Discussion:
Several Mexicos (essay on optimum country size)
(too old to reply)
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
2004-10-12 18:50:02 UTC
Permalink
A very objective assessment of Mexico can show even to the casual
observer that as a country, its economic history is, at best, a series
of ups and downs totally unrelated to the richness of the natural
resources it is endowed with. A country of 100 million habitants
should be a *very* successful country economically speaking. It is a
good faring nation thanks to its being close to the worlwide power,
the United States. It has acquired technology and culture from its
neighbor, plus economic help at times.

Yet one cannot avoid but wondering whether Mexico as a Nation is
really viable. The differences in culture among its states is very
noticeable. This idea is not new, other authors have noticed the same
situation. People from the south are very unrelated in many aspects to
people from the north, a big difference in comparison to the United
States, where even though there are differences according to the
region, the same culture is felt both in the West as in the East
Coast.

What is the optimum size for a country? I believe there are not
enough economic studies approaching this theme. Yet in terms of
development less can be better than more. For instance, one can
envision easily three Mexicos: a southern republic specialized in
Tourism and maybe natural resources. A Republic of the Center
dedicated to commerce and services, and an industrial Republic of the
North. Maybe this is what was really expected of the Mexican
Revolution...

That there are fractures can be seen in a very popular phrase: `haz
patria, mata un chilango` (be a patriot, kill a chilango, a dweller of
the capital). This phrase, though not necessarily _meant_, can
surprise at any moment. Even the fact of the term `chilango` is
indicative of resentment towards the capitalinos; paradoxical, since
many capitalinos come from provincia (province, states of the
interior). Popular sayings express the deep sentiments of peoples
(pueblos) and are a path to the `collective unconscious` in junguian
terms, the common images that pervade individualities. And for a
country this is a disgrace, though at the same time phrases like this
one serve to escape the pressures that build in convivence and can at
some point explode in violence.

Federalism has been a theme long debated by that country.
Interestingly, it didn`t evolve into parties main ideology. Many
people think that the capital actually takes lots of resources while
giving little in return. The assignment of allowances to the states is
a very important element when preparing and discussing the budget. And
it is evident that the actual contribution to the Federation`s
resources is very different for the more developed and populated
states than for the poorer ones. This distribution of resources is
often seen as unjust. The hypothesis is that by segmenting the country
this contributions may be made fairer. This idea is enunciated in the
I Ching, hexagram 59, fourth line: by dissolution (disolving)
accumulation is achieved. Such division would lead to specialization,
which is well known generates bigger outputs. So it can be conceivable
to speak of a Mexican Union akin to the European Economic Union. This
reformulation might lead to three states each with its own central
government, eventually reunited into an economic union. Even the
poitical distribution of forces seems to favor this vision.

Of course, other visions are possible. Considering the benefits of
specialization as a theme, a Gulf Republic consisting of Veracruz and
Tamaulipas would constitute a rather smooth economy of beach and oil
persuasion. In this vision there would be four republics, each one
developing their competitive advantages while getting support from the
other republics to complement their deficiencies, which given time
would diminish as each region develops its own industries to lower
transaction costs and takes advantage of lower transport costs. As the
whole region approaches similar levels of development a new Union
would eventually emerge.

A positive side effect would be the spreading of the population
concentrated in Mexico City. It would no longer act as sole magnet for
the whole country as each new Republic would manage its own public
services and government offices. The at some time forced
deconcentration of government would occur naturally. The fact is
people is already tired of living in a big, poluted city where
competition can become rapacious.

Each Republic would manage its own coin and would have its own central
bank. For the Republic of the Southeast it may even be adequate to
establish a dollar convertible coin, as being a country with a
touristical vocation many transactions are already in terms of
dollars. The same can be said of the Republic of the North because of
its vicinity to the United States. Most probably Mexico City (New
Tenochtitlan?) would keep the peso as monetary unit. The Gulf Republic
can create a new coin, strong due to the oil reserves.

Yet what constitutes a real problem is the external debt. It would
have to be split among the new republics according to some rule to be
defined by the new sovereign congresses (a convention), most likely
based on the expected taxation bases (forecasting likely population
movements). The split would go accompanied with refinancing of the
debt and bridge credits from international institutions.

International trade would follow natural vicinities. The Republic of
the Gulf would naturally trade the Atlantic Ocean, while New
Tenochtitlan, considering it would get the Pacific coasts, would
receive commerce from the East. The Republic of the North would
naturally take advantage of its vicinity to the USA, while the
Republic of the Southeast would have a natural advantage trading both
Oceans to get an explosive development. Incidentally, the Baja
Californias may consider anexing themselves to the United States. New
trade routes would establish themselves and there may even be
incentives to the reintroduction of modern railroads. Also, it would
be easier to reorganize terrestrial transport to conform to the norms
of the NAFTA. Though at first it would be necessary to install a
customs system, to emphatize the different borders and act as
incentives to the development of industries, eventually import taxes
would be reduced to zero as the republics approach the moment to
reconform the Union. Key products may be left free of tax when
negotiating the trade agreements, which should be very simple to avoid
inefficiencies due to the complexity of the system.

The new borders can be established following natural barriers, like
the Usumacinta river to the south, the mountain ranges to the East and
the desert to the North [1]. Since each state is further divided in
municipios, some states may actually lose or win municipios to follow
natural allegiances and make borders easy to distinguish, particularly
at the North. Special consideration should be given to indian
populations so that they are not distributed between republics.

Assuming the Army is approximately well spread throughout the
territory in terms of men, it would only be necessary to negotiate the
distribution of equipment and vehicles, if at all. This distribution
would be more in function of civilian neessities than military needs,
as peace is assumed beforehand. During the establishment of the
republics the Army may actually substitute the police corps and patrol
the streets to ensure a peaceful process; police corps can at that
moment be dissolved temporarily, with the additional benefit of
destroying encroached mafias. Each republic can then proceed to
recreate its police according to its own needs and standards. The
whole process _should_ be completely peaceful (save minor
disturbances, which in a population of 100 million are to be
expected), given the peace vocation of the Mexican population.

As a political process the states that will belong to each republic
would conform a convention to write their constitutions, which can
follow the structure of Mexico`s Constitution or be written completely
anew. At the same moment the different law codes can be compared and
merge, a good moment to close holes and eliminate minor and major
inconsistencies. Delegates from the conventions would reunite to agree
on the common borders and the distribution of the municipalities;
difficult areas would be resolved through refernedums of their
inhabitants. At the same time the conventions would reunite with the
central government to accord its disolution, the calendars and the
distribution of national assets and international responsibilities,
among other topics. Interim governments would be the first act of the
conventions, and once the national government is dissolved would
proceed to call to elections. The Mexico City government would act
naturally as the accumulation point for the Central Republic`s new
government, as the Nuevo Leon government would act as the seed for the
North Republic`s government. For the Republic of the Gulf Xalapa may
be the natural choice, while for the Southeast Republic Cancun would
be unadvisable, but Merida may be a good candidate to experiment
growth.

[1] The desertic regions can be expected to undergo rapid development
by the new republic`s need to make use of its territory efficiently,
maybe with international cooperation from Israel and other desert
dwelling countries. International support would be very advisable, as
well as observers from the United Nations.
Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna
2004-10-14 02:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
A very objective assessment of Mexico can show even to the casual
observer that as a country, its economic history is, at best, a series
of ups and downs totally unrelated to the richness of the natural
resources it is endowed with.
Please, do send me some of the stuff you have been smoking. Thank you.
Tiny Human Ferret
2004-10-14 16:11:35 UTC
Permalink
Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del Estado Libre y Soberano
Post by Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna
Post by Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
A very objective assessment of Mexico can show even to the casual
observer that as a country, its economic history is, at best, a series
of ups and downs totally unrelated to the richness of the natural
resources it is endowed with.
Please, do send me some of the stuff you have been smoking. Thank you.
He's been smoking Meow.

But actually it seems that Mexico is an immensely rich country, in terms
of natural resources. Why aren't the Mexican people more individually
wealthy?

Meow.
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
zerge
2004-10-14 23:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiny Human Ferret
Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del Estado Libre y Soberano
Post by Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna
Post by Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
A very objective assessment of Mexico can show even to the casual
observer that as a country, its economic history is, at best, a series
of ups and downs totally unrelated to the richness of the natural
resources it is endowed with.
Please, do send me some of the stuff you have been smoking. Thank you.
He's been smoking Meow.
But actually it seems that Mexico is an immensely rich country, in terms
of natural resources. Why aren't the Mexican people more individually
wealthy?
Meow.
Fabrizio does not understand that wealth is not about natural
resources. It's about MANAGEMENT of natural resources. So if you know
how to manage AND you have resources, cool. If you know how to manage,
and you DO NOT have natural resources, that's ok, you can buy the
resources. On the other hand, if you do NOT know how to manage
resources, it doesn't really matter whether you have resources or not.
And THAT is the current situation in Mexico. But it's a transitory
problem; we're working on it.
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
2004-10-15 22:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by zerge
Post by Tiny Human Ferret
Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del Estado Libre y Soberano
Post by Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna
Post by Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
A very objective assessment of Mexico can show even to the casual
observer that as a country, its economic history is, at best, a series
of ups and downs totally unrelated to the richness of the natural
resources it is endowed with.
Please, do send me some of the stuff you have been smoking. Thank you.
He's been smoking Meow.
But actually it seems that Mexico is an immensely rich country, in terms
of natural resources. Why aren't the Mexican people more individually
wealthy?
Meow.
Fabrizio does not understand that wealth is not about natural
resources. It's about MANAGEMENT of natural resources. So if you know
how to manage AND you have resources, cool. If you know how to manage,
and you DO NOT have natural resources, that's ok, you can buy the
resources. On the other hand, if you do NOT know how to manage
resources, it doesn't really matter whether you have resources or not.
And THAT is the current situation in Mexico. But it's a transitory
problem; we're working on it.
Temporary as in 500 years? And wealth is about Production. Oiol fields
are nothing until you exploit them.
zerge
2004-10-26 19:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
Post by zerge
Post by Tiny Human Ferret
Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del Estado Libre y Soberano
Post by Pomponio Magnus, Gobernador Constitucional del Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna
Post by Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
A very objective assessment of Mexico can show even to the casual
observer that as a country, its economic history is, at best, a series
of ups and downs totally unrelated to the richness of the natural
resources it is endowed with.
Please, do send me some of the stuff you have been smoking. Thank you.
He's been smoking Meow.
But actually it seems that Mexico is an immensely rich country, in terms
of natural resources. Why aren't the Mexican people more individually
wealthy?
Meow.
Fabrizio does not understand that wealth is not about natural
resources. It's about MANAGEMENT of natural resources. So if you know
how to manage AND you have resources, cool. If you know how to manage,
and you DO NOT have natural resources, that's ok, you can buy the
resources. On the other hand, if you do NOT know how to manage
resources, it doesn't really matter whether you have resources or not.
And THAT is the current situation in Mexico. But it's a transitory
problem; we're working on it.
Temporary as in 500 years? And wealth is about Production. Oiol fields
are nothing until you exploit them.
Wealth is not only about production. Services are not production, yet
they generate wealth.
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
2004-10-27 03:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by zerge
Post by zerge
Fabrizio does not understand that wealth is not about natural
resources. It's about MANAGEMENT of natural resources. So if you know
(snip)
Post by zerge
Temporary as in 500 years? And wealth is about Production. Oil fields
are nothing until you exploit them.
Wealth is not only about production. Services are not production, yet
they generate wealth.
Technically services are production too and generate wealth. They are
called intangible goods. Goods are whatever satisfies a (human) being
and can be put in a not strict ordered relationship (less,
indifferent, more). It can be argued that *true* wealth can be
accumulated and is tangible, or takes the form of money, which can be
accumulated but not necessarily tangible though it does have
permanence in time and can be translated from one time to another
(though it can win or lose value in terms of tangible or intangible
goods, i.e., can buy more or less of something according to the price
of that good), whereas services are not *true* wealth since they are
*totally* wasted as they are consummed. But wealth than can be
accumulated.is usually called capital. Note that capital is also
wasted while consumed (depreciation) but not *totally* wasted while
consumed (in the same period), and it can be replaced. Generally
people think of wealth as being *constant* and permanent in time, like
jewels and art, not factories or for the matter clothes. Services,
then, would not be considered wealth, but the *availability* of
services (to be consumed) would be considered wealth.

So services are not only intangible, but are wealth in the measure
that they are available. Thus the more waiters you have, the more
wealthy you are (speaking of a Nation).
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
2004-10-14 13:20:39 UTC
Permalink
A very objective assessment of Mexico can show even to the casual
observer that as a country, its economic history is, at best, a series
of ups and downs totally unrelated to the richness of the natural
resources it is endowed with. A country of 100 million habitants
should be a *very* successful country economically speaking. It is a
good faring nation thanks to its being close to the worlwide power,
the United States. It has acquired technology and culture from its
neighbor, plus economic help at times.

Yet one cannot avoid but wondering whether Mexico as a Nation is
really viable. The differences in culture among its states is very
noticeable. This idea is not new, other authors have noticed the same
situation. People from the south are very unrelated in many aspects to
people from the north, a big difference in comparison to the United
States, where even though there are differences according to the
region, the same culture is felt both in the West as in the East
Coast.

What is the optimum size for a country? I believe there are not
enough economic studies approaching this theme. Yet in terms of
development less can be better than more. For instance, one can
envision easily three Mexicos: a southern republic specialized in
Tourism and maybe natural resources. A Republic of the Center
dedicated to commerce and services, and an industrial Republic of the
North. Maybe this is what was really expected of the Mexican
Revolution...

That there are fractures can be seen in a very popular phrase: `haz
patria, mata un chilango` (be a patriot, kill a chilango, a dweller of
the capital). This phrase, though not necessarily _meant_, can
surprise at any moment. Even the fact of the term `chilango` is
indicative of resentment towards the capitalinos; paradoxical, since
many capitalinos come from provincia (province, states of the
interior). Popular sayings express the deep sentiments of peoples
(pueblos) and are a path to the `collective unconscious` in junguian
terms, the common images that pervade individualities. And for a
country this is a disgrace, though at the same time phrases like this
one serve to escape the pressures that build in convivence and can at
some point explode in violence.

Federalism has been a theme long debated by that country.
Interestingly, it didn`t evolve into parties main ideology. Many
people think that the capital actually takes lots of resources while
giving little in return. The assignment of allowances to the states is
a very important element when preparing and discussing the budget. And
it is evident that the actual contribution to the Federation`s
resources is very different for the more developed and populated
states than for the poorer ones. This distribution of resources is
often seen as unjust. The hypothesis is that by segmenting the country
this contributions may be made fairer. This idea is enunciated in the
I Ching, hexagram 59, fourth line: by dissolution (disolving)
accumulation is achieved. Such division would lead to specialization,
which is well known generates bigger outputs. So it can be conceivable
to speak of a Mexican Union akin to the European Economic Union. This
reformulation might lead to three states each with its own central
government, eventually reunited into an economic union. Even the
poitical distribution of forces seems to favor this vision.

Of course, other visions are possible. Considering the benefits of
specialization as a theme, a Gulf Republic consisting of Veracruz and
Tamaulipas would constitute a rather smooth economy of beach and oil
persuasion. In this vision there would be four republics, each one
developing their competitive advantages while getting support from the
other republics to complement their deficiencies, which given time
would diminish as each region develops its own industries to lower
transaction costs and takes advantage of lower transport costs. As the
whole region approaches similar levels of development a new Union
would eventually emerge.

A positive side effect would be the spreading of the population
concentrated in Mexico City. It would no longer act as sole magnet for
the whole country as each new Republic would manage its own public
services and government offices. The at some time forced
deconcentration of government would occur naturally. The fact is
people is already tired of living in a big, poluted city where
competition can become rapacious.

Each Republic would manage its own coin and would have its own central
bank. For the Republic of the Southeast it may even be adequate to
establish a dollar convertible coin, as being a country with a
touristical vocation many transactions are already in terms of
dollars. The same can be said of the Republic of the North because of
its vicinity to the United States. Most probably Mexico City (New
Tenochtitlan?) would keep the peso as monetary unit. The Gulf Republic
can create a new coin, strong due to the oil reserves.

Yet what constitutes a real problem is the external debt. It would
have to be split among the new republics according to some rule to be
defined by the new sovereign congresses (a convention), most likely
based on the expected taxation bases (forecasting likely population
movements). The split would go accompanied with refinancing of the
debt and bridge credits from international institutions.

International trade would follow natural vicinities. The Republic of
the Gulf would naturally trade the Atlantic Ocean, while New
Tenochtitlan, considering it would get the Pacific coasts, would
receive commerce from the East. The Republic of the North would
naturally take advantage of its vicinity to the USA, while the
Republic of the Southeast would have a natural advantage trading both
Oceans to get an explosive development. Incidentally, the Baja
Californias may consider anexing themselves to the United States. New
trade routes would establish themselves and there may even be
incentives to the reintroduction of modern railroads. Also, it would
be easier to reorganize terrestrial transport to conform to the norms
of the NAFTA. Though at first it would be necessary to install a
customs system, to emphatize the different borders and act as
incentives to the development of industries, eventually import taxes
would be reduced to zero as the republics approach the moment to
reconform the Union. Key products may be left free of tax when
negotiating the trade agreements, which should be very simple to avoid
inefficiencies due to the complexity of the system.

The new borders can be established following natural barriers, like
the Usumacinta river to the south, the mountain ranges to the East and
the desert to the North [1]. Since each state is further divided in
municipios, some states may actually lose or win municipios to follow
natural allegiances and make borders easy to distinguish, particularly
at the North. Special consideration should be given to indian
populations so that they are not distributed between republics.

Assuming the Army is approximately well spread throughout the
territory in terms of men, it would only be necessary to negotiate the
distribution of equipment and vehicles, if at all. This distribution
would be more in function of civilian neessities than military needs,
as peace is assumed beforehand. During the establishment of the
republics the Army may actually substitute the police corps and patrol
the streets to ensure a peaceful process; police corps can at that
moment be dissolved temporarily, with the additional benefit of
destroying encroached mafias. Each republic can then proceed to
recreate its police according to its own needs and standards. The
whole process _should_ be completely peaceful (save minor
disturbances, which in a population of 100 million are to be
expected), given the peace vocation of the Mexican population.

As a political process the states that will belong to each republic
would conform a convention to write their constitutions, which can
follow the structure of Mexico`s Constitution or be written completely
anew. At the same moment the different law codes can be compared and
merge, a good moment to close holes and eliminate minor and major
inconsistencies. Delegates from the conventions would reunite to agree
on the common borders and the distribution of the municipalities;
difficult areas would be resolved through refernedums of their
inhabitants. At the same time the conventions would reunite with the
central government to accord its disolution, the calendars and the
distribution of national assets and international responsibilities,
among other topics. Interim governments would be the first act of the
conventions, and once the national government is dissolved would
proceed to call to elections. The Mexico City government would act
naturally as the accumulation point for the Central Republic`s new
government, as the Nuevo Leon government would act as the seed for the
North Republic`s government. For the Republic of the Gulf Xalapa may
be the natural choice, while for the Southeast Republic Cancun would
be unadvisable, but Merida may be a good candidate to experiment
growth.

[1] The desertic regions can be expected to undergo rapid development
by the new republic`s need to make use of its territory efficiently,
maybe with international cooperation from Israel and other desert
dwelling countries. International support would be very advisable, as
well as observers from the United Nations.
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
2004-11-01 00:51:33 UTC
Permalink
The South of Mexico in itself enjoys characteristics that make it a
natural candidate to conform a rich, successful country. Particularly
fixing its borders would be easy by following rivers as natural
barriers. This is not that easy north of Mexico City. There are no
natural barriers nor otherwise easily followed borders. People fom the
Bajio may consider themselves more akin to the Centro than to the
North. Jalisco, which considers itself the essential expression of
mexicanity, may have a tough time deciding between joining the Centro
or the North, though from the point of view of people who live in
Mexico City and nearby zones, Jalisco is already a state of the North
and not a part of what is considered the Centro, which includes the
surrounding states to Mexico City, Puebla and maybe Oaxaca. The border
in this case can be fixed by the Mesa Central, the mountains that
conform the crown in whose center the old Tenochtitlan was founded.
New Tenochtitlan would be a mountaineous republic, in the same way
that the mountains to the East would serve as barrier to the coastal
Republic of the Gulf.
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
2004-11-01 17:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Culturally speaking, Mexico is already a divided country, not well
integrated. There are prejudices between people of the different
zones, so, for instance, people from the North are codos (elbows,
avarice), people from the South are indios (indians, no-goods), people
from the Centro (chilangos), are abusive. This doesn`t forebode well
for integrated economic relationships. Also there is a marked
malinchism, the ideology that products made in Mexico are not well
done, so it is better to buy foreign. This was one of the reasons,
beyond purely economic ones, that determined the sanction of NAFTA: it
was imposible to win over the desire to buy American, which lead to
the pervasive market of fayuca, illegaly imported goods...
BK Big Fish
2004-11-14 21:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Why bring up Mexico for optimum country size? Just because it's the
closest country to the U.S.? What criteria are you using? Differing
cultures? Because if you look at little further than North America,
you will perceive the EU, the European Union, which is currently about
a dozen countries that have united into a currency union under the
Euro, the first step to economic unification. France and Germany are
much more different than different parts of Mexico. Why would Mexico
split into different countries? Why would anyone want that?

Abundant natural resources, except when they are found in an already
developed wealthy nation, are a plague on any country. The more
natural resources, the poorer. Finding oil is probably the worst
curse you can ever put on the average person of a country. Look at
Nigeria, the Middle East, Indonesia, Venezuela, and of course, Mexico.
All major oil producing regions. Look at any country with major
natural resources but lacking a large middle class. It's not
necessarily about natural resources versus production, it's more a
question of natural resources versus where do those resources go? In
every case, they go to a select few rich and powerful, who then have
enough wealth and power to stay in power even thought they are
viciously raping their own peoples.

But hey, that's life.
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
2004-11-24 03:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Then Mexico can be seen not as several Mexicos but as two Mexicos:
black and white. What do black and white mean? It can mean many
things. But the general perception is of a country polarized, rich and
poor, cultured and ignorant, urban and rural, formal and informal,
`nice` and bronco, `fresa` and `naco`. Differences from town to town
can be appalling. This differences introduce tensions in a society
that manifest in and as inequalities that tend to perpetuate
themselves and establish closed and self contained systems.

A powerful reason to form countries is that of minimizing the cost of
transaction among economic agents. These costs are usually seen as
transportation and maybe legal and idiomatic constraints, but their
form can subsume lots of concepts that we gather under the term
culture. In pure economic terms costs are minimized by using a single
currency and avoiding tariffs, plus common tax schemes which are the
tenets of federalism. But on a more sociological point of view these
costs also include the law regimes, and ways to perceive and conduct
life in general. Aspects such as fiscal morality, trust in
partnerships, common business protocols, negotiation practices and
formalities, etc. are also some of the unseen but all important costs
that are minimized by conglomerating geographical regions into
political borders called states and countries. They form what has also
been termed the `national character`.
robert j. kolker
2004-11-24 08:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
black and white. What do black and white mean? It can mean many
things. But the general perception is of a country polarized, rich and
poor, cultured and ignorant, urban and rural, formal and informal,
`nice` and bronco, `fresa` and `naco`.
Two kinds of Mexicans. Those covered with shit and those who are not.
See -Monty Python and the Holy Grail-.

Bob Kolker
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
2004-11-30 17:17:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by robert j. kolker
Post by Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
black and white. What do black and white mean? It can mean many
things. But the general perception is of a country polarized, rich and
poor, cultured and ignorant, urban and rural, formal and informal,
`nice` and bronco, `fresa` and `naco`.
Two kinds of Mexicans. Those covered with shit and those who are not.
See -Monty Python and the Holy Grail-.
Kind of...

Loading...