What would a first-world Mexico look like

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.

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. It has a lot more to do with distribution of wealth and power and the historical causes of that. 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.
 
Until recently Spain and POrtugal weren't considered unequivocally first world. To join the EU they both had to undertake a series of economic and political reforms.
 
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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I read that report and it is pretty vacant of proof, besides "we are the Joint Operating Environment," trust us.
 
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.

I thought that's when they drove the French out?
 
Hm.

What if Mexico loses the Mexican-American war far more comprehensivly, and ends up in a union with the USA? This butterflies the american Civil War, but does not eliminate the tensions that lead to it.

There is still a Civil War, maybe 10-20 years later, and Mexico uses it to break out of the union.

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.
 
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.

I am skeptical that either the Americans or the Mexicans would be as welcoming to each other as we would hope. Mexicans might resist their "liberation" by the Americans, and I wonder if the Americans will pursue their policy of native near-extermination with the Mayans or the many of the other native groups in Mexico.

Would many of the free blacks of Mexico be re-enslaved?

Would the Catholic church be ok with rule from a mainly protestant if not deist government?

I've got a feeling that overall Mexico might not simply roll over for the Americans.
 
No, they would not. That would be why they take advantage of the Civil War when it comes around to regain independence. And I am pretty sure it would not be two generations of elysian peace.

But I think Mexico could still come out of it better than OTL Mexico
 
But I think Mexico could still come out of it better than OTL Mexico
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.

What was so superior in the United States of America then the United States of Mexico? Was it the wealth, because I assure you America would be poorer trying to occupy Mexico in 1846. Is it the constitution, because the 1824 constitution was essentially the same as the American one. Was the bureaucracy better, because there I might agree with you; however a total annexation would not be necessary to simply make it more efficient.

That would be why they take advantage of the Civil War when it comes around to regain independence

I am not sure why you think this.
 
Well, this is a very interesting thread, I must say. I think some very good points have been made.

As far as the original question is concerned, I've actually given it some thought before. The idea that came to me was for Santa Anna to be significantly more competent, an Ataturk if that's the phrasing you have in mind. Of course, I was a good deal younger when that thought came to me, and I have since seen that it would not be so simple as it seemed to be back then.

Still, were a figure such as the Mexican Ataturk that has been discussed to arrise, it would be quite plausible for his efforts to result in a Mexico that would be in better shape than OTLy was the case. I've discussed the concept with a professor at my university who specializes in Comparative Politics (although his focus is on differing levels of happiness within societies, the broad area which he studies includes the efforts to answer the questions of why some nations perform better than others economically). His responses were interesting, he seemed to find the topic quite intriguing.

He placed some of the blame on geography - indeed, he made the same point which has already been made in this thread, that Mexico's mountain ranges and so on do not lend themselves to easy control by any government, but he also blamed Mexico's poor performance on culture as well. Specifically, he blamed the culture of corruption which seems so common to the modern Third World. He referred me to a popular social science text, The Undercover Economist, which directly addressed the question of which factors lead to differences in wealth between nations. The argument made in that text was that while differences in infastructure and education are significant, the single most important factor is how corrupt the government of a nation is. The book cited a number of examples, although it focused on the story of the African nation of Cameroon. I won't list the whole arguement that was made, suffice it to say that I recomend the book as a whole, for a number of reasons.

Anyways, the single change which he thought might lead to the best results for Mexico would be if the Mexican Ataturk could reform the civil service, eliminating nepotism and corruption and establishing an institutional culture of honesty, efficiency and general pride in the quality of the work which they performed. Needless to say, this would not be easy. However, if it could be done, it would be a major step towards the establishment of the rule of law which many of you have cited as a major prerequesite for economic prosperity.

The reasons why this would be a good starting point include more than just the fact that it is deemed the best way to establish prosperity in a nation. It would be, arguably, easier than attempting to break the power of the local elites, since there would be less serious opposition to it than there would be to such an effort. After all, corrupt civil servants have less power than the local elites would hold.

The professor proposed a model for how such a system of reforms might be enacted, citing the example of "a friend of his," a former Mexican Minister of Justice who attempted to reform the police in Mexico City with some success (significant success, until he was eliminated, and replaced by a corrupt successor, but that's neither here nor there). While making this suggestion, he added that similar reforms could be applied to the military and the civil police, although he admitted that to do so would be more difficult than simply to force compliance from the civil service. As a result, he suggested focusing on the civil service, then the police and lastly the army - all before making the final big effort to get the local elites under control. After all, with the army operating under the direction of the political leadership, and staying out of the king-making business, it would be easier for the civil government to accomplish its goals in general. He did, interestingly, suggest that a military type might be the best choice for the Mexican Ataturk, bringing my mind back to the concept of a superior Santa Anna. (The reasoning behind this is fairly clear - if the leader was a "military type," then it can be assumed that he would have the conections with and respect from the military that would be required to ensure their support.)

Anyways, the strategy employed by the Mexican Minister of Justice (Miguel Basanez is his name, if you're interested) was one with an interesting basis. He knew that corruption was endemic to the police force, so rather than try to eliminate every single corrupt police officer, instead he used a more subtle approach. He established a network of anti-corrution reformers within the police force, using as the basis for that network police officers on all levels who were in general known to be honest. These officers were kept ignorant of who the other informers were, and made to check up on one another as well as on non-members. At the same time as this network was being put in place, he made a general announcement that corruption was no longer being tolerated - that he knew many officers were corrupt, but that he was willing to overlook past actions if they would be willing to change their ways. But that corruption would no longer be tolerated, and that a network of informers was in place to ensure that corruption would be punished. A little while later, he actually eliminated some corrupt police officers who had been informed on. The result of this was to establish an institutional culture of accountability - the police officers knew that if they took bribes or something, then they ran the risk of losing their jobs. To back this up, there was also some rotation of assignments, to eliminate the possibility that counter-networks of policemen covering for one another could be established. All of this combined to create a system which functioned, and which allowed for the opportunity to introduce greater reforms.

Anyways, the system worked, and could be repeated within different institutions. The follow-up would, of course, involve more than just rule through fear. A campaign encouraging officials to take pride in the quality of their work, the establishment of schools dedicated to producing qualified, enthusiastic and loyal new civil servants, policemen and military officers... all of those could follow on the tail of such an initial campaign. Of course, the problem would exist of ensuring that the leader, the Mexican Ataturk, did not merely establish an efficient totalitarian state - that could be accomplished in a number of ways. One could be to have someone like Ataturk fill that role - if one looks up the collected quotes of Ataturk, one is in for a bit of a surprise, or at least I was. This man, who was the Leader of his country, at one point said that if he was to bequeth to his nation a tyranny, then it would be better if he had not lived. Of course, few men who have the ambition to achieve the sort of power that this Mexican Ataturk would need would have the selfless dedication to do as he did. A simpler method might be to have this leader be passionately dedicated to some principal - it need not be democracy, it could well be nationalism or something along those lines. Whatever the case, one can imagine a non-corrupt leader establishing a non-corrupt state.

The problem then, is how to ensure that his successor will not be corrupt. One way would be to establish democracy and a free press, which in this case would seem unlikely. Another would be to have a meritocratic civil service entrusted with enough of the power that a leader cannot simply do as he pleases. The case of Singapore comes to mind, though - a competent successor would be important. Still, the counter to that issue can be easily raised - if the man we choose as our Mexican Ataturk is competent enough to reform the civil service, then no doubt he will be competent enough to choose a good successor. The qualities of a good successor would, of course, include being able to in turn find a good successor... but at some point, it's almost inevitable that that chain will break, and a really rotten leader will come to power. Unless, that is, a free press and a free system of democracy can be established. In that case, the populace would be free to get rid of a bad leader. The problem is, how to establish democracy in a nation which has never before had such a system in place. The answer to that, is... it's not really clear. Some attempts have worked, some have failed. What is clear, though, is that for democracy to succeed, the army has to be out of the political game. If the army can throw out a democratically elected leader, then a democratic government cannot function. So, the Mexican Ataturk would, therefore, need to get the army under the control of the civil government... but, that's something that has already been discussed.

Anyways, those are my thoughts on the issue. I'm eager to hear whatever thoughts you all have on what I've just put out here. :)
 
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.


Tobit,

First, Mexico's troubled regions are not wholly along the US border. Google "Chiapas" and educate yourself about a rebellion in the southern portion of Mexico.

You want examples from other states? How about Veracruz? I stay in that city when I'm visiting the Laguna Verde nuclear plant situated about 100km to the north. During my visits in the early 90s, army roadblocks were so common that the 100km trip could take over 3 hours. The army was there trying (and failing) to round up armed gangs fighting for control of the cane fields.

During my last visit to Veracruz, the city's roads to the south were sealed off to all traffic with no "official" announcement. All anyone knew` was that army roadblocks were in place. (There were many rumors however.)

Mexico has serious troubles everywhere and just not along the US border.

Second and once again, when I and the others talk about "rule of law" we're talking about a cultural concept and not whether cops are effective in catching robbers.

Thanks for the condescension, just because I have a different point of it doesn't mean I am ignorant.

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.

"Ignorant" does not equate "stupid". Ignorant means one is unaware of the facts, not that one cannot learn the facts. Understand? I do not think you are stupid, I do think you are ignorant on this topic. You were ignorant of the anthropological uses of the term "culture", you are ignorant of the (mis)use of statistics, and you are ignorant of the many issues facing current day Mexico. What you are not is stupid. Understand?

Guess what? I'm ignorant too. Ignorant on a huge range of subjects. This isn't one of them though.

As for your different opinion, part of it maybe correct and part of it is based on your ignorance of the situation. I said that Mexico is balancing on the knife edge of being a failed state. While you can easily take issue with the strength of that statement, you cannot argue as you have that Mexico on the whole is not a greatly troubled, woefully governed, endemically corrupt, Third World nation. The facts are against you.

Here is my argument that culture is not the end all to why a society is the way it is today.

Sure, go ahead.

The reason why modern societies are the way they are is based on the manner in which they have reacted to historical events.

Sure. The reactions a nation perceives as open to and the reactions chosen are shaped by that nation's culture.

Mexicans did not share a common culture throughout history even the idea of Mexico is only as recent as its independence.

Mexican independence came in 1824, so 185 years isn't enough time? There are much "younger" nations who have managed it.

I think that Culture is an outcome not a cause, it is subject to what historical events formed a society.

Culture does not exist apart. Culture both influences and is influenced by events.

Cultures are never set in stone or based on some inherent nature.

I never said that about culture and none of the others posters who discussed Mexico's cultural problems said that either. If you believe we have you need to re-read our posts again and this time pay attention.

Furthermore, no one is suggesting that Mexico is in the shape it is in because Mexicans are inherently unable to do any better. Frankly, I find the veiled accusation in that sentence that I and the others discussing Mexican cultural issue are some sort of racists to be greatly offensive.

Instead cultures are formed through the experiences of societies.

Well, duh. Of course cultures are constantly evolving. I've seen marked cultural changes in the US during my lifetime and in this very thread we're talling about how Mexico's culture could have evolved differently.

However, evolution does not work towards "betterment". Evolution simply results in change and change can be either good or bad from various standpoints.

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.

Entirely based on events? Score a laugh point. Don't you understand that personal choices made in the past become historical events?

But you know you statement was foolish already because you wrote this immediately afterward:

Imagine for instance that Washington chose to be King as opposed to President, that is a historical event that ended up favorably.

Washington's choice is an historical event and his choice was influenced by the culture of his times.

Now that is not because American culture was inevitably going to begin in such a democratic fashion.

If you believe Colonial American culture was democratic, you've a lot of reading to do. And if you think Washington would have actually chosen to become king, you've got even more reading to do. Here's a start, google "Society of the Cincinnati". (And, no, it's not a civic booster club for the city in Ohio.)

Because Washington was not raised as a member of "American" culture he was a Virginian.

For Christ's sake! You're really reaching now.

Of course there was a "Virginian" culture. There was a Virginian planters culture, a Virginian tobacco growers culture, a indentured servants culture, and hundreds of other micro-cultures throughout the colonies. What there also was was an overarching proto-American culture.

What you are trying to say is that Mexico City is not an achievement because the pollution offends your sense of beauty?

If you ever visited Mexico City you wouldn't use the word "achievement"in a positive manner to describe it.

Mexico City is a major economic center for latin america and is a major growth center.

Again, look beneath the statistics. You've got to understand how the numbers are derived in order to understand`what they actually mean.

With 18 million people living in it's metropolitan region, Mexico City cannot help but be "rich" or have a large GDP. It's merely a result of the numbers of people living there. When you look at actual incomes - and not average incomes because the D.F. and the concentration of plutocrats in the city skew an average upwards - you'll understand that Mexico City is just another Third World megacity like Lagos or Mombasa.

Let me sum up here:

- 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.


Bill
 
Hmm, what you seem to be talking about would better be referred to as societal structure, and not culture


Hobelhouse,

No, I'm talking about culture. Societal structure is too narrow a term; it doesn't imply attitudes for example.

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.

Score a laugh point.

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.

Score another laugh point.

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.

Confused by my precise use of the term "culture"? Too bad. I'm not going to prune my vocabulary to meet your needs.

For the future of this thread, let me explain what the term culture means for those of you who haven't cracked a dictionary since grade school or haven't taken an anthropology course.

(I was going to post a few paragraphs from a textbook of mine, but as this is the internet and most of you will simply google things, I checked Wiki instead. To my surprise, the Wiki article was fairly accurate and, more importantly, was written in a more accessible manner.)

Here's the first bit on Wiki:

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.

I'll point out what should already be obvious. Those of you knee-jerking to the "defense" of Mexico's culture are assuming only the first sense of the term; Cinco de Mayo, funny hats, etc. Those of us discussing what changes to Mexican culture in the 19th Century could have helped that nation develop are using the third sense; rule of law, corruption indices, etc.

Here's the last bit:

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.

Again, I'll point out the obvious. You'll notice that the above text in no manner mentions that culture is "inherent", that culture is "set in stone", or that culture does not "encompass all human phenomena" beyond genetics.

Hope that cleared things up for you all.


Bill
 
Bill,
During my visits in the early 90s

And yet you visit yet again and there is still a struggle for rule of law. I think that the problem you are seeing is not the struggle of a nation on the brink of collapse.

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.

Does it surprise you that my perceived misuse of of word doesn't "p*ss" me off.
My request for less condescension was in direct reply to your "party hats and cinco de mayo." statement on culture. I disagree that Mexican culture is to blame for the problems that it faces, and when I say culture I am referring to:"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."

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.

Mexican independence came in 1824, so 185 years isn't enough time? There are much "younger" nations who have managed it.

First of all you admit that Mexico is many cultures (which kind of throws a monkey wrench in your argument). But seriously, this I think is the main question that we should be trying to answer. 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. 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.

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.
"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.

The reason that the US has tackled the problem so well is because it never really had the problem, or at least in the way Mexico had it. For the US there was always a west one could go to. the centralization of power doesn't have anything to do with culture but rather the fact of geography. The Valley of Mexico is one of the most fertile in the world and was always seen as the center of Mexico. How could power not be centralized, when from the historical perspective that was really the most important part of Mexico.

- 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.

I am offended that you are offended that I might have hinted that you are racist. 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.
The potential seems to be there, but the Mexico can't seem to get out of it's own way.
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.

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.

"Grokked" aside I think this is where we can agree to disagree. But I am unsure about the idea of "rule of law" as a cultural value, but that is another kettle of fish. I would like to debate with you about that in some other thread.

I agree with your cultural feedback loop, 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.
 
Does it surprise you that my perceived misuse of of word doesn't "p*ss" me off.


Tobit,

Your misuse of the word "ignorant" isn't a matter of perception. It's a fact.

When I explained that we were using the term "culture" in a different fashion than you presumed; i.e. it wasn't about funny hats, you wrote that ... just because I have a different point of it doesn't mean I am ignorant. In that sentence you were suggesting that I thought you were stupid.

The fact of the matter is that you were ignorant, ignorant of how we were using the term "culture". This isn't about a diiferent point of view. This is about you not knowing what we were talking about when we used the term "culture".

I disagree that Mexican culture is to blame for the problems that it faces...

Good sweet Christ. Contrast that stement with what you later write in the same post:

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.

So, in your opinion, Mexico's problems are due to the fact that not enough Europeans settled there? That too many Amerinds were left alive?

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!

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.

You disagree with most of them because you don't quite understand most of them.

And, as I've pointed out several times, cultures change over time. Only the broad brushstrokes are consistent over long periods of time and they eventually change too.

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.

They can't be measured directly, but their effects most certainly can

Are you familiar with the European Union? Do you anything know about the various agreements the Union inks with prospective members? In return for money and advice, a 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.

If the prospective member nation makes all the cultural changes the EU requires in the time the EU allows with the money and advice the EU provides, they can join and get oodles of development funds. Ireland went through this process, as did Portugal and Spain. Bulgaria is currently struggling with the process because of corruption problems. Romania has had a few hiccups too, although on different issues.

The upshot is that the EU measures and changes in its prospective member nations those very things you believe cannot be measured at all.

First of all you admit that Mexico is many cultures (which kind of throws a monkey wrench in your argument).

No it doesn't. Will you actually pay attention to what I write for a change?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Geography is not always destiny. It may part of the equation, but its not the whole equation. Singapore and the other Asian tigers have nothing to speak of geographically and yet are successful, while there are many other countries blessed geographically that are basket cases. The difference is culture.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I never said that Mexico's problems were wholly domestic in origin. I said that most of her problems were domestic in origin.

As for "Big Bad America", that's more of an excuse than a reason. The war has been over for nearly 160 years. The Pershing expeditions - which operated in country not controlled by the Mexican government - have been over for more than 80, as has the Veracruz operation which merely replaced British and French occupying troops with US ones. Over the course of history the US has been a bad neighbor, a benign neighbor, and a very good neighbor to Mexico. Our current and continued acquescience towards illegal immigration has been a great boon to Mexico for example.

The money sent home by illegals is the second largest part of the country's GNP behind oil exports. (This is something that belies your "rich" nation claims, rich nations don't depend on emigrant citizens sending home money.) Immigration to the US, illegal or otherwise, has been a safety valve of sorts for Mexico too.

But I am unsure about the idea of "rule of law" as a cultural value...

You may be unsure, but people more educated than you and I state that it is.

... but doesn't that get in the way of your agreement with me that all people in mexico share a culture.

Once again, they share an overaching culture just as in my colonial America example.

I think that Mexico is both rich and developed, but it is not consistently rich and developed.

Once again, a federal district and a few plutocrat neighborhoods in a city of 18 million do not make a nation rich or developed. If I limit my sample to East St. Louis, I can "prove" that the US is a Third World hellhole too. Mexico is neither rich nor developed, only relatively tiny portions of it are.

But then I wonder if you think China is rich and developed, or perhaps Iran.

Neither are at First World status yet but both are advancing. China has huge structural problems, so Iran is slightly further ahead for now.


Bill
 
Egads, you must really want to get your point across. 2 posts
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!

Oh, come on we're all adults here there is no need to be PC here. I mean just because I refer to europeans as skilled labor immigrants doesn't mean that I believe amerindians cannot be skilled laborers or be productive for an industrial economy. It only means that during the time of massive immigration to the US the european immigrants were extremely important to the development of American industrial power. Furthermore why do you put the word "right" in quotes I did not use that word at all, who are you referring to?

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.

See this is where I think we both miss eachother's points. I do not think that the EU requires cultural changes to fit within the union. Instead it requires political reforms. Here would be my definition of a culture: a language or dialect, a set of practices or beliefs, a shared economic system and a shared historical development. I think your idea of legal and financial system changes as an example of a change in culture could be better described as political reforms. For instance after WWI many of the newly created states relied on similar political program of liberal constitutions and democracy. That is not to say that they shared the same legal culture of America, law within the Czechoslovakian nation was carried out drastically different. However the governments of Europe did adopt a similar political system, the changes were very brief.

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.

But there are differences between a microculture within colonial America which share a common language and history or the differences between Nahua and Spaniard. But I didn't explain my point clear enough. My main point with that was that prior to the American Revolution there was no idea of an American culture. The process in which American culture has come about is part of the economics and politics of this country. It is not that American culture shaped whether there was abundant land and resources to be had.

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.

I am not offended that you call me a racist because I know that your point of view comes from a break down in communication. And rereading my post I think I definitely didn't make my self clear. The point I was trying to make was that language can be a barrier for assimilation that is outside of Mexican culture. Your point of:
Mexican independence came in 1824, so 185 years isn't enough time? There are much "younger" nations who have managed it.
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.

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.

That I am replying with emotion is quite rich. Remember all I asked was "what is the basis for your claim?" You may not believe me, but the reason why I asked the question is because I wanted to know. I thought your response had some logical flaws in it so I decided to question you further. Thats it. However I want to know if the idea of annexation as saving a country sits well with you. That is to say I have nothing against anyone that espouses annexation on an alternate history website, but I think that the more thought we put into our assumptions always helps.

You may be unsure, but people more educated than you and I state that it is.

I think this statement is retarded, some educated people may think that but there are many that don't.

Terrence Chorvat, Kevin McCabe The Brain and the Law Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Vol. 359, No. 1451, Law and the Brain (Nov. 29, 2004), pp. 1727-1736. The Royal Society

Morris B. Hoffman The Neuroeconomic Path of the Law Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Vol. 359, No. 1451, Law and the Brain (Nov. 29, 2004), pp. 1667-1676: The Royal Society


The money sent home by illegals is the second largest part of the country's GNP behind oil exports.
I don't know where you get your information:
Although 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.
http://www.dallasfed.org/research/busfront/bus0401.html

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.

Within this very topic I have discussed what ifs about changing mexico from a third/second world nation to be better developed. The only problem I have with your post is that it presumes that Mexico is current failure and that in its history it has had very few chances to do better because of its "culture."
 
Hmph, this thread is making me mad.

You're not the only one - and I've only gotten to page 2!

Seriously, what a lot of people here see as weaknesses, I see as strengths, and it's primarily because North Americans and South/Latin Americans have entirely different definitions of the word democracy. If one is familiar with the works of the Latin Americanist Howard J. Wiarda, he argues that the Latin American definition of "democracy" is based on the version articulated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whilst for North Americans (and the US in particular) ours is a Lockean/Madisonian definition. That is considered to be a major stumbling block in US foreign policy - not only do we (Americans in general) not understand Latin America, we (Americans in general) don't want to understand Latin America unless it "conforms" to an ethnocentric definition of democracy, which is never going to happen.

One possible advantage (that I see) that could be extensively used is corporatism. This is something that has been practised all along throughout Latin American history, and Mexico in particular. In the case of Mexico, if corporatism could be done in a centrist fashion (possibly another one of Juárez's reforms or that of his successors), that would help out a whole lot.

Just my 2 cents.
 
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.

And I agree with this - I think that proximity has coloured the situation a bit, which could also apply to Cuba (but that's a different thread altogether).
 
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.

And has even more problems than when it first started out.
 
Top