If Mexico got colonized by England how you think it will be?

[Duffmannn]

Yeah you right also take a look at New Zealand is 15% full indigenous Maori.

Most of those maoris are mixed, a big chunk is not even half maori.

[Duffmannn]

US and Canada had a climate that was more suitable for Northern European settlement, I mean New England was called New England because it had a clime close to that of Britain. US and S. Canada was in the temperate zone. Also North America was inhabited by Hunter Gatherers for most part, as was the hostile southern coast of Australia (where most live) and New Zealand. Notice a pattern? Also, Mexican natives were way more numerous than Aboriginal Australians even after the cocolitzli, because there were agricultural city dweller with a much more complex society than Aboriginal Australians. Was there an Abo version of Tenochititlan when Jame Cook visited Australia?

Even the UK invaded Argentina un 1806-1807 with the intentions of becoming it another migrational colony but failed in the invasion. Anyways the european migration happened the same.

Most people in this subforum doesn't understand that european inmigrants moved to temperate climates and that they wouldn't have done it to their native countries despite being a british colony because barely nobody establishes in tropical climates, which are more suitable for the plantation colonial system, either exploding the natives or importing black slaves.

[Grace O'Malley]

There were approximately 750,000 aboriginals when Captain Cook landed and the population fell to 117,000 in 1900. About 20% of Aboriginals died through violence and the rest succumbed to diseases like smallpox, syphilis and influenza which they had no natural immunity to. I can't see how they would treat natives in Mexico any different than they did in the US and Australia. If there were millions of Native Americans in Mexico then Mexico would most likely be mostly Native American today and I doubt Britain would have colonized en-masse but like Synapsid said I think it would be most likely similar to what happened in India. They would have eventually withdrawn and left Mexico like they did in other colonies where they were small in number.

[kratz]

South Africa.

A population with a small anglo minority and a vast indigenous mass.

As people Brits here said, Anglos don't race mix with natives.

Also, what's interesting to me is that for those who are saying New Mexico, it seems New Mexico already had the Spanish component first. Then the Anglo component was added later. Therefore, some people are Harnizos since I'm assuming they are Anglos mixed with Mestizos(correct?), not with natives. The same happened with California when Anglos moved in the natives where send to reservations(the wild ones like the comache). Then the small mestizo population that remained was absorbed, and since it was a vast white majority later became integrated or high Europeanized culturally but might be genetically and phenotypically remnants. I'm assuming that's what happened in some parts of Argentina. The mestizos got "absorbed" into the larger white population. However, feel free to give your take.

Therefore, I think Belize is a better example since it seems they're the natives remained natives and the mestizos who moved in moved from other regions moved there. So assuming the British to control of Belize then Central American mestizos(Mestizo Guatemalans or Mestizo Costa Ricans) would have moved to Mexico down the road like what happened with Belize.

[Synapsid]

Even the UK invaded Argentina un 1806-1807 with the intentions of becoming it another migrational colony but failed in the invasion. Anyways the european migration happened the same.

Most people in this subforum doesn't understand that european inmigrants moved to temperate climates and that they wouldn't have done it to their native countries despite being a british colony because barely nobody establishes in tropical climates, which are more suitable for the plantation colonial system, either exploding the natives or importing black slaves.

Mexico would also be more SSA under the british, esp Vera Cruz. Still outnumbered by Native Mexicans

[Synapsid]

There were approximately 750,000 aboriginals when Captain Cook landed and the population fell to 117,000 in 1900. About 20% of Aboriginals died through violence and the rest succumbed to diseases like smallpox, syphilis and influenza which they had no natural immunity to. I can't see how they would treat natives in Mexico any different than they did in the US and Australia. If there were millions of Native Americans in Mexico then Mexico would most likely be mostly Native American today and I doubt Britain would have colonized en-masse but like Synapsid said I think it would be most likely similar to what happened in India. They would have eventually withdrawn and left Mexico like they did in other colonies where they were small in number.

Requirments for Nothern Protestant/ Anglo settlement:
-Arable temprerate climate
-Native culture is small and materially inferior (i.e. Hunter Gatherer)
-Natives are easily reducible via old world diseases or warfare
--Natives are segregated via reservations or racial laws
- Entice first British isle migrants and later other NW Europeans such as Germans, Nordics, dutch, flemish etc. Limited restrictions on S. Euros, Christian Levantines and E. Euros. No Asians/Africans/Non Christian MENA allowed in

[Synapsid]

On the plus side, Mexico would be less corrupt if it where under British control

[samario]

We don't know for sure.

[Synapsid]

We don't know for sure.

It would be like Peru but without Euro component. Afro slaves and Pure Anglos slave owners minority on atlantic coast and a Native majority Antiplano interior and Pacific

[Zuh]

On the plus side, Mexico would be less corrupt if it where under British control

I honestly think Mexico would be just like another UK Australia Canada etc just look at Australia it's weather is extremely hot .