Definition of Mexiwank/Mexiscrew?

I don't think Mexico retaining its Pre-1848 borders is a Mexiwank. A real Mexiwank would be something like this:

Mexiwank.PNG
 
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.

This.

Really, having a vast empire doesn't mean much if there's a coup d'etat every other week. Mexico as it is in OTL is surrounded by water, has deserts and mountains to its north, and jungles to its south. It's actually a pretty well insulated nation, and if it got its act together enough to defend these borders and industrialize humanely as possible (so as not to spark a worker's revolution), it would be a much more powerful/influential nation than some ATL mega-Somalia stretching from Oregon to Panama.
 
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?

800px-Nueva_Espa%C3%B1a_1795.png

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.
 

iddt3

Donor
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?
 
Last edited:
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?

Part of the problem there is that while say a Poland wank may involve fewer wars for Poland rather than expansion, that's actually fairly difficult for Canada or for the US. A TL where Canada participates is fewer wars (Boer, WWI & WWII) would require significant enough changes that it wouldn't even be viewed as a Canadawank (a UK wank maybe). Somewhat similarly for the US, as, IMO, the only US wars that are anti-wank prior to 1989 are Vietnam and maybe the War of 1812.
 
While I would agree that OTL is a bit of a Mexiscrew, I am annoyed by the notion that more territory instantly makes a country more powerful. Rampant expansion can cause a number of problems, which usually seem to be ignored by this board.

Just because something looks nice on a map does not mean it works in reality.

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:

To be honest, both of those contain so much territory that I would not identify them as what we know as 'Mexico'. They would both contain more non-Mexicans than Mexicans.
 
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.
Best post of the thread.

The sad thing is Mexico will be dismissed even if it's GDP was comparable to Italy because Mexico will always be compared to the United States. :(
 
Truly an under-valued nation at the moment, even internally

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.

Some good points, the economy really is larger and richer than people give it credit for, with a large and growing middle class by international standards. Sometimes the nation is disparaged by politically motivated people and by people who generally don't realize that most nations don't compare favorably to the US government, economy, or military.

POD's could very easily lead to a stronger Mexico, especially the further back in time that you go. Example, a stronger leader than Santa Ana in his stead, like Alvaro Obregon or even (dare I say) an unpopular but strong leader like Diaz. Either leader could have averted the disastrously led war. Independence and fighting off the French and annexing Yucatan was simply not enough in the 1800's to declare it a good century for Mexico. Just one more strong leader instead of a weak leader could have made a huge difference. How much we just don't know.
 
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.

Ah but you proceed from a false assumption... namely that the country that held the land de jure but only lightly inhabited did not really loose anything of value. and thus its not a screw in any sense... whereas you eliminate the potential of those lands with immigration had those immigrants remained true to the laws of the state that controlled said land dejure aand actually orked to address their grievances from within rather than seeking external relief.. Which is exactly the expectation that was had of any immigrant that came and landed on the East coast of the USA .

So yes OTL is in every sense of the word an absolute and total Mexi Screw where the legitimate governments were robbed by the American robber barons...Okay thats stretching it but you get the point. A mexi Wank would be in some fashion retaining Central America or attempting however futilely in retaining a portion of the lands claimed by Spain in Oregon. and also maintaining some pre-eminent position within the Phillipines,or perhaps adding Cuba or PR. Now those would be wildly optimistic and probably impossible to achieve all of them. Àthough the first two are perhaps doable if the US never gains any interest in lands beyond the LP. That though is highly improbable as well but a bit more probable than the ultimate mexi wank I suggested as the penultimate.. wank for Mexico.

And just another caveat...I will echo the sentiments stated by a few others that more land and thus potential resources and human capital that could well translate to greater wealth and potential development, that may come with immigration does not necessarily equate to a wank that results in a state that is better off relative to OTL. Its a two edged sword and what the governments do with those resources determines whether its a boon or a further complication and hindrance.
 
Last edited:
Top