At the time of independence, Mexico stretched from a border with Gran Colombia in the south, to what is now the US state of Oregon. If the Mexican-American war had never happened, and Mexico had retained it's northern territories which happened to have a massive amount of natural resources hidden beneath the surface, could Mexico had become a rival of the United States? Would Mexico be a world power, or would it still be backwards and poor?
>>1372327
Protestant work ethic>Catholic paganism
>>1372362
>protestan
Meme religion made as an apology for a king to marry other women. Is like a product of sin.
>>1372386
and im sure all those mexican drug cartels are catholics
>>1372327
Considering Mexico was a literal empire at that time, I'd say yes.
Mexico would be in a great economic position; goods from the pacific destined for the US would pass through Mexico. Furthermore, Mexico would have a plethora of diverse resources. Controlling California during the Gold Rush would also give a strong economic advantage for Mexico.
The problem is though that the south of Mexico is prone to rebellion. Hell, the Chiapas conflict is still a thing today.
>>1372327
>Would Mexico be a world power, or would it still be backwards and poor?
I'm pretty sure they would've balcanized . Mexico is fucked up since its inception, see the mexican revolution. Not everything is about resources.
Mexico has one of the worlds largest economies. To say its poor is disingenuous. Backwards, yes, but thats because of a huge disparity in wealth between the North and the South.
>Mexicans didn't want to live in the north.
>Mexico invited in lots of Americans and other Europeans to settle it.
>Existing northerners didn't want to be part of Mexico.
>California revolted and declared independence from Mexico twice before joining the USA.
>Texas revolted and declared independence from Mexico.
There was no way that Mexico holds the northern territories.
Mexico is and was a shitshow. The US taking its clay did not cause it to become as such, it was a byproduct of it.
>>1372539
India has a large economy and its poor, learn to use words correctly, when people say a country is poor they reffer to the shitty quality of life of its average citizen not some GDP wankery nobody but autists care.
How did the US get the money given to Mexico after the war? They were rich or something?
>>1372327
It would still be less populous and be controlled(economically) by crony post-colonial aristocracy on top of having shitty communication routes in southern part.
>>1372416
>Considering Mexico was a literal empire at that time
Since 19th century "Empire" was a title some ambitious monarchs gave themselves rather than indicator of power. Several African dictators called themselves emperors yet you don't say that let's say Central African Republic was powerful empire once, because it wasn't.
>>1372539
It may have huge GDP but has relatively low GNP just like Brasil or India.
>>1372327
>If the Mexican-American war had never happened...
Not really,at that time, Mexico had a massive debt with England, plus, the centralist views at the capital prevented any further progress in the other regions of the country
>>1372561
this
>>1372386
Catholicism in Mexico is shit-tier, possibly the worst iteration of it in the modern world. It lost all ethic and retreated into mind-numbing rituals and mysticism centuries ago. Whores and murderers go about their business wearing icons of the Virgin and crucifixes. The Bishops aren't even motivated enough to root out alarming heresies like the cult of Santa Muerte, the only thing they ask of their followers is mere observance.
>>1372327
Well it wouldn't have hurt their chances.
I doubt they would be nearly as developed as the US though, considering they had a tendency to go into revolution mode every 25 years.
>>1372707
>root out alarming heresies like the cult of Santa Muerte
how do you root it out tho? people are free to worship as they want these days
I think your wrong about latin american catholicism tho, i think syncratic catholicism as practiced in latin america is preety interesting and vibrent....its a very living faith with flawed and relatable saints and demigods
>>1372561
>Mexico invited in lots of Americans and other Europeans to settle it.
they were invited to settle on the condition that they naturalise as mexicans, be catholic, and speak spanish....wich is interesting becuase today americans coplain about mexicans poring into the us and not speaking english or asimilating.....so basicaly what texans did to mexico
>>1372797
Except we didn't invite the wetbacks in, they snuck in like the dirty sneaks they are without permission. The Mexicans literally begged Anglos to come to their land and then acted surprised when we refused to become full on wetbacks. Sorry spic
>>1372820
if we didnt want them why are we employing them? seems invitation enough for me
>>1372820
>Except we didn't invite the wetbacks in
Bracero program says hi
>they snuck in like the dirty sneaks they are without permission
Just like the bulk of the Texan colonists decades before
>>1372707
>>1372785
Catholicism accept these heathen rituals, practices, idols, etc, because it helps convert and keep up membership numbers.
Protestants make up what ever the hell they want. Though at least some are Catholics Minues the Pope.
Only Orthodox Christians and Copts make an honest effort to keep to the original faith.
>>1372327
>At the time of independence, Mexico stretched from a border with Gran Colombia
This is wrong. Central America stayed under Spanish rule for about a decade longer after Mexico gained its independence.
It was immediately annexed to the Mexican Empire once it became independent, as those were the wishes by the then most powerful city, the conservative-leaning Guatemala. However, the then second most powerful city, the liberal-leaning San Salvador, rebelled and troops were sent to quell the rebellion.
When Mexico became a republic a few years later, it decided to let the Central American provinces decide their own future. They declared independence from Mexico and formed the short lived Central American Federation.
>>1372707
spooky
Although I'm not Mexican, I would like to point out that Latin American Catholicism has all sorts of flavors. While crooks do generally have religious imagery on them (as tatoos, collars, etc.), that just shows how embedded religion has become to the culture, so outright pagans will still use Catholic imagery just because it's natural to them. That doesn't mean that there are no mainstream, and even extremely conservative Catholics within the region. In fact, those are probably the norm within the religious folk, at least towards the south.
I would also like to point that Mexico is huge. While land area isn't too large, because of its shape, distances can extremely long. This leads to many pockets of cultures (of course), which is why assuming all Mexicans are the same (or worse, that all Hispanic North Americans or that all Latin Americans are the same) is an pretty big disservice.
>>1372958
Hello Constantine.
Last time I checked, Copts still weren't in communion with you. Sounds pretty sketchy.
>>1372785
I wasn't commenting on Catholicism in the rest of Latin America, only Mexico and central America.
The syncretic stuff going on in South America seems mostly benign
>>1373769
>>1373769
>central America
There's no Santa Muerte bullshit here, though. I found out what it was on this thread. We're not Mexico.
The only syncretic stuff I can think of is the Day of the Cross, where we make fruit offerings to a cross. Given that it's already liturgical to make offerings during mass, I don't think there's really a problem.
That and local festivities, of course.
>>1373769
Syncretism in South America is going down, one example is the rise of traditionalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Apostolic_Administration_of_Saint_John_Mary_Vianney
Central America has little syncretism, and maybe there is such a trend in Mexico but it might be more related to historical anticlerical stuff there
>>1372958
Copts have very regionalized sensibilities when it comes to Christianity. Orthodox is very much the same except its hierarchy claims otherwise. Pretty much the only part of Orthodox Christendom that is actually honest to the original faith is the Patriarch and the leaders of the major bishoprics
>>1372327
But they never exploited any of that land. California was very sparsely populated under Mexican rule.
>>1372837
>>1372854
>Corporations speak for the will of the American people
Absolutely not, Pedro
>>1376663
Are Americans illiterate?
In what way did they ever imply anything about the will of the American people?
>>1372876
>>1376663
Why not blame the corporations for hiring mexicans then? Why are you directing your anger at people poorer and more unfortunate than you?
The corporations are only trying to make money by hiring the cheapest workers available. You know how many factories have already been moved to Mexico?
That's capitalism baby.
Damn.
Thought we loved capitalism
