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.
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.
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.