Because the Brits wear such cute wigs.
2007-12-12 02:22:23
·
answer #1
·
answered by S K 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
"IF" questions are always open to the imagination. IMHO if Mexico was colonized by the British it would be closer to what happened in India. Bob has made a very interested analysis, although he assumes that the "colonization" of the US was universal for all British colonies, which it wasn't. US 13 Colonies were mostly 100% European. Mexican Native American Population Density was way higher, therefore it would not have been displaced or "exterminated" as were those in the US. It was more valuable as "cheap" workforce, so there is a chance that they would be "Enslaved" by the British Immigrants, and remain segregated and uneducated like in the Southern States. Also, there was Gold and Silver in Mexico, the Veracruz-Acapulco trade route was a very fast trade route to move goods from China to Europe, Britain definitely would have kept a tighter grip on this Colony, preventing its independence (until the 20th Century like India) Native Americans in Mexico were not slaves, but placed under the protection and rule of the Spanish Landlord, the Catholic church imposed several obligations on them, the first one was for them to evangelize the "Indians" which did not happen in the British Colonies. So instead of a Christian Mexico, some sort of "Prehispanic" religion may have survived, and we would be seeing something similar to what happens in India. Like in other British Colonies, the British Immigrants would not mix themselves with the Native Population. Racism would most likely be stronger among the upper european immigrant class. You would have a "Pure Native American" poor population ruled by a "White" rich population, perhaps close to what happened in South Africa, instead of a "Mix Blood" Nation that Mexico is today.
2016-04-08 22:39:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It evolved. British Common Law was created 2 centuries before Christianity reached the British Isles, when it's Chieftans were Pagan. This is why there are only 2 "commandments" in common law.
2007-12-12 02:22:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Because the British have their own country and their own laws?
2007-12-12 02:23:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by wildfire6460 3
·
4⤊
0⤋
In a few years there is going to Sharia Law anyway
2007-12-12 02:24:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Its an error to conflate biological evolution (As in Darwin) and social evolution such as the history of legal systems. One is science and the other is a metaphor taken from science but in no way scientific itself.
2007-12-12 02:33:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by hfrankmann 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
British Common law was created by men.
The American legal system was created by men.
2007-12-12 02:23:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋
there isn't a British common law - you've been deceived by the devil
2007-12-12 02:22:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by bregweidd 6
·
4⤊
1⤋
Because evolution is a lie of Satan and decieving many.
2007-12-12 02:40:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Common law ancestor?
(Isn't that like your trailer park daddy's grandpa or something?)
2007-12-12 02:27:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by ZombieTrix 2012 6
·
1⤊
1⤋