Why U.S.A. was a first world country and Mexico wasn't?

Question

And not just Mexico, the whole countries of South and central America?

Answer 1

Well at the risk of being called racist or bigotted for ansering this question again, let me just explain there are a couple factors that led the US (and Canada) to become "first world nations" while Mexico and most Latin American nations developed into "third world nations." To begin with, there were huge differences in the relationships that Spain and England had with their New World possessions. Spanish possessions were largely seen as territories to be exploited to increase the wealth and power of the Spanish elite and the inhabitants living in Spanish territories were seen as a conquered underclassed people who enjoyed few rights, liberties, or participation in their government; only a very few people (and then those people came directly from Spain and generally saw the New World as a temporary residence) enjoyed any economic or political power in Spanish territories. English possessions in the Americas developed differently. First, immigrants from England came to the New World in much larger groups and came not with the intention of extracting all the resources from the area and returning home but, rather, developing an independent, sustainable local economy because the New World was going to be their new permanent home. English colonies developed more as an extension of England, English customs and law and more as equal trading partners than what happened in Spanish colonies. In addition, whereas only a small minority would have considered themselves citizens in Spanish possessions and/or enjoyed any liberties and power, immigrants in English colonies still saw themselves as English citizens with all the rights afforded to citizens back in the "motherland." In addition, colonists and colonies in English territories developed strong local political and social institutions and traditions that were open to far more people. When Spanish territories finally gained independence from their colonial oppressors, there was no local economy, the people living in these regions had no practical experience governing themselves, and, much of the wealth from Spanish possessions had been exported- resulting in the legacy of continual struggle that remains in many former Spanish territories to this day. When English colonies revolted (or gained independence through more peaceful means) these territories had already developed traditions of effective self government, strong self-sustaining economies, international trade, etc. that also continue today. So, to summarize the differences in the relationships that Spain and England had with their former New World colonies have created significant differences in the development of the nations that developed out of their former possessions which have had lasting and profound effects to this day.

Answer 2

The term First World has come to denote the "developed" Industrialized-Capitalistic nations that in 2000 had a higher GDP per capita than $15,000, as stated by the World Bank.

Mexico, and the whole of Central and South America do not fit that definition, nor the definition of a Second World country. That pretty much leaves Third World status, sorry

Answer 3

What are the natural resources of Mexico? Does it have the resources needed to improve its economy?
I also find it interesting when 2 regions next to each other have divergent economic status.
What an individual sees during his or her lifetime is only a snapshot of history. Time will tell how Mexico and the US compare in the future. I wish both countries well.

Answer 4

Primarily it's the difference between George Washington and Simon Bolivar. Whenever offered the chance to be king, Washington turned it down. Bolivar took it every time. As a consequence, every time power changes in South or Central American countries the attitude is "Now it's my turn at the trough", and that attitude is expected. In the US that attitude exists but it is only accepted in cities like Camden, NJ.

Answer 5

Mexico lost its chance to be a great nation twice. It lost territory to the US and leadership when Maximilian was murdered. Although Mexicans celebrate it now, this was a civil war that lead to decades of dictatorship and repression. The faction that lost could have brought a better economic system to the country.

Answer 6

For the same reason Mexicans are constantly crossing the border into the US. Our economy is stronger. Mexico just crossed into the One Trillion club as far as GDP is concerned. US GDP is twelve times larger...

Answer 7

Leadership. USA had a great leadership. But mexicans dont have to worry with the present leadership it soon could be in Trird World Countries.

Answer 8

I have this extremely embryonic idea that the answer is Protestantism vs Catholicism. For some reason democracy doesn't do well in primarily Catholic countries and flourishes in primarily Protestant ones.

Answer 9

The U.S.A. was not the first world country. Neither was Europe, the Asian and Indian communities pretty much go back as far as 5000 to 7000 years. Wherever you get your information, you need to go back and check it.

Answer 10

where did u get that from ? that either of the countrys was a FIRST WORLD country hahahahahhahahahahahaha

usa history starts only 200 y ago........what about europe ?