No. Modern Mexico was founded by Conquistadors who came to Mexico to seize gold and return to Spain. The U.S. was founded by colonists who came to build a new world. One could argue that this accounts for the tendency toward short-term goals in Mexico vs the tendency toward long-term goals in the U.S. As someone who lives in both countries these tendencies seem obvious.
> Modern Mexico was founded by Conquistadors who came to Mexico to seize gold and return to Spain.
No, it wasn't. What the Conquistadors (or, rather, Spanish colonial administrators after the Conquest) founded wasn't “modern Mexico”, and the Viceroyalty of New Spain was very much a settler/colonialist state—including the domains of conquistadors like Cortés, who became Marquis of the Valley of Oaxaca; in fact an early and important part of the early formation of New Spain was the Viceroys refusal to implement crown-issued laws limiting the extent and permanence of the fiefdoms that had been granted to the conquistadors.
> The U.S. was founded by colonists who came to build a new world.
The British North American colonies (not US, which was founded much later, by people with somewhat different interest who were already the local landed elites) were founded by colonists who wanted to populate an empty wilderness (which it wasn't), and displaced the local population to do it.
The Spanish North American colonies were established by conquistadors (literally, conquerors) who, rather than displacing the local population—or looting and leaving, as you suggest—came to conquer and rule, and did exactly that.
> One could argue that this accounts for the tendency toward short-term goals in Mexico vs the tendency toward long-term goals in the U.S.
One could, if one ignored the fact that the foundational narrative you spun is false. To the extent such a difference exists, its probably because of Mexico’s less developed and less stable status, which rewards long term planning less than a more stable, more developed environment.
cc101|4 years ago
dragonwriter|4 years ago
No, it wasn't. What the Conquistadors (or, rather, Spanish colonial administrators after the Conquest) founded wasn't “modern Mexico”, and the Viceroyalty of New Spain was very much a settler/colonialist state—including the domains of conquistadors like Cortés, who became Marquis of the Valley of Oaxaca; in fact an early and important part of the early formation of New Spain was the Viceroys refusal to implement crown-issued laws limiting the extent and permanence of the fiefdoms that had been granted to the conquistadors.
> The U.S. was founded by colonists who came to build a new world.
The British North American colonies (not US, which was founded much later, by people with somewhat different interest who were already the local landed elites) were founded by colonists who wanted to populate an empty wilderness (which it wasn't), and displaced the local population to do it.
The Spanish North American colonies were established by conquistadors (literally, conquerors) who, rather than displacing the local population—or looting and leaving, as you suggest—came to conquer and rule, and did exactly that.
> One could argue that this accounts for the tendency toward short-term goals in Mexico vs the tendency toward long-term goals in the U.S.
One could, if one ignored the fact that the foundational narrative you spun is false. To the extent such a difference exists, its probably because of Mexico’s less developed and less stable status, which rewards long term planning less than a more stable, more developed environment.