Why was Mexico's revolution less successful than the American one?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Kind of cherry picking there, aren’t we?

How exactly? I’m comparing the major British colonies in America with that of Spain’s.

@appleciders

Well, that and long-term engagement in Enlightenment philosophy and theory of government. The large middle class in America gave rise to lots of idealistic armchair philosophers, and some of those turned out to be damned good at it, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John and Sam Adams, and Ben Franklin. To say that representative government produced these sorts of men as a matter of course is a bit of a misstatement. America had some of the most important thinkers of the age framing the Constitution and serving in the early government. To dismiss the influence of Enlightenment philosophers like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and Montesquieu is silly.

Of course the Enlightenment thinkers influeneced them, it should be noted though many of those thinkers admired the English system of governance.

@CBEscapee

I have been to India and its neighbors. My country, México, is far better off.

Largely due to its Hindu culture, which British administration failed to fully reform. In areas where British culture has been far more strongly adopted the differences are obvioous. In addition Mexico has the benefit of being right next to the US.

@CBEscapee

Have you ever been to either country? And while we are making comparisons and you mentioned India’s neighbors, México is far better off than Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Sr Lanka which were ruled by the British. In fact most Latin American countries all rank higher on the scale you linked to.

To me it appears that the former British colonies that are the most advanced are the ones in which they basically eliminated or greatly reduced or marginalized the indigenous population.

No look at Singapore and Malaysia.

@Capitaine_Zombie

Pure BS, Napoleon, for all his wrongs, cooled of the Revolution. None of the French revolutionaries started out with intents of massacre. But France faced far greater opposition in its Revolution than the US ever did (and it didnt have a powerful state backing it, nor did it receive any tangible support from the nation whose revolution it had just helped). As a result, the level of violence was constantly upped. That’s how angels end knees deep in blood.

Heard of Robespierre or the Reign of Terror. And the other powers waged war only because France tried to export revolution,

And yet, the supposed point of origin of the American Revolution is “lack of representation”. Chose your myth, you cant have both.

There were something called legislatures in each colony in addition to town meetings/ :rolleyes:

Yeah, I’m sure the legion of British colonial failures in Africa is a testament to that.

Legion of failures? British colonies are overall the most successful African countries-especially Botswana, Zimbabwe (until Mugabe), and South Africa (if Zuma doesn’t run it into the shiiter).