The New Country

Catholicgauze, gnxp, and Voxeu all link to a map of Old and New countries… that is, regions where most of the ancestors of today’s populations lived in the same region 500 years ago, and those that did not. Predictably, Europe, Asia, and Africa are all old countries, while United States, Canada, much of South America, and Australia are new countries.

But look at Mexico. Mexico the largest ‘old country’ in the new world, and exception to her neighbors


The United States is three times larger than Mexico and has a faster population growth rate. The integration of Mexico into North America is a generational effort in the spread of globalization, and the building of a stable North America. America will enjoy more political, educational, and social safety and stability — and more control over her own destiny — when the effective borders of the culture, education, and polity of the United States are sensible.

Whether the 30-some Mexican States are added to the Untied States ultimately matters less than whether it is as easy to move between the US and Mexico, find work, and do business as it is between Germany and France, or Colorado and Wyoming. The legal, cultural, and educational apartheid between the United States and Mexico is perhaps the greatest long-term threat to the United States in the western hemisphere. It must be done away with. Our absorption of Mexico must continue.

6 thoughts on “The New Country”

  1. dan-If you want to be pro-North American Union, fine. That’s a legitimate, but disagreeable position

    But to equate the US and Mexico having legal, cultural, and educational sovereignty with apartheid is a very, very poor choice of words.

    Heck…it’s not only inflammatory…it just doesn’t make sense!

  2. Smitten Eagle,

    Thanks for your comment.

    By Apartheid I mean seprate development — the idea originated it was started by Reformed missionaries who wanted to spread the Gospel and preserve natives cultures, and then evolved into a series of different sovereigns for different populations in South Africa.

    Apartheid might be considered to be a stronger of multiculturalism, because it involves parallel government institutions existing under different sovereigns. This was the system between South Africa and the bantustans that could not exist without her — this is also the system between the United States and the Mexican States that could not exist without them.

    Obviously, the current system of separate development between the United Mexico States and the United States of America is not racial, but it has the other benefits and drawbacks.

    There are cases where a system of apartheid is sensible. Indeed, judging by the record of the African National Congress, supporters of racial apartheid in South Africa are not without arguments.

    The arguments most often used for continual separate development of the USA and the UMS are the protection of our culture and the economic viability of our unskilled workers. My reply to these are that our culture is capable of absorbing Mexican culture, and that it makes no sense for us to encourage unskilled workers continuing to be unskilled.

  3. Dan,
    If any apparteid exists it is in the Empire of Mexico, where the Spaniards replaced themselves at the head of the old Aztec empire and then expanded its boundaries. Over the last 500 years Europeans/Meztisos have ruled over the Indian population of Mexico with all wealth and power flowing inward toward the center (with some scraps for the port towns, Monterrey and Vera Cruz). Indians come to the US to get wealthy (the richest Mexican, by contrast, is a Levantine).

    The only development in Indian areas in Mexico has come from 1) Proximity to America, like the border region and 2) Remissions from Indians in America (many spent money building roads and businesses back in their pueblos with what they had earned in the states).

    The biggest non-immigration boost to Mexico was NAFTA which made development in Northern Mexico a viable move fore many US based companies and this has changed Mexico. For the first time in its history there is a power base located outside of the center. Now, the growth of the narcotraficantes, themselves products of the hinterlands is further destabilizing the Mexican Empire.

    Would an extension of US sovereignty over the northern areas create more wealth for those Indian inhabitants? Perhaps, but they may not want that either way. A porous border allows them to vote with their feet.

    Also, I can’t agree with your statement regarding South Africa. The ANC is evidence that popular democracy is susceptible to demagogues and it’s current break-up is an example of why large coalition parties make poor governments.

  4. ElamBend,

    Tank you for your comment.

    The Spanish certainly weren’t into separate development wrt mating — hence hte large mulatto population.

    Likewise, there is a substantial ‘white’ of Mexico (including a fair amount of descendents of immigrations during the 20th century) that live very comfortable lives.

    That Mexicans in America are not representative of Mexicans as a whole shouldn’t be surprising, but is. Chinese-Americans are overwhelmingly Cantonese [1], and I recall that most Mexican-Americans have traditionally been from a handle of states.

    The development of income and regional inequality helps democratization-by-markets, by preventing the state from becoming too central. We should welcome these changes in Mexico.

    Naturally, a closer union would lead to capital flowing south and labor flowing north.

    Also, I can’t agree with your statement regarding South Africa. The ANC is evidence that popular democracy is susceptible to demagogues and it’s current break-up is an example of why large coalition parties make poor governments.

    Especially in Africa, when the alternative is rule by a fully westernized population. Hence the general tragedy of decolonization. [2]


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *