Why Mexico should apologize: the debate that divides

Mexico in the mirror: heir to an empire or victim of its own mismanagement?

The request for an apology from Spain over the conquest has peine a debate that, far from being settled, keeps gaining new angles. One of the most frequently cited voices across the Atlantic is that of Alexander von Humboldt, who visited New Spain in the early 19th century. In his "Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain," the German scholar observed that the territory was indeed immensely rich, but only for its creole oligarchic caste. Spanish administrators, he said, tried to curb the abuses of that local oligarchy, but did not always succeed. Two hundred years later, the words still resonate.

The wealth that was lost

Some argue that New Spain was the jewel of the Crown, the most prosperous territory of its time, and that upon independence in 1821 Mexico squandered that legacy. The argument is no small matter: while England was beginning its industrial revolution, the viceroyalty depended on extractive mining. The comparison with Rome also comes up: "The conquest of Mexico is as if Rome had reached sub-Saharan Africa, a waste of effort," the saying goes. But others point out that Rome brought back gold and ivory without needing to romanize the peoples; trade with the Aztecs would have been possible. Was the conquest necessary? The question remains open.

The cost of an empire

Spain poured its resources into the Americas. So much so that the first railway was built in Cuba, not on the peninsula. The crisis of 1898, with the loss of the last colonies, left an identity wound that the British, after 1945, did not suffer so intensely. While France exploited its empire extractively, Spain built a civilization, with cities, universities and miscegenation. But that effort also had a dark side. Some analysts point out that modern Mexico is not a reconquest by the Mexica, but a creation of Spanish creoles who broke with the Crown right after having won a war against the independence rebels. The abuses of the conquest, they say, weigh more on the ancestors of those who govern Mexico today than on those of today's Spaniards.

The labyrinth of identity

The debate gets tangled when the nation comes up. Mexico won its independence by taking advantage of Napoleon's invasion of Spain, and its founding fathers—Hidalgo, Morelos, Iturbide—fought against the royalists. Yet it is argued that national consciousness was weak. The 1847 American intervention is mentioned, when 100,000 soldiers entered through Veracruz and resistance was improvised, despite heroes like the Niños Héroes (the "Boy Heroes" who died defending the military academy). The uncomfortable question: why did the civilian population not wage a guerrilla war? For some, the answer lies in the weak roots of a cohesive national identity.

The contrast with the Anglo-Saxon model also comes up. While in the United States the natives were massacred and confined to reservations, in Mexico there was miscegenation. But the current policy of elevating the Aztecs as fathers of the nation is, according to one school of thought, a historical mistake: Mexico is the direct heir of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, not of the pre-Columbian peoples. "All the mental diarrhea against Spain is the disastrous political management of their own country, already independent," it is argued.

A striking fact

Humboldt also noted that miners in New Spain earned four times more than in Germany. The figure, which some cite to defend colonial management, contradicts the narrative of mere exploitation. But the debate is no small matter: the underlying question—whether Mexico should apologize—still has no clear answer. The only certainty is that, two hundred years later, the shadow of the viceroyalty keeps lengthening.