If California isn't American, it's otherwise quite frequently independent. Same with Texas. Like people have an aversion to a Mexican California/Texas for some reason.
Yeah, they're super hard to find.You know, now that I think on it I've never seen a scenario where Texas isn't either independent (which actually happened no less) or just... falls flat and stays Mexican along with California/the "American Southwest" in general.
You know, now that I think on it I've never seen a scenario where Texas isn't either independent (which actually happened no less) or just... falls flat and stays Mexican along with California/the "American Southwest" in general.
It is important to recognize just how thoroughly Anglo settlers overtook the Mexican-born population IOTL. By 1835, there were 30,000 English-speakers versus 7,800 Mexicans. So this wasn't your usual filibuster.
It was deliberate imperialistic relocation to be frank.
Sure, but the demographics were what they were, and they weren't favorable to Mexico.
Puzzling over this...the choices seem to be independence, Spanish/Mexican or joins the U.S. Do you mean something like British Texas/California, or Texas or swallowed by French Louisiana? Can't see any other claimants.You know, now that I think on it I've never seen a scenario where Texas isn't either independent (which actually happened no less) or just... falls flat and stays Mexican along with California/the "American Southwest" in general.
The issue about the PH would be that there are still pagans in the lowlands of Luzon til after the tabacalera times/tabacco monopoly before 19th century, they would have ended up selling Luzon had the tabacalera failed regardless of the ruler.With all the misplaced patriotism mentioned, most of the timelines that mentioned or centered around Philippines has either Novales conquering it, or Northern Luzon broken off.
If made by a rather ignorant writer (not that they are to be blamed for it), it’ll often be an American colony. How about the Belgians next time?
Written in respect to the excellently written timelines of @Al-numbers and @ramones1986 .
Still doesn't justify how rare it is. This is alternate history after all. And even, in low plausibility/ASB maps it's more common to see an independent/British California/Texas then it is to see them with Mexico. And these are the same places where you'll see mega Americas and Mega Confederacies, among other things. It's really just an Anglocentric Bias at that point.It is important to recognize just how thoroughly Anglo settlers overtook the Mexican-born population IOTL. By 1835, there were 30,000 English-speakers versus 7,800 Mexicans. So this wasn't your usual filibuster.
It's rather common to see questions that amount to asking how to make the world more white, particularly Africa and Latin America.
Here’s one: India is almost always either Balkanized to a greater degree than OTL’s partition, remains a (usually British) colony forever, or (rarely) ends up united under the Mughals. There’s almost never a united democratic India.
I’m personally of the opinion that it would actually be at least somewhat more stable than OTL India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, but that’s not relevant to the fact that AH authors never have it show up. For that matter, they never have any native monarchy other than the Mughals unite it either—Mauryas TLs or Maratha India TLs or even Delhi Sultanate TLs are pretty much nowhere to be found.man that would be a cluster fuck. But also our cricket team would kick ass