"Mexico: A History"

I have been reading Robert Ryal Miller's Mexico: A History. It is another good book, covering the history from pre-Columbian times to the mid 1980's when the first edition was published, with a brief postscript for the 1996 printing. As one might guess from the fact that the book has been in print for 25 years, it is accessible, providing a good synoptic view of Mexican history.

The Big Question

For a Yank, the book raises the big question of why is the history of Mexico so different than that of the United States. In some ways the two are similar, and indeed a good part of what was once Spanish colonial New Spain is now the United States. Both regions were colonized by Europeans, leading to massive population decreases in their indigenous populations. Both fought revolutionary wars, one just before and one just after 1800. Yet Mexico is much poorer than the United States, plagued by a number of social as well as economic problems that are worse than those of the United States.

If one looked at what is now the north-eastern United States and what is now Central Mexico at the time of the Columbian voyages, I think one would have concluded that Mexico would turn out to be the rich nation and the area colonized in what became the Union states during the Civil War would turn out to be the poor nation. Mexico had not only rich lands, with a good climate in the highlands, but mineral wealth and a large population with a highly developed civilization.

When Mexico sought to find colonists for Texas in the early 19th century, immigrants came largely from the Anglo east rather than the Hispanic south. Then Texas sought independence from Mexico and eventually was accepted into the United States.  Why should the two colonies have developed such that that would happen?

Larry Harrison has pointed out that culture matters (Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress). The Dutch and English colonists of the northern colonies came expecting to work farms and develop industry, the Spanish colonists of New Spain came to extract wealth from the indigenous population. The United States developed around institutions patterned after those of England while Mexico was built around Spanish institutional models. The United States, especially the North and the frontier was based on individual liberty, while Mexico was based on peonage.

Is it that simple? Indeed, is that explanation simple?

Perhaps another explanation is the desperation that the surviving indigenous population of Mexico must have felt after that population had been reduced by 96 percent during the early colonial period, especially since the mestizo and indigenous peoples form the vast majority of today's Mexican population. So too the loss of wars with the United States and with France in the 19th century. The Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920 was in many ways even more damaging than the Civil War in the United States, where at least there were clearly defined sides. The history of peonage in Mexico, with its attendant poverty, powerlessness and ignorance surely have left indelible traces on the modern population, as the history of slavery and segregation in the United States has left indelible traces on our African-American population.

Mexico has developed a far more state directed industrial economy than has the United States. Its politics have been marked by more extreme positions both on the right and on the left than have been those of the United States. Mexican agriculture has remained relatively unproductive, as compared with the scientific and highly mechanized agriculture of the United States. One supposes that these are both causes and symptoms of the disparity in development of the two nations.

A Comment on World War II

I am not sure that we Yanks fully appreciate the role Mexico played in the American war effort during the war. Mexico, after Pearl Harbor, declared war on the Axis powers. It led the effort to get other Latin American states to join with the Allies. Mexico sent troops and material to fight with the Americans in the Philippines. It sent large numbers of workers to the United States to help staff the war time industries. It massively increased its own production of raw materials, and eliminated tariffs so that they could be sent to the United States to feed wartime production. Indeed, the massive immigration to the United States from Mexico might be seen to date from Mexican help for the U.S. war effort.

Student Unrest in the 1960s and 1970s

Mexican troops opened fire on a student demonstration in the Plaza of the Three Cultures in Mexico City in 1968, killing many. The event was somewhat similar to the Kent State shootings in 1970, but with many more students killed and wounded in the Mexican event. I was reminded of my own experiences at the time.

• While I was a graduate student at the University of California, Irvine (between the two shooting events), the building in which my Department was located was set on fire. However, the fire occurred at night and no one was injured; it was a very restrained protest assuming it was a protest. 
• I worked at the Universidad Santa Maria in Chile from 1965 to 1967, and the university was closed for many months during that period. As I recall, one of the police guarding the university was injured by a rock during the strike-lockout. The protest was large in scale but largely peaceful.
• I worked in a project with offices located in the Universidad del Valle in Colombia from 1968 to 1970. The university was closed for many months during that time. At the beginning of the closure, students and the army clashed on campus, and 13 students were killed, one just outside my office window. The Columbian army brought in thousands of troops and tens of thousands of people were arrested, many being held in the city's stadium. This was an extremely violent event.

I suspect a part of the difference was due to the differences in culture of the three countries. The Colombian strike occurred after La Violencia, an internal conflict that tore the country apart for a decade or more. The Chilean strike occurred before the Pinochet coup that overthrew the Allende government, in a country that had had a long history of peaceful settlement of problems. So too the Californian events took place in the context of the University of California system with a culture of non-violent student movements and California law and order.

Final Comment

It seems to me that all Americans should be familiar with the history of Mexico, not just because it shares a long, permeable border with the United States, but also because Mexican history sheds light on U.S. history. It also helps to think about U.S. problems of illegal immigration and drug trafficking. This book is the best I could find to provide a brief introduction to Mexican history.