There's a shocking similarity in how both our countries have their capitals grow like an obese tumor leaving the rest of the country to neglect and communist militias, with them rising up several times throughout the 19th century, some surviving to this day or ending up stolen by other countries There must've been something about spanish rule that caused this
>>18544985>There must've been something about spanish rule that caused thisKinda. Unlike in the US, Spain imported the feudal system over wholesale from Europe which meant you had a ruling class of land-based nobility that valued being the unquestioned gods of their own private little fiefs, contrast to the US which did not import the feudal system and had a much more cosmopolitan and urbanized ruling class focused more around mercantilism (especially in the north). This was further exasperated by how Spain prohibited it's colonies from trading or interacting with each other, which strangled any unifying identity from forming among the ruling classes in its crib, which feeds back into point 1 about the Spanish-American elite each wanting to stay their own little petty monarch. Again contrast to the US, where the 13 colonies were all economically interdependent with each other and had a single unified ruling class that had a nascent singular identity as "Americans". How does this relate to your post? Well essentially the reason the Federal Governments of those countries focus solely on the capital is because that's all they really control. As stated above, the countries as a whole are and always have been divided up into these little fiefdoms whose rulers have no interest in taking part in any sort of greater national project. And in fact traditionally view any government operating out of Mexico City/Buenos Aires trying to build things like infrastructure in their fiefs as infringing upon their power. Thus the capital city where the government actually has a physical presence and there are no local aristocrats to say no, gets the infrastructure. This then creates a feedback loop, since the capital is the only place that has anything, everyone moves there, which means it now gets even more focus by the national government to serve the expanding population, which makes the disparity between it and the rest of the country even starker, so even more people move in
>>18544985I think it's really funny how they virulently hate eachother despite being mirror versions of one another in many respects.
This isn't exactly new. Paris has been the only significant city in France for centuries, but France did fine.
>>18544985>There must've been something about spanish rule that caused thisHAS PENSADO —SI ES QUE PIENSAS— QUE LOS CULPABLES SON, YA SABES, QUIENES GOBIERNAN —APÁTRIDAS ILUMINÍSTICOS—, Y NO LOS MONARCAS DE HACE MÁS DE DOS CENTURIAS?NO?
>>18544997I think the difference (see >>18544992 ) is that the government in Paris still controls the rest of France. There is no question of their monopoly of power. A fact which means they can and do implement policies that affect the whole nation rather than just the capital. Mexico City on the other hand doesn't really control the rest of Mexico like that. Sure they're not like the Congo or Somalia where they have zero influence, but Local elites have so much power that the federal government cannot truly act unilaterally outside of the capital.
>>18544992>Unlike in the US, Spain imported the feudal system over wholesale from EuropeIt didn't. Where are you ppl getting this from?
>>18544994>mirror versions of one another in many respects.1. they don't hate each other 2. you can say that about a lot of countries and it doesn't make them friends
>>18545005Those monarchs did not love you, Poodro. You were a subhuman in their eyes who was rightfully meant for serfdom or extermination.
>>18545026I think you oversell the ragmentation too much, the central government of these places mantains hegemony over them most of the time. This distinguishes their system's from France, where the central government totally dominates its territory. Here the center imposes itself over the regional elites as a hegemon. Also give Argentina some love. They also work like this, but their distance from anything important allows them to camouflage.>>18545033They do. Maybe not in the way Serbia and Croatia hate eachother, but they do dislike eachother. >2. you can say that about a lot of countries and it doesn't make them friendsI literally just said they hate eachother. >>18545030It's a misunderstanding, because explaining the Spanish colonial process is complicated, takes too long, and in 4chan no one is going to read it even i you know and can be arsed to do so.
>>18544985I wonder why it is that some countries suffer from so-called “single-city syndrome” where a disproportionate amount of the economic activity, if not a majority, is centered around one city? It obviously also applies to population density. I wonder if studies have been done? Obviously in the case of Mexico it’s probably the history of centralism versus federalism, and even when the federal system was adopted the country was in a state of disarray. I look at Mexico and I see a country that could be far more evenly distributed, but I know the history there. What about Argentina? Many parts of Argentina strike me as not only beautiful, but live able and viable for large-scale economic development and population growth. Like, why aren’t there way more people on the coast and up the Parana and Uruguay Rivers? It makes little sense to me that Patagonia is empty
>>18545030It very much did. Rather than basically signing some colonial charters and letting various settlers/adventurers/entrepreneurs/ne'er-do-wells do what they may and then sucking up the surplus like England did with the 13 colonies, Spain exercised a rigid control over it's colonies where it tried to restrict immigration to higher social classes and set up a caste system just like back home, where Spaniards were explicitly given rights to little fiefdoms and sovereignty over the areas population local inhabitants in the same way they had it over the peasants and serfs back in Europe complete with systems of labor obligation through things like encomienda. Spain ran its mainland New World holdings as if they were simply traditional "conquests" rather than as "colonies" like the British did, which basically meant "dividing the spoils" and handing out territory and privileges as rewards for service just like conquest had worked for the last 4000 years. And this is a huge part of why the Spanish Empire was unable to actually utilize or gain anything from its gargantuan new holdings besides looting some gold and silver. Whereas England's method allowed them to use the Americas (and later other colonial holdings) as a giant resource bank to fuel growth back home. Thus for all its supposed new wealth and power Spain stagnated while England invented industrialization.
>>18545069What you're describing isn't a feudal system.
>>18545061>I think you oversell the ragmentation too much, the central government of these places mantains hegemony over them most of the time. This distinguishes their system's from France, where the central government totally dominates its territory. Here the center imposes itself over the regional elites as a hegemon.Yes but the question is the "why". Federal governments in Mexico exist with that weaker central authority precisely because it was a compromise. When the nation was being founded the local elites would not have acquiesced to a constitution/form that made the central government too powerful over them. The US historically also suffered from this problem to a lesser extent, where the central government was created weak on purpose because powerful local factions did not want to cede power, and the centralizers (in this case the Federalists) were not powerful enough to force their will upon them. It took the Central Government in DC decisively winning a huge Civil War to make the American Federal government truly absolute in its power in the same way states like France are. And vestigial remnants of the original compromise like the Senate and Electoral College continue to cause problems for America to this day.
>>18545061>It's a misunderstanding, because explaining the Spanish colonial process is complicatedYes I know, I've done it. Which is why I'd at least like a hint of nuance and the suggestion it doesn't match up 1:1 rather than:>Spain imported the feudal system over wholesale from EuropeBecause it fucking didn't. It made this new bastard thing.
>>18545065>I wonder if studies have been done?Probably.>What about Argentina?After the 1830s, Buenos Aires was the nation's only seaport, a status it used to monopolize control over foreign relations and subsequently government as a whole. It's why AMBA (metropolitan BA) contains a third of the Argentine population while Mexico has other large cities (Monterrey, Guadalajara).>Like, why aren’t there way more people on the coast and up the Parana and Uruguay Rivers? The coast is very cold and filled with Araucanians who liked to skin people alive, the litoral was full of Malaria. And economically the land wasn't enticing either. Everything is in the capital = no reason to settle outside.>It makes little sense to me that Patagonia is emptyA few land-owning families from the Capital divided all the land among themselves instead of opening them up for settlement after killing/enslaving all the injuns.
>>18545084Monterrey wishes it was a large city
>>18545076>A system where the monarch grants people rights to land and the population working on it in exchange for fealty>Not feudalism
>>18545088>A system where the senate grants citizens deeds to land and the population renting it in exchange for loyaltyI guess we're feudal now.
>>18545100Sure if you change the definitions of the words "Senate", "Grants", "Citizens", "Deeds" and "Renting" then sure yeah they're the same.
>>18545107Spanish colonies weren't feudal
>>18545077>When the nation was being founded the local elites would not have acquiesced to a constitution/form that made the central government too powerful over them.The constitution is for the most part decorative. Politics is decided elsewhere. That doesn't preclude that people will die over it, but the constitution and the law emanate from whoever happens to rule as ideological/spiritual/etc extensions of their regime, they don't control, much less define the material conditions.> The US historically also suffered from this problem to a lesser extent... make the American Federal government truly absolute in its power in the same way states like France are.I don't think so, the current FedGov isn't centralized in the way Argentina (or France) is, it's not geographically bound. Washington D.C (or Virginia-Maryland) is not the government, FedGov just meets there; it still draws itself from all around. It's like a spiderweb that ensnares the entire country. They dissolved the sovereignty of the states and control all of it. If the U.S was like Argentina or Mexico then Virginia (plus WV and KY) or New England + New York would be inseparable from the federal government while all the other states operate like it's still 1855 and only begrudgingly follow mega-Virginia/New-York-Imperivm's lead.>And vestigial remnants of the original compromise like the Senate and Electoral College continue to cause problems for America to this day.That's because law by itself matters over there.
>>18545079Fair.>Because it fucking didn't. It made this new bastard thing.That's true, I kind of hate how everyone except Hispanist pundits refuses to recognize native collaborators. Or the role of the church, the imperial bureaucracy, the cortes, consulaos, it's hard for people to take systems of spanish (and portuguese) America as they were for some reason.>>18545087It's a smidge larger than GDL, though. Second largest nationwide.>>18545155This is all my opinion, btw. Sorry for the imperative tone.
>>18545155>The constitution is for the most part decorative.That's why I also said "form" to try and get across I wasn't trying to argue from a strict document perspective but in a "way things work" sense.>I don't think so, the current FedGov isn't centralized in the way Argentina (or France) is, it's not geographically bound. Washington D.C (or Virginia-Maryland) is not the government, FedGov just meets there; it still draws itself from all around. It's like a spiderweb that ensnares the entire country. They dissolved the sovereignty of the states and control all of it. If the U.S was like Argentina or Mexico then Virginia (plus WV and KY) or New England + New York would be inseparable from the federal government while all the other states operate like it's still 1855 and only begrudgingly follow mega-Virginia/New-York-Imperivm's lead.I''d argue in this specific context whether the absolute power is geographically based or not doesn't matter. What matters is that the National Government is Supreme, I will agree with you that the difference between "Paris rules France" and "Washington DC is just the Notional Governments meeting place" is important and does have important consequences, they're just not what I was trying to talk about in particular>That's because law by itself matters over there.I'm not sure what you mean here, could you clarify?
>>18545079>Which is why I'd at least like a hint of nuance and the suggestion it doesn't match up 1:1Because nothing matches up 1:1. French Feudalism wasn't identical to English Feudalism either. This is getting into levels of semantics like arguing that Shogunate Japanese didn't have feudalism because "Daimyo totally aren't nobility according to the official state ideology".
>>18545069>>18545088Nah, that anon is right. New Spain was way more centralized than Spain at that time thanks to not being tied to the weird and old as fuck medieval laws the mainland had. For example, New Spain never developed a proper nobility like in old Spain, thus there were never "divine rights" nor "power plays" as in Europe.Also, a lot of local political positions were actually granted by elections between the people living there. If you went full retard, they could kick you out of your position by your neighbors. Hell, even some viceroys got kicked out when they went full retard or got too uppity for the Spain's taste. And good luck trying to do that in Europe and kick out your local count or duke out of his position.
>>18545255>they're just not what I was trying to talk about in particular>I'm not sure what you mean here, could you clarify?In my view, westerners have a strange cultural attitude towards laws and norms that no one else in the world displays. They are bound to follow them because they are by themselves valid. The law has an inherent weight behind it independent of anything else. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, for the record.
>>18545972Because "Westerners" treat the law as if it was another book in the Bible. With this meaning it's something you have to follow no matter who the ruler is, because, theoretically, laws are based on "Biblical Laws" and not something man-made.
