>>18369895
Mexico has far more Indigenous DNA because it was more densely populated before the conquest while Argentina was sparsely populated before the arrival of the Spaniards.
Additionally Argentina received a massive shot of European admixture with immigrants arriving in the 19th-20th century while Mexico didn't.
Listen up gringo, we South American BVLLs are nothing like those squat brown goblinitos up north. You'd do well to learn that.

>>18369895
non white admixture is the taint of hell

One was primarily a colonial project, while the other was primarily a resource extraction colony, though this is a generalization since both differ based on location

Argentina was less sparsely populated and received 7 million European immigrants. Currently, only 30% of Argentinians are white, like Pope Francis or Milei. The rest are divided between castizos like Messi, and indo-mestizos like Maradona. Mexico has always had a large Indigenous population and did not receive significant European immigration.

>>18369895

>Why are there ethnic differences between Argentina and Mexico?

THERE ARE ETHNICAL DIFFERENCES WITHIN BOTH COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS BETWEEN THEM; ALL OF IBEROAMERICAN COUNTRIES, LIKE VIRTUALLY ALL OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD, ARE MULTIETHNICAL.


>Weren’t they both former Spanish colonies?

I. SPAIN HAS NEVER HAD COLONIES.

II. MEXICO, AND ARGENTINA, HAVE NEVER BEEN SPANISH COLONIES.


>If so, why are they ethnically different? What is the historical reason for this?

THE BETTER QUESTION IS: WHY DO YOU PRESUME A MONOETHNICAL NORM THAT HAS NEVER ACTUALLY BEEN REAL IN ALL OF HISTORY?

EVEN ANCIENT TRIBES WERE NOT MONOETHNICAL.