Let’s say Mexico became a “first world” (modern definition, not Cold War definition) country by the 1960s. What effects does this have on Latin America and the US? Do migrants choose to move to Mexico instead of the us? What are the changes to the us without mass migration from Mexico? How are relations between the us and Mexico?
marathag
Banned
Under Diaz, US Mexican relations were very good, until the Revolution.
avoid that, and your outcome is possible
At that point of the Revolution, there wasn't much immigration, as the starting of Mexican Industrialization wasn't short of local workers, even though Mexico had only 15M population in 1900
Really I think you can do it with a better development strategy during the Porfiriato (pre-1910 Revolution). Diaz basically just allowed American businesses unfettered access to Mexico. This produced a lot of development, but left them in the classic "third world" situation exporting raw materials and importing everything else with no real path to true industrialization. If they'd taken a more developmentalist strategy back then, strategically promoting local industrial development with targeted tariffs and subsidies and even direct government control, like Germany or Japan was doing around that time, they could have gotten in on the first wave of industrialization and stayed on the developmental frontier.
It's amazing how much Americans don't pay attention to their neighbors. Mexico had a multi-sided civil war with millions of casualties, and the refugee flow North from the conflict is arguably the first wave of Mexican migration to the US in the twentieth century.
But you'd never know it looking US history books, the closest my history classes came to covering the war was briefly mentioning the intervention against Pancho Villa in the lead-up to US involvement in WW1.
It's counter-intuitive, but development actually increases emigration in the short term. When a country is still poor no one can afford to leave, and when a country is rich no one has a reason to. The pool of potential immigrants is generally middle class by global standards and tends to peak when a country is going through the demographic transition where most people are of working age.
There would still be a large pool of potential immigrants, but it would just happen earlier on, with the exception of the years during the Great Depression.
If birth control (actually discovered thanks to Mexican researchers) is still discovered in the 1960s as OTL but Mexican industrialization begins earlier, then Mexico may see either a later or more gradual decline in family sizes and population growth.
A lot of American stereotypes about Mexico and Hispanics are generally still imagine Mexico in 2018 as the poorer, '70s Mexico with 7 child families. Today Mexico has become much wealthier and the birth rate has hit 2 and change children per woman. Even if Mexico was still poorer, the demographic of young people willing to leave isn't there anymore.
If a family has 7 children on a farm (no matter what country) then 5 can leave and send money back home, but in a country of smaller families people generally stay put to take care of their parents or take over a family business. Outside of Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia, the two child family has become a global norm.
Population growth will be much lower in places like Bangladesh and Indonesia than in earlier decades, but there will be a youth bulge/demographic dividend where most of the population is working age adults. A more developed Mexico would face a Chinese style dilemma of whether it will get old first or rich first.
China's working age population peaked a couple years ago, but it may face Japanese proportions of retirees without Japanese levels of wealth to pay for pensions, etc. A more developed Mexico would become a destination for immigrants from other places, especially Central America.
A lot of American stereotypes about Mexico and Hispanics are generally still imagine Mexico in 2018 as the poorer, '70s Mexico with 7 child families. Today Mexico has become much wealthier and the birth rate has hit 2 and change children per woman. Even if Mexico was still poorer, the demographic of young people willing to leave isn't there anymore.
If a family has 7 children on a farm (no matter what country) then 5 can leave and send money back home, but in a country of smaller families people generally stay put to take care of their parents or take over a family business. Outside of Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia, the two child family has become a global norm.
Population growth will be much lower in places like Bangladesh and Indonesia than in earlier decades, but there will be a youth bulge/demographic dividend where most of the population is working age adults. A more developed Mexico would face a Chinese style dilemma of whether it will get old first or rich first.
China's working age population peaked a couple years ago, but it may face Japanese proportions of retirees without Japanese levels of wealth to pay for pensions, etc. A more developed Mexico would become a destination for immigrants from other places, especially Central America.
marathag
Banned
For the first part of the 19th Century they did.
Most every European country expected Mexico to kick US ass hard in 1846.
For sure. Rome wasn't built in a day etc. The US ground out continental dominance in almost the same sub consious way the UK always backed the 2nd most powerful European nation.
Was there a consious policy to claim all of North America in the smoke filled rooms where decisions were made? When did Manifest Destiny really become a thing? The Louisiana Purchase suggests someone was thinking along those lines really early on.
But for our purposes here, given Mexico was considered evenly matched, was it thinking the same way? If not why not? And should it?
Was there a consious policy to claim all of North America in the smoke filled rooms where decisions were made? When did Manifest Destiny really become a thing? The Louisiana Purchase suggests someone was thinking along those lines really early on.
But for our purposes here, given Mexico was considered evenly matched, was it thinking the same way? If not why not? And should it?
Are you taking about the Mexican American war or a scenario where Mexico doesn’t go through a civil war? Because this is assuming after 1900 Mexico becomes a first world nation by the 1960s.
Mexico would protect itself, to the degree that it needs protecting post Mexican-American War. Mexico can't really threaten the Mississippi unless it can station a large ground army in Texas or build a large navy.
My basic position is it is too late by 1900. The great powers are going to abuse the "3rd World" nations from 1800 until the end of the Cold War. It is just the nature of the beast at the time. Mexico needs to be strong enough not to be a US playground or have some kind of external protector. Otherwise the US will poke its nose in every time it wants something. OTL Mexico starts getting ahead again after the Cold War as sort of a North American Asian Tiger.
I am trying to think of something that can unify and inspire Mexico in the same way Manifest Destiny unified the US. Given the political climate I don't think it is possible.
Sure. But you don't get to be the world's hyper power by letting people even think about looking at your jugular.
America can definitely do better on understanding other nation's histories, but I think even though Mexico is a neighbor an American not knowing the history is is not an extraordinary cardinal sin. The American-Mexican border is one that separates not only two nations but two cultural zones. Mexico, its culture and traditions, is very different and much harder for an average American to understand than let's say to understand Canada or Britain. There are strong connections, such as both being descendants of European colonialism in the Americas, and I think that the South provides a fair but rough preview into understanding Mexico from an American pov (agricultural, subtropical climate so history of large landowners and mass poverty), but still quite a large cultural gulf. As someone who is interested in Mexico's history, I have found it extremely different from the U.S. and on the same token, understanding the history of other parts of Latin America helped me better understand aspects of Mexican history.
Mexico is America's neighbor, but it isn't a neighbor like the Netherlands is to Germany or France is to Italy. Those nations are definitely different, but the cultural gulf is not as deep.
Though to be fair, Americans should still know more about Mexico and its culture/history. It's not good to be ignorant.
Last edited:
In 2014 those under the poverty line in Mexico totaled around 46.2% of the population. Mexico has pockets developing at incredibly fast rates, but whole regions are being left behind. It is objectively a poor nation.
Last edited:
A Gold Rush means the US conveniently finds a reason why California was destined to be American.
By US standards yeah, the average Mexican income is very low. The regions in the Yucatan and south of Mexico is city are less well off than the northern areas of the country. But Mexico has still made massive strides in economic development since the '70s.