BarbarousMexico JOHN KENNETH TURNER

DM2 HIMSELF 303
quarter of a century behind the times; in the matter of
public education it is at least a half century behind the
times; in its system of government it is worthy of the
Egypt of three thousand years ago.
True, Mexico has seen some advancement in some
lines—especially industrially—during the past thirtyfour
years. But that mere fact does not argue any propelling
force on the part of Porfirio Diaz. In order to
show that Diaz was the special propelling force will it
not be necessary to show that Mexico has advanced in
that period faster than other countries? And should it
be shown that Mexico has advanced more slowly than
almost any other large nation in the world in the past
thirty-four years, would it not be logical to attribute to
Diaz at least some of that retarding force?
Consider the United States thirty-four years ago and
then today, and then consider Mexico. Consider that
the world has been built over, industrially, in the past
thirty-four years. To make the comparison perfectly
unassailable, disregard the United States and European
countries and compare the progress of Mexico with other
Latin-American countries. Among persons who have
traveled extensively in Argentine, Chili, Brazil and even
Cuba, and Mexico, there is a pretty good agreement
that Mexico is the most backward of the five—in the
matter of government, in the matter of public education,
even industriall y. Who made Argentine? Who made
Chili? \Vho made Brazil? Wh y don't we find a
"maker" of these countries? The fact is that whatever
modernization Mexico has had durinc , the past thirtyfour
years must he attributed to evolution—that is, to
the general progress of the world—instead of to Porfirio
flinz. In general. Porfirio Diaz has been a reactionary
'force. His claims for being progressive are all based