Additional *realistic* post-1800 cases of nations acquiring Lebensraum (living space)?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi history learner

I very much doubt Mexico would be English speaking.

English isn't even the official national latnguage of the USA (or, for that matter of any other English-speaking country). The fact that Spanish can be used as the language of instruction in Californian schools still causes some problems today.

That said, if English had a large domestic competitor like Mexican Spanish, it mght provoke the USA to make it the official language. Alternatively it might adopt the Canadian model on French within Quebec.

English spread easily across the continental US because the native Amerindian population was at low density and could very quickly be swamped by English-speaking settlers. The further south one goes in Mexico, the denser the existing population and so the more difficult to supplant their languages.

In the only place where the USA took over a densely populated Hispanic population - Puerto Rico - Spanish remains overwhelmingly the dominant language and statehood has not followed after more than a hundred years.

Even Acadian French lingers on in Louisiana as Cajun and has a special official status there.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Futurist]

I firmly believe the U.S. could've acquired both Mexico and Western Canada (90th Meridian Westwards).

Two questions:

1. In Texas and the Mexican Cession, just how did the indigenous (Mexican and Native American; as in, non-US settler) population feel about coming under US rule in the 1840s and beyond?

Generally indifferent or even supportive.

Do you have a source for this? I'm curious.

2. What do you think Mexico would have looked like today had the US actually annexed all of it back in the late 1840s?

English speaking, probably with a much larger Protestant population. First World living standards, with a population 60-80 million in size vs the 130 Million we see today.

Bilingual seems more likely--a la Puerto Rico, no? Protestantism could certainly spread there due to American Protestant missionary efforts, though. In regards to living standards, Yeah, I'd assume that they would have living standards comparable to US Hispanics or at least to Puerto Ricans right now. So, at the very least, lower-upper income country living standards. In regards to its population, Yes, it might be a bit smaller due to a faster demographic transition, though a lot might depend on just how many white Americans will subsequently settle in Mexico as well as on just how many Mexicans will subsequently move to greener pastures up north. For instance, in the African-American Great Migration between 1910 and 1970, more than one-third of the US's black population left the Southern US in search of greener pastures in the Northern and Western US. In 1910, 89% of all US blacks lived in the Southern US, but this figure was down to just 53% by 1970:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mig ... _South.png



Something similar could potentially happen with Mexicans in this scenario.

As a side note, I wonder if Mexicans are going to perform much closer to US Hispanics on tests such as the PISA exam in a scenario where the US would have conquered all of Mexico back in the 1840s:

https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-new-2018 ... s-usa-usa/



Mexicans significantly underperform US Hispanics on this exam and I'm wondering just how much of this Mexican underperformance is due to the environment being worse for Mexicans than it is for US Hispanics--who, after all, do live in a developed country.

[Futurist]

If you're wondering why PISA exam results are relevant here, well, you can take a look at Garett Jones's 2015 book Hive Mind. Or, alternatively, at this article by a different author:

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/stupid-people/

This article explains how results on exams such as PISA are relevant for real life performance. So, if US rule would have resulted in Mexico performing much better academically, this would have been a significant plus for Mexico.

[History Learner]

Do you have a source for this? I'm curious.

To quote Noel Maurer, an economist for GWU and a former employee of the U.S. Federal Government stationed in Mexico:

We have an example of a populated area switching to American rule. New Mexico had a population about as large as Coahuila's and a little more than half of Nuevo León or Chiahuahua. It provides a perfectly valid template for how those territories would have developed under American rule; with one wrinkle that I'll get to later.​
​
We also know what American troops experienced during the occupation. Mexican politicians in the D.F. were horrified at the level of indifference, shading over in many cases -- not least Nuevo León -- outright collaboration.​​

The wrinkle, which would make Coahuila and Nuevo León different from New Mexico, is that the elites in the northeastern states actively desired American annexation and the extension of slavery. We know this because they asked for it! Santiago Vidaurri wrote a letter to Richmond in 1861 volunteering Coahuila and Nuevo León to the Confederate cause. (Vidaurri annexed Coahuila to N.L. and installed himself as the governor of Tamaulipas.)​
​
These sympathies predated the Civil War. In fact, Vidaurri had been perfectly happy in 1855 to return escaped slaves to Texas. The agreement failed because the Texans wanted to send in their own people to recapture the escapees, not principled opposition; ironically, he made a whole bunch of antislavery proclamations in 1857, only to reverse them and start sending slaves home in 1858. It is hard to believe that Vidaurri or the elites that supported him would have opposed slavery, given their opportunism and their incessant complaints about labor shortages.​
​
More poignantly, Martin Robinson Delany, the biggest proponent of free black emigration to Mexico encouraged them to settle far away from the border; Mexicans in the north were not to be trusted. Moreover, the illegal status of the refugees meant that they were denied the most basic rights and often abused. (Rosalie Schwartz is the best source; I'd also look at Sarah Cornell if you're interested.)​
​
There is a huge amount of fallow land at this time and no organized peasantry -- that's why there were labor shortages with migrants from the south brought up on indentures. So land grabs are not a problem. Moreover, the locals will control the state governments; the techniques that Anglos used in South Texas won't be applicable. Land grabs by slaveowning Anglos aren't the issue, although there will be some anger from smallholders. This could get particularly nasty in Chihuahua; thus our earlier speculation that Chihuahua would have strong Union sympathies. (Not unlike New Mexico.)

​

Bilingual seems more likely--a la Puerto Rico, no? Protestantism could certainly spread there due to American Protestant missionary efforts, though. In regards to living standards, Yeah, I'd assume that they would have living standards comparable to US Hispanics or at least to Puerto Ricans right now. So, at the very least, lower-upper income country living standards. In regards to its population, Yes, it might be a bit smaller due to a faster demographic transition, though a lot might depend on just how many white Americans will subsequently settle in Mexico as well as on just how many Mexicans will subsequently move to greener pastures up north. For instance, in the African-American Great Migration between 1910 and 1970, more than one-third of the US's black population left the Southern US in search of greener pastures in the Northern and Western US. In 1910, 89% of all US blacks lived in the Southern US, but this figure was down to just 53% by 1970:

Unlike Puerto Rico, Mexico would likely see large scale immigration of English speakers, in a way Puerto Rico never did. Given the lack of an established schooling system for much of Mexico, once one is set up, such would aid in the adoption of English. Of note in this regard and relating to the spread of Protestantism is that the Second Great Awakening is a thing at this time; expect lots of American missionaries bringing not just Baptist, Methodist, etc creeds, but also the Language via Church Schools and the like.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi history learner,

Why would Mexico see large scale US immigration? Much of it was already densely populated by contemporary US standards. Land was not as readily available as in the US West.

Even today, schooling in the USA doesn't have to be in English. Why would it be in the new ex-Mexican states?

Protestantism tends to expand through conversion, whereas Catholicism relies heavily on population growth. Protestant evangelists would endlessly be playing catch-up with fecund Mexican Catholics. It's not as if they have had overwhelming success with Chicanos.

Cheers,

A sceptical Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Futurist,

Puerto Rican bilingualism is not what it seems. 50% of the population can speak English, but 95% speak Spanish as their first language.

The PISA tables don't look too good for the USA compared with other English-speaking countries and are disastrous compared with East Asian countries. Residence in the U.S. may improve the prospects of Hispanics, but it might retard East Asians.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. Is there a separate PISA rating for German-Americans with only a passing acquaintance with the truth, science and hard facts?

[Futurist]

Hi history learner,

Why would Mexico see large scale US immigration? Much of it was already densely populated by contemporary US standards. Land was not as readily available as in the US West.

Even today, schooling in the USA doesn't have to be in English. Why would it be in the new ex-Mexican states?

Protestantism tends to expand through conversion, whereas Catholicism relies heavily on population growth. Protestant evangelists would endlessly be playing catch-up with fecund Mexican Catholics. It's not as if they have had overwhelming success with Chicanos.

Cheers,

A sceptical Sid.

Northern Mexico was much less populous than southern Mexico was, so it would be more ripe for large-scale American settlement:

https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atla ... n_1900.jpg

[Futurist]

Hi Futurist,

Puerto Rican bilingualism is not what it seems. 50% of the population can speak English, but 95% speak Spanish as their first language.

Not perfect but still fairly bilingual.

The PISA tables don't look too good for the USA compared with other English-speaking countries and are disastrous compared with East Asian countries. Residence in the U.S. may improve the prospects of Hispanics, but it might retard East Asians.

Cheers,

Sid.

Please keep in mind that the US has significantly different racial and ethnic demographics (specifically much more blacks and Hispanics) than the other Anglosphere countries as well as East Asia have, though. That, and the fact that countries such as Canada and Australia have a cognitively elitist immigration policy to a much greater extent than the US has.

Steve Sailer is very much correct that the US performs excellent when its results are broken down by race; its just that its racial demographics relative to other countries make it look like it's underperforming.

As for East Asians, please keep in mind that Beijing and Shanghai are not all of China and that these regions might instead be China's cognitive hub. So, I wouldn't be surprised if China is a whole performed worse than Asian-Americans did on PISA if all of China actually took the PISA exam. Interestingly enough, on the SAT exam, the US has a lot of extremely high-performing Asians but also a sizable amount of Asians that perform less well:

https://i1.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp- ... 99px&ssl=1



Of course, US Asians are a very heterogeneous group--including Burmese, Cambodians, Nepalese, South Asians, East Asians, Southeast Asians, et cetera--so yeah.

P.S. Is there a separate PISA rating for German-Americans with only a passing acquaintance with the truth, science and hard facts?

Nope, unfortunately there isn't. Why?

[Futurist]

Do you have a source for this? I'm curious.

To quote Noel Maurer, an economist for GWU and a former employee of the U.S. Federal Government stationed in Mexico:

We have an example of a populated area switching to American rule. New Mexico had a population about as large as Coahuila's and a little more than half of Nuevo León or Chiahuahua. It provides a perfectly valid template for how those territories would have developed under American rule; with one wrinkle that I'll get to later.​
​
We also know what American troops experienced during the occupation. Mexican politicians in the D.F. were horrified at the level of indifference, shading over in many cases -- not least Nuevo León -- outright collaboration.​​

The wrinkle, which would make Coahuila and Nuevo León different from New Mexico, is that the elites in the northeastern states actively desired American annexation and the extension of slavery. We know this because they asked for it! Santiago Vidaurri wrote a letter to Richmond in 1861 volunteering Coahuila and Nuevo León to the Confederate cause. (Vidaurri annexed Coahuila to N.L. and installed himself as the governor of Tamaulipas.)​
​
These sympathies predated the Civil War. In fact, Vidaurri had been perfectly happy in 1855 to return escaped slaves to Texas. The agreement failed because the Texans wanted to send in their own people to recapture the escapees, not principled opposition; ironically, he made a whole bunch of antislavery proclamations in 1857, only to reverse them and start sending slaves home in 1858. It is hard to believe that Vidaurri or the elites that supported him would have opposed slavery, given their opportunism and their incessant complaints about labor shortages.​
​
More poignantly, Martin Robinson Delany, the biggest proponent of free black emigration to Mexico encouraged them to settle far away from the border; Mexicans in the north were not to be trusted. Moreover, the illegal status of the refugees meant that they were denied the most basic rights and often abused. (Rosalie Schwartz is the best source; I'd also look at Sarah Cornell if you're interested.)​
​
There is a huge amount of fallow land at this time and no organized peasantry -- that's why there were labor shortages with migrants from the south brought up on indentures. So land grabs are not a problem. Moreover, the locals will control the state governments; the techniques that Anglos used in South Texas won't be applicable. Land grabs by slaveowning Anglos aren't the issue, although there will be some anger from smallholders. This could get particularly nasty in Chihuahua; thus our earlier speculation that Chihuahua would have strong Union sympathies. (Not unlike New Mexico.)

​

Bilingual seems more likely--a la Puerto Rico, no? Protestantism could certainly spread there due to American Protestant missionary efforts, though. In regards to living standards, Yeah, I'd assume that they would have living standards comparable to US Hispanics or at least to Puerto Ricans right now. So, at the very least, lower-upper income country living standards. In regards to its population, Yes, it might be a bit smaller due to a faster demographic transition, though a lot might depend on just how many white Americans will subsequently settle in Mexico as well as on just how many Mexicans will subsequently move to greener pastures up north. For instance, in the African-American Great Migration between 1910 and 1970, more than one-third of the US's black population left the Southern US in search of greener pastures in the Northern and Western US. In 1910, 89% of all US blacks lived in the Southern US, but this figure was down to just 53% by 1970:

Unlike Puerto Rico, Mexico would likely see large scale immigration of English speakers, in a way Puerto Rico never did. Given the lack of an established schooling system for much of Mexico, once one is set up, such would aid in the adoption of English. Of note in this regard and relating to the spread of Protestantism is that the Second Great Awakening is a thing at this time; expect lots of American missionaries bringing not just Baptist, Methodist, etc creeds, but also the Language via Church Schools and the like.

Very interesting; thank you!

By the way, as I told just Sid, northern Mexico was much more receptive to mass Anglophone migration due to the fact that it was much more sparsely populated than southern Mexico was.

As for Puerto Rico, did it already have an established schooling system back in 1898?

[henryk]

English isn't even the official national latnguage of the USA (or, for that matter of any other English-speaking country).

That said, if English had a large domestic competitor like Mexican Spanish, it mght provoke the USA to make it the official language. Alternatively it might adopt the Canadian model on French within Quebec.

What is more critical is French outside Quebec.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/act ... age-1.html

Official Languages Act
R.S.C., 1985, c. 31 (4th Supp.)
An Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada
[1988, c. 38, assented to 28th July, 1988]
Preamble
WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada provides that English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada;
AND WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada provides for full and equal access to Parliament, to the laws of Canada and to courts established by Parliament in both official languages;
AND WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada also provides for guarantees relating to the right of any member of the public to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in either official language;
AND WHEREAS officers and employees of institutions of the Parliament or government of Canada should have equal opportunities to use the official language of their choice while working together in pursuing the goals of those institutions;
AND WHEREAS English-speaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians should, without regard to their ethnic origin or first language learned, have equal opportunities to obtain employment in the institutions of the Parliament or government of Canada;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada is committed to achieving, with due regard to the principle of selection of personnel according to merit, full participation of English-speaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians in its institutions;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality and supporting the development of English and French linguistic minority communities, as an integral part of the two official language communities of Canada, and to fostering full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada is committed to cooperating with provincial governments and their institutions to support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities, to provide services in both English and French, to respect the constitutional guarantees of minority language educational rights and to enhance opportunities for all to learn both English and French;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the bilingual character of the National Capital Region and to encouraging the business community, labour organizations and voluntary organizations in Canada to foster the recognition and use of English and French;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of preserving and enhancing the use of languages other than English and French while strengthening the status and use of the official languages;
NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/a ... h-language

Language Rights of Francophone Minorities Outside Québec
Outside Québec, starting in the 1960s, several jurisdictions in the nine provinces and two territories of English-speaking Canada took steps to recognize certain language rights for their francophone minorities, including the right to education in French, which many of them had previously abolished (see Ontario Schools Question; Manitoba Schools Question; North-West Schools Question; New Brunswick School Question). This right was subsequently guaranteed by the new Canadian Constitution adopted in 1982 (see Constitution Act, 1982) and implemented in all of the provinces and territories of English-speaking Canada.
New Brunswick was the province that took recognition of francophones’ language rights the furthest: the province passed one law in 1969 making French one of its two official languages and another in 1981 recognizing the equality of the province’s francophone and anglophone communities. In this officially bilingual province, francophone institutions enjoy a high degree of autonomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_La ... rvices_Act.

The French Language Services Act (French: Loi sur les services en français) (the Act) is a law in the province of Ontario, Canada which is intended to protect the rights of Franco-Ontarians, or French-speaking people, in the province.
The Act does not give the French language full official language status in the province, which has no official language defined in law but is primarily an English-speaking province in practice. The Act, however, ensures that provincial government services are offered in French in 26 designated areas across the province with significant numbers of Franco-Ontarian residents.
......................................
Preamble
"Whereas the French language is a historic and honoured language in Ontario and recognized by the Constitution as an official language in Canada; and whereas in Ontario the French language is recognized as an official language in the courts and in education; and whereas the Legislative Assembly recognizes the contribution of the cultural heritage of the French speaking population and wishes to preserve it for future generations; and whereas it is desirable to guarantee the use of the French language in institutions of the Legislature and the Government of Ontario, as provided in this Act."

[Futurist]

So, Francophone Quebeckers really are spoiled!

Anyway, I and History Learner were previously discussing via PM some alternative possible times for the US to outright annex all of Mexico, such as the 1990s. History Learner asked me to carry over this conversation to a public place, so I am re-posting here what I told History Learner in my last PM about this topic:

While I think that a US annexation of Mexico in the 1990s would be more likely than in the 1840s (not that that's saying much), I still think that the odds would be against this even in the 1990s. Why? Because in addition to the ethnic/racial demographics issue, there are two more potential problems that I could see with an outright US annexation of all of Mexico in the 1990s (though I do agree that this was probably the likeliest time for this to occur even if the odds were still against it back then):

1. Fear of immigrant competition over jobs. Specifically, the US working-class could be concerned that outright annexing all of Mexico and allowing Mexicans to move to the US (by US, I mean the US's borders pre-Mexican annexation in the 1990s) en masse would result in increased competition for jobs (especially lower-class jobs and working-class jobs) in the US. Mexicans would, of course, also be capable of creating businesses and jobs of their own in the US, but it is worth noting that ultimately what matters here is perception rather than reality.

One could argue that Mexicans won't be able to effectively do working-class jobs that require good English-language skills, but this will change with their children--who are likely to learn English much better due to them acquiring a US education. So, even if the first generation of Mexicans won't be able to fully compete with the US working-class for jobs, the next generations of Mexicans with better English-language skills could.

2. The need to heavily subsidize Mexico for decades. Mexico is much poorer than the US is and thus there would likely be a perceived need to heavily subsidize it for decades in order to significantly improve its living standards and to raise them up to US levels--at least as much as possible. Now, the people of West Germany were willing to do this when they agreed to reunify with much poorer East Germany in 1990 (and they were also willing to deal with the risk of massive job competition from former East Germans who subsequently moved to the former West Germany), but nevertheless the likely reason that Germans were actually willing to do this was due to the feeling that West Germans and East Germans are one people--ein volk, if you will. I really don't see such a feeling developing between US whites and Mexicans--especially not within such a short time-frame. So, Yeah, given that there is a reputation of the American taxpayer as being rather stingy with their money (which is why the US has a less generous social safety net than various Western European countries have), I'm skeptical that American taxpayers--especially those of a more fiscally conservative inclination--are actually going to be particularly inclined to support heavily subsidizing Mexico for decades. This would be especially true if the cost of these subsidies would be additional cuts to valued social programs such as Medicare and Social Security (which, despite their fiscal conservatism, American taxpayers appear to love). If the choice is between less cuts to Medicare and Social Security and outright annexing all of Mexico (and, of course, dealing with things such as its massive crime, homicide, and drug cartel problems) while also having more cuts to Medicare and Social Security, I would think that A LOT OF Americans would strongly prefer the first option over the second option. I'm completely serious about this--though I will admit that this is merely an educated hunch on my own part here.

What do you think, History Learner?

[Sid Guttridge]

I must be missing something here.

Why is a US takeover of Mexico in the 1990s in any way "realistic" in terms of the thread title?

Did either side want it? Was it raised anywhere at the time?

What-ifs are pointless if they are not based on some solid foundation. What is the solid foundation here?

A confused Sid.

P.S. By the way, it was me who first pointed out that Mexico's population got denser the further south one went. The US took all the easiest demographic pickings in the 1840s.

From memory, the last active proposal discussed in Congress about taking over more of Mexico was in 1939 or 1940, when making a bid for Baja California was suggested.

[Futurist]

I must be missing something here.

Why is a US takeover of Mexico in the 1990s in any way "realistic" in terms of the thread title?

Did either side want it? Was it raised anywhere at the time?

What-ifs are pointless if they are not based on some solid foundation. What is the solid foundation here?

A confused Sid.

History Learner previously showed me a poll that stated that a majority of Mexicans in the early 1990s supported annexation by the US in exchange for improved living standards. Of course, as I wrote above, the real challenge would actually be getting the US to agree to this--and I provided a couple of reasons as to why even the 1990s US might not exactly be eager to support such an annexation.

P.S. By the way, it was me who first pointed out that Mexico's population got denser the further south one went. The US took all the easiest demographic pickings in the 1840s.

Well, the US could have gone a bit further south in the 1840s without getting too many additional Mexicans.

From memory, the last active proposal discussed in Congress about taking over more of Mexico was in 1939 or 1940, when making a bid for Baja California was suggested.

In the US Congress? Yes, very possibly. I'm just pointing out that some or even many Mexicans appear to have been open to this idea long after 1940.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Futurist,

I was at university in Puebla over 1986-87.

All I can say is that not once did the subject even come up for discussion.

Many Mexicans wanted to work in the USA - I spent an entire day lining up in the grounds of the US Embassy in Mexico City with many thousands of Mexicans seeking entry visas while I got a new US visa myself.

However, as I say, nobody at any point in the entire year ever touted the possibility of annexation by the USA.

Unless something drastic changed in the following three or four years, I would suggest that this is an entirely spurious proposition.

Cheers,

Sid

[Futurist]

Hi Futurist,

I was at university in Puebla over 1986-87.

All I can say is that not once did the subject even come up for discussion.

Many Mexicans wanted to work in the USA - I spent an entire day lining up in the grounds of the US Embassy in Mexico City with many thousands of Mexicans seeking entry visas while I got a new US visa myself.

However, as I say, nobody at any point in the entire year ever touted the possibility of annexation by the USA.

Unless something drastic changed in the following three or four years, I would suggest that this is an entirely spurious proposition.

Cheers,

Sid

Maybe Mexicans didn't talk about it much if at all because they viewed this idea as completely unrealistic and indeed viewed the idea of immigrating to the US (whether legally or illegally) as much more realistic?