I’m glad see things the same way.

The question of the future may be between the options of self-rule and guided developmental by countries like India or China. It will be interesting to see how those play out…

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/10/30/bush-with-china-congress-against-china.html#comment-197658

Put in those terms, I can agree.

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]

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/12/06/genetic-map-of-east-asia.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/04/16/the-genocide-in-darfur-is-the-fault-of-those-who-oppose-colonialism.html

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.

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.

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!