March 31, 2006

What Multiculturalism Has Wrought

Via Instapundit comes this reminder of what the real stakes are in the real struggle. Assimilation is the central front, and the critical aspect of that is our willingness to defend the legitimacy of our society and its central assumptions. Everything else is, at heart, a distraction.

The Mexica Movement and those like them are fascists pure and simple -- so highy ironic that they try to portray their opponents as Nazis. They are still a tiny minority of the Hispanic population in the USA, but they are active and vocal, and very few people are willing to contradict the heart of their claims. In fact, a dilute form of their narrative has been standard fare for multiculturalists for the past forty years.

Hitler began with twenty nutbags in a beer hall. These people already have more than that.

UPDATE: Also of interest is this memo regarding the Senate legslation from a La Raza analyst to a Capitol Hill staffer. Key quote: While it doesn't overtly mention assimilation, it is very strong on the patriotism and traditional American values language in a way which is potentially dangerous to our communities.

Patriotism and traditional American values. Yes, that's very dangerous stuff indeed.

It would be very useful, I think, if the blogosphere were to make sure this material is very widely disseminated and kept in peoples' memories.

Posted by James C. Bennett at March 31, 2006 10:44 AM

How is it "their continent" if they speak Spanish? Nor do they look pure blooded anything. They are mixed race bunch just like the Americans. I presume little jollies like this will harden anti-immigration attitudes in the States.

Posted by: Helen at March 31, 2006 11:24 AM

Heather MacDonald has an excellent article in "City Journal" on the part played by Mexican diplomats in the United States in assisting Mexican nationals to illegally enter this country. See:

Posted by: Daniel MacGregor at March 31, 2006 12:14 PM

Another thing I find rather odd: why are these Mexican diplomats and politicians so anxious to get their people into the United States? After all, they cannot seriously think that the country will just be handed over to them and, anyway, how are they going to run it. The alternative seems to be that the idea of people leaving Mexico appeals to them. A curious notion.

Soon after the collapse of communism, during the rather chaotic situation in Eastern Europe, one of the things that was worrying everybody was the number of young people who openly said that they saw their future somewhere else. That has now changed. People want to travel, work abroad but their future is back home - a relief to all. Surely, that is a more understandable attitude.

Posted by: Helen at March 31, 2006 12:25 PM

"The alternative seems to be that the idea of people leaving Mexico appeals to them. A curious notion."

The Mexican economy is so decrepit that it cannot even hope to employ its own workforce at anything like full employment. The Mexican government does not want a bunch of young men with nothing to do standing around. That will just lead to trouble. The enterprising ones might even try to take over and change the place, if they had nowhere else to go. This way the ones with gumption go away to el Norte, work their asses off (the ones in Chicago do, mostly, anyway), and send a nice slice of their earnings home, billions of dollars worth. This is not a lot by American standards, but it is a huge infusion of money into the Mexican economy. These remittances are probably all that is keeping the Mexican domestic economy from collapsing completely and thus putting the politicians out of work, if not getting them strung up from the nearest lamp post. Plus, talking about how the Mexicans in the USA are being treated badly and how all that land is rightfully part of Mexico, yadda yadda, is a way to create a "foreign policy"/"national pride" issue. This is a useful tool to distract the domestic constituency from the rock bottom rotten quality of their own domestic political and economic order.

It really does all make sense.

Posted by: Lex at March 31, 2006 12:39 PM

"This is our continent"

Heh. I remember at some confernece hearing someone say basically the same thing about Mexican migration into the US, while I was sitting next to a guy from the BIA - Hopi, as it happened. I looked over and he was just shaking his head.

These people are basically a group of academic hobbyists. They fancy themselves sons of the people, but they are insignificant parasites. Worse than that for their image in the community is the fact that the one aspect of their program that anyone in the wider commmunity has picked up on is the rebirth/growth of Nahauatl as a daily language - its growing in the prison ganags because most guards understand most spoken Spanish.

Mexica rather than Aztec is the ethnonym for nation the Aztecs ruled. It doesn't really resonate with Michoacanos, Oaxacans or people of the score of ethnicities in other states - Puebla comes to mind immediately - who fought the Aztecs to a standstill. So don't expect some tidal wave of Mexicans asserting some "right" to enter the US based on this particualr nonsense.

Lex is right about all the reasons that the Mexian elites have for wanting people to come to the US. But that is a short-sighted policy, because these same people may very well return to Mexico, but this time with money and notions of equality and full participation in the political process.

Posted by: Jim at March 31, 2006 02:15 PM

All of the Mexican-Americn people I know consider this sort of stuff to be pure looney tunes, about the same way I would view Aryan Nations' claim that Kennewick Man means that North America "belongs" to Caucasians. The amazing thing is how people on the Left suck up to La Raza, Mecha, and Mexia. The quoted memo was from La Raza's lobbyist to their distribution list on Capitol Hill. Don't they even pretend to believe in civic democracy any more?

Posted by: Jim Bennett at March 31, 2006 03:29 PM

Helen asked:
How is it "their continent" if they speak Spanish? Nor do they look pure blooded anything. They are mixed race bunch just like the Americans.


* Most "Native Americans" are speak English, not their native languages.
Are you disqualifying them as Indigenous, too?

* Most "Native Americans" are mixed-bloods, too. Are you disqualifying them as Indigenous, too?

* Most Jews are not "full blooded anything" going back to the original 12 Tribes of Israel.

Are you going to tell the Jews they aren't Jews (almost none are "full-blooded"), too ?

Most Mexicans, Central Americans, "Native Americans" and Canadian First Nations are mixed-blood Indigenous People (not mixed-blood White people).

30% of Mexico's population is full-blood.

Just as the German Parliament has no right to tell Jews who is Jewish and who is not,

neither do European-descent people have any say over who is Indigenous.

Posted by: Mexica at April 3, 2006 11:29 PM


That's as silly a reply as I have ever seen. From what I have seen of the demos, they disqualify English speakers from being the "true" owners of the Continent , which would disqualify many of the Indigenous (after a fashion - they, too, came from Asia) peoples. To say that everyone from 1492 onwards is an illegal immigrant and maintain that the Spanish speakers are the real owners of the Continent is illogical. Who came in 1492? And not, as I recall, to the northern part of the Continent, either.

What on earth have Jews or Germans to do with any of it?

Posted by: Helen at April 4, 2006 09:59 AM

"neither do European-descent people have any say over who is Indigenous."

Absolute twaddle. A person is indigenous if his ancestros didn't come fron anywhere else; that is the plain etymnology of the word. And since it is a word in a European language, "European-descent people" have at least as good a right as anyone to say how it should apply. ANSWER that.

Since all humans descend form ancestors who left East Africa, 'indigenous' is a relative term. In the Arizona or New Mexico a Navajo or Apache is indigenous only relative to Mexican-Americans or Anglos, and for that matter Hopi or Tohono-O'odham are indigenous simply because there is no earlier group - remaining. This applies all acrsoo the continent. The Cherokee, to take one egregiou case, were not indigenous across a huge portion of their land. The Lakota and Cheyenne were not indigenous in the Gret Plains. Ask the Pawnee or Absaroka. And it is no good to say that they are indigenous in "America" since America didn't exist as a unit until the Europeans concocted the notion.

Posted by: Jim at April 4, 2006 10:10 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?