Cases of a country expanding so much that it subsequently experiences a massive demographic transformation?

[Futurist]

Which cases have there been where a country expands so much that it subsequently experiences a massive demographic transformation and/or regrets this expansion? So far, I can think of:

-France in Algeria. In 1830, there were something like 16 Frenchmen for every Algerian, but by 1960 this ratio shrank to something like 5 or 6 Frenchmen for every Algerian, and had France kept Algeria this ratio would have shrank even further to something like 3 Frenchmen for every 2 Algerians--and of course I am defining Algerians based on ethnic and religious grounds here, so if much more Algerians would have moved to metropolitan France, well, they'd still be Algerians as opposed to ethnic French people.

There's actually a De Gaulle quote about this:

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/153069

-Israel and the West Bank. Had Israel annexed the West Bank back in 1967, it might have still been perhaps 75-80% even with the West Bank, but now Israel would only be around 60% Jewish (and that's INCLUDING patrilineal Jews, as they should be!) if it annexed the West Bank in its entirety.

-The US and Mexico. Had the US annexed Mexico back in 1848, white people would have likely initially been dominant in both the US and Mexico, but once the Mexican population explosion would have occurred (even if it would have been somewhat less than it was in real life), the US would have been considerably less white right now than it is in real life, assuming that everything else (such as US immigration policy) stays the same in this scenario.

Anyway, which additional *realistic* examples of this could there have been?

[T. A. Gardner]

At least in the case of Mexico, it would be likely that the Mexican population would have become far more "American." Mexico is messed up like it is mostly because of Spanish culture that stratified society racially and economically. The hacienda system even today still remains a major influence in Mexico even if it is officially gone. One can catch a glimpse of this in what happened in Texas. Whites moved in from Europe and the US-- invited by Santa Ana who expected them to convert to Catholicism and become "Mexican"--and they took over. Hispanics for the most part were divided into two groups once that happened. The more "European" looking group was accepted into society pretty much. The group that looked more Mestizo was put under racist conditions. But, neither group was subjected to the near slavery of the hacienda system nor was either group socially fixed in place as they were in Mexico--something that continues to this day.

[TheMarcksPlan]

Which cases have there been where a country expands so much that it subsequently experiences a massive demographic transformation and/or regrets this expansion? So far, I can think of:

-France in Algeria. In 1830, there were something like 16 Frenchmen for every Algerian, but by 1960 this ratio shrank to something like 5 or 6 Frenchmen for every Algerian, and had France kept Algeria this ratio would have shrank even further to something like 3 Frenchmen for every 2 Algerians--and of course I am defining Algerians based on ethnic and religious grounds here, so if much more Algerians would have moved to metropolitan France, well, they'd still be Algerians as opposed to ethnic French people.

There's actually a De Gaulle quote about this:

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/153069

-Israel and the West Bank. Had Israel annexed the West Bank back in 1967, it might have still been perhaps 75-80% even with the West Bank, but now Israel would only be around 60% Jewish (and that's INCLUDING patrilineal Jews, as they should be!) if it annexed the West Bank in its entirety.

-The US and Mexico. Had the US annexed Mexico back in 1848, white people would have likely initially been dominant in both the US and Mexico, but once the Mexican population explosion would have occurred (even if it would have been somewhat less than it was in real life), the US would have been considerably less white right now than it is in real life, assuming that everything else (such as US immigration policy) stays the same in this scenario.

Anyway, which additional *realistic* examples of this could there have been?

What's the point of the question?

I ask because what constitutes "massive demographic transformation" can't be answered without some viewpoint about who/what counts as transformative and whether that's good or bad.

The U.S., for example, underwent what could be called a massive demographic transformation via Irish/German immigration from around the 1830's. At the time, the specter of "Papish" Irish - who were barely white in many eyes - was so threatening that it gave rise to a political party - the "Know Nothings." Looking backwards, however, most discourse that currently frets about American demographics doesn't point to the Irish/German immigration as a past cataclysm.

Likewise re Mexico and the U.S. A lot of Mexicans are white actually, and an increasing amount of American-born people of Mexican descent are identifying as white every year (thus confounding projections about how soon the white majority in America will be a thing of the past). If Mexicans, like Italians, successfully recast themselves as white while massively increasing their share of U.S. demographics, does that constitute a massive transformation?

[Futurist]

Which cases have there been where a country expands so much that it subsequently experiences a massive demographic transformation and/or regrets this expansion? So far, I can think of:

-France in Algeria. In 1830, there were something like 16 Frenchmen for every Algerian, but by 1960 this ratio shrank to something like 5 or 6 Frenchmen for every Algerian, and had France kept Algeria this ratio would have shrank even further to something like 3 Frenchmen for every 2 Algerians--and of course I am defining Algerians based on ethnic and religious grounds here, so if much more Algerians would have moved to metropolitan France, well, they'd still be Algerians as opposed to ethnic French people.

There's actually a De Gaulle quote about this:

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/153069

-Israel and the West Bank. Had Israel annexed the West Bank back in 1967, it might have still been perhaps 75-80% even with the West Bank, but now Israel would only be around 60% Jewish (and that's INCLUDING patrilineal Jews, as they should be!) if it annexed the West Bank in its entirety.

-The US and Mexico. Had the US annexed Mexico back in 1848, white people would have likely initially been dominant in both the US and Mexico, but once the Mexican population explosion would have occurred (even if it would have been somewhat less than it was in real life), the US would have been considerably less white right now than it is in real life, assuming that everything else (such as US immigration policy) stays the same in this scenario.

Anyway, which additional *realistic* examples of this could there have been?

What's the point of the question?

I ask because what constitutes "massive demographic transformation" can't be answered without some viewpoint about who/what counts as transformative and whether that's good or bad.

Massive demographic transformation means having one's racial, ethnic, and/or religious demographics significantly change.

The U.S., for example, underwent what could be called a massive demographic transformation via Irish/German immigration from around the 1830's. At the time, the specter of "Papish" Irish - who were barely white in many eyes - was so threatening that it gave rise to a political party - the "Know Nothings." Looking backwards, however, most discourse that currently frets about American demographics doesn't point to the Irish/German immigration as a past cataclysm.

Yep.

Likewise re Mexico and the U.S. A lot of Mexicans are white actually, and an increasing amount of American-born people of Mexican descent are identifying as white every year (thus confounding projections about how soon the white majority in America will be a thing of the past). If Mexicans, like Italians, successfully recast themselves as white while massively increasing their share of U.S. demographics, does that constitute a massive transformation?

That could, but please keep in mind that not all Mexican-Americans and Hispanic-Americans can actually pass for white and, in any case, it pays off much more to identify as a person of color in regards to things such as university applications and whatnot in the US nowadays.

[Futurist]

At least in the case of Mexico, it would be likely that the Mexican population would have become far more "American." Mexico is messed up like it is mostly because of Spanish culture that stratified society racially and economically. The hacienda system even today still remains a major influence in Mexico even if it is officially gone. One can catch a glimpse of this in what happened in Texas. Whites moved in from Europe and the US-- invited by Santa Ana who expected them to convert to Catholicism and become "Mexican"--and they took over. Hispanics for the most part were divided into two groups once that happened. The more "European" looking group was accepted into society pretty much. The group that looked more Mestizo was put under racist conditions. But, neither group was subjected to the near slavery of the hacienda system nor was either group socially fixed in place as they were in Mexico--something that continues to this day.

You think that a US-ruled Mexico would have abolished all traces of the hacienda system?

[TheMarcksPlan]

Mexico is messed up like it is mostly because of Spanish culture that stratified society racially and economically.

I know what you mean but it's easy to overstate this. Spain is pretty culturally Spanish, for example, and not that messed up.

The brutally hierarchical nature of 16th-Century Spanish society assisted with the creation of Mexico's socioeconomic conditions but there's a lot more to the story than that. For example, unlike temperate North America and other settler colonial societies, the material conditions weren't conducive to the economics of small freeholders. Once the brutal hierarchy was established, it was more durable in Mexico than in Spain or even Argentina for material reasons.

Likewise it didn't help that Mexico's "great" neighbor often intervened on the side of hierarchy and against economic justice. Example: "Operation Wetback" - the deportation of agricultural workers we mostly invited to America during WW2 - occurred at the behest of Mexican landlords who wanted the U.S. government's assistance in forcibly returning their workforce.

[TheMarcksPlan]

That could, but please keep in mind that not all Mexican-Americans and Hispanic-Americans can actually pass for white

Please keep in mind that the definition of white is not a metaphysical category. Italians claiming "whiteness" not too long ago could have been spat on.

it pays off much more to identify as a person of color in regards to things such as university applications and whatnot in the US nowadays.

There's a lot of range to what "whatnot" means when spoken by a contemporary American in this context; for certain values in that range I'm going to have to just step away from the convo.

[Futurist]

That could, but please keep in mind that not all Mexican-Americans and Hispanic-Americans can actually pass for white

Please keep in mind that the definition of white is not a metaphysical category. Italians claiming "whiteness" not too long ago could have been spat on.

Not if they would have cited the US Census Bureau in support of their arguments. Italians were ALWAYS classified as white on the US Census to my knowledge.

it pays off much more to identify as a person of color in regards to things such as university applications and whatnot in the US nowadays.

There's a lot of range to what "whatnot" means when spoken by a contemporary American in this context; for certain values in that range I'm going to have to just step away from the convo.

"Whatnot" could mean, for instance, job applications. If you're, say, a mathematician and also identify as a person of color (unless perhaps you're East Asian), you might be in higher demand than if you were white or East Asian. Why do you think that Elizabeth Warren identified as a Native America when she was a university professor?

[T. A. Gardner]

You think that a US-ruled Mexico would have abolished all traces of the hacienda system?

The bulk of it. The biggest thing that would have gone down immediately following a US takeover of Mexico is that anyone could buy property. Property rights in Mexico at the time were largely still based on the Spanish nobility system where you had to have a grant from the King / ruler to own land. With that gone, over several decades the iron grip of a landed few would have been broken if not by Mexicans, then by wealthy Americans buying up land.
Another thing the US would have done is build a solid rail network through the country. Mexico couldn't because the government was frequently broke. That along with basic resource extraction and an increase in infrastructure in general would have been a boost to Mexico over what happened historically. I could see a Mexican gold rush or two where, like other US gold rushes it's every man for himself rather than a rigidly controlled mining operation where only a few really profit.

While it is possible that some of the hacienda system could survive as plantations using slavery, that would be short lived once the system of slavery fell in the US.

There would also not be a Mexican revolution at the turn of the 20th century and the country would not have been gripped by a Socialist government as corrupt as any in the Americas.

On the other hand, Mexican spanish was likely to continue as a bi-lingual thing right to the present with English being the dominant language.

[T. A. Gardner]

Mexico is messed up like it is mostly because of Spanish culture that stratified society racially and economically.

I know what you mean but it's easy to overstate this. Spain is pretty culturally Spanish, for example, and not that messed up.

The brutally hierarchical nature of 16th-Century Spanish society assisted with the creation of Mexico's socioeconomic conditions but there's a lot more to the story than that. For example, unlike temperate North America and other settler colonial societies, the material conditions weren't conducive to the economics of small freeholders. Once the brutal hierarchy was established, it was more durable in Mexico than in Spain or even Argentina for material reasons.

Likewise it didn't help that Mexico's "great" neighbor often intervened on the side of hierarchy and against economic justice. Example: "Operation Wetback" - the deportation of agricultural workers we mostly invited to America during WW2 - occurred at the behest of Mexican landlords who wanted the U.S. government's assistance in forcibly returning their workforce.

More often than not, the US didn't do much of anything with Mexico up to the 20th Century. The occasional invasion or land grab, but really little else. Mexico on the other hand was messed up internally pretty much well into the late 20th Century. Even after PRI took control of the country and turned it into a corrupt socialist state, the nation was always one where a select few had all the wealth, land, and power while the vast majority were little more than serfs or even just slaves.
Ending that in say by mid 19th Century would have had a very positive effect on Mexico by the mid 20th Century.

[TheMarcksPlan]

Given the appetite for banning me from this board, I won't be saying more on the political issues raised in this thread.

[Terry Duncan]

This is clearly not a "What If" and as such is locked.

Terry Duncan