jjjjjj

The biggest contributing issue as to why Mexico is poor is that from the very beginning the country has operated as many different independent factions. The country was never cohesive which prevented it from forming a strong economic base. It started with the Aztecs, ruling tribes who practiced several different rituals and languages, and the problem was only compounded with the Spanish invasion. The Catholic Church kept the natives in small villages not providing them with knowledge of the outside world and later with the development of haciendas the isolation was continued. Once the country became independent, with so many different languages being spoken and a huge class gap, it was very difficult for the people to relate to each other

Another difference between Mexico and the United States is the country’s natural resources and their ability to exploit them. The US made several important acquisitions of land including the Louisiana Purchase from France, the purchase of Alaska from Russia and the conquering of the southwest from Mexico, which expanded it’s natural resources and gave the nation room to grow. The US also developed a very centralised trade system boosting the countries economy, as well as exploiting the slaves on the South to do all their manual labour and increase profits. Mexico however was decimated by the war with the US losing half its total land area and decreasing the countries already tiny store of natural resources. There was no centralised trade system, with most of Mexico’s wealth and products being sent back to Spain either through the Catholic Church or directly through peninsulars. The pions in Mexico were also used for manual labour but the profits they created went into the Church.

When Spain conquered the native people of Mexico it was discovered that they were already skilled in agriculture however they only produced enough food to sustain themselves. So the Catholic Spaniards put the natives to work producing grains and sugar for profit, any money that wasn’t put back into the Church was sent back to Spain. The profits were not large however because there wasn’t much land that was suitable to grow crops, only about 13%, and only 38% of the land was suitable for grazing (Palmer 1995, p. 447). Even up until the late 1700’s the land Mexico did have wasn’t being utilised, haciendas while covering large tracts of land, only cultivated enough to sustain themselves and make a small profit. Also the crops that were being grown did not attract a high price (Miller 1985, p. 136). Having what little profits the country was making, in the beginning, sent back to Spain was devastating for its economic development in the long run. In 1848, when Mexico lost the Southwest to the United States, its meagre amount of natural resources was more than halved. Mexico was left with 2 million square kilometres while the United States land area shot up to 9 ½ million square kilometres (Palmer 1995, p. 447). It wasn’t until very recently, within the past hundred years, when technology was developed which made possible the extraction of oil and natural gasses that Mexico could begin building a stable economy (Nicholson 1965, p. 148). This is a slow process however and Mexico’s economy is still trying to recover from a history filled with exploitation and defeat.

Some topics in this essay:
Mexico City, Indians Church, South North, Catholic Church, , Catholic Spaniards, Southwest United, America Woodworth, Bill Rights, Alaska Russia, miller 1985, woodworth 2000, palmer 1995, catholic church, economic development, natural resources, tennenbaum 1965, woodworth 2000 24, sent spain, porterfield 2001, church spain, palmer 1995 705, woodworth 2000 30, woodworth 2000 3, centralised trade system,