Throughout his career, what did Jorge Cuesta argue? What are the benefits and downfalls of his argument?

Throughout his career, Jorge Cuesta argued that Mexico did not have a past because she was a self-created country. Or, to be more specific, Mexico had no past because she had denied it all. The Indians were primitive and far-removed from modern society; the Conquest did not have a lasting impact on Mexico. Mexico thus adopted large portions of French culture, because she felt that they applied to her and because, as her own creator, she could pull in whatever aspects of life and culture that she pleased. The benefit of Cuesta's argument is that it allows Mexico to move beyond the lifeless, parochial forms of life which both the Indian and the Spanish cultures infused. Another benefit from Cuesta's argument is that it opens the door for other modes of thinking and living that could move Mexico beyond her poverty and dearth of thinkers. The Argument however, contains a serious error. It overlooks the fact that culture is largely determined and driven by history. That is true of France, from which Mexico was pulling large portions of culture. A culture must be based on history, or it will not be a true culture. it will merely be the clothing that a nation wears for a while, but then discards of when it no longer applies. At that time, Mexico will again be lost and open to any stronger influences, albeit damaging, that exert themselves upon her.