British vs. Mexicans

Darkest

Banned
In a British North American ATL, I always thought it would be funny that they would brush shoulders with Mexico (either large Mexico with California and Texas, or small Mexico).

To an American, the British are the archetypical upperclassman, the aristocratic, arrogant, noble lord-over-thou types.

Now, I'm not racist, but to an American, Mexicans are stereotypically the opposite, the unwashed, rude, lowerclassman, hard laboring, knife-you-if-you-have-a-dollar types.

So, in a British North American ATL, they both share a border! Surely these guys would go to war, right? I mean, how can both of these nationalities exist side-by-side without the good ol' American middle-man? Its hilarity, I tell you, hilarity!

Its in this same vein that I believe that the British, if they had kept North America, would have a huge division between the rich and the poor, and eventually suffer from a huge-scale revolution of the proletariat. These communists wouldn't hail the color red, though, that being the symbol of the evil British Empire. Perhaps light green, which contrasts well, and speaks something of agrarian roots...
 

Flocculencio

Donor
Darkest said:
To an American, the British are the archetypical upperclassman, the aristocratic, arrogant, noble lord-over-thou types.
Click to expand...

Which just shows how inaccurate the stereotype is.

Why, pray tell, would British North America be any less or more class-divided than Canada or OTL's US was?

The South is going to have a similar aristocratic culture, I give you that, but the North is still going to be based on the mercantile ideas of the New Englanders and will therefore be similar to most of the rest of the British Empire.

The class system and all that are just window dressing- as Napoleon said, the British are a nation of shopkeepers. Everything in the development of their Empire points to that and there's no reason why British North America would be any different.
 

Darkest

Banned
I am of course just generalizing. From an American standpoint, you never see the British interacting with the Mexicans in the media, and the two stereotypes sharing a border is pretty funny.

British North America would have industrialized far sooner, along with Britain instead of a long time after. I wonder if they would have abolished slavery around the same time, or kept it in order to keep the Cotton King from dying in the South.
 

Flocculencio

Donor
Darkest said:
British North America would have industrialized far sooner, along with Britain instead of a long time after. I wonder if they would have abolished slavery around the same time, or kept it in order to keep the Cotton King from dying in the South.
Click to expand...

There might well be a civil war over that in any case, even in TTL.

Then again the Southerners might be a lot less likely to rebel if they realised that they wouldn't just be facing the North but rather the might of the entire Empire.
 

Calgacus

and look at britain and america today - if anything, it is britain which is less polarised between rich and poor. britain has a welfare state, antional health etc (if somewhat faulty) - america has never bothered to start these things. no doubt america was once a more meritocratic society, but i dont think it is any more - after all most presidents and senior statesmen in the US through her history have been ivy league aristocracy, millionaires as often as not.

so really what we should be asking is would a british america today be a fairer, more socially even society? and as for revolutions, britain hasnt really had one since the 17th century (unless you count ireland) and the US has had two in that time...

and before anyone starts bitching, i am both british and american, so i can criticise both!
 

Darkest

Banned
Well, maybe the South could get some allies... in South Africa, or somewhere. That would make it a little more interesting.

I think that America would contaminate the British Empire with its hard capitalistic class-system. You could blame that on the fact that there wouldn't be any 'American' dream any more, since its British.

Plus, didn't Britain only liberalize once it started losing all of its territories? Or is that an effect more than a cause?
 

Flocculencio

Donor
Darkest said:
Plus, didn't Britain only liberalize once it started losing all of its territories? Or is that an effect more than a cause?
Click to expand...

Well the Labour movement in Britain had been gaining power and taking steps in politicising the working classes from the late 19th C IIRC. And even the Liberals before them had been prominent in supporting the goals of the mercantile middle class over that of the aristocracy.

And after WW1 Labour became ascendant with it's base in the working classes and part of the middle classes while the Conservatives took the other part of the middle classes and the upper classes. The Liberals faded away since their base was now much smaller.

But in any case the Liberals were very strong during the late 19th C, the zenith of the Empire.

As for the conditions of the working class...I think it's safe to say that as regards the rural working classes, America offered a much better deal with lots of open land if you were willing to go out and settle it. However, I don't think there was too much of a difference in the life of a resident of a London slum and a resident of a New York slum in the 19th C.
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
Anyway, in a no-ARW timeline, you have to ask the question whether there would be a Mexico, or whether Nueva Espana would just remain part of the Spanish Empire (possibly actually under French effective control, given the winds of change in the C18).
 

Fabilius

Darkest said:
I think that America would contaminate the British Empire with its hard capitalistic class-system. You could blame that on the fact that there wouldn't be any 'American' dream any more, since its British.

Plus, didn't Britain only liberalize once it started losing all of its territories? Or is that an effect more than a cause?
Click to expand...

Are we forgetting where capitalism was born?
Capitalism didn´t come from USA to Britain, it was the other way around I´m afraid:rolleyes:
 

Calgacus

the difference is that america didnt really get socialism like we did. will they in this OTL? will socialism exist at all?
 
MrP

MrP

Banned
Wozza said:
A what of bread?

bread comes in a basket in my club.
Click to expand...

I've seen them mentioned in the papers - well, The Telegraph; one doesn't like to read the others - might contract socialism or some other terrible condition! It might be some sort of bread-producing company, old boy - I'm unsure. Wait, it's always referred to as costing the avergae family such and such - it must be a slang reference to extortioneers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top