Was Mexico right to get rid of him?
With a stache like that? Of course not
>>3210344
YES, BUT WHAT CAME AFTER WAS NO BETTER.
MEXICO WAS BORN IN THE YEAR EIGHTEEN HUNDRED TWENTYONE, WHEN AGUSTÍN DE ITURBIDE CONSUMMATED INDEPENDENCE, ESTABLISHING THE MEXICAN EMPIRE; MEXICO DIED IN THE YEAR NINETEEN HUNDRED TWENTYTHREE, WHEN ÁLVARO OBREGÓN RATIFIED THE "TREATIES OF BUCARELI", RELINQUISHING THE NATION TO A CONDITION OF VIRTUAL SLAVERY.
IN THE YEAR TWOTHOUSAND EIGHTEEN, MEXICO WILL BE REBORN, WHEN ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR RISES TO NATIONAL LEADERSHIP, INITIATING THE REGENERATION OF THE NATION.
A V E · O B R A D O R
He was excessively brutal no doubt, but he was what Mexico needed. He ended the incessant warfare, stabilized, and then improved the economy, and brought prestige to Mexico.
In the end, all countries at some point either inherited the benefits of, or went through, an especially brutal and repressive beginning on the road to development. Countries that have passed such points no longer need, and can afford, to have leaders that put the well being of the people, rather than Nation, first, but Mexico was not there yet then, and I believe even now. Had the Diaz dictatorship lasted longer, Mexico might have become stable and prosperous enough to transition into a real democracy, but the violent revolution against the dictatorship destroyed most of the progress it made, and the successive governments have provided as many liberties to the people as they can at the expense of peace and prosperity.
Perhaps I'm wrong. I would love to hear an opposing argument, but this is how I see it.
>>3210771
pretty much how I see it
>>3210344
I don't know but several thousand volunteers from my city went and fought for him in exchange for pay and land for those who chose to remain. A building called "Meksiko" is named after them, it's a couple of minutes ride down the road.
>>3210771
>Had the Diaz dictatorship lasted longer
it lasted almost 40 years sperg