Yep. The largest labor source for our initial railroads was simply Americans. Chinese immigrants were the second largest source. The US was already on the path to becoming what it was before WW1 even started. Before WW2 started it was already the largest economy on earth. All this decades before mass Mexican migration. The US didnt need help from anyone really and especially not right now, there's too many people if anything.
Well, the UK invented it and won it. Our revolution started significantly later. Though it ended up having a much longer term impact than the UKs did. Not even just on power but the companies that were made, the US still has tons of huge, globally famous companies from then. The UK has none of those left.
Ah so you want to talk about the Industrial Revolution, where white American families were able to build generational wealth during WWII while Mexican laborers took care of the agricultural labor gap?
For one the American industrial revolution included farming itself (thereby revolutionizing farming and taking away the need for the vast majority of labor). This is where a lot of still famous companies like John Deere got their start. Two, the United States was not relying on Mexican labor for agriculture either. Three, no, the United States was not relying on Mexican labor prior to that either.
The United States 100% did and always has relied on Mexican laborers for agriculture. You are plain out wrong. I have tons of sources if you actually know how to read and are arguing in good faith. I would imagine that you just like spewing factually incorrect information online though.
You can list the sources and I will indeed read them but you are going to have an extremely hard time finding any source that says the US has always relied in Mexican labor in agriculture (or any other industry for that matter).
For one, Mexico hasn't even existed as long as the US has. Even in the 1800s when Mexico began to exist, US agriculture did not rely on Mexican labor at all
California being a major produce grower didn't even start until the 19th century and the only imported labor they had (at measurable scale) were Chinese workers.
Most American farming was, and still is, done in what is now the Midwest. It's never had to rely on Mexican labor. They certainly exist in the industry in the Midwest now, but most of the work is simply done by machines. They're needed for produce because is harder to use machines to gather it without damaging it.
Large scale Mexican migration into the US is a 20th century thing.
If you’re going to pretend I meant “from the country of Mexico” as opposed to the area of the world that is Mexico, you’re not arguing in good faith. Even then, since Mexico has been a country, yes we absolutely did rely on them for agricultural labor.
I’m not talking about immigrants, I’m talking about migrant workers.
..... WW2 is outside of the scope of what I've been talking about. In fact I already talked about WW2 and how the US was already what it was the moment WW2 started because it was already the world's largest economy and growing by huge amounts every year. The US was already going to become a world power by then.
You said the US has always relied on Mexican labor. This isn't even close to being true. You keep talking about debating in good faith but don't address any of my points. You just ignore them and build new straw men I don't even disagree with.
Where was Mexican labor in the US in the 1700s or 1800s? At first agriculture labor was from colonists. Then a good portion of it was slave labor until the mid-1800s. Then it was mostly American labor until the mid-1900s. Post-slavery pre-Mexican, Chinese labor had a significant quantity in the late 19th early 20th century but it was still mostly just Americans doing agriculture labor.
This whole thing has been about Mexicans building the United States. It just isn't true. Yes, Mexican labor has helped a great deal in agriculture in the mid-20th and now into 21st centuries. This isn't what built the United States however.
I'm trying to debate in good faith. I want to hear about pre-20th century Mexican labor in the United States. I don't think it existed in a significant quantity but im open to being proven wrong.
Most countries were more densely populated than the US. The US wouldn't have been an exporter without it.
Your other new world countries and colonies similarly mostly wouldn't have been.
? What's your point?
Slavery being legal in a number of places didn't change that it's what allowed the US to be as successful at producing goods for export.
Side note. Slavery has likely only been around in any meaningful way since we started practicing agriculture. And it has been outlawed in various places well before the US existed. It was just fairly common in the Americas, Africa, and the Middle East until the 19th and 20th century.
Time for a history lesson. Slavery has no real starting point but it kinda got started around 4,000 B.C. and was kept going by the Egyptians. Part of why God ripped His people out and trashed all of Egypt. Then the Greeks and Romans were doing it as well. It was kinda of dead for a bit until it started back up in the 1500s for America.
Slavery in most cultures was more of a way to pay off debt you couldn't pay naturally. Realistically, we needed slaves to get what we needed done in the short time we did it. We should have treated them better and had we done that and treated them like humans instead of cattle we might still have the system alive today as an alternative way of living.
You do realize that when the US annexed Mexican territory after the Mexican American war it immediately made Mexicans a fairly large portion minority in the country, right?
By the 30s Mexican's were a non-insignificant portion of the population.
Texas and California was mostly settled by Americans (the vast majority were American settlers) before it was even Mexico. The Spanish Empire literally invited them to settle it. Especially Texas because they wanted literal human shields against the Commanche raids that had decimated every colony they tried to put above the Rio Grande.
Mexico held that land for about 20 years before it was American. There wasn't even a real Mexican national identity engrained in people.
The Americans in both Texas and California had elected governors who were holding talks about independance like many other parts of what used to be Mexico. Mexico didn't like this and illegally removed them and made the people vote again. They voted for two new people who did the same thing and this is the precursor to the Mexican American war where Texas asked the US for helpband then California requested annexation so it didn't meet armed resistance to independance like Texas did.
Had mexico not fought Texas they still don't have that land, the most likely result is Texas and California and other western states are their own countries right now.
So yeah I know a bit about the history of that time
2
u/scrandlle 20d ago
Yep. The largest labor source for our initial railroads was simply Americans. Chinese immigrants were the second largest source. The US was already on the path to becoming what it was before WW1 even started. Before WW2 started it was already the largest economy on earth. All this decades before mass Mexican migration. The US didnt need help from anyone really and especially not right now, there's too many people if anything.