What would a first-world Mexico look like

[Hobelhouse]

Hobelhouse,

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



Score a laugh point.



Score another laugh point.



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.

Hey, Bill Cameron, maybe you should try talking to people like they were adults and not five year olds next time.

I'm a sociology major. Generally, when we talk about 'culture', we're not talking about rule of law, institutions, and the like, but norms, values, and the funny hats bit. IE, mostly the 'intangibles', not socioeconomic structures. Having a rigid social hierarchy is not a value or a funny hat. It's a not a norm either, because a norm is a pattern of behavioral expectation. Being polite to high-class people is a norm; having high-class people is not.

Anthropology apparently uses 'culture' to refer to anything outside genetics. That's fine as far as it goes, but if you use it in that way outside of an anthro course you will confuse people.

For example, if an area is run by bandits and without rule of law, and then the government comes in and restores order.... has their culture changed? I would say no, unless they significantly altered the values and norms of the populace in doing so.

When you're saying things like 'Mexico's culture needs to be changed so that the upper class doesn't run everything corruptly anymore' what it sounds like to many people, including me, is that there's a cultural value that values the upper class running everything corruptly, as if the average Mexican is a happy serf devoted to his master and totally okay with all the corruption, etc, as if they're all masochists or something. I'm sure that's not what you mean, but that's what it sounds like.

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

Your idiosyncratic use, maybe, since nobody but you (and other anthro majors) seem to know what you're referring to when you use it.

By the way, if you are going to stay on this board, civility and the basic assumption of intelligence on the part of other posters are reccomended.

 

[Bill Cameron]

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

Tobit,

One reply to your post and another in reply to Hobelhouse.

However I want to know if the idea of annexation as saving a country sits well with you.

Annexation after 1849 is a lousy idea. It would have been impossible to enforce, would have never lasted, and would have permanently damaged both the US and Mexico.

Mexico's problems require Mexican solutions and the people of Mexico are quite capable of developing those solutions if they so choose. There is nothing inherent holding them back, there are only cultural difficulties and, as the EU admission process demonstrates, cultures can be deliberately changed.

I don't know where you get your information:

Remittances are Mexico's second largest source of foreign income behind oil exports. (Also, the quote you provided states that Mexico's economy has been struggling.)

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...

The answer to the question of whether or not Mexico is a "failure" is a relative one. As Admiral Brown points out, when Mexico is judged against the US and Canada it is most definitely a failure and when judged against Central America it is most definitely a success.

Mexico is currently a failure when judged within the strictures of the OP's original question: "What would a first world Mexico look like?" It is not a developed nation, it not a First World nation, and the OP wanted to know how that could be changed.

... and that in its history it has had very few chances to do better because of its "culture."

There were numerous historical chances for Mexico to develop differently, the "roads not taken". However, the range of options open to Mexico or any other nation were and are constrained by the culture of the time at which the options are examined.

You are correct. We have been talking past each other. We both fervently agree that Mexico and inhabitants are and were not inherently doomed to a perpetual Third World existence. Aside from being idiotic, such a "deterministic" belief is little more than racist twaddle.


Bill

 

[Bill Cameron]

Hey, Bill Cameron, maybe you should try talking to people like they were adults and not five year olds next time

Hobelhouse,

Adults? Do adults post behind a pseudonym rather than their actual name? Do adults give themselves titles like "El Presidente"?

Why should I take anyone seriously when they "talk" to me while also claiming they're Emperor Shemp the 23rd of Outer Moronika?

I'm a sociology major. Generally, when we talk about 'culture', we're not talking about rule of law, institutions, and the like, but norms, values, and the funny hats bit. IE, mostly the 'intangibles', not socioeconomic structures.

Those intangibles are what create socioeconomic structures or, more accurately, create what we believe those socioeconomic structures can and should do for us.

Just as how quarks are partially responsible for your physical body, norms, values, and the other bits are the stuff that laws and institutions are fashioned from. Our norms and values color our belief in what our socioeconomic structures can and should do. When our beliefs aren't met, we change our socioeconomic structures to match our expectations. Whether or not a culture also contains the belief that socioeconomic structures can be changed is equally important.

When you're saying things like 'Mexico's culture needs to be changed so that the upper class doesn't run everything corruptly anymore' what it sounds like to many people, including me, is that there's a cultural value that values the upper class running everything corruptly, as if the average Mexican is a happy serf devoted to his master and totally okay with all the corruption, etc, as if they're all masochists or something. I'm sure that's not what you mean, but that's what it sounds like.

You're correct. That is not what I mean. What I am saying is that the average Mexican's belief that change can occur and change can be lasting is rather weak. If corruption in your society since colonial times is still endemic after many different attempts by many different people to combat, a certain cynicism or fatalism about corruption would naturally be the norm. The people of Mexico do not want a corrupt government, but their experiences hold out little hope for any change.

By the way, if you are going to stay on this board, civility and the basic assumption of intelligence on the part of other posters are reccomended.

I've been here off and on longer than you have. I also post without hiding behind a mask.


Bill

 

[M79]

Mexico must avoid the corruption that cripples her to this day. Perhaps the best way to do this would be to have a very liberal monarch who can maintain power (perhaps the Habsburg monarch reaches a deal to make Juarez prime minister and they forge a new nation?). Eventually they might be able to expand into Central America (and perhaps the Dominican Republic or Haiti?) as those nations face massive debt repayments to Europe. But they would need to industrialize, especially in the southern areas like Oaxaca, and develop their mineral wealth. They also need a stronger banking system and road/rail system, and an industrial capacity worth mentioning. Could it be done? Perhaps, but the more powerful they become the more likely the US is to take notice of a likely rival...

 

[Tobit]

The money sent home by illegals is the second largest part of the country's GNP behind oil exports.

Remittances are Mexico's second largest source of foreign income behind oil exports. (Also, the quote you provided states that Mexico's economy has been struggling.)

OK here is where you lose track of the argument. At first you were talking about GNP and then when I provide a statistic that says it makes up only 2% of the GNP you go on to say that it makes up the second largest source of foreign income. Now the article I provided states:

As a result of their vigorous growth, workers’ remittances now occupy third place as a foreign exchange generator for Mexico. Maquiladoras continue to be the top foreign exchange generator, at $18.4 billion in 2003, followed by oil at $15 billion

Also I spotted one problem that I didn't see earlier is that you claim that all those remittances are sent by illegals! This is the classic "got my facts from fox news." Try looking at source material, like the defence department report you cited or this article too.

Also, I know the Mexican economy is struggling. That it is not all roses. But it is not on the brink of collapse, the central power there is sufficient to address the problem posed by cartels.

 

[Bill Cameron]

Also I spotted one problem that I didn't see earlier is that you claim that all those remittances are sent by illegals!

Tobit,

You're correct. I should have written "immigrants" and not "illegals". Mea culpa.

This is the classic "got my facts from fox news." Try looking at source material, like the defence department report you cited or this article too.

Let me assure you, I do not get my facts from Fox News. And, seeing as three of my four grandparents were immigrants, my views on immigration are not what you assume.

As for examining source materials, I again will strongly suggest that you do the same with regards to the statistics you've quoted in this thread, especially the nonsense about Mexico City being the 8th "richest" city in the world. For a given value of "rich" that may very well be true. However, you need to examine just what the people who composed that last measured and how they measured it.

My counterexample of East St. Louis and the US still stands. As Twain put it; There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Numbers can manipulated in surprising ways.

Mexico City is "rich" because 18 million people live in it and because it has long been the center of an absurdly centralized state, not because of any true economic prowess.

We need to remember Admiral Brown's observation about "relativity"; When compared to a developed nation's economy, Mexico's economy is laughable and when compared to other undeveloped nations Mexico's economy is admirable. You'll notice in this case that the same thing is measured in two different ways to produce two very different results.

Also, I know the Mexican economy is struggling. That it is not all roses. But it is not on the brink of collapse, the central power there is sufficient to address the problem posed by cartels.

I too hope the central government can contain the cartels and I hope part of the strategy used includes the devolution of power to the other states. Time will tell and I have confidence in the Mexican people.


Bill

 

[Hobelhouse]

Hobelhouse,

Adults? Do adults post behind a pseudonym rather than their actual name? Do adults give themselves titles like "El Presidente"?

Why should I take anyone seriously when they "talk" to me while also claiming they're Emperor Shemp the 23rd of Outer Moronika?

.....

I've been here off and on longer than you have. I also post without hiding behind a mask.


Bill

Right. Perhaps I don't actually want all my personal data on the internet for anyone who wants to look for it to find it. You just insulted the 99% of people on this board who have the common sense to not actually put their name and personal life out on the internet. I really am mystified that you seem to have a problem with that. There are respected professors, government employees and middle managers here that use online handles other than their real names. Do they have the brains of a five-year-old too? Have you been living under a rock since 1995? Don't you know using a handle is standard online practice, for safety and anonymity? But you accuse me of 'hiding'. What do you need to know my name for? What does it matter? Do you want to actually track me down IRL? Are you some kind of stalker? Do you go beat up people over an argument on the internet?

As for the usertitle, 'El Presidente' is a joke. There are people around here styling themselves 'Kills threads... dead!' and 'The True Caliph of AH.Com' and 'Margrave of All Media' here. It's a joke, nothing more, which you seem unable to understand, along with the basics of normal internet conduct. I've tried to act with civility towards you but since you seem incapable of reciprocating I'm afraid I'm going to have to add you to my ignore list.

 

[benjamin]

@Bill Cameron: Bill, we've disagreed in the past (I believe it was you who I argued about the existence of god with years ago) and I know of you from the SJGames forums. I respect you and please do not take this the wrong way but...lighten up. Many of the posters here are young and have a completely different attitude concerning "net etiquette" to them they are the pseudonym they use, at least when on the Net. Don't bite their heads off. While you and I would almost certainly rather have these debates in person they live and breath the internet. I'm just glad so many of the whipper snappers are showing an interest in history and politics. If you can't stand their addmitantly biased and provincial views, than ignore them.

As for Mexico what is truly needed is for Agustín de Iturbide to be more of a Geroge Washington and less of a, well Agustín de Iturbide. With no strong democratic enlightenment foundation to build a nation upon Mexico has suffered. This is not American jingoism, but the hard truth. Unfortunately, Mexico inherited very little of this stabilizing ideology from Spain and was forced to turn to the US for inspiration. But a large portion of the new nation's wealth was held by the Church and the Aristocracy, not two groups known for their Enlightenment leanings. Thus, Mexico as a future first world nation was stillborn from the moment Agustín de Iturbide declared himself Emperor.

Benjamin

 

[jycee]

Actually Agustin did not want to become emperor since he truly believed in divine rights. Agustin still wanted for someone of the Spanish crown to rule Mexico independently. The treaty of Cordoba was intended for Mexico to have better relations with Spain in order for this to be possible.
The title was forced upon him by the conservative leaders of the independence movement. The fact that Napoleon had just done the same in France (becoming emperor without being of Royal blood and thus having divine rights) only precipitated the actions. He did not even had a public crowning ceremony.
Had Agustin been more decisive and had actually fully accepted the crown. He could have garnished enough power to make Mexico into a constitutional monarchy probably with one of the liberal leaders as prime minister (say Guadalupe Victoria or Vicente Guerrero). This way mexico could have kept it wealth and stability. It will also manage to keep hold of the central american provinces. (Which later will be of use if France intends to build a canal through nicaragua).
Selling Texas to the US early on could also have helped monetarily for capital to invest. And if the Mexican crown joins with a strong European crown will also facilitate foreign relations and immigration from European countries which would allow further investment.

Having said that we have to recognize that Argentina was a first world country up to the early 1900s after a major economic downfall it was never able to recover again. Being a Mexican I do believe that different societies strive behave and progress differently. Though any Latin American country could become a military power historically. I think we are all somehow psychologically wired to be disorganized and therefore unable to ahve long term stability.

Agustin will have to face an anti-monarchy uprising. Particualrly if the US is still a strong rival. The caudillo economy will be hard to get rid off Mexico still have traces of this today in OTL, and it would probably be worse under a monarchy making a Marxist uprising very plausible as well.

 

[Cylon_Number_14]

n00b with a question...

There has been a lot of detailed discussion on the social, economic, and political history of Spanish America here, so I thought I'd ask a question that I've pondered for a while.

If Great Britain or France had colonized *Latin-America (i.e. the Incas & Aztecs and the Amazon rainforest) instead of Spain and Portugal in the 16th and 17th centuries, would they have set up the same system of serfdom etc?

Since both countries in OTL utilized slavery extensively in the Carribean and the (US) South, I am inclined to believe they'd fall into the same economic system.

 

[Hobelhouse]

Since both countries in OTL utilized slavery extensively in the Carribean and the (US) South, I am inclined to believe they'd fall into the same economic system.

Possibly; however, Spain was a much more stratified society than the other two to start out with, which created a large group of noble wannabes who went to the Americas to seek their fortune, become the new nobility, and impose a stratified system there. I also don't think you'd see the same Catholic zeal to convert the natives that was an important motive behind their treatment of them. Spain justified, to an extent, the slavery on the grounds that at least they were ensuring their souls went to heaven. I'm not sure that this would work so well for the English and Dutch, and less so for the French. I think the other powers are simply less likely period to conquer the large native states. Pizarro's conquest of the Incas was a near miss OTL anyway. They might rule, but it would be more similar to British rule in India than the Spanish rule OTL.

 

[Ian the Admin]

Hobelhouse,

Adults? Do adults post behind a pseudonym rather than their actual name? Do adults give themselves titles like "El Presidente"?

Why should I take anyone seriously when they "talk" to me while also claiming they're Emperor Shemp the 23rd of Outer Moronika?

I'm sorry, you must be new to the internet. Oh wait, you joined over four years ago, you're just being a dick.

Don't be a dick.