Why Mexico is messed up

[mindstalk]

After reading _Lies_ it occurred to me that I know more about the history of Europe, Japan, or even India than I do of Mexico (Aztecs and Maya, Conquest, there was an independence war, we stole their land, some revolution thingy, done) and I checked out some books to rectify that. One is Mexico: What Everyone Should Know. Still reading it, so this is superficial, but some things stood out already.

Spain had a strong monarchy (I think? Though also a Cortes-General; stronger before 1500 perhaps), and replicated that for the colonies, with viceroys over New Spain (Mexico+) and Peru. A viceroy was the political (with legislative powers) and military leader, and vice-patron of the Church, whatever that means exactly. So, 300 years of authoritarian power. Plus, close alliance with the Catholic Church, and censorship by the Church of ideas like other religions or challenges to the monarchical system. The Church also owned half (!) the land in Mexico, the rest mostly being owned by pureblood Europeans, whether peninsulares (European born) or criollo (aka creole, American-born purebloods.) Which also brings us to the finely gradated racial caste system of the Spanish Americas, from peninsulares to criollos to mestizos to indios, and that's leaving out lots of gradations, as well as Africans.

By contrast, while I'm not up on the details of North American colonial government, strong legislatures seem ubiquitous. The Constitution was approved by state conventions, i.e. a rare taste of quasi-direct democracy, citizens elected for an express purpose rather than by general legislators. Religious pluralism was baked in, what with Puritans, Quakers, Anglicans, Catholics, and Baptists, and nominal freedom of speech came for the ride. Finally, and more darkly, English colonies have less in the way of persistent racial problems (at least with natives) because they mostly eliminated indigenous races and refused to mate with them. It's not that the US (and Canada, and Australia) don't have racial inequality, it's that whites are (or are considered to be) effectively criollo, not mestizo, so most of us are at the top rather than in the middle, and our indios are a much smaller proportion of the population. US reservations are largely shockingly unhealthy and poor, but it's easier to ignore them.

So, in part a combination of more democratic and pluralist heritage, vs. Catholic authoritarianism, and of reducing racial inequality by keeping racial diversity down in the first place. (And, statistically, Mexico isn't that much more unequal than the US these days.)

Comments

[mishalak]

On the other hand Chile, which had most of the same starting conditions, was almost as stable as the United States for much of its history. I suppose it may have had to do with the assimilation of most mixed ancestry people and self identification as white. Or just plain dumb luck.

[mindstalk]

Hmm, don't remember detailed history, despite my connections. I do remember reading that they like to think of themselves as white, despite this being obviously not the case a lot of the time. OTOH, the Mapuche are a real presence still.

Conversely, AIUI Argentina is mostly European, yet not vastly wealthier than Brazil, Chile, or Mexico. So as far the implicit question of "why Latin America is messed up" (poor and less developed), features common to the viceroyalty system may be bigger than race. Ah, and I'm remembering that while perhaps stable, Chile was highly authoritarian. But it's certainly perceived as being more peaceful and less corrupt, I don't know how far back that goes.

Mexico's also got a lot more people than Chile; "centralism vs. federalism" may have been less of an issue in Chile, despite the geographical size and sort of federal structure today.

[mishalak]

I may have a excessively positive view of Chile and perhaps a too jaded view of the US, but when I read things like it being an authoritarian system that enforced rule by big land owners between 1830~ and 1860~ I think, "Hurm, is that really any worse than most of the United States of America at the same time?" Chile was initially a federal system that proved unworkable due to social conditions so they went centralized authoritarian after an initial period where moderates tried to steer a path between the extremes that only ended up pissing off both liberals and conservatives of the time. After that they were a conservative aristocratic republic that had punctuated moves towards more a more liberal democracy. Before Pinochet they had a period of coups during the 20s and one civil war to depose a President who was trying to establish a dictatorship. My over all impression is that Chile did about as well on the democracy thing as France.

I could be wrong, but that is my impression from a not super detailed reading of their history.