3 ms·

I think you can use some enlightenment, as well. You should visit the US/Mexico border to see the "some". Generalizations are never 100% complete (by definiti

I think you can use some enlightenment, as well. You should visit the US/Mexico border to see the "some". Generalizations are never 100% complete (by definition). But so much poverty and corruption, and so much desperate migration, sustained for such a long time (decades) is a picture of overall failure. Mexico has the fewest excuses. It is perfectly positioned in the middle of the earth, with coasts on both the Atlantic and Pacific, and with abundant resources. They could be an economic _powerhouse_, with trade relations with the entire world (thing manufacturing, shipping, ...) if they could get it together (and I hope they do). But, history seems to show that isn't likely for a long time, if ever.

the_af 5y ago
> Generalizations are never 100% complete (by definition) Yet you decided it was a good idea to call out "South American countries". It's not too late to admit you made a mistake, you know. At this point you don't even know (nor seem to care) if you're arguing specifically about Mexico, all of South America or what. Canada and the US being considered the same doesn't bide well for the quality of your generalizations, either.
handrous 5y ago
You're encountering trouble in this thread because your understanding of geography appears to be very different from most people's, e.g. writing that Canada and the US are the only to countries in North America (while common definitions would include Mexico), or writing "South America" where you (I think?) mean what most would call "Central America".