April 27, 2013

Are Mexicans the new Italians?

Last week, NYT columnist David Leonhardt enthused:
Hispanics, the New Italians 
By DAVID LEONHARDT 
Published: April 20, 2013
With the arrival of millions of Latinos in recent decades, there have been multiple reasons to wonder if they would assimilate and thrive — including legitimate economic issues that go well beyond ethnic stereotypes. Unlike previous generations of immigrants, today’s can remain in daily telephone and video contact with their homeland. And unlike those in the past, today’s immigrants face legal obstacles, and their pathway to a middle-class life involves college tuition. A decade ago, the political scientist Samuel P. Huntington described the newfound issues with assimilation as simply the “Hispanic challenge.” 
Yet as the Senate begins to debate a major immigration bill, we already know a great deal about how Latinos are faring with that challenge: they’re meeting it, by and large. Whatever Washington does in coming months, a wealth of data suggests that Latinos, who make up fully half of the immigration wave of the past century, are already following the classic pattern for American immigrants.  
They have arrived in this country in great numbers, most of them poor, ill educated and, in important respects, different from native-born Americans. The children of immigrants, however, become richer and better educated than their parents and overwhelmingly speak English. The grandchildren look ever more American. 
“These fears about immigrants have been voiced many times in American history, and they’ve never proven true,” Alan M. Kraut, a history professor at American University, in Washington, told me. “It doesn’t happen immediately, but everything with Latinos points to a very typical pattern of integration in American life in a generation or two.”

This Mexicans-are-the-new-Italians theory (I reviewed Michael Barone's version in 2001) is the kind of thing that sounds totally plausible to New York pundits. After all, there were practically zero Mexicans in the U.S. until, like, a couple of years ago, right, so how can you not believe it?

But doesn't anybody in New York or Washington know anybody in Los Angeles? Doesn't Mr. Leonhardt or Dr. Kraut have, say, an aunt in Encino who could give them some insight based on generations of experience?

Let's take a statistical approach. There were 4,644,000 Hispanics in Los Angeles County according to the 2010 Census. The 1980 Census found 2,066,103 Latinos in Los Angeles County, and in 1970 there were 1,288,716. So they've been here a long time.

Also, the motion picture industry is in Los Angeles County. Naturally, that raises the question of what percentage of the approximately 1,150 people invited over the last decade to join the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences (and thus be eligible to vote for Oscars) have Spanish names, either surnames or first names? Diversity is our strength, so Hollywood must be rapidly diversifying, right?

Being an Academy member is kind of a weird thing in that some of the members are among the most famous people on earth, some are moguls, and some are obscure craftsmen. For example, when I was 15, my driving instructor was a member of the Academy. His day job was teaching driver's training and coaching the wrestling team at a public high school, but he moonlighted as a character actor and stunt man (Yakuza henchmen, ninjas, and Japanese corporate executives were his specialties -- he wasn't the most skilled actor, but he was an extraordinarily tough looking guy who in real life was immensely affable, which is a good combination in a business where how much people like you matters a lot) in enough movies to be invited to join the Academy. (I believe my driving instructor was only the fourth East Asian in the Academy, following James Wong Howe.) A lot of members are technicians who are even more obscure.

Still, all else being equal, being in the Academy is better than not being in the Academy, so it's a good measure of social and economic status and achievement.

From the Los Angeles Times:
Oscars film academy may expand its ranks
The move would aim to add diversity to the mostly white, mostly male academy.

By Nicole Sperling 
April 26, 2013, 4:11 p.m. 
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is aiming to expand and diversify its ranks by relaxing a cap on membership that has restricted new admittances since 2004. 
The academy has about 5,800 voting members; in recent years, fewer than 200 people have been invited to join annually. The number of openings is essentially determined by how many members have retired, resigned or died. ...
Rules state that there are three ways to become eligible for admittance: an Oscar nomination, a recommendation from two members of the applicant's branch, or an endorsement by the branch's membership committee and staff. ...
Sound branch member Don Hall, who is on the Board of Governors, said it's a good move that will allow a greater number of accomplished people in his technical field to be recognized. "We can now invite in others who haven't won awards but are just as deserving," he said. "Without the quota, we can get them in." 
The academy has periodically faced calls to diversify its ranks. A 2012 L.A. Times study found that nearly 94% of academy voters are white and 77% are male. Blacks make up about 2% of the academy and Latinos less than 2%. 

Accompanying the article is a table of the 1,197 invitations to join the Academy from 2004 through 2012. (A few of those are writer-directors listed twice, so let's call the denominator 1,150 new members).

I went through the whole list looking for Spanish names. I found 40, or 3.5% of 1,150. I don't promise that I'm an expert on Spanish names, but I looked up many of the obscure ones ending in vowels. They were much more likely to turn out to be Italian rather than Spanish. (Italians seems to be doing pretty well at getting into the Academy.)

Most of those, about 28 out of 40, however, are people who were born and fully raised abroad (10 Spaniards, 4 Argentines, and so forth). For example, director Rodrigo Garcia (Albert Nobbs) was born in Colombia and raised in Mexico. By the way, his father is Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez (kind of like how move director Duncan Jones' dad is another 1970s icon, David Bowie).

Most, such as Diego Luna and Gael Garcia Bernal, became prominent in their home countries' cinemas before trying their hand in Hollywood.

So these foreign elites aren't representative of mass immigration at all.

Only a dozen -- just 1% of the last 1,150 people added to the Academy -- appear to be Latino-Americans in the sense either of being born here or at least having gotten here by high school.

For example, character actor Miguel Ferrer has a Spanish-surname but was born in Santa Monica. His Puerto Rican-born father Jose won the Best Actor Oscar over 70 years ago, and his singer mother Rosemary Clooney was George Clooney's aunt. Zoe Saldana, who was so fetching as the 10' blue princess in Avatar was born in America but largely raised in the Dominican Republic. Andrew Jimenez, a Pixar animator, grew up in San Diego and went to UCSD. He speaks with no discernible accent, so I'm guessing he was born here.

Others were born abroad but got here young enough to be somewhat affected by growing up in America, so I classify them as also Latino-American.

For example, I went to Rice U. with Elizabeth Avellan, who was added to the Producers branch of the Academy in 2005. She grew up in Venezuela, where her grandfather owned the first private TV network in the country, but came to the U.S. when she was 13. (She married director Richard Rodriguez of San Antonio, and kept us apprised of her hubby's meteoric progress in the Rice alumni newsletter. They have five children: Rocket Rodriguez, Racer Rodriguez, Rebel Rodriguez, Rogue Rodriguez and Rhiannon Rodriguez.) So, I count her as one of the 12 Latino-Americans because she got here before age 18.

Makeup / hairstylist Mike Elizalde was born in Mexico, but came here with his parents when he was five. He and documentary maker Lourdes Portillo were the only individuals I could find who were conventional first generation Mexican immigrants.

And there are six others who appear to be Latino-Americans or at least there is no evidence that they fully matured in some other countries.

But barely over 1.0% is remarkably small.

But how can anybody in New York or Washington notice?

56 comments:

naja said...

You're always acting like these elites are just ignorant, whereas in fact the know the score exactly, and are simply evil and out to destroy white hegemony in ordet to advance the power of their own bigotted tribe.

Discard said...

All statistics regarding Mexicans should be regarded as lies, intended to make them look much better than they are. The labeling of Hispanic criminals as White is notorious, but education numbers are cooked too. For any heavily Mexican high school in Los Angeles, check out the "grade pyramid". You will often see that there are less than half as many 12th graders as 9th graders. Mexicans are assimilating all right, to Cholo culture.

Dave Pinsen said...

You assume Leondhard is ignorant of the current socioeconomic status of Mexican-Americans who have already faced several "Generations of exclusion". That may be true. But there are a couple of other possibilities.

1) He may be ignorant of the current status of Italian Americans. You figure an economics writer for the NYT would know, but it may not be general knowledge how prominent Italian Americans are on the operations side of Wall Street, for example.

2) When he quotes Dr. Kraut saying Hispanics will have a "very typical pattern of integration in American life in a generation or two", Leondhardt and Kraut aren't referring to American life as we know it now, but American life as it will be in a generation or two, if current trends continue; i.e., rather than Mexican Americans climbing the socioeconomic ladder as past generations of Ellis Island immigrants did, the mean socioeconomic level of the country will decline over the next generation or two to meet them.

Speaking of Mexico, Univision tweeted a link to this teachers union protest this week. Note that this was covered by the BBC; I don't recall seeing anything about this on my local news in the US.

Mr Lomez said...

Speaking of Miguel Ferrer: I just rewatched Twin Peaks, and his turn as Albert Rosenfield, the neurotic (Jewish) forensics expert, is easily one of the best in the series.

His combination of skin tone, pedigree, and name would make him a perfect candidate for Latino Spokesperson Inc. I wonder how he feels about immigration.

x said...

for what its worth, italian americans appear to be far more 'on the radar', even to an outsider like me, than america's burgeoning mexican population. i watch u.s t.v and movies and hispanics are just invisible in them. to an alien or a foreigner you'd get the impression that the demographic makeup of 2013 america resembles what it was in the 1970s or 1950s. apart from the blathering about amnesty its something of a blackout, excepting this blog which takes a special interest in hispanics.

Anonymous said...

Italian history has shown that there plenty of bright spots in the long history of those people. Now compare this to Mexico and their Aztec ancestors, what wondrous things have they achieved, how can one seriously compare the two and claim and kind of equivalence.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

His day job was teaching driver's training and coaching the wrestling team at a public high school, but he moonlighted as a character actor and stunt man (Yakuza henchmen, ninjas, and Japanese corporate executives were his specialties) in enough movies to be invited to join the Academy. A lot of members are technicians who are even more obscure. "

You learnt driving from an Asian guy?! let me guy you studied math from a black teacher as well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InDutcIqWi8

Steve Sailer said...

He was an excellent driving instructor -- I've never caused an accident in my life, but that's not because of my innate driving skills, but because of a good foundation laid down by my neighbor's instruciton.

Daybreaker said...

Alan M. Kraut's CV, available on PDF, includes all the evidence anyone could want that he has a strong ethnic identification and a professional commitment to the Ellis Island narrative.

In no way is he a neutral expert, and the country that treats people with the biases of Alan M. Kraut as trustworthy guides on immigration is in deep trouble. (Unless that country is Israel.)

Georgia Resident said...

"You learnt driving from an Asian guy?! let me guy you studied math from a black teacher as well"

Is there any evidence (ie, numerical data) that Asians are worse drivers than the average? Are they more likely to be involved in accidents than other drivers?

Anonymous said...

Steve, most jobs in La are not in the entertainment industry, they are the same type of jobs you find in Orange Or San Diego and like Orange and San Diego Mexicans are mainly in service or the lower skilled manufactoring jobs. The low skilled manufactoring jobs with overtime have moved overseas or to cheaper states to do business Texas, so Mexicans are processing slower in relationship to whites. Santa Ana they have average income around 51,000 versus about 81,000 for whites.

Anonymous said...

Before the latest Amnesty scheme I was predicting that La's Mexicans particulary the illegals are about 1.3 million of the population if you include the ones that have been legalized under Reagan and the mimi amnesty under Clinton would be aging la like Orange has too many of them and the cost of rent isn't cheap, too much competation for low skilled jobs. But the amnesty gives Mexicans in La or Orange or San Diego hope that if they can't get a job they can live on US Welfare now, most of the welfare they now get is mainly for their kids but a legalization process will expand this. This will make it easier for them to increase and stay here longer.

Anonymous said...

Marina High School won a regional Robotic contesnt in Las Vegas the kids on the team where all white and asian not one Hispanic. Marina High is in Huntington Beach Ca in the OC.

one time liberal goofy said...

2) When he quotes Dr. Kraut saying Hispanics will have a "very typical pattern of integration in American life in a generation or two", Leondhardt and Kraut aren't referring to American life as we know it now, but American life as it will be in a generation or two, if current trends continue; i.e., rather than Mexican Americans climbing the socioeconomic ladder as past generations of Ellis Island immigrants did, the mean socioeconomic level of the country will decline over the next generation or two to meet them.:"

"Hispanics" (as in Mexicans and Central American mestizos) have been here for far more than two generations. They've been here, in great numbers, for most of the 20th century. It's just that prior to the maybe the 1970s, they were mostly in the west and southwest; now they're everywhere. They are not Italians. They are mestizos from the western hemisphere and they do not magically turn into European Americans because they live in Prince Georges County Maryland.
What you see among large hispanic areas now is pretty much what you'll see in 60 years. Only if a large minority (one hopes majority) remains white, will the U.S. remain a first world country. Otherwise it will decline precipitously. Mestizos do not create the society created, for good or ill, by Europeans. I guess because they're not, and when a people become a majority, or even large minority, they let themselves out of the bag.

drivers said...

"
Is there any evidence (ie, numerical data) that Asians are worse drivers than the average? Are they more likely to be involved in accidents than other drivers?"

I once knew a girl who was in love with a Japanese guy (both were music students) and was quite into Asian culture, apparently. But she was the first one who revealed to me that Asians are dreadful drivers.

Anonymous said...

For New Yorkers and others not schooled in la-la land history here's a shocker--folks called Californios began the influx of Hispanic population a tad earlier, during the Franciscan Mission Father era.
Alta California has ever since been Hispanic, Spanish Land Grants and all that.
As a conservative Libertarian I realize the raw deal Hispanics got in losing California way back when in the political sense, but that's the way peaceful wars are fought--demographics. Now though they are using that technique in reverse and are winning. There will remain colonies of whites for awhile, but it will resemble S.Africa more than not in the generations ahead, until the last die off or migrate.
So we native-born Californians, me a San Diego native, are actually Mexican citizens. Which may be a better choice nowadays than being the subject of Dear Leader, though I'm not eager to migrate there and refuse to learn Spanish.
Like many white Californians, I migrated-- 34 years ago for me, living now in the American Redoubt where potatoes roam free, amongst all those familiar pale people that used to inhabit California, in fact many are like me, from California.
lf New Yorkers want to understand California and hence the USA, they need to study history and perhaps read Pat Buchannan's and Mark Steyn's books to realize what's in store for the entire once so great nation.

Anonymous said...

Still, all else being equal, being in the Academy is better than not being in the Academy, so it's a good measure of social and economic status and achievement.

Well it's really just a professional association for Hollywood. It's not really a good measure of anything.

Anonymous said...

As a non-Asian, I'm also skeptical of the "bad Asian driver" stereotype. If anything, I'd imagine them to be calmer. Women are better drivers than men because of lower testosterone and less impulsive, I'd imagine the same being true for Asian men in comparison to non-Asian men.

And as for Hispanics... the best successful ones are usually totally assimilated (like Charlie Sheen). And yes, if you look at the demographics of U.S. sitcoms and successful TV series, America looks a lot like 1950. Mad Men just now added their first black character, after six seasons and when Matt Weiner simply couldn't dodge that bullet anymore by blaming it on "trying to depict society as it was, without sugarcoating".

My personal pet theory is that people like him, or those behind the Game of Thrones series, want to focus on times past when America (or in GoT's case, Europe), the world is a lot whiter so they can escape the whole diversity debate and just cast all their white favourite actors right ahead instead.

Just like Hollywood is dishing out a couple of 'black achievement' films a year, Jackie Robinson, the Help, something about slavery etc, to soothe it's conscience while the mainstream flicks are an orgy of whiteness(especially superhero movies).

It's understandable that a large percentage of hispanics claim to be white, even if a much smaller minority can actually pretend that they are(and those usually intermarry with whites anyway in high numbers).

Or that black culture is increasingly trying to be white, too. Hip hop is a prime example(going to artsy fashion shows, dressing like a hipster, hanging out with white celebs and forgetting about the ghetto).

The only minority culture worth watching in America is Asian-American culture, particularly on YouTube where the young Asian guys are doing really well, especially on comedy.

Anonymous said...

Mexicans Mixtecs are just like Italians, give or take 10 or 15 IQ points.

hbd chick said...

"'Unlike previous generations of immigrants, today’s can remain in daily telephone and video contact with their homeland.'"

this can't be good for assimilation at all. any group's assimilation. people would've had more incentive to assimilate in the past when they were much more cut off (although not always completely) from their homeland.

@lomez - "Speaking of Miguel Ferrer: I just rewatched Twin Peaks, and his turn as Albert Rosenfield, the neurotic (Jewish) forensics expert, is easily one of the best in the series."

oh! he was fantastic in that role! just superb. so funny. (^_^)

Nick Diaz said...

@Steve Sailer

How many stars of primarilly Polish or Swedish descent are there in Hollywood? These ethnic groups have been in America longer than Mexicans, are significant in numbers and yet there are almost no people desecended from these grops who are Hollywood stars. Going by your logic, these people should be thrown out of America because they failed.

Have you ever considered that there might be other reasons why there are few Mexicans in Hollywood? Such as, I don't know, the fact that traditionally leading men and women ser expected to be white? And most White ethnicities in America have not produced stars either.

Sailer, I have addressed these points many times before, and you never reply. Then, a couple weeks latter you repeat the same points again as if they had never been addressed. Waht is the point of even having a comment section if you do not acknowledge opposing views? Do you have the comments section obly so that your sycophants can praise you or agree with each other?

Gould K.L. Brownlee said...

It isn't possible to compare Italians and Latin American Hispanics. Italian immigrants were White Europeans from an ancient culture that was one of the wonders of the world in many ways in both ancient and modern eras. And even then it took decades for them to completely assimilate. Even now that process isn't entirely complete. Of course we got the worst Italians in general from the old Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

The Hispanics we're getting are largely mestizos, mulattos and pure Amerindians with low IQs who come from cultures that run the gamut from savage dysfunction to the low end of mediocre. Because of where I live and work I've known a LOT of Hispanics; new arrivals and third and fourth generation, and they are about as smart, on average, as a bag of hammers.

They are also unbelievably sullen, touchy and immature. Ironically what most Hispanics remind me of is the Leftist fantasy of White, redneck trailer trash. This type of person is relatively rare among Whites, but is almost ubiquitous among Hispanics.

In a slightly different way Hispanics are every bit as bad as Blacks. If we don't deport the vast majority of them, the U.S. will have a new, permanent underclass of extremely stupid, short sighted, violent people who only respect criminal tyrants like that affirmative-action parasite currently defiling the White House.

Anonymous said...

Well, New York is high on foreign born as well, so why you prefer New York to California I don't understand. in fact Michael Barone mention that New York City metro area is getting more foreign born than La these days about 10 years it was different La was getting more of the foreign born. New York City also has a lot of poor foreign hispanic groups and asian groups, So I would not say that New York or Texas or Florida or Ill are not out of the frying pan either.

Whitehall said...

You can look at it the other way around - what happened to the Californios - the Mexicans who lived in California at the time of Mexican War in 1846.

Here's their story - "Decline of the Californios: A Social History of the Spanish-Speaking Californians, 1846-1890" - a decent history available on Amazon.

In two words - Same Thing.

In more words - Illiteracy, gang criminality, illegitimacy.

Anonymous said...

@Nick Dias, there were more Hispanic "leading men" in Hollywood in the 50s, 60s, and 70s than there are now.

Such as Anthony Quinn (won an Oscar in a leading role), Ricardo Montalban,and Ceasar Romero.

They achieved their fame and success thanks to their own merits, not because of "diversity" hand-outs and affirmative action.

Anonymous said...

Italians and their American cousins may not occupy the pinnacle of human achievement, but they punch well above their weight as artists, thinkers, and businessmen. Mexicans, whether at home or abroad, have never shown any signs of being in the same league.

-The Judean People's Front

Anonymous said...

"How many stars of primarilly Polish or Swedish descent are there in Hollywood?"

It's actually quite easy to come up with a a list of Hollywood actresses with Polish surnames: Christine Baranski, Leelee Sobieski, Jane Krakowski, Jane Kaczmarek. I'm sure there are a lot more people with Polish ancestry in Hollywood than that (why? Polish women are pretty), but since Slavic names are so spectacularly unpronounceable in English, I'd expect many of them to have changed their surnames.

Of course, an overwhelming majority of Euro-Americans are mixtures of various European ethnicities. Purely X-American whites with a multi-generational history in this country aren't common.

Swedes: I know that Mark Wahlberg's surname is of Swedish origin. There was Ann Margaret. I'm sure there has been a ton of others, even though demographically Sweden has always been tiny. By the way, the commentariat here already told you that when you tried to compare the number of Scandinavian and French scientific greats some time ago.

"Such as, I don't know, the fact that traditionally leading men and women ser expected to be white?"

There are obvious HBD reasons for that. It would be as insane to expect a perfectly equal distribution of beauty and charm as it would be to expect such a distribution in smarts, height or running ability.

Mr. Anon said...

"Nick Diaz said...

How many stars of primarilly Polish or Swedish descent are there in Hollywood? These ethnic groups have been in America longer than Mexicans, are significant in numbers and yet there are almost no people desecended from these grops who are Hollywood stars. Going by your logic, these people should be thrown out of America because they failed."

You brought up this very point before, and recieved many replies showing you to be in error.

Sailer, I have addressed these points many times before, and you never reply. Then, a couple weeks latter you repeat the same points again as if they had never been addressed. Waht is the point of even having a comment section if you do not acknowledge opposing views?"

Actually, you routinely do exactly what you accuse Steve of doing: bring up a point, and then just drop it after you are "owned" (to use your own puerile 16 year-old vocabulary).

You are rather stupid, and nobody here much cares what you think.

Anonymous said...

She married a guy 8 years her junior? That's unusual in the movie business. At first I thought you made a mistake because I knew Rodriguez was about a decade younger than you. Anyway, Rodriguez would be about the only guy I could come up with who is identifiably Mexican-American and film famous. However he eschews Hollywood, and like some other guys who live in Texas makes all his films in the Austin area. He also had five kids with his (first) wife, also very unusual for a rich guy in the film business these days. The guy is also very European looking for a Mexican, but don't mention that.

Anonymous said...

Mexicans are not the new Italians.

First, do they realize or even care that only a little more than 5 million Italians ever immigrated to America from 1607 until today? Contrast that to at least 16 million Mexican immigrants in just the past 35 years.

Second, for the Italians who did come, they were living shoulder to shoulder with Germans, Poles, Greeks, Irish and Jews in our cities. Thus, they were FORCED to learn English not just to communicate and fit into American society, but to communicate with dissimilar immigrants.

Contrast this to Mexicans who live shoulder to shoulder with Salvadorans, Dominicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans, and Puerto Ricans. Not only do they not have to learn English to vote or get benefits, but they are already speaking a common language with other immigrants.

Third, and this point seems to escape too many, but Mexicans are New World immigrants while Italians and other Euros are Old World immigrants. Why is this important? The whole point of the New World was to start fresh and get away from the problems and legacies of the Old World that retarded human development. The Anglo New World seemed to do a good job at eliminating the hurdles that prevented social mobility in the Old World. Which is why Canada, the US, Oz and New Zealand are at the top of the list for immigrants.

Meanwhile our Latino neighbors recreated the Old World in nations that have arguably the best combination of land, resources and climate on Earth. In other words, Mexicans and other New World immigrants are FAILURES in that they have already made their portion of the New World unlivable in a little over 200 years. Why would we think MASS immigration from this area of the world would be a good idea? And why if we did take them would we let them retain any artifacts of their culture, the culture of failure? If anything New World immigrants need more of the treatment German immigrants received around the time of WW1.

BTW, in a sane world the Latin American nations would be the ones beckoning for North American, European and Northeast Asian immigrants. Having lived next to the North Americans for 200 years and seen them develop, you'd think a Latin leader might come to his senses. But you probably have to go back to Simon Bolivar, the George Washington of Latin America, who "viewed the immigration of North-Americans and Europeans ...as necessary to improve the country's economy." In other words the great hero of Latin America would not be PC today.

Anonymous said...

How many stars of primarilly Polish or Swedish descent are there in Hollywood?

Nick, did you know only 500,000 Poles ever came to America since 1607? Contrast that to over 16 million Mexicans in the past 35 years.

Nick, did you know that there are more Mexican nationals, i.e. Mexican born persons, living in American today than all the Swedes in Sweden?

It's the numbers. Sailer points out Mexicans because their vast numbers suggest they should have more success then what they are achieving.

Anonyias said...

"And as for Hispanics... the best successful ones are usually totally assimilated (like Charlie Sheen). "

Charlie Sheen is not Hispanic in the way that Americans think of "Hispanic." He is half-Irish half Spaniard. He has nothing in common with mestizos.

ironrailsironweights said...

Many countries have a particular group, usually an immigrant group but sometimes native, that is basically a complete failure in all respects: impoverished, crime-prone, incapable of assimilation, each generation worse off than the preceding one, and so on. Examples are the Pakistanis in Britain, the Algerians in France, the Turks in Germany, the Chechens in Russia, the Lebanese in Australia, and the Uighurs in China.

Whatever their faults may be, the Mexicans in the United States are not this troubled and hopeless. We should be more thankful and less critical.

Peter

Svigor said...

As a non-Asian, I'm also skeptical of the "bad Asian driver" stereotype. If anything, I'd imagine them to be calmer. Women are better drivers than men because of lower testosterone and less impulsive, I'd imagine the same being true for Asian men in comparison to non-Asian men.

I get the impression that the bad yellow drivers thing comes from recent immigrants. Reinforcing this is my impression that drivers in yellow countries are generally a nightmare.

@Nick Dias

Haha, now I have a name for him: Nick de Ass. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Well, the Mexicans may not be as bad as the other group but La County poverty rate went from a very low 10 percent in 1970 to over 20 percent today. What group did that.

Anonymous said...

Whatever their faults may be, the Mexicans in the United States are not this troubled and hopeless. We should be more thankful and less critical.

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Mexicans, and certainly is no reason to put ourselves onto a path where possibly one-fourth of our nation might become Mexican.

Since Mexicans comprise 70% of Hispanics, and Hispanics are surging towards being possibly 40% of the population in fifty years, Mexicans are well on their way to becoming a quarter of our nation.

Probably not since the Revolution or early 1800s has any ethnic group been that dominant in America.

Can't we agree at this point that Mexico has had her turn at sending us immigrants? Even if you are a true-believing multiculti type, a nation that is one-fourth Mexican is NOT diverse. So I would think that even the diversity enthusiasts would want to bring in any other nationality besides Mexican.

If America should be comprised of a quarter of anything, it would be English ethnics, you know the descendants of the Founders.

Jefferson said...

The only thing Mexicans have in common with Italians is that the vast majority of the people in both those groups are not blonde haired and blue eyed Nordic Aryans. Very few people from those 2 groups would be mistaken for a Norwegian or a Swede.

That is pretty much it. On everything else Mexicans and Italians are very different from each other.

Anonymous said...

I´ve noticed horrible Asian driving here in America, even before hearing the stereotype.

Anonymous said...

Wasps typically don't laugh at their own jokes and display a penchant for good nicknames. What ethnicity are you Svigor?

Svigor said...

Wasps typically don't laugh at their own jokes and display a penchant for good nicknames. What ethnicity are you Svigor?

American-American. Anglo-Saxon surname. But thanks for noticing my horrible handle. Nobody ever ribs/taunts me about it, and I can't understand why.

Svigor said...

P.S., One would think my open racism, blatant anti-Semitism, and quasi-Anarcho-Fascist politics would be enough to differentiate me from most Anglo-Saxons. But hey, if it's the lulz and the Slavic portmanteau that do it for you...

Anonymous said...

I lived for 8 years in a 20+% Asian city, and the driving stereotype is heartily endorsed.

A lot of the bad Asian driving is of the Inspector Clouseau variety; they may not have an accident themselves, but they create chaos around them.

Jefferson said...

[QUOTE]Whatever their faults may be, the Mexicans in the United States are not this troubled and hopeless. We should be more thankful and less critical.

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Mexicans, and certainly is no reason to put ourselves onto a path where possibly one-fourth of our nation might become Mexican.

Since Mexicans comprise 70% of Hispanics, and Hispanics are surging towards being possibly 40% of the population in fifty years, Mexicans are well on their way to becoming a quarter of our nation.

Probably not since the Revolution or early 1800s has any ethnic group been that dominant in America.

Can't we agree at this point that Mexico has had her turn at sending us immigrants? Even if you are a true-believing multiculti type, a nation that is one-fourth Mexican is NOT diverse. So I would think that even the diversity enthusiasts would want to bring in any other nationality besides Mexican.

If America should be comprised of a quarter of anything, it would be English ethnics, you know the descendants of the Founders.[/QUOTE]

That is why I say Los Angeles is overrated in the diversity department, especially since the majority of that diversity is Mexican.

Los Angeles is nowhere near New York City's league in the racial diversity department.

New York City truly looks like The United Nations, while most of Los Angeles looks like Ciudad De Juarez.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

one, and so on. Examples are the Pakistanis in Britain,"

Damn Pakis, when will the yobbos give them the beating they deserve. Though I do appreciate when last year the EDL flung pork at some Paki demonstration.

the Algerians in France, the Turks in Germany"

To be fair to the Algerians in France and Turks in Germany , they never really let assimilate like America allowed its non white immigrants.Notice the successful Arab Americans vs say Turkish Germans or Maghrebine French.

the Chechens in Russia"

When I visited Russia our blonde Slavic Orthodox Russia guides,not known to be PC especially when knocking back a few, told me that Caucasian ethncities are well represented in the Russian armed forces and many served heroically in the Chechen wars.And many of them were Chechen indeed.

I would be more sympathetic to this touching anecdote regarding the patriotism of a persecuted minority if a couple of Chechens hadnt stolen my cell phone in St Petersburg the night before..


the Lebanese in Australia"

The Lebanese Muslims yes ,the Christians are doing fine.
The Leb Muzzies were notorious for raping Australian girls ,robberies and all sorts of other crimes until the unPC Aussies had enough and many of them got together and gave them a good beating at the end of 2005.This got them to behave.

What can you do? Muslims only understand mob justice. When some Islamist group murdered some Nepalis in Iraq in 2004, the Nepalis went on a rampage in their country damaging mosques, looting Muslim owned stories, roughing up random Muslims and setting fire to embassies of Muslim countries and a few hundred Korans for good measure.
A very disagreeable response but no one dared kidnap anymore Nepalis after that.



and the Uighurs in China."


Another example of how Muslims only respect power wielded as cruelly as possible. Chinas bottom bitch Pakistan doesnt mention a word about the persecuted Uighurs and neither do any of the usual suspects.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

Seeing how Mexico has been dumping its excess indio/mestizo population up north for quite some time now ,have been any studies done on

a) whether Mexico has been getting whiter due to the mestizo exodus?
b) has its average IQ gone up a result?
c) Has its economy and living conditions improved due a) and b)?
d) Does the drug war have anything to do with any of the above?

Dr Van Nostrand said...

Mexicans do have one thing in common in Italians-the color caste system ,the paler and blonder the better.

I think a previous post on Argentina elaborated why northern more educated Italians, who tend to be paler migrated there and U.S got the darker violent types and keep getting the same types with Mexicans.

I guess life is too sweet for gringo Mexicans to move up north

The Anglo Mormon settlers in Mexico agree..


One of the few blonde Italians Im aware of is Dana Perino,fomer WH press secretary for Bush 43 , and she had a very outdoorsy Germanic upbringing in Wyoming.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

As an Indian(Vasco Da Gama ,not Columbus) I really couldnt care less about Indian characters not having a presence on TV or movies.
Indians are less 1% of the total population so I dont know what some of my friends keep complaining about.
We don't really register in America's consciousness all that much. That doesn't bother me in the least bit.

And no shows like "Outsourced" in which idiot Indian American actors try to act Indian aren't helping.

I remember reading the imdb profile of some obscure Indian American actress (whose name I forget name) - the poor woman attended Yale Drama and Julliard ...all for what... to have as one of her credits"Hispanic hooker #4"?

David said...

Hispanics seem like Italians only when compared to Muslim bombers from Butfokistan and Somalis from Somaliland.

Everything is relatives, as Steve once said.

countenance said...

As someone with significant Italian ancestry, this NYT article offends me to no end. How dare they equate the people who sparked and incubated The Renaissance with simple Indo-Mezo-Chicano jungle peasants who couldn't organize a two-car parade.

Anonymous said...

So we native-born Californians, me a San Diego native, are actually Mexican citizens.

According to your logic wouldn't we all be Tongva and not Mexican?

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Miguel Ferrer: I just rewatched Twin Peaks, and his turn as Albert Rosenfield, the neurotic (Jewish) forensics expert, is easily one of the best in the series. His combination of skin tone, pedigree, and name would make him a perfect candidate for Latino Spokesperson Inc. I wonder how he feels about immigration.

His father Jose also did a bang-up job as Barney Greenwald in THE CAINE MUTINY.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

His father Jose also did a bang-up job as Barney Greenwald in THE CAINE MUTINY."

Whenever the "Caine Mutiny" was broadcast, I always used to watch it, primarily just for Jose Ferrer's drunken speech at the end.

David said...

>Mexicans are not the new Italians.

First, do they realize or even care that only a little more than 5 million Italians ever immigrated to America from 1607 until today?

[etc.]<

Excellent comment, worthy of forwarding.

Jefferson said...

[QUOTE]>Mexicans are not the new Italians.

First, do they realize or even care that only a little more than 5 million Italians ever immigrated to America from 1607 until today?[/QUOTE]

There are more than 5 million Mexicans just in the state of Texas alone.

Kovrins Monk said...

Italian defensiveness by some posters is amusing.

Most Italian immigrants to the USA were not Renaissance painters or architects responsible for Italian high culture. Instead, they were poor illiterate peasants whose lifestyles, along with Catholic religion, a Romance language, and a strong family orientation were similar to that of Mexican peasants.

There are radical differences between the Italian and Mexican waves of immigration. America is no longer self-confidant enough to impose its language and culture onto newcomers. America is no longer moral enough to insure that newcomers maintain their own moral values (about 50% of white people in the bottom 30% of white income have kids out of wedlock - is it any surprise that 2nd generation Mexicans imitate their white socioeconomic peers?).

So although Mexicans may be the new Italians, new America is not old America.

Anonymous said...

Mexicans are native American. They are native to this part of the world.