December 3, 2012

The weirdness of it all

I've added a couple of more faces to my gallery of Latinos frequently called upon by the media as natural interlocutors on the subject of immigration amnesty. 

A commenter points out:
Now, anywhere else in the world if a distinct population group (white hispanics) were in power and an oppressed group (hispanic hispanics) were fleeing en masse, the US would lead the way at the UN in calling that 'ethnic cleansing' and we'd promptly establish embargoes, no-fly zones and call for NATO forces to be sent in. Remember what happened when all those Albanians fled Kosovo? 
Yet, with the current situation not only do we not call it ethnic cleansing, which I think would not be too hard a case to make, but the white hispanics actually get to negotiate on behalf of the oppressed hispanic hispanics in this country. 

This widespread assumption that Sen. Marco Rubio, a tanned Cubano, should negotiate a deal with the Democrats over amnesty for Mexicans is pretty weird when you stop and think about.

So don't.

Then again, the media was totally on board in the summer of 2001 with George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell negotiating an immigration foreign policy deal with Vicente Fox and Foreign Secretary Jorge G. Castaneda. (House Republicans quietly sank it a few days before 9/11.) By the way, did you ever get a gander at those guys? Mexican politicians try to stay tanned (which isn't hard to do at 7,000 feet altitude and 19 degrees of latitude), but still ...

Fox looked like the actor Televisa would choose to play Don Draper's role in the Mexico City-set telenovela remake of Mad Men. And Castaneda, whose mom was a Soviet translator at the UN, was known in Mexico as El Guero. Castaneda, on the other hand,  has this whole Miami Vice thing going:

My commenter continues:
If the US were the least bit consistent with its foreign policy, they'd train and arm the hispanic hispanics and send them back to Mexico to overthrow the white hispanics and maybe help create a nation where the masses might actually be able to own property and make a living. In fact, many on the right might actually suppport this type of intervention if it could help spread the wealth in Mexico.

Well, let's not do that. 

Yet ... can we at least remind ourselves that Mexico is home to the world's richest man? Granted, Carlos Slim (nee Salim)  bailed out the New York Times, so that's not really considered an appropriate topic for discussion in the national news, but the notion that all these people have to move to America because there's no money in Mexico seem to be overlooking a few folks.

Here's what Castaneda had to say about modern Mexico in 1997:
A government undersecretary (one level down from the top echelon of public service) earned in 1994 (prior to devaluation) approximately $180,000 after taxes … -- almost twice what his U.S. counterpart earned before taxes. His chauffeur (provided by the government, of course) made about $7,500 a year. The official addresses the employee with the familiar "tu," while the latter must speak to the former with the respectful "usted." The official and his peers in the business and intellectual elites of the nation tend to be white (there are exceptions, but they are becoming scarcer), well educated, and well traveled abroad. They send their two children to private schools, removed from the world of the employee. The employee and his peers tend to be mestizo, many are barely literate, and they have four or five children, most of whom will be able to attend school only through the fifth grade."

Castaneda went on to argue that America better not try to tighten the border, because without that safety valve, the poor of Mexico would rise up and slit the throats of the rich, and by the time the rich got done getting their revenge (and, trust me, they would get their revenge), their'd be 10 million refugees over the border.

55 comments:

Shmiggen Mghow said...

Okay. I can live with them flooding over the border IF they give us the Baja Pensinsula. They owe us something. I cannot believe we ask nothing in return from Mexico. Can't we get something...like real estate discounts? Probably not. I guess we just lie back and watch the formation of Aztlan in the southwestern US. Good times. Well, when all is said and done - they are Catholics, not Muslims. Still better off here than in Europe. I can handle mestizo catholics. I can't abide raghead muslims.

socks said...

I've been wondering if the safety valve theme ever played wrt mexico. I was reading Ventura's book a while back and one chapter including a paper from the pentagon asking african countries to keep their border's open to act as a release valve (after some disaster in a neighboring country).

Orthodox said...

Mestizo Catholics, but what if they revert to Aztec culture. Would you rather your ancestors live under Muslim rule if Jewish or Christian (beheaded otherwise) or have their beating heart removed and then beheaded?

Anonymous said...

Shmmiggen Mghow: "Okay. I can live with them flooding over the border IF they give us the Baja Pensinsula. They owe us something. I cannot believe we ask nothing in return from Mexico. Can't we get something...like real estate discounts?"

Yes, you can get your cheap beachfront real estate. Just go on Ebay and choose one of a gazillion $1 timeshares for sale in Los Cabos, Mazatlan or Puerto Vallarta. Thanks to the current militant uprising of the hispanic hispanics down there Ebay is flooded with these things. Vaya con dios!

Anonymous said...

If we live long enough, maybe we'll get to see a Catholic Hispanic USA go to war with Muslim Eurabia for global domination by sending out their white militaries.

beowulf said...

Marco Rubio as the white Hispanic voice of the oppressed Hispanic Hispanics (i.e. the indios) is doubly amusing because in Latin American, the light skinned elites are called rubios (literally, blondes).

Amy Chua's book World On Fire was really good on this, how market market dominant minorities (ethnic Chinese, rubios, Scots Irish) run the show in many countries which the resentful poor majorities are left to stew over.
Mexico has the luxury of dumping its poor on us as that safety valve.

Lucius said...

" . . . and by the time the rich got done getting their revenge (and, trust me, they would get their revenge), their'd be 10 million refugees over the border."

--So this all happened, right?

NOTA said...

In general, I think this is another example of political reality being shaped by lack of knowledge among the media and the elites. Most people in the media and the elites see hispanics as all kinda the same, and so they make the bizarre error of assuming Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans have a lot of interests in common. No, they have a language in common, and some aspects of culture in common.

To use the most obvious example, Puerto Ricans are US citizens, so immigration issues are just not all that personally important for most of them. They may have family or friends who would benefit from easier immigration or amnesty, but mostly, their family from back home can come here anytime they like, subject only to being able to support themselves. Something similar applies to Cubans--Cubans who make it to US soil are treated very well by our immigration system, so amnesty is not all that big a deal.

By cutting a deal on immigration with Cuban and Puerto Rican ethnic spokesmen, the GOP need not offer anything very useful or sensible, because these spokesmens' backers simply don't care about those issues very much.

My guess, based on intuition and not polling data, is that the thing that pisses off Cubans and Puerto Ricans is overt hostility to hispanics, or more generally to immigrants. On the other hand, a rather bloodless and impartial enforcement of immigration rules (when your business is found with N illegals among its employees, the fine is $1000 * N^3) without the overt ethnic hostility probably doesn't have such a bad effect there.

Other hispanics, on the other hand, have big problems with immigration. I know a fair number of US citizens of Mexican ancestry, and they inevitably have family and friends across the border. They're likely to know people who are here illegally, and other people whom they'd like to help come here. Controlling immigration is going to hurt people they personally know and care about. On the other hand, it can be done humanely or not. Both for reasons of politics and for reasons of human decency, getting control of immigration should be done as humanely as possible. And that means mostly focusing on employers (who are the important point anyway--the great majority of illegal immigrants are here for jobs) and on deporting criminals (who nobody particularly wants here anyway).

It seems to me that the GOP does the opposite of this--they mostly don't want to go after employers, since those are also important campaign contributors and supporters who want cheap labor. But they can get some political advantage, at least short-term, by playing up some overt hostility to immigrants while not doing anything to make hiring illegals less appealing to businesses, and so that's most of what they do. The way this looks to me is that the GOP is damaging itself long-term, in order to get short-term advantage in votes and contributions.

Rohan Swee said...

This widespread assumption that Sen. Marco Rubio, a tanned Cubano, should negotiate a deal with the Democrats over amnesty for Mexicans is pretty weird when you stop and think about.

So don't.


Funny how old, old rivalries never die, they just become quiescent, only to fire up again as soon as history gives an inch? Looks like the Spaniard has never stopped fighting the gringo for the control of the New World. Funny to watch in one lifetime the "model minority" Cubans, the most patriotic of American patriots, jump sides virtually overnight to lead the hispanophone masses against the Anglo enemy.

Of course it's not about the oppressed mestizo, who's there to be ruled, but the times have made him a very useful cudgel against the anglophone culture. Same with the likes of Presidente Kirchner posing as an indigene against the colonialist oppressor Britain when caterwauling about the Falklands.

Now from a detached point of view it's all very amusing to watch the descendents of rapacious European colonizers attack other people for being the descendents of rapacious European colonizers, but we all know that ancient rivalries can become as serious and bloody as they are comical.

Unfortunately for the once ascendent anglophone culture, the richest and most influential gringos, having noticed that being a winner is even sweeter in a stratified caste society, have also switched sides. The fallback lines are too effete, deracinated, and buried in their own progressive and globalist moonshine to even notice what's going on.

Nick Diaz said...

Steve Sailer, since you keep bringing up Desí Arnaz being married to Marilyn Monroe as proof that only blacks have ever been discriminated in América, then answer me the following question:

Could a man named "Desí Arnaz" have become U.S president back in the days when "I Love Lucy" was running on T.V? Answer me this question! I have asked you this several times, and you never reply.

Then, also explain to me the 1924 Immigration Act, which especifically tried to limit immigrants from southern Europe on the grounds they were innately inferior in character and intelligence to northern Europeans and, if allowed to enter América in large numbers, would eventually lead to the decline of U.S?

Stop dodging these queries and address them. Don't be scared, homey.

JSM said...

But we *got* the 10 million refugees -- (more like 30 million of 'em if you count their anchor babies) regardless.
And poor mestizos didn't even get their fun of revolutioning.

So why did we listen to Castenada's threat, again?

Anonymous said...

Castaneda is Scots Irish, as are many of Mexico's political, business, and media elites.

Why, by the way, does the United States need to "negotiate a deal" with Mexico in order to address the U.S. immigration problem.

Chicago said...

It's apparent that the elite of Latin America, the ones who own and dominate those countries, have little in common with the masses. But how is that so much different from what we have here? With them it's more apparent visually, in our case it's somewhat hidden. The leaders of each country deal directly with each other in high-handed manner over the heads of the populace who are there as just so many economic units. Leaders with indigenous credentials such as Chavez and Morales have had an unremittingly hostile reception from the US because they seem to have looked out for the interests of the bulk of their populations rather than selling them out.
It's possible the US quietly allowed this huge wave of illegals to come in so as to relieve economic pressures in Mexico as part of the NAFTA agreement. There's always been this great fear that people south of the border might go communist and we can't have that, thus much effort has been expended to prevent that from happening.
Looking at Latin America is almost like looking in the mirror except that the Spaniards have been meaner and crueler than the Anglos and the social dichotomies starker.

Anonymous said...

Leftist:"Steve Sailer, since you keep bringing up Desí Arnaz being married to Marilyn Monroe as proof that only blacks have ever been discriminated in América,"

Has Steve ever said that only Blacks have been discriminated against?As I recall, he has simply pointed out that anti-Black sentiments have simply been vastly greater.After all, there were no Black equivalents to John Dos Passos, John Philip Sousa, George Santayana or the De Acosta siblings (Aida, Mercedes, Rita).


Leftist:"then answer me the following question:

Could a man named "Desí Arnaz" have become U.S president back in the days when "I Love Lucy" was running on T.V? Answer me this question! I have asked you this several times, and you never reply."

Could a man named Etienne DuBois been elected president of the USA in the 50s? How about Tadeusz Micinski?Manolis Anagnostakis? The answer is no; America in the 50s was a nation. Immigrants had to assimilate. Non-Anglo last names (Eisenhower, Hoover, Roosevelt) were o.k., but presidents were expected to have Anglo first names (ah, the good old days, when a guy named Barack would have called himself Barry in order to get ahead).On the other hand, a guy named John Taliaferro (from the distinguished Virginia Taliaferros, one of the FFVs) would have had no problems.

Leftist:"Then, also explain to me the 1924 Immigration Act, which especifically tried to limit immigrants from southern Europe on the grounds they were innately inferior in character and intelligence to northern Europeans and, if allowed to enter América in large numbers, would eventually lead to the decline of U.S?"

Such a serious jones regarding Southern Euros. You know, the restrictions also applied to Eastern Europeans.




Anonymous said...

Steve Sailer, since you keep bringing up Desí Arnaz being married to Marilyn Monroe as proof that only blacks have ever been discriminated in América, then answer me the following question:

Could a man named "Desí Arnaz" have become U.S president back in the days when "I Love Lucy" was running on T.V? Answer me this question! I have asked you this several times, and you never reply.

Then, also explain to me the 1924 Immigration Act, which especifically tried to limit immigrants from southern Europe on the grounds they were innately inferior in character and intelligence to northern Europeans and, if allowed to enter América in large numbers, would eventually lead to the decline of U.S?


From your comment are we to gather that the deciding factor in determining whether or not there was group discrimination is based upon whether or not a member of such group could have been elected President? If this is the case, then pretty much the whole world comes up short in your book. I doubt if a guy named Christopher Wentworth could be elected president of Mexico.

The US has always discriminated in regards to who could be elected President, hence we have the requirement to be born here. Desi, being Cuban born, was not qualified to run for this office.

To conflate the treatment of blacks, who were segregated, denied the right to vote, etc., with a Cuban millionaire who was the toast of the town is pushing it.

As for the 1924 Immigration Act, it based its quotas on the breakdown of US population in 1890. It was designed to preserve the current ethnic makeup of the nation. Once again if preserving the ethnic makeup of one's nation is a crime to you, then I imagine the rest of the world will come up short too. I believe even Mexico has such a policy:

Foreigners may be denied entry for the following reasons, if: No international reciprocity, The national demographic balance is altered, It is deemed harmful to the national economic interests, he/she has violated national law or have a poor record abroad, deemed not physically or mentally healthy.

Kai Carver said...

the weirdness of it all can become overwhelming... I haven't lived in the US in a while so it just keeps getting weirder- and weirder-looking (not that other places aren't also weird, but slightly differently).

Some of the weirdness comes from the echo chamber that is this blog and the wider Steveosphere. It's easy to get the feeling that Steve is saying and seeing more and more weird-sounding stuff. The absence of real contradiction or argument makes it seem even weirder, and sometimes weaker.

Of course I just read Steve because he's funny, like a more genuine and nice Stephen Colbert, so his isolation can make him even funnier. (I also read him because he's a good and clever and interesting and wide-ranging writer.)

But I'd like to make a suggestion to Steve:

Wouldn't it be nice if you could find someone to debate with? Surely you are/have become/remain respectable enough that there is someone out there who disagrees with you but would be willing to have an intelligent debate with you? I realize I may be dreaming, and that you've probably been looking for someone, anyone to debate for a long time now. But controversy can be a good selling point, so maybe you could find someone interested in getting some fame providing the non-weird foil to your weird rants.

How about bloggingheads? Any chance of getting some airtime there? Or are you too beyond the pale for them? Maybe your readers could help you lobby them or some similar respectable but somewhat marginal institution to give you a little space?

Anonymous said...

It is not our business to bail them out of a mess that they got themselves into, and the government of Mexico did everything it could to promote underclass fertility until they realized what a problem it would be for them.

Anonyia said...

Nick Diaz,

Benjamin Cardozo, a Sephardic Jew of Portuguese descent, was member of the Supreme Court in the early 20th century. By many modern measures, he would indeed be considered a "Latino"

Also, it's not like white Hispanics were the only group of white people who might have had some difficulty rising to the higher echelons of political power during the first half of the 20th century. That however does not mean that they somehow weren't mostly accepted by broader white society. I also don't imagine a Cajun, Southern "cracker" type, Russian or Greek person from that era would have made it to the Presidency either, yet none of the those formerly semi-marginalized groups of white people demand or benefit from affirmative action today the way that "Hispanics" do.

Nick Diaz said...

@Anonymous 10:18 AM

"Has Steve ever said that only Blacks have been discriminated against?As I recall, he has simply pointed out that anti-Black sentiments have simply been vastly greater.After all, there were no Black equivalents to John Dos Passos, John Philip Sousa, George Santayana or the De Acosta siblings (Aida, Mercedes, Rita)."

He never EXPLICITLY said it, but so what? That is what he is implying. Or, at least, he is saying that all those Italian-Americans, Ibero-Americans, etc, should just GET OVER IT BECASE BLACKS HAD IT WORSE. Well, I disagree. Two wrongs don't make a right, and a bigger wrong does not make a lesser wrong ok.

"Could a man named Etienne DuBois been elected president of the USA in the 50s? How about Tadeusz Micinski?Manolis Anagnostakis? The answer is no; America in the 50s was a nation. Immigrants had to assimilate. Non-Anglo last names (Eisenhower, Hoover, Roosevelt) were o.k., but presidents were expected to have Anglo first names (ah, the good old days, when a guy named Barack would have called himself Barry in order to get ahead).On the other hand, a guy named John Taliaferro (from the distinguished Virginia Taliaferros, one of the FFVs) would have had no problems."

What a load of garbage. Certain groups were discriminated for their religion, but Southern Europeans as well as eastern Europeasn were discriminated for BIOLOGICAL reasons. It was made a huge fuss for Kennedy being elected president back in the 1960's because he was the first Catholic president, but an Italian-American at that time could NEVER become president in those days. It was understood that only those of northwestern European ancestry could climb to the highest reaches of Amercan Society. This is not even debateable.

"Such a serious jones regarding Southern Euros. You know, the restrictions also applied to Eastern Europeans."

I have already addressed this. And how does this disprove that Southern Europeans wer discriminated against, GENIUS? It only proves that eastern Europeans were discriminated AS WELL. Why can't you understand such a simple concept?

Steve Sailer said...

It was very difficult for a white Southerner to become President for about a century after the Civil War. LBJ emphasized his Western aspect rather than his Southern. Carter was the first no-doubt-about-it Southern Prez since the Civil War.

Anonymous said...

Spirow Agnew was elected Vice President in 1968.

Anonymous said...

It was made a huge fuss for Kennedy being elected president back in the 1960's because he was the first Catholic president, but an Italian-American at that time could NEVER become president in those days.

Once again I ask, how does not having a member of one's group being considered for the Presidency a sign of discrimination?

How many countries could an immigrant go to and expect his son to be President? Most of the Presidents from Washington through Eisenhower had something in common besides being NW European, they were not immigrants and had firm roots in the nation. Even JFK's grandfather was born in the USA.

You keep referencing the 1940s. At that time how many of the Italian and other Southern and Eastern Europeans had deep roots? How many were either immigrants themselves or were the sons of immigrants? You keep attributing this to discrimination. But I don't.

There is nothing the matter with folks not willing to hand over the keys to newcomers. It makes sense that it should take a few generations to assimilate.

Your infatuation with this is similar to some college kid who thinks he should be promoted to the CEO of the company after 18 months on the job. It takes times, and there is nothing wrong with that. While you are complaining about all those NW European presidents, keep in mind they, their parents, grandparents, great grandparents and beyond built this nation that all those Eastern and Southern Euros wished to come to. I, as a Southern Euro, am grateful they even let us in the place.

I guess it goes to show nowadays that people can find discrimination anywhere they want to see it.

Hunsdon said...

Nick Diaz:

Even if there was massive discrimination against Latinos---including Spaniards and Portugese---my question to you, sir, is: So what?

How far back do you want to carry your grudges? For how many generations do you think Americans of today must atone for sins of the past?

Nick Diaz said...

Anonymous 4:48 PM

"
Once again I ask, how does not having a member of one's group being considered for the Presidency a sign of discrimination?

How many countries could an immigrant go to and expect his son to be President? Most of the Presidents from Washington through Eisenhower had something in common besides being NW European, they were not immigrants and had firm roots in the nation. Even JFK's grandfather was born in the USA.

You keep referencing the 1940s. At that time how many of the Italian and other Southern and Eastern Europeans had deep roots? How many were either immigrants themselves or were the sons of immigrants? You keep attributing this to discrimination. But I don't.

There is nothing the matter with folks not willing to hand over the keys to newcomers. It makes sense that it should take a few generations to assimilate.

Your infatuation with this is similar to some college kid who thinks he should be promoted to the CEO of the company after 18 months on the job. It takes times, and there is nothing wrong with that. While you are complaining about all those NW European presidents, keep in mind they, their parents, grandparents, great grandparents and beyond built this nation that all those Eastern and Southern Euros wished to come to. I, as a Southern Euro, am grateful they even let us in the place.

I guess it goes to show nowadays that people can find discrimination anywhere they want to see it."

Don't play dumb. I am NOT talking about recente immigrants. I am talking about NATIVE-BORN American citizens of Italian and Spanish descent. They would NOT be able to successfully run for president in the 194o's even if they had been in the country for 6 generations. This is a FACT.

For how much longer will you guys keep insisting on this lie that only blacks were ever discriminated in America? Southern Europeans were discriminated too, although to a lesser degree, but a greater wrong does not make a lesser wrong ok.

David Davenport said...

My guess, based on intuition and not polling data, is that the thing that pisses off Cubans and Puerto Ricans is overt hostility to hispanics, or more generally to immigrants. On the other hand, a rather bloodless and impartial enforcement of immigration rules (when your business is found with N illegals among its employees, the fine is $1000 * N^3) without the overt ethnic hostility probably doesn't have such a bad effect there.

Are Anglos supposed to feel guilty in some way about Cubans and P.R.'s?

Why is it wrong to be hostile to Cubans and Puerto Ricans invading America? Because they're brothers in Christ, or what?

Please explain.

Anonymous said...

No one oppresses nams in Latin America anymore than gringos oppress nams in the USA. The difference is a significant portion of Latin American nams combine risk propensity and a higher work ethic so that USA nams to cross the border for better paying working class jobs than back home. That simple. One would think that a blog focused on eliminating yt as the root of all evil and acknowledging biological group differences would realize this. My God my castizo half Mexican sailer, you disappoint at times. Don't do it too often or those pay pal payment from me might be reduced. Over great work. Thanks for linking that unz meritocracy article.

Anonymous said...

To Nick Diaz:

You mistake preference with prejudice. Most Americans in 1940-60 would have preferred to vote for someone who looked and sounded like themselves. For most Americans that didn't mean a Desi Arnaz type. But that didn't mean they hated people like him. Just that they preferred someone they had some more things in common with. To my knowledge there has never been a Finnish, Polish, Ukranian or Lithuanian president in America. Does that mean rabid hatred for Finns, Poles, Ukranians or Lithuanians are a thread running through American history? Hardly. As to the 1924 immigration act, I would mention that immigration is only a privilege and not a right. America is entirerly within its rights in controlling the flow of immigrants, including shutting off the tap altogether.

Hunsdon said...

Nick Diaz, paging Mr. Nick Diaz!

Dude, since you seem to like this tack, I have asked you and asked you, so what?

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER?

You can put the accent in America if you want to, I don't care.

Anonymous said...

Don't play dumb. I am NOT talking about recente immigrants. I am talking about NATIVE-BORN American citizens of Italian and Spanish descent. They would NOT be able to successfully run for president in the 194o's even if they had been in the country for 6 generations. This is a FACT.

The overwhelming majority of Italian immigrants came to the USA from 1880 to 1920. That means even in the 1940s their families would have only been in the USA for 60 years at the most.

Contrast that to George Washington who became President some 130 years after his grandfather was born in colonial Virgina. Or to FDR whose Roosevelt ancestors first came to the USA some 290 years before he was elected President.


For how much longer will you guys keep insisting on this lie that only blacks were ever discriminated in America? Southern Europeans were discriminated too, although to a lesser degree, but a greater wrong does not make a lesser wrong ok.

There are only two groups that should claim aggrieved status, Native Americans and blacks, both of whom were either native to this land or brought here by force. That is a huge difference with any other group.

Every other group came here on their own accord, including the recent Meso Americans who were not native to the present day USA. Thus, they don't have much of an argument from my point of view. If you don't like the treatment, go somewhere else. I hear the New World includes nations other than Anglo ones. Collectively I think they are called Latin America.

Steve Sailer said...

Yeah, look how unpopular Joe DiMaggio, Frank Sinatra, and Rudolf Valentino were.

Anonymous said...

Well, in nice areas of So Calif I'm seeing more white hispanics, Spanish last name. Probably many of these are children and grandchildren of immirgants from Mexico that came before 1980 when Mexicans were more likely to marry whites.

DaveinHackensack said...

"If the US were the least bit consistent with its foreign policy, they'd train and arm the hispanic hispanics and send them back to Mexico to overthrow the white hispanics..."

This elides more interesting questions: Since Mexico is now essentially a democracy, and not a one-party state, why haven't the "hispanic hispanics" successfully sought power for themselves via the political system? And what are the implications of that -- electoral passivity? -- for their fellows who have migrated to the US?

In Latin America as a whole, there aren't too many cases of non-whites assuming political leadership. The only examples that come to mind right now are Venezuela and Bolivia.

Steve Sailer said...

Most of the major political conflicts in Mexican history have had a racial component. What happens, though, is that the winning families in the struggle get whiter over the generations:

http://www.vdare.com/articles/americas-imported-caste-system

Anonymous said...

Another thing is most the illegal immirgants come from rural places, but people that want to legalized rarey mention that Mexico also has car companies and aerospace firms they paint the whole country as bleak.

Nick Diaz said...

@Anonymous 8:57 PM

"The overwhelming majority of Italian immigrants came to the USA from 1880 to 1920. That means even in the 1940s their families would have only been in the USA for 60 years at the most."

What difference does this make? They were NATIVE BORN CITIZENS. John F. Kennedy's Family was in America not much longer than that, and he became president. Could native-born Italian-Americans have successfully run for presidente in the 1940's? No!

"Contrast that to George Washington who became President some 130 years after his grandfather was born in colonial Virgina. Or to FDR whose Roosevelt ancestors first came to the USA some 290 years before he was elected President."

This is completely uncorrelated. There are several reasons why only 130 years later a member of such family became presidente. The most obvious is interest. There are families that have been living in América for 300 years who never produced a president because no member of such Family ever ran for office. Your point is?

"There are only two groups that should claim aggrieved status, Native Americans and blacks, both of whom were either native to this land or brought here by force. That is a huge difference with any other group."

Why? Just because you say so? I disagree with it. I think other groups desserve reparations based on the fact they were barred from positions that were only open to Anglos.

"Every other group came here on their own accord, including the recent Meso Americans who were not native to the present day USA. Thus, they don't have much of an argument from my point of view. If you don't like the treatment, go somewhere else. I hear the New World includes nations other than Anglo ones. Collectively I think they are called Latin America."

I love how you claim that only certain groups deserve reparations because you arbitrarily decide that only a certain degree of mistreatment deserves reparations while a lesser degree, although still mistreatment, doesen't. Well, I disagree with that.

Nick Diaz said...

@Steve Sailer

"Yeah, look how unpopular Joe DiMaggio, Frank Sinatra, and Rudolf Valentino were."

Could any of them successfully become run for president in the 1940's with those names and ancestry? No.

There were gladiators in ancient Rome that were extremely popular as well. They would have people throwing flowers at them when they paraded on the streets, etc. But guess what? They were still slaves.

Popularity with the masses and political rights and social status are not synonyms, but for some reason this very simple concept eludes you.

Rohan Swee said...

Señor Diaz: Why? Just because you say so? I disagree with it. I think other groups desserve reparations based on the fact they were barred from positions that were only open to Anglos.

And I think founding-stock Americans should start imposing an "ingrate jizya" on those descendents of immigrants who think that Anglos had any obligation whatsoever to vote for, hire, marry, or not give funny looks to on the street, anybody but the fellow Anglos they preferred to vote for, hire, marry, or not give funny looks to on the street.

Furthermore, I don't understand why you object to the 1924 immigration act. I would think you would view it as an act of mercy, as it no doubt kept many Southern Europeans from being subjected to the living nightmare of a majority-Anglo society, surely among the ugliest and most unjust human societies ever created. As has been pointed out to you, there were many gringo-free Latin American countries where they could have settled. Were your ancestors perhaps not so bright, that they chose this worst-possible New World destination?

P.S. I do appreciate that you have finally exercised the simple courtesy of supplying a name. I do, however, expect some sort of reparation for the considerable irritation you have caused in the past with your stream of anonymous posting. After all, a lesser degree of mistreatment of your fellow men is still mistreatment.

Cail Corishev said...

"Since Mexico is now essentially a democracy, and not a one-party state, why haven't the "hispanic hispanics" successfully sought power for themselves via the political system?"

I wondered something similar when I was reading about the communist revolutions of Mexico and how the government expelled priests and suppressed religious expression. The country was something like 95% Catholic, so how did they ever get away with that? Some of the leaders who did it were even elected!

Apparently populations voting for their own subjugation isn't a new thing.

Hunsdon said...

Paging Nick Diaz, paging Mr. Nick Diaz.

Sir, I asked "So what?" which was a fairly short way to phrase it, but I stand by my question, and will ask you to answer it each and every time I see you commenting on a post.

Let us presuppose some nasty, racist level of anti-Hispanic prejudice in America's past.

So what?

Shouldn't you walk around saying, "Damn, man, America rocks. They used to hate people like me here, and now we're the future!"

I ask again, "So what?"

Otherwise, if we agree that "Man, we sure used to hate Hispanics," will you shut up?

Nick Diaz said...

@Rohan Swee

"
Furthermore, I don't understand why you object to the 1924 immigration act. I would think you would view it as an act of mercy, as it no doubt kept many Southern Europeans from being subjected to the living nightmare of a majority-Anglo society, surely among the ugliest and most unjust human societies ever created. As has been pointed out to you, there were many gringo-free Latin American countries where they could have settled. Were your ancestors perhaps not so bright, that they chose this worst-possible New World destination?"

So you admit that Southern Europeans were discriminated against? Good.

They immigrated to America because it is richer, granted, and I never claimed otherwise. The whole point of the discussion is whether Southern Europeans were discriminated against in the U.S or not, and not the reasons why they prefered Anglo-America over Latin América. They prefered Anglo-America because they had more opportunities than in Latin America, and not because Anglos treated them nicely.

As for you little insults, that is all you guys are good for. You don't have the intelligence to debate my arguments, so all you do is attack me with incessant insults and ad homimen invective. Saying thay my ancestors are not bright is ridiculous. My dad, for instance, is a Harvard MBA, and I have a masters degree in chemical engineering. I am also much smarter than all of you, evident by the fact that I easily outwit and out argue all of you repeatedly. And my real name is not Nick Diaz, and you obviously are not bright enough to get the joke. Keep the insults going. You just prove what John Stuart Mill once said about conservatives:

"Not all conservatives are stupid, but all stupid people are conservative."

I guess Mill had people like you in mind when he thought of the rule and not the exceptions to the rule. LOL.

Rohan Swee said...

Señor Díaz: So you admit that Southern Europeans were discriminated against?

Why sure Nick. When I write a sentence like "...Southern Europeans ...subjected to the living nightmare of a majority-Anglo society, surely among the ugliest and most unjust human societies ever created", I damn well mean what I say.

They prefered Anglo-America because they had more opportunities than in Latin America, and not because Anglos treated them nicely.

When people have provided me with "more opportunities" than I could get elsewhere (as the Anglos did for your ancestors and mine by letting them in to the country they'd established), I consider that I've been "treated nicely" and I feel grateful to them. I do not, however, presume that this generous act introduces an obligation on their part to vote me into office, give me their daughter in marriage, or associate with me socially.

I have a masters degree in chemical engineering...

It's a shame, ain't it - in my day one could pursue a scientific or technical degree without having to deal with so much as an Introduction to Butthurt in the distribution requirements. Now you can't even get an engineering degree without having to pickle your brain in the Grievance Studies vat? My condolences, sir.

Anonymous said...

Desi Arnaz was married to Lucille Ball. He was never married to Marilyn Monroe, smart guy.

Strange how that rocky marriage was celebrated on TV with the very popular "I love Lucy" show in America.

Anonymous said...

Republicans ought to pass a law which forbids any foreign ownership of American media since a free press is critical to a functioning democracy.

Jefferson said...

[QUOTE]In Latin America as a whole, there aren't too many cases of non-whites assuming political leadership. The only examples that come to mind right now are Venezuela and Bolivia.[/QUOTE]

Most of the current presidents in Central America are Nonwhite.

President of Belize
[URL]http://www.stabroeknews.com/images/2009/07/20090705barrow.jpg[/URL]

President of El Salvador
[URL]http://tribunahispanausa.com/portal/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ortizgif.gif[/URL]

President of Costa Rica
[URL]http://specials-images.forbes.com/imageserve/01bwgOQ0HZgCz/0x600.jpg?fit=scale&background=000000[/URL]

President of Honduras
[URL]http://chicagosidesports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Porfirio_Lobo_Sosa_ChicagoSide2.png[/URL]

President of Nicaragua
[URL]http://thecostaricanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Nicaragua-President-Daniel-Ortega.jpg[/URL]

Anonymous said...

Leftist:"What a load of garbage. Certain groups were discriminated for their religion, but Southern Europeans as well as eastern Europeasn were discriminated for BIOLOGICAL reasons. It was made a huge fuss for Kennedy being elected president back in the 1960's because he was the first Catholic president, but an Italian-American at that time could NEVER become president in those days."

Again, dear boy, I refer you to the Taliaferros; if a well-assimilated Protestant American of Italian had attempted to run, I see no real bar. But, then again, I'm not nursing paranoid grudges.


"It was understood that only those of northwestern European ancestry could climb to the highest reaches of Amercan Society. This is not even debateable."

Actually, dear boy, it is. By the way, I do love your use of bold caps. So manly.

Anonymous said...

"Latin América."

You actually spell it with an accent mark? Political correctness is reaching new heights of self-parody.

Anonymous said...

Nick Diaz:"I have a masters degree in chemical engineering..."

You know, dear boy, boasting of your educational credentials is the clearest sign that you are losing an argument.

Nick Diaz said...

@Anonymous 5:17 PM

"Again, dear boy, I refer you to the Taliaferros; if a well-assimilated Protestant American of Italian had attempted to run, I see no real bar. But, then again, I'm not nursing paranoid grudges."

"Coulda", "woulda", "shoulda"...doesen't matter: the bottom line is that you are speculating, and he would most likely not have been elcted since neither the Republican or Democratic parties would have given the nomination to a Italian-descended man.

It is laughable that you bring up religion trying to disprove discrimination against Southern Europeans when the 1924 Immigration Act tried to curtail immigration from Southern Europe on the ground that they were INNATELY inferior to northwestern Europeans. Game. Set. Match.

"Dear boy", you are a moron.

Nick Diaz said...

@Rohan Swee


"Why sure Nick. When I write a sentence like "...Southern Europeans ...subjected to the living nightmare of a majority-Anglo society, surely among the ugliest and most unjust human societies ever created", I damn well mean what I say."

It doesen't matter. The topic under discussion is whether there was historically discrimination on the part of Anglos towards those of Southern European descent, and NOT whether the alterantive for those immgrants was worse. Once again, you are creating a straw man and attacking it.

"When people have provided me with "more opportunities" than I could get elsewhere (as the Anglos did for your ancestors and mine by letting them in to the country they'd established), I consider that I've been "treated nicely" and I feel grateful to them. I do not, however, presume that this generous act introduces an obligation on their part to vote me into office, give me their daughter in marriage, or associate with me socially."

Completely off-topic, and once again addressing a straw man.

It is debateable whether southern European immigrants were truly better off in America or not. Maybe the shame and humiliation of being treated like second-class citizens was mitigated by the greater economic opportunities they had in America. I don't know. But this is completely off-topic.

What is on topic is whether they were treated with the same respect that Anglo Society gave to northwestern European immigrants or not, and I am glad to see that you agree with me that they were not.

So what you brought up is not relevant to me. I believe that it is immoral to treat people as second-class citizens due to their ethnic background, even if those people end up having better lives in your country than they would otherwise. I could get a bum off the streets and give him shelter in my dog house, and he would be better off than living on the streets. He would be protected from rain and the elements and such. But guess what? I would still be making a human being live in a dog house, somewhere that is undignified. Those immgrants from Italy and so could be better off in America in terms of material comfort, but still they being deprived of rights compared to the native population on grounds of their ethnic origin is still disgusting morally.

"It's a shame, ain't it - in my day one could pursue a scientific or technical degree without having to deal with so much as an Introduction to Butthurt in the distribution requirements. Now you can't even get an engineering degree without having to pickle your brain in the Grievance Studies vat? My condolences, sir."

Never had to. I entered university at 16 and after only three years went straight to graduate studies.

And I don't need to be "required" to learn about human suffering to earn a degree. It comes naturally to those who posses traits that you conservatives lack: empathy, shame and remorse. Take care.

Nick Diaz said...

@Anonymous 6:18 PM

"You know, dear boy, boasting of your educational credentials is the clearest sign that you are losing an argument."

You know, dear girl, I don't know if you have been paying attention(probably not), but a certain poster insulted the intelligence of my family, which is why I responded that way. I would never have brought it up otherwise.

I don't need to and never would use argumentum ad verecundiam to win an argument. I don't need to. You guys are not exactly string theorists here. I can beat you guys fair and square repeatedly.

However, YOU guys have done it several times, by pointing out typos and such. From my experience in internet debates, when your opponents start pointing out mistakes in grammar and orthography, it is because they have nothing in the form of logical arguments to respond, so this is all they can do to disredit you and make it seem like they are winning the argument.

Rohan Swee said...

Señor Díaz of América: Those immgrants from Italy and so could be better off in America in terms of material comfort, but still they being deprived of rights compared to the native population on grounds of their ethnic origin is still disgusting morally.

No "immigrants from Italy and so" were deprived of any rights. You may go where your fancy takes you in your choice of objects of moral disgust, but I'm afraid you have to adhere to non-subjective standards when discussing rights. (Alas for your case not even the looniest European or Canadian "human rights" tribunal recognizes any "right" to be elected president or get invited to other people's parties.)

Never had to [take Angry Studies coursework]. I entered university at 16 and after only three years went straight to graduate studies.

An autodidact in advanced butthurt, eh? And so precociously! Impressive.

You know, dear girl, I don't know if you have been paying attention(probably not), but a certain poster insulted the intelligence of my family, which is why I responded that way. I would never have brought it up otherwise.

Nobody insulted the intelligence of your family, caballero. This would be clear even to you if you'd put aside your voluptuous fantasies of victimization for a minute, and reread the context of the alleged offensive reference to your ancestors' being "not so bright".

Anonymous said...

Spirow [sic] Agnew was elected Vice President in 1968.

No, "Ted" Agnew, who lived and rose through the political ranks in the leafy suburbs of Baltimore, and who converted to the Episcopal Church, was elected Vice President.

His alternative reality persona, Spiros Anagnostopoulos, who remained both in the urban wards of Charm City and in the Greek Orthodox faith, would not have been considered for national office.

That's the way it was with assimilation.

Anthony said...

Speaking of Spiros Anagnostopoulos (Spiro Agnew), have you notices that Castaneda looks a lot like him, except for the 80s hairstyle?

Heinz Ward said...

Looks like Bill Cowher with a training camp tan.

Anonymous said...

mjhoh [url=http://www.add-celinehandbags.co.uk]celine bag[/url] eavcaf http://www.add-celinehandbags.co.uk ncexs [url=http://www.add-celinebags.co.uk]cheap celine bag[/url] rdyktk http://www.add-celinebags.co.uk djbfv [url=http://www.getcelinebags.co.uk]cheap celine bags[/url] oqvviw http://www.getcelinebags.co.uk xfxo [url=http://www.pay-celinebags.co.uk]celine bags[/url] omyvgw http://www.pay-celinebags.co.uk yumur [url=http://www.pay-celinehandbags.co.uk]cheap celine bag[/url] hioosl http://www.pay-celinehandbags.co.uk aamat [url=http://www.online-celinebags.co.uk]celine bags[/url] eeqwqu http://www.online-celinebags.co.uk duoz