIONS

The North. Mexico’s North — constituted of Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas — is characteristic to the term ‘floating border’ 1 presented by a renowned senior researcher of the Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales de la UNAM 2, Gilberto Giménez.

As he reported, the Mexican-American border is a situated hybrid zone with no well-established culture, which is most often considered a ‘mestizo’ 2 region. As cities from both sides of the frontier seemed to develop in a twin pair scheme — McAllen-Reynosa or Laredo-Nuevo Laredo —, a new culture arises with both Mexican and American traits, subsequently alienating the North even further from the Mexican society.

Through research carried out by the UNAM where Southerners were asked to present their view of the North, many of the respondents viewed it with fascination and attraction as it had an ‘American Way of Life’ — such mindset being further denominated by researchers as the “tropism of the North” 3. On the other hand, natives of the Anglo-American communities within the Southern states of the United States often perceive the North as a “latin reconquest” figuring a true foreign invasion.

These conclusions have significant applications in the distinctiveness of the North since the implementation of NAFTA, as they portray the preferability coming from the Mexican Southerners but the hostility of the Americans.

The South. Due to the regional disparity in the Mexican labor markets, poverty, and education, the implementation of NAFTA was felt inconsistently through the country. Such effects contributing to an increase of the Mexican immigrant population in the U.S. between 1990 and 2005. (Perreira 2011).

The ramifications were mostly present in rural, agricultural areas of the Mexican South where the decrease in wages for poverty-stricken regions incited the migration to the North in search of fair wages and a glimpse of the ‘American Dream’. Various Southern states such as Chiapas, Oaxaca, Campeche, Quintana Roo, Yucatán, and Guerrero, did not have a favorable outcome within the terms of NAFTA. Correspondingly, Southerners migrated to the Mexican-American border contributing to the hybridization of the North with folklore and traditions of their parting regions.

EFFECTS OF NAFTA

Immigration ; Migration. During the 1990s, as explained by Mexican Families in North Carolina, an article published by the University of North Carolina and written by Krista M. Perreira, NAFTA strongly influenced the privatization of the Mexican ejido system on agricultural based areas of Southern Mexico.

As a result, Southerners migrated towards the North in search of a sustainable lifestyle and supply for their families. Norma Ojeda, Professor of the Sociology Department at the San Diego State University, describes how migration flow subsequently changed the cultures of both their parting and arriving communities as farmers, professionals, technicians, and businessmen migrated up North taking within them Southern traditions and behavior. For instance Americanization.

The American culture referenced by Maitane Zuloaga, a graduate student from I.T.E.S.M. University Monterrey, as ‘pop culture’ 4, significantly influenced the cultural mindset and cultural industries 5 within the Mexican society. In her paper, Zuloaga argues that Mexico derives from a dual society where the developed communities live side by side with the underdeveloped regions making it difficult to understand the cultural lifestyle of the country.

The Mexican culture is characterized by its diverse nature; however, as soon as NAFTA was implemented in the early months of 1994, “a wave of major cultural industry changes in Mexico were underway” (Zuloaga 2001). The author maintains that the treaty fomented a rise in the demand for American products — T.V shows, radio, clothes, food, music, and movies — as it brought to Mexico numerous U.S. goods with minimal to no supplementary tariffs.

Consequently, the demand for cultural products increased, creating a much more competitive ground for national cultural entities. For instance, Mexican conglomerates of television were heavily impacted by Americanization as the Mexican government presented no previous request for a cultural exemption clause which would “exclude its cultural activities in order to be in a better position to protect” (Zuloaga 2001). By these means, the U.S. had the liberty to incite cultural trends within Mexico with no repercussion.

A survey taken from the research of José Carlos Lozano, a recognized Level II member of SNI 6, notices the effect as citizens of Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey favored American films, sports, and soap operas over Mexican items (Lozano 2006). Due to the geographical closeness of the North to the U.S., the Northern states were impacted by a much stronger wave of Americanization than those of the South; nonetheless, major Southern cities like Guadalajara and Mexico City were considerably impacted due to their strong economic development.

Deculturalization refers to the “stripping away of a people’s culture and replacing it with a new culture” (Spring 1). Deculturalization is one of the most inhumane acts one can partake in. A person’s culture is his/her main defining feature. Culture is the medium through which people communicate their beliefs, values, and morals. Inserting one’s own culture in place of someone’s pre-existing culture is the basis of ethnocentrism. People have repeatedly become victims of deculturalization, especially in the United States, and by analyzing this ethnocentrism one learns the importance of sustaining different cultures in society.

There are many methods of deculturalization, such as segregation, isolation, and forced change of language. When the content of curriculum reflects culture of dominant group, it is deculturalization. Also, dominated groups are not allowed to express their culture and religion, which is deculturalization. Use of teachers from the dominant group to teach those that are dominated is another form of deculturalization (Spring 49).”The problem was the assumption that U.S. institutions, customs, and beliefs were the best in the world and they should be imposed” (Spring 42).

Throughout much of the past century, the United States sought to stamp its cultural ideal upon almost all peoples who existed within its realm of influence. It is only through the relatively modern ideology of multiculturalism and the celebration of diversity that the United States has begun to make amends for the injustices it has committed on other cultures. Today, with multiculturalism entering into the classrooms and other realms, different cultures are finally getting the attention they deserve.

The American idea of cultural and racial superiority began in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with the colonization of northeast America by predominantly Anglo Saxon colonists. Ironically, the colonists came to America to escape persecution for their religious beliefs. The Anglo Saxon attitude of cultural superiority was a largely Protestant value that remained prevalent for much of the twentieth century (Spring 2-4).

The educational impact of this elitist attitude was far-reaching. The most immediate effects were seen in the destruction of Native American culture and peoples. Efforts to ‘civilize’ the Native Americans through the use of schooling began in 1819 and continued until the late 1920’s. The first schools were the result of Christian missionaries’ efforts to gain converts. English was the only language spoken in these schools, and the Native American culture was looked upon poorly. Some earlier efforts were made to adapt to Native American culture, including the development of a written Cherokee language. This knowledge, however, was used to impart Anglo-Protestant values and religion (Spring 18-21).

Out of almost all of the other cultures, Native Americans are the most exploited. Not only was their culture subverted and their people forced to move, but also the Native Americans still today are trying to regain their cultural identity. It was only during the late 20’s that the effects of this cultural genocide became apparent. With the Meriam Report, published in 1928, the inhumane treatment of Native Americans was brought to the public eye, and this made way for the establishment of progressive day schools where Native Americans could integrate their culture. Ever since, Native Americans have struggled to regain an identity of their culture.

Along with Native Americans, some of the same injustices were inflicted upon Puerto Rico where the same rules of deculturalization applied to the education systems. Puerto Rico became a colony of the United States in the 1890’s as a result of the Spanish-American War. The apparent Americanization of Puerto Rico centered in the schools where patriotic exercises emphasized American allegiance. English became the official language of the schools, and English proficiency became a qualification to obtain a Puerto Rican teaching license.

The Puerto Ricans resisted this deculturalization, causing strong tension in the 1920’s, while they struggled to declare independence. Eventually, attempts at deculturalization fell beneath global civil rights movements in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Despite this, the educational system of Puerto Rico was severely limited for many years.

During the same time that the Puerto Ricans were struggling to regain their national culture and heritage, African Americans were struggling to overcome centuries of racial discrimination. Early in the 20th century, most African Americans seemed helplessly mired in a class system that sought to keep them poorly educated to provide a supply of cheap labor.

W.E.B. DuBois, founder of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, wanted to provide a different type of education for African Americans that would focus on encouraging leadership and protection of the legal and social rights of their communities. These schools would also create a constant awareness of their position within the white majority. DuBois saw great potential in the education of teachers because, once educated, they could impart their learning to countless others (Spring 67).

DuBois’ dream seemed to be achieved in the 1930’s when common schools for African American children were finally erected. Although a large part of the funding was donated, black parents contributed the majority of the funds. While this was a great step forward for African American children, these schools later provided the rationale for segregation outside of the often better-funded white schools.

Asian Americans were the largest group affected b the Naturalization Act of 1790, where non-white immigrants were excluded from American citizenship. A ‘white person’ was an immigrant from Western Europe; no other groups were considered ‘white.’ With the Anglo-Americans feeling threatened by the Chinese Americans, they sought to limit immigration through legislation. Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, prohibiting Chinese immigration. The Chinese Americans were sent to segregated schools because they were not classified as a ‘white’ person. This policy of segregation broke down by the early 1900’s, when the board of education had to let Chinese youths attend the regular city high school.

After the United States conquest of Mexico, the attitude of racial, religious, and cultural superiority was reflected on both the treatment of Mexicans who remained in American after the conquest and later Mexican immigrants. Segregated schools, housing, and discrimination in employment became the Mexican American heritage. President James Polk sent an army to protect the Texas border, causing a military reaction by Mexico which resulted in the U.S. declaring war on Mexico.

The war allowed former Mexican citizens to obtain U.S. citizenship, but did nothing to resolve problems of the Anglo Americans feelings of superiority. One of the important consequences of this negative action against Mexicans was to make it easier for American settlers to gain land in the area. Racism served as a justification for economic exploitation. These racist attitudes permeated the life of the cattle ranches established in southern Texas during what is referred to as the “cowboy era” (Spring 80). This deculturalization of the Mexican Americans is yet another example of the ethnocentrism that engulfed Anglo Americans.

Deculturalization has been a very sad occurrence since the beginning of America, and only recently has this problem started to be alleviated. The impacts of deculturalization have been very negative on society, but mostly on the education system. Today, teacher education revolves around multiculturalism and valuing the differences in cultures. Until this idea reaches all realms of society, however, the United States will not be completely free from the negative aspects of deculturalization, which swept through the country for many years. Knowledge is half the battle, though, and the more people are educated on other cultures, the more people will begin to appreciate other cultures.

Subordinate group

I have chosen the Mexican-Americans

• Creation: This group migrated to the United States from Mexico.
• Expulsion: Mexicans who are considered to be here illegally are often deported from the country.
• Segregation: The majority of Mexicans are finding themselves segregated within the United States. While there is no official law requiring this group to live separately, they often live in communities with other Mexicans where they have services in which employees speak Spanish and stores that offer items they were used to having in Mexico. There is a large Mexican population in Los Angeles; appropriately, it is listed in Figure 1.5 as one of the most segregated areas.
• Fusion: Using the form of amalgamation, fusion has occurred between  Mexicans and whites. The frequent intermarriage has led to an entirely new group where traditions are borrowed from both  cultures.
• Assimilation: Not all Mexicans live separately and maintain a traditional culture. Many live in neighborhoods that aren’t predominantly Mexican, speak English just as well or better than those who were born here,and live as most Americans do.

Journal

    I come from a Mexican-American family. My parents emigrated from Mexico as children and had to learn English as well as an entirely new way of life when they arrived here. If they had come to the United States just after 1848, they would have been considered white and immediately naturalized upon arrival. This peaceful policy was eradicated in 1930 when my great-grandparents and others like them were considered “non-whites” and their ability to immigrate was limited.  This happened in light of the Great Depression, when jobs were limited and the Whites looked for any means possible to eliminate their competition from the workforce. My great-grandparents had been here for years, but were deported back to Mexico in order to make room for the Whites to have jobs. They never got over it, and they refuse to return to the United States for any reason. When I was born, my parents discovered that they were no longer considered “white” when they filled out the hospital paperwork. Rather, they had to check the box marked “Hipic”.

    My parents first settled separately with their parents in East Los Angeles, as they were surrounded by other immigrants from Mexico. They found that they could live segregated from the white culture and celebrate their heritage without scorn. It was easy to live in a place where shopkeepers spoke Spanish and grocery stores carried items that they were used to having in Mexico. There was little pressure to learn English and no one berated them for their heavy accents. When my parents finished college, however, they both decided that it was time to get out of East L.A. and to adopt the traditions and culture of the rest of the Americans.

    They moved to the suburbs and after a few years of working after college, they were able to afford to buy a house in a decent neighborhood. It was primarily white, and they felt somewhat out of place there. They had learned earlier that having a homeowner’s association meant that they couldn’t paint the house in cheerful, bright colors as they would have done in East Los Angeles or in Mexico. They did everything possible to blend in and not stand out in the neighborhood in order to maintain a peaceful existence without discrimination from their neighbors. My family lived in both cultures; celebrating Cinco de Mayo, and Independence day almost two months later. Our neighbors eventually became used to coming to our parties and eating carne asada along with hot dogs.

    I never thought of myself as being specifically Mexican, American or Mexican-American until the immigration furor of late. My classmates and co-workers don’t seem to have a problem asking me how long I’ve been here, if I’m a citizen, and if I worry that my family is going to be deported. I never ask them how long their families have been here or if they came here legally. I don’t appreciate the stereotypes that all of us came here illegally and that we don’t deserve to be here. After all, there was a time where we were accepted unconditionally and categorized as “white”.  It was the prejudice and fear of the 1930’s that caused Mexicans to be deported. Instead of being able to come here and have an equal chance at a good life, Mexicans must toil in the fields and perform the menial work that others don’t want to do. I can’t blame them; I don’t want to pick produce or clean houses either.

    The biggest struggle for my family is trying to determine which side of the immigration debate we’re really on. The problem is this: yes, Mexicans should be allowed to come over legally and be considered citizens. This was the agreement in 1848, after all. The problem, of course, is that as a citizen, I respect the law regardless of whether or not I agree with it. My grandparents waited for legal citizenship; so I think others like them should wait as well. The other problem is that many regions, such as Southern California, simply cannot take more residents – there isn’t enough room or resources. I would move to a different part of the country, but I am concerned about the discrimination I might face due to the color of my skin, or that I would be assumed to be illegal. Because I live in an area that is highly populated with Mexican-Americans, I am a valuable part of the community. I speak Spanish, which gives me an edge in jobs that require interaction with the community. Many white people get upset when they can’t find a job due to the need for Spanish speaking employees, but I can’t feel sorry for them. They were offered Spanish in school and they didn’t take it seriously. Did they think people in the United States would only be speaking English forever?

    My heritage gives me a distinct advantage over other Americans. I’m part of two worlds: the white world and the Mexican world. I can live, work and socialize in either world and fit right in. How many white people can say that?

Mariano Azuela’s The Underdogs, is about a brotherhood of the Mexican people taking a journey with only one thing on their mind; revenge against Huerta and the Federales. In this story, we as the reader are confronted with characters, such as Demetrio Macias, who is destined to lead his people into the depths of retaining an incorrupt lifestyle and hopes to find peace from the effect of war. Although Demetrio is seen as one of the main characters in the novel, we are also briefly engaged in the other revolutionary forces under Pancho Villa, Carranza, Obregon, and by peasants under Zapata.

These appositional forces gain strength against the Huerta government as well. The Underdogs almost symbolizes a Robin Hood story, in which, Demetrio and his peasant guerrilla forces revolt against a higher commanding army of the government, that relies on corrupting the lives of innocent people. After reading the novel, the appendix which follows, brought on a wide range of comparisons and contrasts between the fictional story and the real events of the Mexican Revolution.

To begin, The Underdogs is depicted as a “circulatory novel” in which, Azuela suggests that Demetrio and his men never make any progress geographically, but instead are going around in circles. We can only assume that Azuela does this on purpose to make room for what he thinks is a literary connection between the story and the Revolution, in saying that the Revolution was ineffective and unsuccessful(p. 93). Although this example does not really tie into a universal agreement with the effects on the Mexican Revolution, it is interesting to gain an understanding on where Azeula’s thoughts are within his novel.

However, the debate arises when the topic of ‘ignorance and confusion’ is introduced. The appendix argues that Demetrio and his army do not obtain a revolutionary mind set when it comes to fighting the Federales. Instead, they have more of a personal response. For example, one of the rebellious peasants under Demetrio, whose name is Guero Margarito, says “He[General Orozco] slapped my face when I was a waiter at Delmonico’s in Chihuaha”(p. 62). We as the reader are submitted into a personal motivation that is driving Guero to take part in this Revolution.

We are also informed in the beginning of the novel that Demetrio has a personal reason for joining up with the rebel forces, when he was persecuted by a powerful landowner and political boss. There also lies a demoralization within Demetrio pertaining to revolutionary decisions. At one point he says, “Truth is I don’t understand these here politics”(p. 71) and at another point in the story, he shows a puzzling understanding toward General Natera when Demetrio is asked if he’s going to side with Villa or Carranza.

Both of these examples equally show Demetrios fundamental comprehension of the Revolution, which further justifies his participation in it for personal reasons rather than political ones. Azuela also dramatizes on the caudillismo, which means, the tendency to follow the lead of strong men because of personal allegiance rather than political conviction. We see that Demetrio is a strong follower of this definition, in that he will gladly do what a strong man, such as Natera, will command him to do, without having to understand any political bounds.

In comparison to the novel to the history, it is true that Demetrio and his men were very poor and unequipped when it came to uniforms and weapons, as opposed to the Federales who did obtain a more bountiful amount of armory and new technological advances, such as the machine gun, which played a hefty role in demolishing the rebel forces. In contrast to the heavy duty weapons that the Federales acquired, the Mexican rebels only had the tools that they secured off of the enemy dead, like knives, homemade weapons and the limited amount of rifles.

Through the novel, Azuela writes as if we are seeing a small yet brave army with knives stand tall and victorious over a much larger group of soldiers with machine guns. However, when we read about a past historical battle between the rebels and the Federales, a revolutionary officer named Solis tells of how his soldiers were “mown down by the machine gun fire”(p. 97). But, in the story, we read that Demetrio and his soldiers charge up a hill and knife the Federales, while Demetrio “lassoes machine guns, roping them as if they were wild bulls”(p. 43).

We can only accept Azuela’s decision to make it seem like the rebel forces had a chance against the Federales when indeed, they had a very slim possibility in succeeding. Although Azuela leaves out some true historical events, the appendix comments on how Azuela’s unique and descriptive style of writing still leaves a meaningful connection between the novel and the reader. For example, in one passage, Azuela describes the Villista airplanes in action, referring to them as something the peasants in Mexico can relate to. He first compares them to a canoe, then to an automobile, and then to bombs to the act of feeding chickens.

However, it is important to note that Villa and his legendary Division del Norte are never seen in the novel, but the appendix does not argue that Azuela’s writing is very rich in respect to connecting the reader’s perception of war with his words. This also generates the panoramic atmosphere that Azuela brings across in his writing when really he is rather focusing on a limited scope(p. 98). “Azuela’s main focus in the novel is not trained on the vast historical sweep or ideological intricacies of the Revolution; his deepest interest is in its most humble protagonists”(p. 99).

This quote from the appendix invites a very important question; what was Azuela thinking when he named the book, The Underdogs? Demetrio and his men are against all odds of winning the Mexican Revolution, but if we think about this question in a wider retrospect, when we actually begin to understand Demetrio or Luis Cervantes’s character even, we would agree with the appendix that these men are nothing compared to underdogs. Yes, they have come from the bottom of society, however, they are now fighting for something that they believe in, their interests, and “they are on the winning side”(p. 9). The reader is brought into a view of men who have decided to meet and rise into arms against the corruptions and injustices of their lives. In reconnecting back to the panoramic statement, the appendix comments on Azuela’s approach on fragmenting his writing and lacking history within the Revolution. Within this technique, he decides to write about the things that he himself witnessed and merely ignores the experiences of famous leaders of the Revolution like Villa, Carranza, Obregon or Zapata.

Even when General Natera is in a scene with Demetrio, Azuela simply does not paint any interesting emotion within his character. Instead, Azuela is clearly focused on connecting the reader with the underdogs in any chance he gets. The appendix describes that, “Their faces, expressions, actions, thoughts, hopes, and fears fill the pages of the novel”(p. 100). Azuela has also been deliberately attacked with accusations regarding his misunderstanding of the Mexican Revolution in regards to his fragmentary approach to writing The Underdogs.

However, he simply explained in an interview that he was just trying to show “the forest and not the trees” or the ignorance of the abuses and the personal benefit from the Revolution(p. 101). In this case, Azuela did succeed. In reading Anita Brenner’s Review of the novel, she says that it is an “isolated masterpiece” however, she fears that there are still flaws within the novel. For example, she feels as though the story races and does not build like his other ones.

She thinks that a foreign reader of Azuela’s work would “mistake fatigue for futility” and come to the conclusion that these rebel forces of men would have been killed for no practical purposes when their lives signified a spiritual change(p. 118). Since Azuela is not categorized as a post-revolutionary idealist, a reader may think that these men died for a less heroic cause, when this isn’t true at all. Brenner also comments on the lack of feeling she gets when reading the English version of the novel as opposed to the Spanish version.

She ends with awkward and misunderstood phrases that the translator decided to use and remarks on how the “greatest modern book can only be retained in its true Spanish tongue”(p. 119). In conclusion, The Underdogs, by Mariana Azuela symbolizes a double-edged sword. In one viewing, it foreshadows the succession that Azuela mirrors within his words as applying a distinct focus on the protagonists; the picturesque and real emotions depicted by Demetrio and his army. And in a second, more authentic notion, almost fails to unite with the Mexican Revolution through Azuela’s fragmentation approach and limit on historical events.

To what extent is it accurate to claim that the ideal of manifest destiny was a motivating factor in the western expansions of the United States? The 1840s was a time of great territorial expansion during which the United States fought to annex Texas, acquire the Oregon territory, and conquer California and New Mexico from Mexico.

As the people sought reasoning behind their territorial ambitions, a belief known as Manifest Destiny sprouted from their feeling of nationality as they came to believe that America was destined to expand past the current borders. Manifest Destiny was also a term used by Democrats to promote and persuade people to support the territorial expansions that the United States was undergoing at the time.

Although manifest destiny was a huge motivating factor in the western expansion of the United States, other factors such as the rising population, expansion of slavery and freedom-seeking slaves, the gold rush of California, and new opportunities sought by settlers. The rising population helped push Americans towards expanding westward. The early 1800s was a time when the United States was experiencing a rapid growth in population. The U. S. population grew from more than five million in 1800 to more than 23 million by mid-century. During that time, there the U. S had been experiencing a periodic high birth rate.

The growth on the sizes of families only added pressure to expand their land and gather more resources to survive. Immigration also added to the explosive population growth in the United States. Over 7. 5 million immigrants migrated to the United States. Many immigrants fled their countries in order to escape from poverty and famine. The Gold rush also caused a great influx of immigrants as they hoped to acquire some of the wealth found in the United States. Since agriculture provided the primary economic structure, many incoming immigrants would scout for farmable land.

However most of the fertile land east of the Appalachian Mts. had already been taken. This pushed immigrants to scout west to look for better land. Nearly 4,000,000 Americans moved to western territories between 1820 and 1850. The Gold Rush of California attracted all kinds of attention from money-hungry miners to hopeful farmers. The first discovery of gold in California in 1849 influenced many settlers and immigrants to flock westward in the hope of gaining wealth. As news spread of the discovery, thousands of gold miners traveled by sea or over land to San Francisco and the surrounding area.

The Gold Rush attracted more than just the American people but it also helped the influx of immigrants. Thousands of Chinese migrated to the U. S after hearing about the opportunity to mine for wealth. This caused the non-native population of the California territory to reach 100,000. Many of the thousands of settlers never found gold but helped to promote west expansion. New opportunities were another factor that helped to motivate westward expansion. As the increasing population put pressure on settlers, many of them headed west in hopes of acquiring cheap, fertile land to grow more food to feed their families.

Since the government offered most of the land cheap, or in some cases free, many didn’t hesitate to move. Government passed things like the Homestead Act to encourage settlers to settle west. Others sought the chance at a new life. They wanted to increase their political power or standing by owning more land. In their eyes, land ownership was tied to wealth, political power, self-sufficiency, and independent “self rule. ” New technologies also had an impact on westward expansion. New technological innovations helped to influence the economy by enhancing trade and commerce.

This proved wrong the belief that, like previous empires, the United States would get weaker with expansion. By the 1840s, steamboats made use of America’s waterways and turned them into busy commercial thoroughfares. Their popularity grew as they continued to increase trade between towns and cities. Railroads were another innovation that helped to fuel trade. They integrated eastern markets with the towns on the western slope of the Appalachians. Robert Fulton’s invention of the canal and the invention of the telegraph were two other great examples of the technologies that helped to enhance westward expansion.

The last factor that also affected westward expansion was the desire to expand slavery and slaves desire Politicians, editors, soldiers, and citizens, wanted new terrirory for various reasons. In the case of Texas, the Tyler administration sought to prevent the abolition of slavery there, control a potential rival in cotton production, provide a haven for masters and their slaves, thwart Great Britain from keeping Texas independent, and comply with the wishes of most Texians to join the United States.

In the Oregon dispute, Democrats hoped to dominate Asian commerce, provide land for future pioneers, and safeguard citizens already settled there. The war with Mexico and the strategy of conquest revealed a desire to secure a border at the Rio Grande, satisfy claims against Mexico, and acquire California to monopolize trade with Asia. Democrats wanted to supply abundant land to the nation’s poor and to future immigrants. To attain this laudable goal, however, they relied on bribery, bullying, and warfare to wrest land from Native Americans and Mexicans.

Often idealistic, they were also racist and materialistic. Yet anti-slavery activists and Democrats, whose belief in federal power was threatened by the South, were opposed to any expansionist move that would add new slave-holding states to the Union and thereby upset the fragile balance of power between North and South. After the Mexican-American War ended in 1848, disagreements over the expansion of slavery made further territorial annexation too divisive to be official government policy. Many Northerners were increasingly opposed to hat they believed to be efforts by Southern slave owners—and their friends in the North—to expand slavery at any cost. The proposal during the war of the Wilmot Proviso (a statement declaring that slavery would not be permitted in any new territory acquired by the U. S. ), and the emergence of various “Slave Power” conspiracy theories thereafter, indicated the degree to which Manifest Destiny had become controversial. The Fugitive Slave Law or Fugitive Slave Act was passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 1850, as part of the Compromise of 1850 between Southern slave-holding interests and Northern Free-Soilers.

This was one of the most controversial acts of the 1850 compromise and heightened Northern fears of a “slave power conspiracy”. It declared that all runaway slaves were, upon capture, to be returned to their masters. Abolitionists nicknamed it the “Bloodhound Law” for the dogs that were used to track down runaway slaves.

Refernces

1. http://www. pbs. org/kera/usmexicanwar/prelude/md_expansionism. html
2. http://solpass. org/6ss/games/westwardcloze. htm http://www. newworldencyclopedia. org/entry/Manifest_Destiny