Argentina is the most British country in Latin America. Why?

[u/MontroseRoyal]

I would like to expand upon the title. I believe that Argentina is not only the most ‘British’ country in Latin America, but the most ‘British’ country that was never formally colonized by the British themselves. I firmly believe this and will elaborate.

Let’s start with town names. In the Buenos Aires metro area alone; English & Irish town and neighborhood names are commonplace. Such as Hurlingham, Canning, Billinghurst, Wilde, Temperley, Ranelagh, Hudson, Claypole, Coghlan, Banfield, and even Victoria (yes, purposefully named after the Queen).

One of the two biggest football clubs in the capital has an English name, River Plate. And the sport was brought by some English immigrants. Curiously, Rugby and Polo are also very popular Argentina, unlike surrounding countries. For a long time, the only Harrods outside the UK operated in Buenos Aires too. Many Argentines are of partial English descent. When the English community was stronger, they built a prominent brick monument called “Tower of the English”. After the Falklands, it was renamed to “Tower of the Malvinas” by the government out of spite.

In Patagonia, in the Chubut province particularly, there is obviously the Welsh community with town names like Trelew, Eawson, and Puerto Madryn. Patagonian Welsh is a unique variety of the language that developed more or less independently for a few years with no further influence from English. Although the community and speakers now number little, Welsh traditions are a major tourist factor for Chubut.

There is a notable diaspora community of Scottish and their descendants as well. I remember once randomly walking into a large Scottish festival near Plaza de Mayo where there were many artisan vendors selling celtic merchandise with a couple of traditional Scottish dancers on a stage.

Chile has some British/Irish influence (who can forget Bernardo O’Higgins?), but seemingly not nearly to the same extent. The English community was rather small, so it doesn’t make much sense to me how they can have such a large impact. I guess my question is why Argentina? Of all places

[u/e9967780]

Women are choosing fewer children because, for the first time, they have real alternatives to traditional roles. They can pursue education and careers, which fundamentally changes reproductive decisions. This isn’t reversible - it’s a permanent societal shift happening worldwide, not just in specific countries.

The global population trend is heading toward fewer births as women gain more economic and personal freedom. Countries like Japan are early indicators of a broader global pattern where population decline becomes the norm, not the exception. There’s a finite number of people and resources, and the current model of endless growth is unsustainable.

Multicultural expansion and immigration aren’t universal solutions. Some societies, like Japan, may choose to maintain their demographic and cultural integrity rather than importing populations. The underlying reality is that global population dynamics are changing, and societies will need to adapt to smaller populations and limited resources.

[u/epona2000 → u/e9967780]

I still don’t like your framing of women’s reproductive choices. The baby boom was once in human history event that was not caused by women’s choices. Infant mortality plummeted before reproductive behavior changed. The availability of birth control and decline of infant mortality are both so closely correlated with fertility rate decline that it’s very challenging to infer the underlying causal relationships. 

Advancements in technology, increased automation, and increased global trade greatly reduced the relative value of “unskilled” labor. Simultaneously, economic competition between communism and capitalism became the main global political question. Women had already entered the workforce during World War II and conclusively demonstrated capability and productivity. Societies started valuing additional children less and started valuing women’s time and labor more. This causes governments, corporations, and universities to massively expand educational and career opportunities for women. 

In my opinion, this is really important to understand economic gender politics. Overwhelmingly, women’s choices did not advance women’s economic opportunities. The male political system viewed expanding women’s economic freedom as a necessary evil to compete with foreign adversaries.

This is important to understand because it’s very easy for the alt-right to frame feminism as a political force opposed to fertility. This is not true, the political forces that have driven down fertility are largely capitalist. Women have always had to fight tooth and nail for any freedom which cannot be exploited for profit.

[u/e9967780 → u/epona2000]

It doesn’t matter how I frame it—Americans tend to view everything through their political lens. However, the world changes regardless of whether the American alt-left or alt-right supports feminism. Women in places like Timbuktu, who have no concept of feminism, naturally will have fewer children when they gain the opportunity to work and contribute financially. This is often a joint decision with their husbands, as having many children places a heavy burden on a single income and a potential one way ticket through the Sahara to Europe in dingy boats.

Fertility rates are declining worldwide—Japan, Europe, China, and India are all experiencing significant drops. No amount of fearmongering about feminism will alter this reality. Sub-Saharan Africa remains the last frontier of high fertility rates, but even that will change with economic progress. As living standards rise, birth rates inevitably fall. Japan offers a glimpse of the future—a society where economic and demographic trends shape a new world. I will not be around to see it, but future generations will live in a world with fewer people and a more balanced approach to life.

[u/epona2000 → u/e9967780]

The question I have for you then is: why do countries which industrialized earlier and have had high living standards for longer have much higher fertility rates than Japan and South Korea?

Why did France, the UK, the US, etc. not have such a sharp decline in fertility? They have certainly declined but nowhere near as precipitously. 

Immigration is only part of the story. The birth rates are still higher for non-immigrant populations in these countries than in Japan. 

[u/e9967780 → u/epona2000]

It’s an interesting observation, all what I know is that in US atleast the ready availability of cheap labor from Latin American countries in the form of illegal immigrants helping the economy at all levels including directly being nannies allowed primarily middle and upper class white women to have the cake and eat it too. That is have a viable career and have more than replacement amount children on average. I don’t have access to that study. Something similar might have happened in these class cleaved societies in Europe as well, whereas WW2 devastated all segments of society in South Korea and Japan and there wasn’t a servile class to hold up the middle and upper class to have a career and enough children all at once.

[u/LotsOfMaps → u/e9967780]

Women are choosing fewer children because, for the first time, they have real alternatives to traditional roles.

No, it's because the intensity of resources to maintain class position is so much higher than 100 years ago. Very few women want their children to be materially worse off than they are.