I don't think Mexico retaining its Pre-1848 borders is a Mexiwank. A real Mexiwank would be something like this:
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.
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?
![]()
Alone? No. Coupled with greater stability and industrialization? Yes.And neither should the degree of centralization.
Actually based on this post, are there any timelines on this board that have all three nations in NA doing better then OTL in terms of wealth, equality, and political stability? The idea seems to be that either Ameriwank or Mexiwank, one has to come at the expense of the other, but what about a more peaceful wank?
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?
I don't think Mexico retaining its Pre-1848 borders is a Mexiwank. A real Mexiwank would be something like this:
Best post of the thread.I would define Mexico as the core of this territory. Or which ends up being something between Mexico pre 1848 and Mexico post 1848. Because lets face it, Mexico never really had a hold on half the area it claimed. Despite being in Mexico, I wouldn't never count Utah as naturally part of Mexico unless there is some extreme POD.
However many people forget that a nation being larger or smaller in terms of size does not necessarily mean it is doing better or worse. Mexico could have kept California and be off much worse than OTL, or loose Sonora and Baja but mantain greater stability and end up in a better position by 2011 in terms of economy, military, and international relevance.
We also forget the Mexico is not that bad off in OTL, despite the negative developments over the last five years, Mexico is still 14th in the world in terms of nominal GDP and 11th in PPP. One of the major problems, however, is the fact that the wealth is concentrated in a very small elite. Thus per capita Mexico drops into the mid50s in rank. But that is still within the upper 30% of countries. Also Mexico still has a lower unemployment rate than several developed countries including the USA at this time. And while the drug war has wrecked havok in the country in terms of safety Mexico still ranks lower than Brazil in murder rate in both 2010 and the decade as a whole).
Yes, Mexico could have done much much better than in OTL with just a few changes. But it is not the wreck people generally paint it as.
You could have a POD in the 1970s during the administrations of Echeverria and/or Lopez Portillo and easily end up with a Mexico that has:
A GDP comparable to that of Italy or India (placing it well within the top 8).
The PPP can remain where it is, perhaps slightly better to place it between Italy and France, but it would be more evenly distributed than in OTL. Bumping the PPP per capita to the upper 20s, between Italy, and Israel.
A POD around this point will likely mean an earlier democratic Mexico, probably in the late 80s. The earlier privatization of the banking system, and hopefully the oil industry. A much more developed tourist industry (Mexico was doing quite well here, until the outbreak of the Drug War, but by having the US above it it could be doing much better).
And it might have prevented the drug industry from growing within the country after it left Colombia in the scale that it did. (Perhaps it would move to Venezuela or Cuba instead).
Also as opportunities are better in Mexico, immigration into the US would be slightly curved (there would still be quite a bit of it but not as much). Mexico would thus have a bit of a larger population (birth rate is expected to be lower though so it might even out). But 120 million sounds like a good spot.
However, despite the fact that this Mexico would likely be included within the BRIC nations as a rapidly advancing nation, no one here would recognize it as a -wank. Because it didn't keep extra territory. You might even have to pay close attention to notice any change. But it would be there.
At the same time you could have a POD in 1846 where Mexico keeps a good chuck of California but it ends up much worse than OTL in terms of wealth distribution, violence, democracy, etc. But many would see it as a wank because of it.
I would define Mexico as the core of this territory. Or which ends up being something between Mexico pre 1848 and Mexico post 1848. Because lets face it, Mexico never really had a hold on half the area it claimed. Despite being in Mexico, I wouldn't never count Utah as naturally part of Mexico unless there is some extreme POD.
However many people forget that a nation being larger or smaller in terms of size does not necessarily mean it is doing better or worse. Mexico could have kept California and be off much worse than OTL, or loose Sonora and Baja but mantain greater stability and end up in a better position by 2011 in terms of economy, military, and international relevance.
We also forget the Mexico is not that bad off in OTL, despite the negative developments over the last five years, Mexico is still 14th in the world in terms of nominal GDP and 11th in PPP. One of the major problems, however, is the fact that the wealth is concentrated in a very small elite. Thus per capita Mexico drops into the mid50s in rank. But that is still within the upper 30% of countries. Also Mexico still has a lower unemployment rate than several developed countries including the USA at this time. And while the drug war has wrecked havok in the country in terms of safety Mexico still ranks lower than Brazil in murder rate in both 2010 and the decade as a whole).
Yes, Mexico could have done much much better than in OTL with just a few changes. But it is not the wreck people generally paint it as.
You could have a POD in the 1970s during the administrations of Echeverria and/or Lopez Portillo and easily end up with a Mexico that has:
A GDP comparable to that of Italy or India (placing it well within the top 8).
The PPP can remain where it is, perhaps slightly better to place it between Italy and France, but it would be more evenly distributed than in OTL. Bumping the PPP per capita to the upper 20s, between Italy, and Israel.
A POD around this point will likely mean an earlier democratic Mexico, probably in the late 80s. The earlier privatization of the banking system, and hopefully the oil industry. A much more developed tourist industry (Mexico was doing quite well here, until the outbreak of the Drug War, but by having the US above it it could be doing much better).
And it might have prevented the drug industry from growing within the country after it left Colombia in the scale that it did. (Perhaps it would move to Venezuela or Cuba instead).
Also as opportunities are better in Mexico, immigration into the US would be slightly curved (there would still be quite a bit of it but not as much). Mexico would thus have a bit of a larger population (birth rate is expected to be lower though so it might even out). But 120 million sounds like a good spot.
However, despite the fact that this Mexico would likely be included within the BRIC nations as a rapidly advancing nation, no one here would recognize it as a -wank. Because it didn't keep extra territory. You might even have to pay close attention to notice any change. But it would be there.
At the same time you could have a POD in 1846 where Mexico keeps a good chuck of California but it ends up much worse than OTL in terms of wealth distribution, violence, democracy, etc. But many would see it as a wank because of it.
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.