Definition of Mexiwank/Mexiscrew?

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by naraht, Nov 26, 2011.

  1. naraht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    As an American (USAian), I tend to look at whether a TL is a Mexiwank/Mexiscrew by the location of the US/Mexican border.

    By my definition, If Mexico contains Galveston, Texas and San Francisco, it *is* a Mexiwank, If it contains Corpus Christi and Los Angeles, it is somewhat of a Mexiwank.

    OTOH, if Mexico loses at least 3 of the 6 current Mexican states that OTL border the USA, it somewhat of a Mexiscrew and if they lose any state which doesn't border the USA (other than Baja California Sur) it *is* a Mexiscrew.

    Of course there are those who say that OTL is a Mexiscrew (and an Ameriwank)...

    So how much do other changes in border or other TL changes affect the wank/screw ratio? Is a TL with loss of Sonora and Chihuahua & Baja to the US but with all of Central America down to the OTL Costa Rica a Mexiwank or a Mexiscrew?
     
  2. Emperor-of-New-Zealand It's a figure of speech

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Location:
    Christchurch, NZ
    Federal Republic of America has a Mexiwank that is unique - Mexico losing California to the Federal Republic of America (the result of a second American Revolution after the first fails), but absorbs everything south of itself and north of Panama.
     
  3. Dangimill Indentured Vexillologist

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Location:
    Cascadia
    OTL pretty much is a Mexico-screw. The US took a lot of land with little justification (aside from maybe Texas), and suggesting that annexing yet more land from Mexico would be manageable seems unrealistic: at some point, the land wouldn't be empty.

    I see any concessions greater than Baja California and maybe Sonora as pushing it: the US had little reason to push any farther south than pure expansionism, and that would be met with actual resistance in the more populated regions. On the other end of the spectrum, Mexico holding on to the lands it initially claimed (perhaps minus Texas) seems like the cap. Mexico with any lands it did not originally (circa 1820s) hold seems too unrealistic, but not losing land to American aggression does not seem like making Mexico "overpowered."
     
  4. wolf_brother Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Location:
    UTC−6
    OTL though those states were originally apart of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, and the First Mexican Empire. I'm not sure if its a wank to reclaim lost territory. Would we call it French-wank if she regained Nice and Savoy?

    To the OP I wouldn't consider anything shy of retaining all of New Spain, and perhaps even expanding beyond that, a Mexi-wank, while on the other hand I wouldn't call it a screw unless Yucatán, Rio Grande, Texas, California, and Sonora/Baja California were broken away.
     
  5. Emperor-of-New-Zealand It's a figure of speech

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Location:
    Christchurch, NZ
    France did regain Nice and Savoy :confused:.

    And yes, I'd call it a Mexiwank for them to regain Central America, without a doubt - given what they were before hand. In the same way that one might say the Mexicans conquering California from the US is a Mexiwank.
     
  6. Dangimill Indentured Vexillologist

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Well, true. Reconquering lost territory is different from not losing it. That brings up an interesting point: how Mexico got/retained the territory matters quite a bit more than simply what Mexico owns.
     
  7. wolf_brother Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Location:
    UTC−6
    But would we call it a French-wank?
     
  8. Emperor-of-New-Zealand It's a figure of speech

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Location:
    Christchurch, NZ
    "Sure, why not?"
     
  9. Hyperbolus gentleman lurker

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Location:
    Zenith, Winnemac
    Mexiwank need not be primarily about land-having rapid economic and political development would suffice. By this I mean, say being a charter member of the OECD or comparable organization and having a sizable middle class.
     
  10. eliphas8 Frankentrotsky

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Location:
    The Sewers.
    Well a timeline where Mexico is successful is also differnet from a timeline where they are rulers of all US land, what matters more is how plausible the author of the timeline could make it, they possibly could have kept more of their territory now if the situation where different it just depends on things being plausible.
     
  11. Plumber Manifest Destiny inspired Lebensraum

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    Location:
    北京Beijing
    Mexiscrew: OTL
    Mexiwank: Keeps California and/or Texas or Central America
     
  12. Socrates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    I'm not convinced our timeline is a Mexico screw. Yes, the country lost huge swathes of territory, but it was only territory in the sense that they had drawn lines on a map first. The land she lost to the United States I would have guessed as being fairly par for the course: given the position Mexico was in to start with, I think she did a good job to hold on to places like Sonora, Chihuahua etc; avoid being reconquered by an imperial power or to not collapse entirely.
     
  13. naraht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Mexiwank question.

    Does anyone know of a TL other than For Want of a Nail where Mexico ends up in control of the Oregon Territory (OTL Oregon, Washington, Idaho)?

    It seems that for such a TL, you either need to have a POD prior to 1819 get rid of the Adams–Onís Treaty, (which FWOAN does definitely does) or you need a Mexico strong enough by the 1840s/1850s and placed in a position to take it (A Decades of Darkness type scenario plus stronger Mexico on the British side in 1833-ish war?)
     
  14. Cuāuhtemōc Instagram Fiend Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    I agree with OTL being a Mexiscrew though I've seen plenty of timelines where the Americans bite a more bigger chunk of Mexico or annex the entire country without any problems or repercussions.

    I wouldn't say keeping California or Texas would classify as a wank. All you need (I think?) is different, more competent leadership (no Santa Anna) and you can see the Mexicans keep it. Central America....well I can't say much.
     
  15. iddt3 Herald of the New Board Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Honestly the northern bits of Mexico weren't doing that much for it, and certainly weren't anything approaching heartland, a mexiwank isn't lines on the Map, it's economic and political development and stability. Mexico could end up smaller then OTL but if it ends up stable for it it could be a functional wank. Likewise I could see a timeline where the USA is larger then OTL (say garbing all Mexico) not being Ameriwank because of the massive long term social and political problems that would carry with it. OTL is a mexiscrew not because of the Mexican American war but because of the mess Mexico has been in internally on and off since independence.
     
  16. scholar Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2010
    Location:
    United States
    A Mexico state that is significantly smaller than OTL but is highly centralized, stable, and fully industrialized is definitely better off than OTL, regardless of size. A Mexico state that is significantly larger than OTL but is even more decentralized, prone to internal conflict, and far less industrialized is definitely worse off than OTL regardless of size.

    Size shouldn't determine what you think.
     
  17. Plumber Manifest Destiny inspired Lebensraum

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    Location:
    北京Beijing
    I agree, but the "average" TL on the board has them losing both, so I put it as a wank by board standards. Kind of like how most TLs get a Suez Canal even though it happening was a crap shoot.
     
  18. naraht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Thoroughly disagree. As long as Egypt is part of an empire that is either reasonably strong or can be dominated by an ocean going power UK, France, Netherlands between the beginning of the age of steam OTL 1830 and the beginning of the age of Hovercraft (OTL 2070 :) ) it is worthwhile.

    Even if ASB made the Suez Canal disappear, it would be worthwhile to recreate it in the year 2011.
     
  19. Grand Prince Paul II. Xenophobic Russian Agent, pro-Europa

    And neither should the degree of centralization.
     
  20. Thande A special man who knows these things Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Location:
    God's Own County
    It's a tricky one because where do you draw the line about what constitutes "Mexico"? Like, it's easy to imagine the entirety of the Viceroyalty of New Spain becoming independent as one country (dark red on crappy Mercator Genocide map below) and surviving, but is that too far removed from what we think of as "Mexico" to count as a Mexi-wank?

    [​IMG]