Counterfactual Mexicos

For many generations, historians searched for deep and immutable structures, inexorable trends that persist over longues dureés , big pictures in which details do not matter very much. Now we live in a world of accidents, contingencies, and multiple meanings, so we have turned our attention to natural disasters, unique cultural expressions, and the idiosyncrasies of individuals both small and large. This is all to the good, but it does not go far enough. We already have so many history books that tell us so much about what really occurred in the past, that what we need now are books about what did not happen – but might have, or perhaps even should have happened: Counterfactual history, that is, history that is contrary to fact. Take the case of Mexican independence. Everyone knows the basic outlines of the story from Father Hidalgo in 1810 to General Iturbide's coup in 1821. Of course, there is still a lot for historians to squabble about, but they are all fighting about the causes or significance of what really happened. This is like a boxing match between fighters dressed in straightjackets. Mexico lost three opportunities to secure its independence from Spain, protect itself from the territorial ambitions of the United States, and propel its economy into the “First World” between 1776 and 1812. These lost opportunities point to counterfactual “histories” of Mexico that are much more interesting than the real history.