Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have not said anything to refute the fact that Mexico, especially Mexico City, is the most influential on a global stage that any other Spanish-speaking society.
I never even mentioned that the influence of Mexico is due to some sort of "Mexicaness." Seems to me you have issues with Mexicans.
Cuba was the richest colony in the world for much of the 19th Century and Havana was one of the wealthiest merchant cities anywhere. I never mentioned Communist Cuba, I'm referring to pre-Castro Cuba. Even in the 20th Century Havana had a level of influence and wealth that was simply non-existent in most places of the world and especially in much of Latin America. The only Latin cities that were worthy of comparing to Havana was Montevideo, Buenos Aires, and Mexico City. In the pre-Castro Cuba, Havana was more developed than Madrid or Lisbon!
This is nonsense for two reasons:
A. Brazil is larger than Mexico and yet its influence is not as great as Mexico's, and Mexico's influence goes beyond the Spanish-speaking world, even into the Portuguese-speaking world, including Brazil itself. India is considerably larger than Mexico, yet its overall influence pales in comparison despite that India has English as an official language!
B. Had Mexico's economic growth been due to increases in the workforce rather than in workers productivity, then today Mexico wouldn't be a society well on its way to having a middle class majority.
Economic growth due solely to increases in the workforce doesn't produces economic well being on a large scale to increase the middle class, and much less to become the majority of the population.
I said it before and I will say it again, you have issues with Mexico and Mexicans.
Chile doesn't have much of an influence in anything with a possible exception in the global wine industry. A country like Greece or Portugal, which are similar or slightly smaller than Chile in population; like Hungary or Mexico, which are similarly or less wealthy than Chile; like Denmark or Singapore, which have economies similarly or slightly smaller than Chile's are all much more influential than Chile.
A country doesn't becomes part of the Newly Industrialized Countries group by simply growing based on population growth. Countries need massive economic growth based on increasing workers productivity to become a part of this:
I'm quite impressed how some people will go on a rant that, in their intent of refuting my message, all they are doing is making my message stronger and much more obvious. LOL
You have not said anything to refute the fact that Mexico, especially Mexico City, is the most influential on a global stage that any other Spanish-speaking society.
I never even mentioned that the influence of Mexico is due to some sort of "Mexicaness." Seems to me you have issues with Mexicans.
Cuba was the richest colony in the world for much of the 19th Century and Havana was one of the wealthiest merchant cities anywhere. I never mentioned Communist Cuba, I'm referring to pre-Castro Cuba. Even in the 20th Century Havana had a level of influence and wealth that was simply non-existent in most places of the world and especially in much of Latin America. The only Latin cities that were worthy of comparing to Havana was Montevideo, Buenos Aires, and Mexico City. In the pre-Castro Cuba, Havana was more developed than Madrid or Lisbon!
This is nonsense for two reasons:
A. Brazil is larger than Mexico and yet its influence is not as great as Mexico's, and Mexico's influence goes beyond the Spanish-speaking world, even into the Portuguese-speaking world, including Brazil itself. India is considerably larger than Mexico, yet its overall influence pales in comparison despite that India has English as an official language!
B. Had Mexico's economic growth been due to increases in the workforce rather than in workers productivity, then today Mexico wouldn't be a society well on its way to having a middle class majority.
Economic growth due solely to increases in the workforce doesn't produces economic well being on a large scale to increase the middle class, and much less to become the majority of the population.
I said it before and I will say it again, you have issues with Mexico and Mexicans.
Chile doesn't have much of an influence in anything with a possible exception in the global wine industry. A country like Greece or Portugal, which are similar or slightly smaller than Chile in population; like Hungary or Mexico, which are similarly or less wealthy than Chile; like Denmark or Singapore, which have economies similarly or slightly smaller than Chile's are all much more influential than Chile.
A country doesn't becomes part of the Newly Industrialized Countries group by simply growing based on population growth. Countries need massive economic growth based on increasing workers productivity to become a part of this:
I'm quite impressed how some people will go on a rant that, in their intent of refuting my message, all they are doing is making my message stronger and much more obvious. LOL
hahahahahahahhahahah One of the best jokes I ever seen!!!
See what you are doing here and in your previous post is point out entertainment industry flaws of Mexico and putting them agaist the entertinainment industry virtues of Colombia and Venezuela.
You are also pointing out the economic flaws of Mexico and comparing them to the economic virtues of Chile. What you are essentially doing is piting the virtue of one latin american country against one of the flaws of Mexico. Why don't you compare the economic situation of Colombia and oil dependent Venezuela againt Mexico?
Chile's influence throughout the world is completely overshadowed by Argentina, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Venuezuela, and Peru. Its the same thing with Anti-Americans. They like to point out the virtues of several european countries, such as health care, lifestyle, quality of life, etc and then compare them to the flaws of the United States. Fact is the United States is pretty good overall. Fact is Mexico is pretty good overall when compared to other latin american countries.
What is wrong with remakes? Larger countries usually copy from smaller countries and vice versa. The United States makes remakes from Europe and East Asia, Mexico makes remakes from Latin America. If it wasnt for "La fea mas Bella" I wouldnt know about "Betty la fea". If it wasnt for that one decent American remake, i wouldnt know about that great european film.
Nowhere did I pit the flaws of the Mexican entertainment industry against the virtues of any other entertainment industry. I merely pointed out that because of said flaws, Televisa and Mexico for that matter, don't hold much influence in the rest of latin america. If anything, the rest of latin america influences Mexican culture by giving them ideas for novelas.
I am responding to the claim that Mexicans achieved their "influence" based on their own merit, which they did not. Mexico's position on the world stage is mostly due to their circumstance of having a large population. Then I gave an example of a country who has accomplished a lot based on their own merit, Chile. I never said the Colombian economy, or the Venezualen one are better either. I am not pitting one economy against the other, I'm just correcting misconceptions.
The fact that you think Puerto Rico is a country tells me how clueless you are of Chile's economy and it's influence on the world stage. I'm not even going to bother to go through the details, but I will leave it at this: Mexico has the largest economy of all latin american countries (spanish speaking,) which is to be expected since it is the largest country by far. It is not, however, the healthiest latin american economy. Chile outranks Mexico in every measure except overall size. It's GDP per capita puts Mexico, and most latin american countries to shame.
I never said there was anything wrong with remakes. I only said that because they are remakes, they don't hold much cultural influence in Latin America. Thats it.
The only region Mexico has some influence over is Central America. And the sad thing about that is many Mexicans hate Central Americans. They always point out how poor central America is while ignoring or down playing the extreme poverty in thir own country.
You have not said anything to refute the fact that Mexico, especially Mexico City, is the most influential on a global stage that any other Spanish-speaking society.
Where did I ever claim otherwise? It's the biggest city with the biggest economy in latin america. All I've been saying is that Mexico doesn't particularly hold much influence on the rest of latin america despite its huge size. The world economy is interconnected, with Mexico having the largest economy amongst spanish speaking latin america, of course it's going to hold some influence, but nowhere near as much as you would expect given the size disparity between mexico and other latin countries. That has been my one and only point throughout this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR
I never even mentioned that the influence of Mexico is due to some sort of "Mexicaness." Seems to me you have issues with Mexicans.
Yes you have. Not in those exact words, of course, but you've said it's size has nothing to due with it's influence even though Mexico's influence is solely due to it's size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR
Cuba was the richest colony in the world for much of the 19th Century and Havana was one of the wealthiest merchant cities anywhere. I never mentioned Communist Cuba, I'm referring to pre-Castro Cuba. Even in the 20th Century Havana had a level of influence and wealth that was simply non-existent in most places of the world and especially in much of Latin America. The only Latin cities that were worthy of comparing to Havana was Montevideo, Buenos Aires, and Mexico City. In the pre-Castro Cuba, Havana was more developed than Madrid or Lisbon!
Wow, I can't even begin to correct the misinformation here. Havana in the 1950's was certainly rich, but it was never nothing more than what Las Vegas is today but with a port. During this time, it could be said that Havana was economically stronger than Madrid and Lisbon, but that was because those two cities were going through a catastrophic periods of debt due to previous wars. To say it was more developed is hilarious. Havana never had the influence Madrid and Lisbon have exhibited throughout their history. The peak of Havana's influence on the world stage was the Cold War. End of story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR
This is nonsense for two reasons:
A. Brazil is larger than Mexico and yet its influence is not as great as Mexico's, and Mexico's influence goes beyond the Spanish-speaking world, even into the Portuguese-speaking world, including Brazil itself. India is considerably larger than Mexico, yet its overall influence pales in comparison despite that India has English as an official language!
B. Had Mexico's economic growth been due to increases in the workforce rather than in workers productivity, then today Mexico wouldn't be a society well on its way to having a middle class majority.
I've left Brazil off this thread because it's culturally separate from the rest of latin America, but now that you've brought it in, I can ridicule you for your misinformation. On the world stage, Brazil crushes Mexico and every other latin American country in influence. Your knowledge of the influence other countries have is only limited to your perception of what you see as influence, which is TV. Brazil is a major commodity trader with the rest world, it's influences stretches much farther then Mexico. If I had the patience I would elaborate, but I can't debate with someone who doesn't even know the basic information.
The article you've linked is misleading. Middle class is simply being out of poverty by Mexican standards. Being out of poverty in Mexico is not the same thing as being out of poverty in other developed countries. Mexico's GDP per capita is proof of this. That being said, the article is also about recent economic GROWTH being a result of increased worker productivity. It never mentions how it's economy got to be so big among latin america in the first place (due to its size.)
Economic growth due solely to increases in the workforce doesn't produces economic well being on a large scale to increase the middle class, and much less to become the majority of the population.
I said it before and I will say it again, you have issues with Mexico and Mexicans.
Again, you are talking about recent economic GROWTH, not the size of the economy itself. We're talking about two different subjects here. Please learn the difference.
The only thing I have against Mexicans is that they think their football (soccer) team and players are the second coming of Jesus Christ. I swear to god, Univison tracks every fart Chicharito lays as if he was some sort of God. Other than that, I, like many other Hispanics, am indifferent to Mexico. It's just another country to me. Just like Colombia, Venezuala, Chile, etc.,etc.. The only countries I care about are the US and Ecuador. I'm sorry if me pointing out the facts offends your delicate pride, but thats not my problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR
Chile doesn't have much of an influence in anything with a possible exception in the global wine industry. A country like Greece or Portugal, which are similar or slightly smaller than Chile in population; like Hungary or Mexico, which are similarly or less wealthy than Chile; like Denmark or Singapore, which have economies similarly or slightly smaller than Chile's are all much more influential than Chile.
A country doesn't becomes part of the Newly Industrialized Countries group by simply growing based on population growth. Countries need massive economic growth based on increasing workers productivity to become a part of this:
I'm quite impressed how some people will go on a rant that, in their intent of refuting my message, all they are doing is making my message stronger and much more obvious. LOL
Wow. The fact that you aren't even aware of the scope of Chile's influence yet you bash it is giving me second hand embarrassment for you. Mining and business are the biggest part of Chile's economy. Over 1/3 of the world's copper comes ONLY from Chile, it's the biggest copper producer in the WORLD. Copper is the most cost effective method of conducting electricity. The fact that your whole country has an electric grid is thanks to copper, and therefore to Chile. I'm not even going to bother explaining any other aspects of Chile's economy, please stop talking about what you don't know. Chile may not have as large as an economy as other nations, but's it's extremely influential for its size. Your ignorance of the truth doesn't make it any less true.
Your posts have gotten ridiculous, honestly. My original comment on this thread was that Mexico doesn't hold much influence amongst the rest of Latin America because of it's cultural differences and isolation. You got defensive about that, despite the fact that I have never insulted Mexico, and escalated this into other things. I'm done debating here, since you can't have a debate if the other party is overtly defensive and ignorant of the facts. Peace.
Last edited by Astorian31; 01-28-2014 at 09:07 PM..
Because Mexico is just a few miles away from a district of Los Angeles called Hollywood.
And Hollywood shapes the world's imagination.
Got it?
One of the greatest criticism towards Hollywood is its tendency to downplay and give a bad image about Mexico (and much of Latin America while we are at it.) People need to give Mexico its due credit.
I think this video summarize the issue with Hollywood's image of Latin America and the people that were either born in the region or descend from Latin Americans:
The following video is quite long:
Some people are going to have to accept the obvious, this is the most powerful city in Latin America:
The only region Mexico has some influence over is Central America. And the sad thing about that is many Mexicans hate Central Americans. They always point out how poor central America is while ignoring or down playing the extreme poverty in thir own country.
I was surprised when I when I first met people from countries such as Argentina and Brazil, even some far away ones such as Spain, Germany, Poland, Romania, The Philippines and a few others told me they watched Novelas and shows such as El Chapulin Colorado and El Chavo del 8. I think that Mexico is gaining popularity and it may even become the world's 5th or the 7th largest economy. Mexico City has more people than some central and south american countries and even a larger economy. Larger than all but 7 Latin American countries. There are probably even more Mexicans in LA or Chicago than in say Puerto Rico, Panama, Costa Rica, Uruguay or even Nicaragua. The municipality of San Pedro Garza GarcÃa is like a Mexican Beverly Hills. Also, Mexico has a young, dynamic population and makes planes, cars, computer parts, smartphones, moniters. There are roughly 40 million Mexicans in the United States and 50 million in total living in the exterior. That's about the same population or MORE than Colombia and Argentina, the next largest latin American countries in population. Probably more than Spain as well. I think that Mexico is a great country with amazing potential.
Forgive me, but I can see where, in Latin America is the mexican influence...Some mexicans here and elsewhere ( particularly in SSL) live in some Reality Distortion Field, a place where Mexico is a rich society with is DHI of 0,770 ( they love to say that it's higher than Brazil 0,730, but that difference none can see in both countries everyday life as a matter of fact!), has no poverty or slums, has no deep social inequality, has no violence, that Mexico City is the richest city in Latin America ( maybe, but that has a simple explanation: Mexico City is Mexico capital and concentrate pratically all the mexican wealthy in its metropolitan area). Their expectation is one, the reality is another. And that's very boring. Please, give us a break.
Forgive me, but I can see where, in Latin America is the mexican influence...Some mexicans here and elsewhere ( particularly in SSL) live in some Reality Distortion Field, a place where Mexico is a rich society with is DHI of 0,770 ( they love to say that it's higher than Brazil 0,730, but that difference none can see in both countries everyday life as a matter of fact!), has no poverty or slums, has no deep social inequality, has no violence, that Mexico City is the richest city in Latin America ( maybe, but that has a simple explanation: Mexico City is Mexico capital and concentrate pratically all the mexican wealthy in its metropolitan area). Their expectation is one, the reality is another. And that's very boring. Please, give us a break.
Did you not see what I posted? Mexico City is a big city but there is still a lot more to Mexico than Mexico City. In countries like Argentina and Chile, more than 80% live in Santiago or Buenos Aires. In Mexico, you could add the populations of Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey and Even Puebla and not even make half of Mexico's population. Mexico has many nice places other than the DF or it's suburbs. There's Monterrey, Puebla, even parts of Guadalajara (mainly zapopan and some suburbs). There are also mid sized cities with a high HDI that are clean. There's Queretaro, Guanajuato, Leon, Chihuahua, Los Mochis. Los Mochis is a town in the state of Sinaloa that has a higher HDI than the UK. Chihuahua city is over .90 . there's some places in the southeast and in the Baja California peninsula that are nice and have a high quality of life. I really liked how clean and nice Queretaro city was. Guanajuato City and Leon are also very nice and clean, somewhat haha. They are both modern and traditional towns. Mexico is changing and improving in its economy. It's going pretty slow but it's improving. Don't let the news fool you, A lot of parts of Mexico are really dangerous but it's economic matters are another story
One of the greatest criticism towards Hollywood is its tendency to downplay and give a bad image about Mexico (and much of Latin America while we are at it.) People need to give Mexico its due credit.
I'm sorry, but the question was why Mexico is "one of the most beloved Spanish speaking countries" in the world.
That was the question, and that is the original subject of the thread.
And the answer is: because of Mexico being portrayed in Hollywood's movies and cartoons since many decades ago, since the 30's, and not always with a negative image. Mexico is the neighbor of the USA, Mexico is just a few miles away from Hollywood, and Mexico was always shown in American movies, TV shows and cartoons.
That's why Mexico is "one of the most beloved Spanish speaking countries" in the world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
