With Mexico, from all sources I have seen, Valley Of Mexico and Southern Mexico received more European migrants than Center West and Northern Mexico. But why are the latter two more European in genetics? First of all, lower prexisiting Ameridian populations. Second of all, cities were population sinks during the pre modern period, so lots of Europeans that ended up in places like Mexico City did not leave that many descendants. Lastly, Center west and Northern Mexico did not have nearby Ameridian peasant population who costanly move to nearby cities and towns.
The bulk of the population is in the central part of the country and the northern parts are sparsely populated so it doesn’t take that much to skew things one way or the other. Even if Comanche raids throughout the mid 1800s didn’t drive people away, the climate put a damper on the population it could support. It’s kinda like the “Big Empty” strip in the US between the 98th meridian and the Rockies compared to the eastern states.
“Despite its numerical insignificance, another area where immigration from the Iberian Peninsula left a profound mark was in the north of New Spain, in the intendencies of Zacatecas, Durango, and Guadalajara. Since there were not many Indians before, both groups started off on an equal footing. On the dissolution of the viceroyalty, mestizos dominated in this zone.”
> You might reasonably expect Argentina to have a similar genetic makeup to, say, New Jersey
That's the image many people still have, instead of the more realistic "New Jersey stitched together with Coahuila". Assuming stitching includes intermarriage, of course.
Thanks for the shout-out! And I should have made the point that: "the number of Argentines with at least one post-1895 migrant ancestor is going to be much much higher". I'm pretty sure there's a chart of autosomal ancestry for a sample of Argentine individuals somewhere, and that it illustrates this point perfectly.
I’ll have to dig up the spreadsheet and re-run it with the better regional estimates. That said, doesn’t Table 1 in the paper show some pretty large differences, with the Pampeana class of 1935 having 2.6 children per woman over their lifetime, whereas their northern equivalents were all well above four? That narrowed a bit, but we’re still talking about the class of 1956 having a difference between 2.9 versus 3.7, with the added complication that by 1956 no small number of women living in the Pampas will be northerns who moved south.
I’m honestly not sure how that will shake out! But Table 1 makes the calculations (at least through 2001) a whole lot easier. Thank you!
Yeah I have no idea what to make of this, why CFR for Pampean and even Buenos Aires Argentines rose over these 3 separate cohorts(it went down in both most indigenous Northwest region and mixed Northeast at the same time). The only reason i can think of is that 1931-1935 cohort still includes those born in Italy/Spain with immigration disrupting total completed fertility rate. I don't see the study indicating whether immigrants are included or excluded. But you're right, the 1935 cohort might have larger difference between center and Northwest than the RENAPER 1980 snapshot(where equivalent 1952-1956 CFR shows smaller values).
"Sólo en el caso de la provincia de La Pampa -la de menor población en el conjunto analizadose verifica que al quitar del conjunto de mujeres observadas a las inmigrantes cambia la
tendencia de la descendencia final. Como en el resto de las jurisdicciones en estudio la
tendencia no se altera, se descarta también la hipótesis de la influencia de la migración en el
alza de la fecundidad generacional.1"
Only in the Pampa (internal) migrant women had higher tfr during the rise, not the case in Buenos Aires(to answer your other question).
Also it's not clear to me from the chart if you began from 1850 or 1870 the immigration story for Argentina. By 1869 10% of the country was already mostly Italian immigrants, the irregular census of 1850(before the Chaco and desert were conquered) had less than 1% European population.
What I was referring to, at heart, in my previous comment is that Argentina could have stayed in its high, Global North-level per capita GDP level rather than regressed over the decades to upper middle-income status, and could have remained (more or less) stable rather than slide into instability, hyperinflation, etc. This way, Argentina could have been (or become) a regional South American power more or less in competition with Brazil, and with an open and competitive free-market economy, not tied to Peronist autarkism. The gap between that and what Argentina has in fact become is quite astounding.
With Mexico, from all sources I have seen, Valley Of Mexico and Southern Mexico received more European migrants than Center West and Northern Mexico. But why are the latter two more European in genetics? First of all, lower prexisiting Ameridian populations. Second of all, cities were population sinks during the pre modern period, so lots of Europeans that ended up in places like Mexico City did not leave that many descendants. Lastly, Center west and Northern Mexico did not have nearby Ameridian peasant population who costanly move to nearby cities and towns.
That is the weird thing about population dynamics. It is more complicated than one imagines.
The bulk of the population is in the central part of the country and the northern parts are sparsely populated so it doesn’t take that much to skew things one way or the other. Even if Comanche raids throughout the mid 1800s didn’t drive people away, the climate put a damper on the population it could support. It’s kinda like the “Big Empty” strip in the US between the 98th meridian and the Rockies compared to the eastern states.
But, look at Center West:
“Despite its numerical insignificance, another area where immigration from the Iberian Peninsula left a profound mark was in the north of New Spain, in the intendencies of Zacatecas, Durango, and Guadalajara. Since there were not many Indians before, both groups started off on an equal footing. On the dissolution of the viceroyalty, mestizos dominated in this zone.”
It makes sense. When the economic system that supported them changed, the newcomers GTFO.
> You might reasonably expect Argentina to have a similar genetic makeup to, say, New Jersey
That's the image many people still have, instead of the more realistic "New Jersey stitched together with Coahuila". Assuming stitching includes intermarriage, of course.
Thanks for the shout-out! And I should have made the point that: "the number of Argentines with at least one post-1895 migrant ancestor is going to be much much higher". I'm pretty sure there's a chart of autosomal ancestry for a sample of Argentine individuals somewhere, and that it illustrates this point perfectly.
https://www.aacademica.org/000-028/1.pdf
May not be as big of a difference as you found, until 1980 Pampeans outside of BA were almost keeping up with rest of Argentina in number of kids
I’ll have to dig up the spreadsheet and re-run it with the better regional estimates. That said, doesn’t Table 1 in the paper show some pretty large differences, with the Pampeana class of 1935 having 2.6 children per woman over their lifetime, whereas their northern equivalents were all well above four? That narrowed a bit, but we’re still talking about the class of 1956 having a difference between 2.9 versus 3.7, with the added complication that by 1956 no small number of women living in the Pampas will be northerns who moved south.
I’m honestly not sure how that will shake out! But Table 1 makes the calculations (at least through 2001) a whole lot easier. Thank you!
Yeah I have no idea what to make of this, why CFR for Pampean and even Buenos Aires Argentines rose over these 3 separate cohorts(it went down in both most indigenous Northwest region and mixed Northeast at the same time). The only reason i can think of is that 1931-1935 cohort still includes those born in Italy/Spain with immigration disrupting total completed fertility rate. I don't see the study indicating whether immigrants are included or excluded. But you're right, the 1935 cohort might have larger difference between center and Northwest than the RENAPER 1980 snapshot(where equivalent 1952-1956 CFR shows smaller values).
"Sólo en el caso de la provincia de La Pampa -la de menor población en el conjunto analizadose verifica que al quitar del conjunto de mujeres observadas a las inmigrantes cambia la
tendencia de la descendencia final. Como en el resto de las jurisdicciones en estudio la
tendencia no se altera, se descarta también la hipótesis de la influencia de la migración en el
alza de la fecundidad generacional.1"
Only in the Pampa (internal) migrant women had higher tfr during the rise, not the case in Buenos Aires(to answer your other question).
Also it's not clear to me from the chart if you began from 1850 or 1870 the immigration story for Argentina. By 1869 10% of the country was already mostly Italian immigrants, the irregular census of 1850(before the Chaco and desert were conquered) had less than 1% European population.
What I was referring to, at heart, in my previous comment is that Argentina could have stayed in its high, Global North-level per capita GDP level rather than regressed over the decades to upper middle-income status, and could have remained (more or less) stable rather than slide into instability, hyperinflation, etc. This way, Argentina could have been (or become) a regional South American power more or less in competition with Brazil, and with an open and competitive free-market economy, not tied to Peronist autarkism. The gap between that and what Argentina has in fact become is quite astounding.