The effects of Americanized Latin America

With the US either annexed Latin America or is very much over-dominate Latin America's culture through its influence (like the Philippines except more Americanized) , what would Latin America look like, as a culture. How would the Spanish language develop in the Americanized Latin America (annexation scenario). How would holidays, festivals, and the entire culture of Latin America be defined? How would the Latin American economic field and foreign affairs be framed as in the (Latin America greatly influence by the US but not annexed) scenario?
 

Deleted member 67076

US annexation of Latin America is ASB on a scale beyond Sealion. It will NEVER happen and there is no way to have that occur.

Its like asking for the US to annex China, or the entirety of Europe. The Latter would probably be easier anyway.

As well, I'm pretty sure if America annexed much of Latin America, they'd be assimilated, not the other way around.

As for Spanish, its already happening. Many English loanwords do appear in Latin American Spanish, albeit its more prominent in the Caribbean dialects.

You probably won't get any creoles nor will you get people to switch to English entirely.

Holidays... not much really. There's no reason for Latin American countries to adopt American holidays.
 
Holidays... not much really. There's no reason for Latin American countries to adopt American holidays.

I agree on this point. However, there is this from Chile:

lider.jpeg


It seems stupid to most of us now, because nobody in Chile celebrates it, period (they've got the Fiesta Patrias for that, but that's not until September!), but in an Americanized Latin America, if the US pushed it, it could be a possibility as some sort of "pan-Western Hemisphere" holiday (except in Canada and those areas under the British, French, and Dutch empires, no doubt).
 
It will NEVER happen and there is no way to have that occur.

Never say never.

As for the past, Bolivar had an inkling to join with the United States. Had that been more than an inkling…

And the US could pretty well have taken at least the entirety of continental North America without changing anyone’s mindset.

As well, I'm pretty sure if America annexed much of Latin America, they'd be assimilated, not the other way around.

Jury’s out on that, too.

As for Spanish, its already happening. Many English loanwords do appear in Latin American Spanish, albeit its more prominent in the Caribbean dialects.

Is the linguistic combination called Spanglish (OTL)? ‘Denglish’ is used in Germany, so I’m just curious.

Holidays... not much really. There's no reason for Latin American countries to adopt American holidays.

If they’re part of the United States, yeah, there sort of is.
 
I like Ameriwanks but the whole of Latin America would be grade a ASB that would both surpass a Sealion and Nazi conquest of Russian Asia during 1943! :eek: Ok I'm exaggerating a lot but you get the idea.

A US that controls non-European Americas would be a hegemonic power that would make Europe piss itself. European fear of the behemoth to its East would be the same fear most of Europe would fear for an US that
Controls majority of the Americas.

On cultural side of things it could go done several ways.

A. If annexation is bloodless and without insurgency(very unlikely ) that would last for years, Latin Amrican culture would influence Anglo America like the US being bilingual.
B. Annexation by conquest results in an Afghanistan like scenario. With the US being hated.
C.Annexation is done by peace meal and in small chunks that could be assimilated. Not annexing an entire country in one go would be much easier. Stable and democratic US beat corrupt military juntas any day of the week it's all about getting the WASP population to stop being racist against the Latins and Catholics and vice versa of course, you would get a US that would be more catholic, a more Spanish influenced Union.
 
Never say never.

As for the past, Bolivar had an inkling to join with the United States. Had that been more than an inkling…

And the US could pretty well have taken at least the entirety of continental North America without changing anyone’s mindset...Jury’s out on that, too.

Emphasis mine; as an American, I have to voice my doubts that the US could've taken the whole of North America without changing the mindset of large numbers of people. Sure they could've IMO taken Canada were the Army made up of qualified, standing professionals instead of militia during the 1812 War, but it'd be a challenge. Canada AND Mexico? Color me dubious.

Although I do contest the notion that Latin America would subsume North American culture, given that the demographic tipping point in countries like Mexico and Colombia didn't happen till the ass-end of the 19th. Century, as standards of living and medicine allowed for less infant mortality rates and better chances of making it to adulthood (America was/is in a more temperate location, and had way less of an issue in this regard to deal with). Take either country early enough, and they would've been assimilated WELL BEFORE having that demographics explosion. Would there be Hispanic influences on the US? Certainly, such things ain't a one-way street. But the bulk of that flow would be North-South, not the other way 'round.

Is the linguistic combination called Spanglish (OTL)? ‘Denglish’ is used in Germany, so I’m just curious.

Spanglish is the code-switching between English and Spanish typically implemented by people of Mexican or Puerto Rican descent in the Southwest and Northeast respectively. Simply adopting terminology from English technically doesn't make it Spanglish, it's the near 50-50 split in vocab and even grammar between the two that does...more of a "pidgin" in a way.
 
Emphasis mine; as an American, I have to voice my doubts that the US could’ve taken the whole of North America without changing the mindset of large numbers of people.

Without the POD being a change of mindset. I would have thought that was clear, given that I just talked about Bolivar.
 
Without the POD being a change of mindset. I would have thought that was clear, given that I just talked about Bolivar.

The point still stands. As far as the Bolivar thing, even if he had more than an inkling to join the US, how long do you think that would last? He wanted a unified Gran Colombia, and yet that country got dropped into history's trashcan less than a quarter-century after its creation. That happened in his OWN BACKYARD; I highly doubt he'd have near enough political capital to bind the nation to the USA even if it was just OTL's Colombia...this was the 19th. Century after all.
 

Deleted member 67076

Never say never.

As for the past, Bolivar had an inkling to join with the United States. Had that been more than an inkling…

And who's to say others will simply follow him? Or if the union will last? Or if he agrees, that people will revolt against him?

And the US could pretty well have taken at least the entirety of continental North America without changing anyone’s mindset.
This I'd like to know how such a thing would occur. I can't imagine the US realistically holding such territory.

There is such a thing as overextention, you know?

Jury’s out on that, too.
How? The Mexico taken by the USA was barely populated, and Florida was a gradual assimilation driven by a variety of factors.

This is like asking the Mongols to take over China and not be assimilated by the Chinese.
 
Not going to happen. The North didn't want more slave states, the racists didn't want more dusky peoples, and our military up until we started dicking around with the world beyond the Western Hemisphere was rather small.

We would instead meddle in Latin American affairs on the more limited basis like we saw OTL. We also have to consider the institutional change it would need to engender in the new territories. The semi-feudal encomiendas of colonial Latin America were totally foreign from the families-emigrate-and-form-towns model of English colonization in America. We could have gotten Spain, more in the northwest, Panama or Nicaragua (depending on where we want a canal) and more of Mexico. Anything more is ridiculous.

Not to mention the conquered peoples. This isn't sparsely populated American territory OTL, where disease and American policy made the native peoples irrelevant in our calculations. Mesoamerica going into South America was more populated, had a different culture that would be hard to assimilate, and climes that encourage guerilla warfare (imagine the Mayan rebels and Pancho Villa on roids- a neverending bleeding sore and prestige project that loses us money). Just because they are brown, speak Spanish, have terrible political systems and less developed economies does not preclude bending over meekly for Uncle Sam and the phallus of freedom.
 
…how long do you think that would last?

Permanently.

He wanted a unified Gran Colombia, and yet that country got dropped into history’s trashcan less than a quarter-century after its creation.

Because it wasn’t the US and was rife with corruption.

And who's to say others will simply follow him? Or if the union will last? Or if he agrees, that people will revolt against him?

Never said anything to that, but he was influential. There’s a country named after him, after all.

There is such a thing as overextention, you know?

And I’m sure that if in 1283 the Grand Duchy of Moscow decided to claim the entirety of present day Russia, they’d be overextended, too. But I said nothing about the timing of this, and you are assuming, for some reason, that the US would have done this all at once.


The same way the 30 million that immigrated to the US between 1836 to 1914 assimilated: by assimilating. Because that’s what you do in the United States. The same way that modern day immigrants do it.

This is like asking the Mongols to take over China and not be assimilated by the Chinese.

No, not at all. Your hyperbole doesn’t do anything for your argument.
 
This I'd like to know how such a thing would occur. I can't imagine the US realistically holding such territory.

There is such a thing as overextention, you know?

Especially for a country vehemently opposed to maintaining a standing army in peacetime, which means that raising forces to deal with rebellions by newly conquered, not largely American-settled (OTL California was overwhelmingly settled by Americans, not what it was under Mexico, within half a decade - that won't be true of more populated areas) is going to be a pain at best.

Even with Mexico (in 1855) having 8 million http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/mxpoprev/cambridg3.htm to the US's 26.7 (may include slaves, http://mste.illinois.edu/malcz/ExpFit/data.html - that's not really the issue in regards to control so much as that a couple regiments of cavalry would not be enough (and would be a huge portion of the regular army by OTL standards) and a force that would be enough is a problem.

And that's just Mexico, not all Latin America.


Tallest Skil:
30 million people voluntarily moving to the United States and wanting to become Americans is not a comparable situation to the United States conquering places in the land of Manifest Destiny that don't want to become Americans when it comes to expecting assimilation.
 
And who's to say others will simply follow him? Or if the union will last? Or if he agrees, that people will revolt against him?

This I'd like to know how such a thing would occur. I can't imagine the US realistically holding such territory.

There is such a thing as overextention, you know?

How? The Mexico taken by the USA was barely populated, and Florida was a gradual assimilation driven by a variety of factors.

This is like asking the Mongols to take over China and not be assimilated by the Chinese.

Comparing Mexico and China in assimilation of their conquers isn't really accurate. The Chinese had overwhelming numbers while the Mexicans or the Columbians have smaller population than the US .As one the previous posters have said if taken earlier enough like before the population boom of Latin America the US could assimilate those regions.

As for over extension that didn't really stop the US and Canada to their expansion west. The Western pronvinces
And states were de facto independent during the early 19century with little communication with the east . It's actually easier to get to Mexico City by boat than reaching say the pacific coast of Canada.

It's more about getting the upper class and the elites of Latin America to answer to DC as their superiors and to Americanize. The upper class has alway held the true power in the regions where Spain's empire fell apart.

I ain't saying the US could easily
Conquer the Latin American states all I'm saying is that t would require a totally different US to even try such a thing.
 
30 million people voluntarily moving to the United States and wanting to become Americans is not a comparable situation to the United States conquering places…

So why is everyone assuming war when that wasn’t stated to be the sole possible case here?
 
So why is everyone assuming war when that wasn’t stated to be the sole possible case here?

Because the odds of Latin America's OTL nations wanting to be part of the US is pretty damn poor?

Because most threads that involve "the US expands past its already enormous OTL borders" assume the US can just conquer whatever it wants?

Because no one has specified that it was a peaceful, voluntary process? "Annexed" kinda implies that the US did it forciblly after all, and the Philippines were taken by armed force to begin with, so "like the Philippines" is most certainly not merely cultural influence.

Any or all of the above apply.
 
Last edited:
Author of the thread really needs to be more exact. This just lets the poster to interpret and assume things on our own with such vague scenarios.
 

whitecrow

Banned
Because it wasn’t the US and was rife with corruption.
This is rather dumb IMO since

1) USA was no paragon of non-corruption at this time IIRC.

2) Your statement seems to imply that if Latin America were to become some far-away territories/states of Washington they would magically become less corrupt. Why would the elites who run the places act any less corruptly under the Star-Spangled Banner than their OTL flags?
 
Because the odds of Latin America’s OTL nations wanting to be part of the US is pretty damn poor?

Alternate history.

Because most threads that involve "the US expands past its already enormous OTL borders" assume the US can just conquer whatever it wants?

Let’s buck that trend. Doesn’t really help to promulgate it, does it?

Because no one has specified that it was a peaceful, voluntary process?

Nor did anyone say otherwise, so I ignored the violence.

“Annexed” kinda implies that the US did it forcibly

Texas, Louisiana, Oregon… I guess you could think that if only the phrase “annex the Sudetenland” is your metric.

…so “like the Philippines”…

His reference to the Philippines regarded culture only, and how there is an overarching (small) Americanization to it.
 
Alternate history.

Yes. And why would they want to be part of the US?

"Alternate history" does not in and of itself transform attitudes.

Texas, Louisiana, Oregon… I guess you could think that if only the phrase “annex the Sudetenland” is your metric.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/26334/annexation

The Sudetenland is neither the first or last time annexation has been forcible, or even an atypical example of how that term is used.

Peaceful annexation brings us back to why those areas want to be part of the US (like TExas) or are overwhelmingly settled by Americans (Texas, Oregon).

His reference to the Philippines regarded culture only, and how there is an overarching (small) Americanization to it.

And the only reason American culture has any especially noteworthy influence on the Philippines is that the US took it by force and held it until after WWII.

If Latin America is going to be comparable, that implies very strongly that it was similarly in a position for American customs to be introduced.
 
Comparing Mexico and China in assimilation of their conquers isn't really accurate. The Chinese had overwhelming numbers while the Mexicans or the Columbians have smaller population than the US .As one the previous posters have said if taken earlier enough like before the population boom of Latin America the US could assimilate those regions.


.

Let's say it's true, with I don't have the numbers to check. Then what? Do you think that many anglo settlers would want to move to Central American jungles or Colombian highlands?

On the other hand, we must bear in mind that, even if the population was lower than later, these peoples were farmers, their population density was way higher than that of Native Americans in the Grat plains, and they were familiar with modern warfare and guerilla tactics: they would vehemently resist any attempt of settlers to take away thir land, no matter if settlers come with a paper saying they bought the land from absentee Criollo landowners.

This population would survive, in their land and with their religion and culture. And when the population boom happens, they would move to big cities in firmer Latin America and then in the original US territory, carrying with them their languge and culture.

Hispanic population boom would happen no matter what. Remember IOTL after the local population was affected severely by diseas and conquest, at some pint in the early XVII population established and began growing again. If they are conquered by Americans around 1800, eventualy modern medicine techinques would arrive, and you'd see a population boom even if the regions remains poor, as it has happened in Africa or Southeast asia IOTL.
 
Top