In order for Mexico to be a first world nation is to emphasize the rule of law, to get rid of the corrupts, to decrease the bureaucracy.
To the contrary, those problems have everything to do with culture. You see, Nicomacheus and I are using the term "culture" in it's broad sociological context and not in the narrow "funny hats, foods, and holidays" sense that you are. When we mention culture we're talking about things like the rule of law, social equality/heirarchies, the value/types of education, xenophobia/xenophilia, optimism/fatalism, social/economic advancement, and a myriad of other basic sociological, political, and economic institutions, practices, and beliefs. The culture we're talking about is the nuts and bolts of any human society and not something as superficial as "Cinco de Mayo" and marachi bands.
I'm well aware that Mexico is a huge country with many different regions. Remember that I've worked in nearly all of them. Mexico is even more divided Italy too.
The culture we're talking about is the nuts and bolts of any human society and not something as superficial as "Cinco de Mayo" and marachi bands.
The US had (and still has) different levels of development in a very big country, but it overcame that problem because it avoided centralized power for a long period. Mexico never did and the reason is culture.
I take it you've never been to Mexico City? Never watched out the window of the plane as it dives through the layer of smog that blankets the Valley? Try actually visiting it once.
The simple numbers you quote seem good until you actually look at the demographics beneath them. Statistics are like that, you need to understand how the numbers are derived and what they actually measure. The numbers for Mexico City are skewed by a number of factors.
Greater Mexico City is "rich" and has a "high" GDP because, first, there are over 18 million people live there and, second, nearly all the country's richest people live there. Something less than a tenth of Mexicans live there, but they account for over a fifth of Mexican spending.
P.S. There are currently only two nations on DoD's list of nations that could destabilize rapidly; Pakistan and Mexico. Does that give you an idea about how seriously the professionals view this problem?
Vaguely.
Cinco de Mayo is irrelevant in the scheme of Mexican history. The only people who care about it are the people in Puebla, where the battle was fought.
It's much more widely celebrated in the US than in Mexico. In Mexico it's just annoying because they don't deliver mail on that day and all the banks are closed.
This Mexico benefits from two generations of immigration and economic development under the USA, probably somewhat different borders, and a US-derived legal system and bureaucracy.
Would the American republic be willing to spend the money or the manpower to keep their military active all over Mexico? I think an income tax and perhaps a sustained draft would have to be enacted. Not to mention dealing with the variety of diseases that would affect the army.But I think Mexico could still come out of it better than OTL Mexico
That would be why they take advantage of the Civil War when it comes around to regain independence
Then if mexico is more than "northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez." And you believe that Mexico is on the edge of total collapse. Where is the evidence of lack of rule of law in states like Veracruz, Campeche, Nayarit, or Sinaloa. Instead the evidence of Mexico's potential collapse is restricted to those areas that border the US.
Thanks for the condescension, just because I have a different point of it doesn't mean I am ignorant.
Here is my argument that culture is not the end all to why a society is the way it is today.
The reason why modern societies are the way they are is based on the manner in which they have reacted to historical events.
Mexicans did not share a common culture throughout history even the idea of Mexico is only as recent as its independence.
I think that Culture is an outcome not a cause, it is subject to what historical events formed a society.
Cultures are never set in stone or based on some inherent nature.
Instead cultures are formed through the experiences of societies.
The US has had a nation state and a series of laws that avoided centralization. This is political and entirely based on specific historical events.
Imagine for instance that Washington chose to be King as opposed to President, that is a historical event that ended up favorably.
Now that is not because American culture was inevitably going to begin in such a democratic fashion.
Because Washington was not raised as a member of "American" culture he was a Virginian.
What you are trying to say is that Mexico City is not an achievement because the pollution offends your sense of beauty?
Mexico City is a major economic center for latin america and is a major growth center.
Hmm, what you seem to be talking about would better be referred to as societal structure, and not culture
I don't see why, for example, having rigid social hierarchies is something 'cultural' - it's not like most of the population wants it to be that way.
Institutions aren't part of culture either - they're institutions. It would be incorrect to say the US government is part of US culture, for instance - it affects culture, and culture affects it, but it's not a part of it, it's it's own entity.
I think you've been using the word 'culture' in a particularly broad sense that's just confused everyone. In the future, it would probably be better to refer to societal structure instead.
However, the word "culture" is most commonly used in three basic senses:
* excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities
* an integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning
* the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group.
In the twentieth century, "culture" emerged as a concept central to anthropology, encompassing all human phenomena that are not purely results of human genetics. Specifically, the term "culture" in American anthropology had two meanings: (1) the evolved human capacity to classify and represent experiences with symbols, and to act imaginatively and creatively; and (2) the distinct ways that people living in different parts of the world classified and represented their experiences, and acted creatively.
During my visits in the early 90s
Okay, I'm going to write something that is going to p*ss you off even further and it's because you've unwittingly touched upon one of my pet peeves; misuse of words and/or misunderstanding what words actually mean.
Mexican independence came in 1824, so 185 years isn't enough time? There are much "younger" nations who have managed it.
"Different levels of development and the problems of centralized power in very big country are huge difficulties for any culture to overcome." The US had (and still has) different levels of development in a very big country, but it overcame that problem because it avoided centralized power for a long period. Mexico never did and the reason is culture.
- We are not "picking on" Mexico or Mexicans, so you needn't defend both or hint that we are racists for suggesting that most of Mexico's current problems are due to domestic Mexican issues.
- You still haven't quite "grokked" our use of the term "culture" in an anthropological sense.
- Cultures change constantly and are embedded in a "feedback" cycle.
- Mexico is neither as rich or developed as you believe and that is due in part to its culture.
This idea that Mexico cannot help but be Mexico seems to point to a kind of determinism. That the only way mexico could become better is if it somehow is not mexico. I know this AH.com so people don't feel bad about calling for the annexation of a country, but I can't help but be a bit upset.The potential seems to be there, but the Mexico can't seem to get out of it's own way.
Does it surprise you that my perceived misuse of of word doesn't "p*ss" me off.
I disagree that Mexican culture is to blame for the problems that it faces...
You also have a country that is much less hospitable to european immigration than america; mexico is partly malarial and good land is more scarce than in the US. This means overall there is not the same kind of middle class that America has. I think a major problem for Mexico is that it has had huge wealth gaps due to the largely agrarian nature of its economy. The US on the other hand has an abundance of good land which invites European settlement and the US gains a skilled middle class.
I disagree with quite a few things from that list as well, I think history has proven that most societies are not consistent on any of the things that you list as culture.
I guess my idea of understanding of history is looking for things that one can measure or narratives that one can compare; and therefore coming to decision. The problem with some of the things that you list is that they are impossible to actually measure for an entire society.
First of all you admit that Mexico is many cultures (which kind of throws a monkey wrench in your argument).
Personally I would think that the problem of the many cultures of Mexico comes down to many reasons. One is that the non-european population is much larger than the American one; the population of linguistically different that was resistant to assimilation.
Some people argue that America's success is part of a "can do" competitive culture that inspires hard work. However that culture is only in the form it is because of the bounty of good land that we have. Mexican culture would be shaped in a different way entirely if it had a different geography and climate.
However there is a serious side to this that I must admit got me bit upset. Not you but many people, think that Mexico would have been better off simply annexed or under a dictatorship.
This idea that Mexico cannot help but be Mexico seems to point to a kind of determinism. That the only way mexico could become better is if it somehow is not mexico.
One thing that we have both ignored throughout this debate is the affect of American interventionism into Mexico and its deleterious effects. Maybe you see Mexico only being hurt by its domestic problems, but I assure you no country lives in vacuum.
But I am unsure about the idea of "rule of law" as a cultural value...
... but doesn't that get in the way of your agreement with me that all people in mexico share a culture.
I think that Mexico is both rich and developed, but it is not consistently rich and developed.
But then I wonder if you think China is rich and developed, or perhaps Iran.
On the one hand you argue that culture is not inherent and then you turn right around and baldly state that if enough of the "right" kind of people had emigrated to Mexico it would be far better off. And I thought you were accusing me of being racist!
prospective member must agree to undertake cultural changes in order that it may fit within the Union more readily. Legal and financial systems are changed, reforms in government made, insitutions set up, new rules and regulations created. Hell, even corruption is measured in several ways and the prospective member nation has to take steps to fight it.
You were bleating about Washington operating only within a Virginian culture. I pointed that he operated within several micor-cultures while also being part of the overall culture of colonial America.
So, again, it's all a matter of race? Wow, you don't even listen to yourself do you? In this post and previous ones you say that culture isn't inherent and then blame Mexico's problems on the culture supposedly inherent to the Amerinds.
The Spanish entered the region and burned much of the texts and forcefully tried to eradicate languages. There will be a difficult time later convincing the same people that the nation is unified and that Spanish just happens to be the best language to use.Mexican independence came in 1824, so 185 years isn't enough time? There are much "younger" nations who have managed it.
Ahhh... so your position is personal. You're upset that people are picking on Mexico and want to argue the opposite case relying more on emotion than facts.
You may be unsure, but people more educated than you and I state that it is.
I don't know where you get your information:The money sent home by illegals is the second largest part of the country's GNP behind oil exports.
http://www.dallasfed.org/research/busfront/bus0401.htmlAlthough Mexico’s economy has struggled in recent years, the flow of money in remittances has provided an offset to difficult times at home. In 2003, Mexico received more than $13 billion in remittances, or about 2 percent of Mexico’s gross domestic product. The economic impact of remittances is concentrated in the poorer states, and new programs have evolved to channel the funds directly to infrastructure and investment rather than consumption.
But that's exactly what the OP's question is all about. He wanted to know what changes you'd make to Mexico so that it could succeed. We already know that the OTL Mexico currently is a failure. By changing it, Mexico would not be the Mexico it is now.
Seriously, if you don't like these sort of "What Ifs" you're on the wrong board.
Hmph, this thread is making me mad.
The problems of Mexico are rooted in the weaknesses of Latin culture and Latin colonialism.
The most obvious answer is a Mexican Ataturk
I've got the feeling that Mexico is been treated unfairly due to it's geographical situation. It's never compared to central American countries or to other third world countries.
Columbia
This Mexico benefits from two generations of immigration and economic development under the USA, probably somewhat different borders, and a US-derived legal system and bureaucracy.