Shitton of land rich with resources

>shitton of land rich with resources
>good population for new world
>didnt need a bloody revolt to become independent
>degenerates into the laughing stock of norrth america

how does one nation drop the ball so fucking hard?

To much tamales and pupusas

Mexico`s only crime was bordering the USA

>imlying Mexico is or should be a unified nation

Created by the Spanish rather than the English.

England had a strong system of constitutional government and rule of law, Spain had an absolute monarchy.

The English system proved to be better suited for the modern world.

No stable institutions of government and a feudal system of haciendas and colonias left by the Spaniards.

Compare with the USA which had stable Republican institutions and a broad farmer middle class that owned its land and the difference is obvious.

Small landholders are the cornerstone of democracy and political stability because they have a vested interest in preserving the system. They literally are stakeholders owning a piece of the country.

In contrast when land ownership is concentrated and you have a few rich landowners and millions of destitute peasants institutions are much more unstable.

mestizaje

Spanish Empire should have said intact. They all turned into giant agricultural sweatshops once they became independent.

they should have just cut there loses and give them sovereignty while still having close ties i.e. the commonwealth

Angloboo detected.

The average former British colony is poorer and less developed than the average former Spanish colony.

See map:
Blue = Very High Human Development
Green = High Human Development
Yellow = Medium Human Development
Red = Low Human Development

If the British had conquered the Aztec Empire they woul have done the same they did in India.

Native displacement and replacement of population was possible in the United States because it had a low native population density. In contrast Tenichtitlan the Aztec capital had 1 million people and was one of the largest cities in the world when the Spanish showed up.

>>didnt [SIC] need a bloody revolt to become independent

?

THE "BLOODY REVOLT" IS CALLED "THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE"...

MEXICO IS IN ITS CURRENT DISMAL CONDITION DUE TO INTERNAL CORRUPTION, WHICH HAS DELIVERED THE NATION TO THE RAPACIOUS MINIONS OF ZIONISM.

MEXICO WAS BORN IN THE YEAR EIGHTEEN HUNDRED TWENTYONE, WHEN AGUSTÍN DE ITURBIDE CONSUMMATED INDEPENDENCE, ESTABLISHING THE MEXICAN EMPIRE; MEXICO DIED IN THE YEAR NINETEEN HUNDRED TWENTYTHREE, WHEN ÁLVARO OBREGÓN RATIFIED THE "TREATIES OF BUCARELI", RELINQUISHING THE NATION TO A CONDITION OF VIRTUAL SLAVERY.

IN THE YEAR TWOTHOUSAND EIGHTEEN, MEXICO WILL BE REBORN, WHEN ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR RISES TO NATIONAL LEADERSHIP, INITIATING THE REGENERATION OF THE NATION.

A V E · O B R A D O R

>independent farmers shitholes should've stayed subservient farmer shitholes
Spanish are worse colonizers. Germans don't count because all they did was genocide

*Tenochtitlan
Typo

That's because most of Spain's colonies are in countries where most the native population died of smallpox.

Why don't you compare apples to apples?

>Spanish Empire should have said intact. They all turned into giant agricultural sweatshops once they became independent.

They were giant agricultural sweatshops _before_ independence.

Charles III should have taken the Spanish Commonwealth idea seriously.

The major landholders turned their countries into even bigger shitholes.

That was my whole point sweetie.
Starting a society from scratch is easier.

Mexico wouldn't become an Anglo paradise under the British because there was already a large native social structure existing beforehand.

You couldn't wipe out the Aztecs without industrial-scale gas chamber genocide that wasn't available in the 1500s.

USA had a clean slate to start a society from scratch. Mexico had a pre-existing society and a large population that was looked down upon by the Europeans but wasn't going anywhere.

If the British had ruled Mexico they would have done the exact same thing the Spaniards did - Set up or reinforce a caste system, place themselves at the top, set up cash crop plantations, use natives for cheap labor to extract as much wealth as they could and pit one group against another.

Which is what they did. In India.

not to mention Mexico City was basically the most advanced and populous city in the Western Hemisphere in the early 19th century

peasants or communal indian lands =/= sharecroppers, debt peons or agricultural laborers. peasant institutions can be and are stable.

> Spain's colonies are in countries where most the native population died of smallpox.
what are you arguing? there were still millions of indians left and the spanish immigration was pretty low so you have a huge persistence of natives.

>Brazil
>High human development

Jesus Christ, it's like you didn't even pay attention to what you were posting.

>All that red in Africa
>Proof that Spain is superior

Yeah, we'll ignore the very real two hundred year head start on sovereignty that the Americas got, and the fact that half of them have unsolvable problems with drug and criminal cartels of all kinds.
Compare that to Africa, where the Cold War produced a ridiculous amount of virtually free weapons to support dictators who would rather rake in money than not slaughter their respective populations based on skin tone and cultural identity.

Clearly Perifious Albion and the Frogs are poor colonial managers, while Spain's empire fractured into beacons of civilization.

This is just more proof that africans can't get their shit together no matter what you give them than anything else

>Jesus Christ, it's like you didn't even pay attention to what you were posting.
>literally arguing semantics
Those are the names the UN gives to the classifications, take it with them. I would rename them "Very High" simply as "High", "High" as "Medium", "Medium" as "Low" and "Low" as "Very Low", since it sounds less hyperbolic but it is literally semantics.

The categories themselves are objective, you are bothered by their names which is retarded.

>Clearly Perifious Albion and the Frogs are poor colonial managers, while Spain's empire fractured into beacons of civilization
I didn't say that, I said the policies implemented varied much more depending on what was going on in the territory to be colonized rather than on which power was doing the colonizing.

You have reading comprehension problems, fucktard.

>TREATIES OF BUCARELI

I hate to expose my reliance on wikipedia, but I was unaware of this treaty and after researching it online found it was "...shortly after by the President Plutarco Elías Calles."
While the treaty had far reaching powers into the Mexican economy for US interests it would seem (from what I read) that it was completely nullified soon after and was merely a temporary maneuver by Obregon to consolidate his power base.

Why don't Mexicans kill the upper class?

*cancelled shortly after

The one spanish colony in subsaharan africa is yellow tho. Also Morocco that was partially spanish although being in the french section of user's pic. North Africa is cheating of course but still.

Because then 100% of them would be dirt poor instead of just 99%.

>the average
Yeah, the average, the UK created more economically developed countries than any other colonizing power.

Also not including hongkong is bullshit.

>Also not including hongkong is bullshit.

Don't forget Singapore.

NO; THOSE TREATIES CONTINUED TO BE VALID FOR DECADES, BEING SET TO BECOME NULL IN THE YEAR NINETEEN HUNDRED NINETYTHREE, BUT WERE RENEWED WITH THE NORTHAMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT.

THE "TREATIES OF BUCARELI" WERE INTENTIONALLY DRAFTED TO ECONOMICALLY, AND TECHNOLOGICALLY, CRIPPLE MEXICO.

THE "TREATIES OF BUCARELI" WERE NEGOTIATED BY CHARLES BEECHER WARREN, AND JOHN BARTON PAYNE, THE SAME TWO DIPLOMATS WHO NEGOTIATED THE "U S - GERMANY PEACE TREATY" TWO YEARS PRIOR —IN THE YEAR NINETEEN HUNDRED TWENTYONE—, WHICH WAS AS EXPLOITATIVE AS THE "TREATY OF VERSAILLES", BUT GRANTING THE "RIGHTS" EXCLUSIVELY TO UNITEDSTATES.

>good British colonies are good because of Brits
>bad British colonies are bad for reasons other than Brits
wew

Can you show or link how the Treaty of Bucareli remained in motion?
Also would not be surprised at the crippling of Mexico by the US, but what I don't understand his how and why a very different mentality was applied to the Chinese through Nixon and Kissinger.

Lets list them shall we
>government policies that favor the rich
>failing infrastructure
>lack of education and especially higher education
>failing tax system that isnt maintained by a any kind of bureau
>lack of accountability in law enforcement especially regarding bribery or conspiracy
>outside nations set up export zones in mexico that pay low wages to workers and pay little in taxes to export goods out of the country
>almost no protection for workers
>catholicism says they cant use condoms so each family has like 10 kids

>Can you show or link how the Treaty of Bucareli remained in motion?

THE TREATIES THEMSELVES ARE NOT PUBLIC; ALL THAT IS KNOWN OF THEM HAS BEEN DEDUCED, AND INFERRED; WE KNOW THAT THEY REMAINED VALID, AND THAT THEY WERE RENEWED, FROM WHAT IS OBSERVED IN THE SOCIOPOLITICAL, SOCIOCULTURAL, AND INDUSTRIAL, CONTEXTS.

tell me more about these treaties. in what way did they hamper mexico's development?

— THE TREATIES PRECLUDE MEXICO FROM HAVING A STANDING ARMY OF MORE THAN ONE PERCENT OF ITS TOTAL POPULATION, INCLUDING RESERVES, AND PARAMILITARY.

— THE TREATIES DEMANDED THE ESTABLISHING OF A ROTHSCHILDOWNED CENTRAL BANK, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE YEAR NINETEEN HUNDRED TWENTYFIVE, IRONICALLY CALLED "BANCO DE MÉXICO".

— THE TREATIES PRECLUDE MEXICO'S INDUSTRIAL SELFSUFFICIENCY; ID EST: MEXICO IS PROHIBITED FROM DEVELOPING TECHNOLOGY.

— THE TREATIES DEMAND THAT MEXICO DELIVERS ITS NATURAL RESOURCES TO PRIVATE TRANSNATIONAL COMPANIES, WHILST PRECLUDING NATIONAL/PUBLIC COMPANIES, FROM EXPLOITING THEM.

— THE TREATIES PRECLUDE THE ALIMENTARY SELFSUFFICIENCY OF MEXICO, DEMANDING THAT MOST OF ITS BASIC PRODUCTS ARE TO BE IMPORTED.

ET CETERA.

>didnt need a bloody revolt to become independent

Pretty sure they did fight a war of independence.

Prior to the drug wars, wasn't its biggest issue for decades that it was simply dirt poor?

Here comes the screaming beaner to cry about the Jews.

Poverty is just a symptom of the problem that has been plaguing Mexico since it was established, which is corruption.

Here comes the Jew following his posts, and shitposting.

Yeah but that's mostly an internal problem, it doesn't cause the problem to spread to other nations like drugs do
>inb4 immigration

Mexicans have been coming here since the 1920s, and if anything they're much less poor here than they were there by comparison. And these days it isn't even the Mexicans that are coming here, it's all the other Central American countries that are such shitholes that they make Mexico look great.

some of those things happened recently due to nafta

The average IQ in Mexico is 88. This, simply put, means that democracy there is impossible yet people keep trying to force it which results in a general shitshow. Combine this with overwhelming heterogeneity and you have a recipe for constant violence and chaos. The only possible way things could have gone well is the complete removal or absence of the native peoples and mass settlement with Spanish colonists, similar to what happened in Australia or USA.

>>didnt [SIC] need a bloody revolt to become independent

?

THE "BLOODY REVOLT" IS CALLED "THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE"...

MEXICO IS IN ITS CURRENT DISMAL CONDITION DUE TO INTERNAL CORRUPTION, WHICH HAS DELIVERED THE NATION TO THE RAPACIOUS MINIONS OF ZIONISM.

MEXICO WAS BORN IN THE YEAR EIGHTEEN HUNDRED TWENTYONE, WHEN AGUSTÍN DE ITURBIDE CONSUMMATED INDEPENDENCE, ESTABLISHING THE MEXICAN EMPIRE; MEXICO DIED IN THE YEAR NINETEEN HUNDRED TWENTYTHREE, WHEN ÁLVARO OBREGÓN RATIFIED THE "TREATIES OF BUCARELI", RELINQUISHING THE NATION TO A CONDITION OF VIRTUAL SLAVERY.

IN THE YEAR TWOTHOUSAND EIGHTEEN, MEXICO WILL BE REBORN, WHEN ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR RISES TO NATIONAL LEADERSHIP, INITIATING THE REGENERATION OF THE NATION.

A V E · O B R A D O R

>The only possible way things could have gone well is the complete removal or absence of the native peoples and mass settlement with Spanish colonists, similar to what happened in Australia or USA.
Except that the social selection of years of enslavement and the assimilation of the high class has lead to that score and consequences.

Try again.

>The average IQ in Mexico is 88
that is so depressing.

did you change your trip all caps guy?

The peasantabooism on here from all of you watching that Terry Jones mockumentary makes me sick. Enjoy the crippling wealth inequality idiot spic.

The success of regions Britian had influence over is entirely correlated to the demographic and culural impact of their rule.
There aren't unsuccessful countries with large Brit populations, there are unsuccessful countries with large spanish ones.
...like Spain
Comparing centuries of royal governance in the americas to some brits machinegunning nigs then leaving or even to India (which was administered by the government for less than a lifetime) is silly.

>In contrast when land ownership is concentrated and you have a few rich landowners and millions of destitute peasants institutions are much more unstable.

That's exactly what the UK was

natural resources are not a guarantor of a healthy economy, in fact a lot of one thing (like oil) can be bad for the economy in the long run

>They all turned into giant agricultural sweatshops once they became independent.
>encomenderoface.jpg.

>>didnt need a bloody revolt to become independent

'Murican education, everyone. We had a 10 year long conflict, military coups, wars from foreign powers until Porfirio Diaz took power. And that was on 1880

>The only possible way things could have gone well is the complete removal or absence of the native peoples and mass settlement with Spanish colonists
That's what the Spanish did in Argentina, Uruguay and Cuba. No wonder they were the most successful Spanish colonies.
Argentina's basically a Spanish-speaking USA with no niggers, attracted millions of immigrants from all over Europe.

It's a shame Cuba went communist, it was in a perfect place to become a true paradise. Close to the USA and Caribbean trading routes, an island surrounded by Ocean, great relations with the largest world economy which would have provided protection from foreign threats, ideal location to develop a strong tourism industry, as well as exporting alcohol, tobacco, manufactured goods, cars, develop financial services, banking and so on.

Up to the 1950s Cuba was wealthier than Spain or Finland and attracting European immigrants as well.

No other country shot itself in the foot as badly as Cuba did. Let's hope Castro dies soon.

fuck off. i don't even watch TV so i have no clue what you're talking about. I also never argued that peasant institutions were the best form of social and economic organization only that they were stable

You know what the real reason is for the success of a colony? Whether the natives were wiped out and replaced by white Europeans or not.

Incas were superior to europeans though.

The Fueros system was the worst shit ever. Also, destroying a culture but not actually destroying it is always bad, there's a reason why mexicans are hijos de la chingada, in fact, all new worlders are except for the USA who actually have an identity and maybe the uruguayans.