Why is Mexico poor?

[cowcommander]

Is anyone familiar with what really goes on there? Why is there still so much crushing poverty there that millions of them go to the U.S instead?

[Joanne98]

1. US interference, Supporting the "hacienda owners" wealthy families

That keep the population down. Like most Latin American countries.

[FreakinDJ]

16. You have any supporting links for that statement

I do accredit Mexico's plight on the Wealthy Elite of that country - just haven's seen too many credible ties to the USA or the Wealthy Elite of the USA

[Kali]

22. read some history

geez

[FreakinDJ]

23. Ya like I said No Credible evidence of US involvement

Mexico has been fucked up for centuries strictly of their own accord.

Lets blame every thing on the Big Bad Neighbor to the North

[mix]

27. The Mexican-American War, NAFTA, the War on Drugs, unconditional

military and financial support for the oligarchs...only willful ignorance would lead someone to write that "Mexico has been fucked up for centuries strictly of their own accord."

[FreakinDJ]

31. The Mexican-American War - you mean when Mexico refused

to realize that Texans had won their independence and the Wealthy Ruling Elite vowed to "Retake" Texas.

Actually you need a History Lesson

Mexico was riven by bitter internal political battles that verged on civil war, even as it was united in refusing to recognize the independence of Texas. Mexico threatened war with the U.S. if it annexed Texas. Meanwhile the spirit of Manifest Destiny was focusing American interest on westward expansion.

he Mexican government had long warned the United States that annexation would mean war. Because the Mexican congress had refused to recognize Texan independence, Mexico saw Texas as a rebellious territory that would be retaken. Britain and France, which recognized the independence of Texas, repeatedly tried to dissuade Mexico from declaring war. When Texas joined the U.S. as a state in 1845, the Mexican government broke diplomatic relations with the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War

Actually the Wealthy Elite Ruling Class of Mexico attempted to fuck the people of Texas who were wanting to be Mexican Citizens - you REALLY need a History Lesson

[mix]

33. And then what happened in 1846?

And what was Polk's platform during those fateful years?

And what type of power dynamic did the war's outcome establish between Mexico and the US that continues into the present?

If the war were merely about Texas, why did it result in the theft of territory that would later become NM, AZ, CA, NV, CO, and parts of WY?

Your facts are whack.

[FreakinDJ]

39. Them Pesky Facts

Texas won it's independence in 1936 regardless of what some Corrupt Wealthy Elite politician in Mexico wanted to further his political career and the ambitions of the Wealthy Elite plantation owners

The conclusion of the war resulted in the creation of the Republic of Texas in 1836.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution

[mix]

40. I believe we're talking about two different conflicts.

Texas joined the Union in 1845...The US theft of the Southwest occurred shortly thereafter, 1846-1848.

I'm talking about the Mexican-American War.

[FreakinDJ]

41. Again - they were repeatedly betrayed by their own countrymen

Which IS the whole point of my argument - "The Wealthy Ruling Elite are those most responsible for the condition of Mexico today"

The defeats at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma caused political turmoil in Mexico, turmoil which Antonio López de Santa Anna used to revive his political career and return from self-imposed exile in Cuba in mid-August 1846.<35> He promised the U.S. that if allowed to pass through the blockade, he would negotiate a peaceful conclusion to the war and sell the New Mexico and Alta California territories to the United States.<36> Once Santa Anna arrived in Mexico City, however, he reneged and offered his services to the Mexican government. Then, after being appointed commanding general, he reneged again and seized the presidency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War

I'm not saying America did not pursue the war in 1846 as a means of a land grab - they did. But there would have been No Revolution in Texas had the Mexican Wealthy elite first not attempted to nullify the land grants given to the Texas Settlers, nor impose harsh taxation.

The Gadsden Purchase (known as Venta de La Mesilla, or "Sale of La Mesilla", in Mexico<2>) is a 29,670-square-mile (76,800 km2) region of present-day southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico that was purchased by the United States in a treaty signed by James Gadsden, the American ambassador to Mexico at the time, on December 30, 1853. It was then ratified, with changes, by the U.S. Senate on April 25, 1854 and signed by President Franklin Pierce, with final approval action taken by Mexico on June 8, 1854. The purchase was the last major territorial acquisition in the contiguous United States, adding an area the size of Scotland to the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_Purchase

[mix]

45. .

[apocalypsehow]

60. Excellent summation of the irrefutable facts as they really are throughout this sub-thread!

Thank you for your informative replies, which puts the situation in Mexico in a proper historical context. :thumbsup:

[mix]

73. thank you for encouraging historical misinformation and fantasy nt

[apocalypsehow]

74. To the contrary, I was applauding a cogent assemblage of the relevant historical facts & truth,

but, then, you know that already.

Which is why in the posted reply above mine you were reduced to simply posting a picture of Gore Vidal, in lieu of any further attempt to counter the facts that have been presented in this sub-thread by the poster whose efforts I was praising; facts you obviously dislike but have been unable to refute.

Facts are pesky that way.

[mix]

76. Your "facts," and your friend's, are fallacies, with no scholarly or academic backing. None.

Sometimes posts really are too inane to respond to, particularly when they have no historical basis and perpetuate stereotypes and the denial of long-term and negative American intervention in Mexico.

To follow up your obsession with "corruption" among the Mexican elite...which state to the north props them up?

Canada?

[apocalypsehow]

81. Wrong: they are the correct historical narrative. The posts above stand un-refuted, by you or anyone

else, for that matter.

Further, at this point, you are not only trying to change the subject ("which state up north props them up?"), but engaging in personal attacks ("too inane to respond to"..."To follow up your obsession")*, none of which bodes well for either your assertions regarding the matter - which have been properly documented and dismissed as having little historical factual basis - nor further interaction between us on this topic.

Discussion concluded.



*emphasis added.

[mix]

82. Give me one authoritative source, once legitimate scholarly example

that backs your claim and your friend's that Mexico's problems regarding poverty are "strictly" its own, and in no way tied to its socio-economic relations with the USA or its colonial past.

You can't do it because you do not know the histories of these two nations, at all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. Would a contemporary at the time serve? As in a primary source?

While yea the US did invade Texas and the 1847 war is a nasty scab in Mexico, you should read the writings of one Lucas Alaman WARNING the weak federal government of both Conservative and Liberal bend of the encroachment of these Americans onto Tejas, el Territorio de Nuevo Mexico and Alta California, and how Mejicanos should be encouraged to colonize these territories instead...it is more complex than the policies of President Polk...

Oh and that is as close as I can give you to the crazy environment of the 1820- 1830/. Remember, by the 1848 war Mexico has had only one President who finished his Term, Guadalupe Victoria, and two Constitutions...

But will a primary source help?

Memorias de Lucas Alaman... If memory serves...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_Alamán

To prove your fine point that is.

[Hannah Bell]

79. lol. here's some facts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=215217&mesg_id=217335

[Gaedel]

51. Generally, if you lose a war

There are consequences at the peace table. In 1945, Germany lost all of her territory east of the Oder-Neisse line to Poland and Russia. Japan lost Korea, Formosa, the Mariannas, the Marshalls, and, for a long time, Okinawa.

Mexico went to war with the US and lost. At the time, the European powers were quite certain that Mexico's "Napoleonic" army would handily defeat the raw levies of the US. Unfortunately, mexico's army turned out to be full of corruption and was merely a facade.

Mexico gave up California, New Mexico, and Arizona in return for the US giving back Vera Cruz and Mexico City.

[mix]

54. Whose military crossed into the zone between the Nueces and Rio Grande?

And which country declared war first?

Meanwhile, what were Fremont and Carson up to in CA?

Kearny in NM?

And the Navy off the coast of CA?

Lincoln didn't buy Polk's scheme, nor do I.

The Mexican-American War was intended to extend slave territory in the pursuit of Manifest Destiny. "All Mexico" was their political slogan, Polk's included.

These were provocations, not the fiction that "Mexico went to war," suggesting that the US was not the aggressor.

One of the war's real heroes:

http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html

[Hugabear]

89. Apples and oranges

Germany and Japan lost territory that wasn't theirs to begin with, they were lands that had been conquered either right before or during the course of the war.

[Hannah Bell]

62. "No Credible evidence of US involvement" my ass.

Mexican history is integrally connected to that of the US, & there's volumnious evidence of US involvement.

Beginning with the carpetbagging "Texans" from the Eastern & Southern US & continuing to the present day.

Following the Civil War, Generals Grenville Dodge,
William Jackson Palmer, Herman Sturm, Lew Wallace,
William Rosecrans, U.S. Grant, James Garfield, and
Rutherford B. Hayes all took part in transcontinental
and Mexican railroads, giving American expansion an
especially militarist dimension....

While General Philip Sheridan led his forces against
the hopelessly outgunned western Indians, the railroad
magnates followed his path and reached into Mexico.

By the late nineteenth century Chairman James Stillman of
National City personally owned nineteen banks in Texas
alone...

The directors of the National City,
First National, and Morgan Banks shared control of the
Union Pacific and the Mexican National Railway systems.

The financial engagement between the American economic
elite and the Third World deepened profoundly between
1865 and 1867 as U.S. bankers extended loans and arms
grants to Mexico during that nation's war against
French occupation.

By the end of the struggle the
Mexican government had incurred debts beyond reckoning
with the American financiers and arms manufacturers.

As a result President Andrew Johnson sent General
Rosecrans as Minister Plenipotentiary to Mexico and the
New York Bondholders Committee of the Mexican National
Debt hired him to represent them.

In lieu of cash,
Rosecrans asked for infrastructure concessions that
included a national railroad and telegraph system with
port facilities on both coasts. The bankers understood
that control of infrastructure and natural resources
meant hegemony.

Between 1872 and 1875, after years of negotiations with
Mexican presidents Benito Juarez and Sebastian Lerdo de
Tejada, various contracts were signed ceding railroad
grants and creating the Mexican Telegraph Company.

The
new owners included the most powerful figures in
American finance and industry -- the leaders of the
Pennsylvania Railroad, the founders of the fledgling
New York Central System (Vanderbilt, Morgan, Stillman,
Taylor, Baker, et.al.), and banking interests that
included the Beekmans and Roosevelts.

Following Lerdo's election to a second term as
president in 1875, he cancelled all of the contracts
with the admonition "Better a desert between strength
and weakness."

At that point the concessionaires
backed General Porfirio Diaz in a rebellion that
overthrew the democratically elected President.

Diaz
was a prototype who set the standard for other American
backed dictators like the Duvaliers, Batistas, Marcos’,
Rhees, Pinochets, and Shahs, that followed.

The New York Bondholders, led by Taylor and Stillman,
sent Diaz to Brownsville on the Mexican border.

Attorney Charles Sterling of the law firm of Spearman
and Sterling accompanied him in order to represent
Stillman's interests.

Diaz received 2,000,000
recharging cartridges and other weaponry from Remington
and the Whitney Arms Company shipped to him via Ed
Morgan's (the son of Charles Morgan) Louisiana
Steamship Line.

Diaz forces raided northeastern Mexico
repeatedly in the first half of 1876 while he lived in
Stillman's home in Brownsville.

...A handful of American
elites were becoming a virtual foreign policy oligarchy
in the U.S., first gaining control of the
infrastructures of Mexico and Cuba.

After 35 years of brutal dictatorship, the leading
financiers and industrialists of the United States
controlled 90 percent of Mexico’s coastlines and frontiers and 22
percent (100 million acres) of its surface through 162 individuals
and companies and private properties that included enormous oil,
timber and mineral interests...seventy percent of all corporate
enterprises and seventy percent of the active capital...

http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg119389.html


John Mason Hart
University of Houston

Dr. Hart is The John and Rebecca Moores Professor of History and one of the nation's foremost scholars on Mexican history.

For more than thirty-five years Hart has explored multiple aspects of the influence of the United States in Mexico, the Mexican Revolution, Mexican and Mexican-American labor, and the working class of Mexico.

Hart received his Ph.D. in Latin American History from UCLA in 1970 and has taught at the University of Houston since 1973. He has been the recipient of the Faculty Excellence Award and held positions as Interim and Associate Chair of the History Department.

http://vi.uh.edu/faculty/hart_j.asp


The financial interests controlling Mexico included some relatives of Gov. Bill Richardson, for example -- as well as the Rockefellers, George Bush's money managers, & other luminaries

Here's Spencer (Richardson) & other noteworthies incorporating a railroad in Sonora Mexico in 1882.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FFZR4HsasGUC&pg=PA11&d...


The family also had silver mining interests in Mexico:

http://books.google.com/books?id=hapIAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA786&...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4771159

[Scruffy1]

71. Thank you Hannah

It seems that some see only what they want to see and disregard the rest. Of course this financial hegemony pretty much controls all of the Americas. This is why Chavez is so reviled by the fascists. He has been able to break away from the IMF and helped other countries do the same.

[blindpig]

91. And what was a major point of contention in Texas?

Slavery.

The Anglo Texans wanted slave and plantations and all, just like back home in Virginia and South Carolina. Slavery had been illegal in Mexico since their independence. The "people of Texas" would have deserved that fucking. Too bad the 'wealthy Mexican elite' were so fucking incompetent.

[Hugabear]

88. You don't think stealing half their country was a bad thing?

Yes, we STOLE half of their friggin' country. Who knows what Mexico might be like if they still had Texas, California, and the rest of the Southwest.

[SugarShack]

25. The never ending US subsities to US farmers....and it's mostly GM corn!

[stockholmer]

37. Warren Buffet elite enough 4 you? Wachovia(Wells Fargo) laundred $100's of billion in Mex drug money

do you actively follow the news or read much history?


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/06/report-wachovia-bank-helped-launder-mexican-drug-money/1

Wachovia, which San Francisco-based Wells Fargo bought in 2008 amid the financial crisis, admitted it "didn't do enough to spot illicit funds in handling $378.4 billion for Mexican-currency-exchange houses from 2004 to 2007. That's the largest violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, an anti-money-laundering law, in U.S. history -- a sum equal to one-third of Mexico's current gross domestic product," according to Bloomberg.

"Wachovia's blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations," Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor who handled the case, told Bloomberg.




How Wachovia And Major U.S. Banks Have Spent The Past Four Years Helping Mexican Drug Cartels


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-wachovia-and-major-us-banks-have-spent-the-past-four-years-funding-mexican-drug-cartels-2010-6#ixzz1BJeioeJJ


Since 2006, thousands of people have been killed in the ongoing drug war between Mexican cartels and government forces.

A new must-read article in the August issue of Bloomberg Markets smashes open the world of shadow banking between large banks in the United States and their role in the funding of Mexican drug operations.

Back in March, Wachovia struck a deal with Federal prosecutors under which the bank admitted it didn't do enough to prevent money-laundering between criminal organizations, in which illicit funds transferred flew past the $300 billion mark. Now Wachovia faces charges from the Department of Justice over violating the Bank Secrecy Act - a first for the bulge bracket of large U.S. banks.

Similarly, traffickers used accounts at Bank of America to purchase three planes that ended up smuggling 10 tons of cocaine. "Federal agents caught people who work for Mexican cartels depositing illicit funds in Bank of America accounts in Atlanta, Chicago and Brownsville, Texas, from 2002 to 2009," says the article.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-wachovia-and-major-us-banks-have-spent-the-past-four-years-funding-mexican-drug-cartels-2010-6#ixzz1BJeuom1Q

[mix]

28. +1

"Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States!" (attributed to Porfirio Diaz)

[no_hypocrisy]

2. A lot of small farmers were forced off their land due to the flooding of cheaper American

corn due to NAFTA. And the farm workers lost their jobs with the loss of the land. And no new industry or employment to replace those lost jobs.

That's just one reason.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

20. It's been messed up along time before NAFTA

NAFTA is just a 21th Century excuse.

[fascisthunter]

3. as Stated above, US Interference...

just as the US today is trying to interfere with Venezuelan politics.

[Ezlivin]

4. They outsourced all of their Taco Bells

All kidding aside, it is largely a function of the ubiquitous corruption.

[WinkyDink]

5. CORRUPTION and COLLUSION with the drug cartel.

[slackmaster]

6. Massive corruption at all levels of government

:hi:

[bluestate10]

34. Agreed. Mexico has had historically corrupt government.

Money that can make life better for citizens is pissed away. The country has enormous oil and natural resource wealth.

[WhiteTara]

57. so pervasive that is is called

mordito...the little bite of corruption.

[MineralMan]

7. Historical. The Europeans established Mexico as a colony,

and their descendants still run the country. The indigenous residents and their descendants are still a poor working class. It's by design, and hasn't changed hardly at all in reality. All you have to do is watch Mexican television for a while to see that los indios are not represented.

Mexico remains a European colony, in fact, if not in law.

[Joanne98]

8. That too!

[Celeborn Skywalker]

10. That's true too.

It partially explains why Northern Mexico (much more European blood in the people) does so much better than the indigenous South Mexico.

[fascisthunter]

15. I think that is true

I have a friend who is Venezuelan, well off and light skinned. He told me you see the same thing throughout South America and he states the racial-economic dynamic was largely due to colonialism.

[MineralMan]

18. Yup. The same situations holds generally throughout Central

and South America. Another legacy of European colonialism. We'd have a similar thing here, but we killed off most of the indigenous residents, instead of enslaving them. We imported our slaves.

[mix]

29. Mexico does not remain a "European colony."

[Gaedel]

52. Historical, The Europeans established the US and Canada as colonies

and their descendants still run the countries. The US and Canada are corrupt oligarchies just like Mexico.

[timo]

68. some exceptions

La india maria for example, lol thats funny stuff!!

[Celeborn Skywalker]

9. Corruption.

Mexico is on the verge of being a completely developed country, but corruption in politics, law enforcement, and the judicial system prevents this. It's important to remember though that on a world-wide scale Mexico has a relatively high level of human development. Mexico is .75 HDI, making it about equal to some Eastern European countries. This is considered a high level of human development. United States has an HDI of .90 which is extremely high. On the lower end of the scale, Congo's HDI is only .24

I've been to Mexico many times and most people have electricity, water, a tv (not necessarily the newest model), fridge and a decent roof over their head. This is especially true in the northern states and many of the central states.

Now, there IS a lot of poverty in the border cities and the indigenous, rural, southern part of Mexico. That's the bigger issue in Mexico, IMO, is how very poor the southern states are compared to the rest of the nation.

[timo]

69. hmmm

alot of the ejidos lack running water, and the electricity is only on for a few hours a day, and the water thats there is only on certain days of the weeks

[Celeborn Skywalker]

70. True.

A lot of rural development is lacking, even in northern Mexico, however most medium sized towns and all cities have decent systems. Could be better, especially if Mexico could get a handle on its corruption and the cartels.

[ladjf]

11. The poverty in Mexico shows what the situation will be in the U.S.

within 50 years from now. The rich continue to pump the money away from the middle class into their already bloated accounts. Presently, there is nothing being done to stop that accelerating disaster.

[hunter]

58. Less than 50 years.

Many parts of the USA are already very similar to Mexico.

And I agree, the problem is exactly the same in both nations, it's the wealthy and powerful pumping money out of the system and "investing" it in ways that violate human rights and degrade society.

[ladjf]

61. Your idea about the shorter time line may well be correct. I usually

have a tendency to predict that things will happen quicker than they turn out in reality. So I added about 20 years to my gut feeling. Either way, what a disaster!

[Lint Head]

12. The same story has in our country. The wealth is controlled by

three percent, maybe less, of the population. We are quickly headed to being like Mexico.

[swilton]

26. Go to states in the US south -

or Washington, DC....it's like colonization...dependence upon military bases for jobs, lots of franchises rather than independently owned businesses, little or no small mom & pop business establishments and absence of or dwindling middle class. Main Streets have disappeared in favor of shopping malls...all over the southwest & southeast.

[former9thward]

32. I live in the southwest and that is a ridiculous post.

Absolutely no facts to back it up.

[priller]

13. They're hardly unique.

In Mexico you have a tiny minority that is enormously wealthy who, through corruption, controls the government. There is a small middle class and the vast majority are poor. That's pretty much how most countries in the world are set up, and that's the way the GOP would have this country be (and they've made great strides in that direction).

[goddess40]

14. No birth control

Mexico is a Catholic country and birth control is frowned on. Too many children=poverty.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Actually Mexico has birth control

And at this time, while the country is young, average is 2.1 children per couple.

[Hannah Bell]

63. that's bull. total fertility rate in mexico = 2.3 children per woman.

http://www.indexmundi.com/mexico/total_fertility_rate.html

population density in mexico = 142/m2, far behind non-catholic & non-poor japan (842/m2), israel (942/m2), uk (660/m2), germany (593/m2), etc.

[JVS]

17. Rich people.

[doc03]

19. Mexico is the home of the richest person in the

world Carlos Slim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Slim

[Kali]

21. It's not.

that is your first fallacy.

There is greater disparity than many "western" countries, but there is also a viable middle class that doesn't fit the stereotypical view of many.

Mexico has tremendous natural resources, a hardworking population and a lot of corruption. It is way more diverse than you think it is. I have been a neighbor, traveler, and regular visitor (especially to Chihuahua and Sonora) my entire life and I always find something new when I go.

[Coyote_Bandit]

24. Ummmm......

I have a close friend that has lived in Mexico for over 20 years. Although many of its people are poor, there are significant resurces and wealth in the country.

The government is very corrupt at every level.

The big reason why we don't see change there is that many of the nation's best leave to seek better opportunities elsewhere rather than stay in their homeland and work to improve the circumstances there.

[treestar]

30. I wonder about that too

Beautiful country, mild weather. It would seem to attract investment as well as California or Texas. Must be the government corruption.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Until the 1980s Mexico was one of the emerging economies

Then came payback for the loans to the IMF, for things like oh power planes and roads. The restructuring of the debt and the austerity plan started the crisis. There were two more of those plus NAFTA. This is truly the cliff's notes but Mexico has gone through a lot where first world economies have looted her. Oh and bordering the us does not help either.

[NNN0LHI]

38. Manifest Destiny and the diversion of the Colorado River

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny

Manifest Destiny was the 19th century American belief that the United States (often in the ethnically specific form of the "Anglo-Saxon race") was destined to expand across the North American continent, from the Atlantic Seaboard to the Pacific Ocean. It was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico; the concept was denounced by Whigs, and fell into disuse after the mid-19th century.

Advocates of Manifest Destiny believed that expansion was not only wise but that it was readily apparent (manifest) and inexorable (destiny).

The concept of American expansion is much older, but John L. O'Sullivan coined the exact term "Manifest Destiny" in the July/August 1845 issue of the United States Magazine and Democratic Review in an article titled “Annexation”. It was primarily used by Democrats to support the expansion plans of the Polk Administration, but the idea of expansion was opposed by Whigs like Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and Abraham Lincoln who wanted to deepen the economy rather than broaden its expanse. It fell out of favor by 1860.

The belief in an American mission to promote and defend democracy throughout the world, as expounded by Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson, continues to have an influence on American political ideology.


http://www.counterpunch.org/colorado.html

To the Last Drop

Why the Colorado River Doesn't Meet the Sea

Fifty years ago Aldo Leopold hailed the Colorado River delta as North America's greatest oasis: Two million acres of wetlands, cienegas, lagoons, tidal pools, jaguars and mesquite scrublands. Today it's a wasteland.

The mighty Colorado River no longer reaches the Sea of Cortez. Its entire annual flow has diverted and spit out into hay fields, water fountains in front of Vegas hotels and thousands of golf courses. The Colorado has been sucked up to the last drop.

It's once lush delta is now a salt flat, as barren as Carthage after Scipio Africanus took his revenge on Hannibal's homeland. This estuary used to be one of the wonders of the world: a vast wetland, teeming with more than 400 species of plants and animals. In fact, like the Nile, another desert river, nearly 80 percent of the riparian habitat for the entire Colorado River was once clustered near the mouth of the river. The shallow lagoons in the delta region are home to the Vacquita dolphin, at four feet in length the world's smallest, which is now on the brink of extinction, with only 100 animals known to exist. Dozens of other endemic species are in the same shape.

And not just animals are in trouble. The delta was once the cultural mecca of the Copacha Indians, who made a good living fishing the estuary. But these days the fishing boats are beached and the Indians and Mexican residents are in grinding poverty, forced to work multiple jobs in distant tortilla factories, maquiladoras and wheat fields.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. Because the Europeans didn't commit genocide there.

Basically, the world can be divided into four categories:

Europe
Places where the Europeans conquered, killed all the natives and resettled
Places where the Europeans conquered, ruled over the natives and then left
Parts of Asia, the middle east etc that were never conquered by Europe

The first two are almost homogenously rich and mostly nowadays have functions democracies with decent human rights records; the third is homogenously poor, and nearly all its governments are corrupt and have awful human rights records; the fourth is variable.

Being able to set up a society from scratch, on your own volition, on land which is suddenly unoccupied because you've killed or driven out nearly everyone who lived there, tends to result in a stable prosperous society. Being ruled over by a bunch of people who don't give a damn about you except as a resource, and then leave without putting much in the way of infrastructure in place behind them (usually after being driven out by a bunch of people who make much better freedom fighters than they do rulers) does not.

[old mark]

46. Actually the Spanish-Europeans fer sher-worked many inhabitants to death and

starved many more, made war against still more and caused disease that wiped out more again. They systematically destroyed all they could find of the existing culture, including all but 4 examples of the writing
(in codex form) and most of the architecture, at least that in the cities. The Europeans set themselves up as the ruling classes and organized the remainder of the society by race, establishing legal stations for degrees of European ancestry. Poverty for most people was so grinding that entire generations had no possessions but what they wore.

Zapata and others since made some efforts to re-distribute wealth, but money talks everywhere, and the rich resist change that costs them wealth or privilege. IMO, the social structure of Mexico is similar to what the US rich want to do here-Huge wealth in few hands, not much in the middle, huge numbers of extremely poor, laws favoring the status quo.


mark

[mix]

49. Genocidal in the modern sense (Armenians, Jews), not quite.

But certain groups were exterminated through war and disease. The effects of colonization were certainly genocidal:

[upi402]

43. repression of labor and oligarchy

the rich are fine


it's a preview...

[stockholmer]

44. Liberty for Latin America: How to Undo 500 Years of State Oppression

http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/transcripts/5130.html

1) Corporatism is a system that doesn't look at society as individuals that have inherent individual rights, but as a group of corporations, as different groups of people, with which the government, according to its own whims, necessities, and needs, negotiates certain rights. If I can get back from you certain benefits that I appreciate, then I will accord you certain rights that I will not give others.

2) State mercantilism is a similar principle. The government determines the winners and losers in society. It is not the market, nor the free will and choice of individual citizens as consumers, or even as producers, but it is the government's decision making power that makes this determination.

3) Privilege—etymologically "privi" "lege", or "private law"—means that there is no general law, no equality before the law. The government exercises an overwhelming power over society and distributes and administers law according to its own whims.

4) Bottom-up wealth redistribution is the fourth principle of oppression. The word "redistribution" is one of the most-used words in the vocabulary of Latin American politicians, and elsewhere in the world. Every politician bases his career on the word "redistribution." Ninety-nine percent of the time, it does not mean redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. As soon as the government intervenes and decides to whom it will channel resources, it creates a number of corporations that are close to government and are the direct beneficiaries of those resources. Therefore, the government creates an oligarchy.

5) Finally, political law is the instrument through which all of this exploitation takes place. It is the law, the capacity of the government to create norms, laws and legal instruments which all lead to oppression.

[annabanana]

47. Therer is no middle class for the same reasons we are losing OURS. . .n/t

[FreakinDJ]

53. DING DING DING - We have a Winner Folks

and in what year was the AVERAGE Mexican citizen give the Right to Own Land ..... ???????

[GSLevel9]

48. their gov't and national politics? nt

[oldlib]

50. A solution to the immigration problem with Mexico

is for our government to support the Mexican people in finding a government that helps the people. the population is two tiered at this time, the wealthy elite and the hopelessly poor.

[Gaedel]

55. Like Woodrow Wilson?

"We have to teach them to elect the right people"

Send in the marines, kick out the bad government, and install a new one?

[ohheckyeah]

56. Corruption

in the government is a lot of the problem. And in my opinion, the Catholic Church is partly to blame. Overpopulation and under-utilization of their natural resources.

[Enrique]

59. because of all the Mexicans there

:sarcasm:

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Actually that is very much a self deprecating joke

Down there.

It comes with several variations on that theme.

[Odin2005]

64. The empire to it's north.

[Hannah Bell]

66. mexico is rich. most of its people are poor.

[MellowDem]

67. I once was talking US politics with...

a Mexican co-worker. He was a pretty moderate guy about US politics. Didn't seem to mind the Republicans much. I remember I was criticizing the Republicans (this was while Bush was still in power) and he agreed somewhat, but he told me that he loved the politicians up here, as they were angels compared to Mexico. The corruption down there is everywhere. Some will blame the US or Europe, but the truth is, the insane amount of corruption at all levels of government is the biggest problem they have.

[annabanana]

75. And why is THEIR government especially corrupt?

Because it isn't strong enough to offer it's public service employees a sufficient wage to keep them as bribe averse as ours are..... so far.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. It is just at a different level

But it is deeper here actually

[bulloney]

72. During the NAFTA debate, there was a report saying 60% of Mexico's GNP is controlled by 36 families

With that much control in so few hands, how does anything trickle down to expand a middle class there?

[lumberjack_jeff]

77. I mean it's not like the richest guy in the world lives there.

Oh, wait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Slim

[bluedigger]

78. I blame the Spanish, for stealing all their gold.

Of course they spent most of it on the Armada, which turned out to be a poor investment. :banghead:

Simple questions don't always have simple answers.:shrug:

[Texasgal]

80. where do you arrive at this thought

that Mexico is poor?

[totodeinhere]

83. If it is not poor, why do so many want to immigrate to the USA? n/t

[Kali]

87. um a lot of the Mexicans coming here to work don't want to immigrate

they would much rather live in their own country, they are only coming for survival

[totodeinhere]

90. Yes I know. I was responding to the poster who asked

"where do you arrive at this thought that Mexico is poor?" My answer was that if Mexico is not poor why do so many want to immigrate to the US.

[proud patriot]

86. Mexico is NOT poor . they have Oil

The societal/government structure is such that you must know or be related to the haves to even get a job or business license etc . At least this is how it was once explained to me. Sounds mafia like to me.