A Representation of Porfirio Diaz

This weeks reading was an article written in 1908 by James Creelman titles “Porfirio Díaz, Hero of the Americas”. The article is an attempt to create a benevolent image if Diaz in his last year of presidency. Although Diaz was seen by many as an authoritarian leader, the article tries to let Diaz justify his strict policies of capital punishment and rights to vote. the President acknowledges that they "were harsh to the point of cruelty. But it was all necessary then to the life and progress of the nation". Aside from flattering descriptions of the President's appearance, the article is laced with a number of contradictions. One is in regards to his reasoning for the restrictions put on priests. Diaz claims to be a believer in democracy however restricted priests not only from wearing "distinctive dress" in public but also, he "allowed no priest to vote". His reason being, was so that "the humblest Mexican shall be so far freed from the past that he can stand upright and unafraid in the presence of any human being". However, a typical photo of Diaz is usually in distinctive military dress, which does not free people of the past and it comes across as intimidating. Not to mention the descriptions of Diaz in this article seem to create him into some sort of super-human, or at least someone to be admired and seen as 'above' the rest. I think that the article can be convincing at times, however only if one is not aware of, or forgets Diaz's history of authoritarian leadership. I wonder, what was the author's intention in writing this article? was it to give the President a 'final word' before his retirement? what was the point in describing him in such a 'romantic' way? was this simply the trending style of writer's at the time to gain interest from the reader? I do not know a lot about the history of Porfirio Diaz, and honestly never heard the name before this week. Perhaps there are other's that might say this article had political intentions, however, i cannot say that because i do not know enough. It does seem that the author is intentionally portraying Diaz in a way that seems very suggestive. There seems to be a lot of focus on the economic growth of Mexico during the time Diaz was in power. However, to me, this does not seem to paint the whole picture of a countries success, happiness, and freedom. What is the reasoning for this focus? Is it because there was such an economic boom in Latin America at the time that liberalism and the growing market was their evaluation of success?