December 28, 2007

Why I like Mexico's anti-Americanism

I mentioned below how much more American press coverage the Bhutto murder in far-off Pakistan has gotten compared to the assassination of Colosio (who?) in nearby Tijuana in 1994, even though the events were fairly comparable.

One legitimate reason for this could be that we really do meddle more in Pakistan than in Mexico due to Mexico's tradition of anti-Americanism that goes back at least as far as the 1846-48 war.

Personally, I like not being responsible for Mexico.

And it's not as if Mexico would be a better place if we had been allowed to meddle more. The most prominent example of American activism in Mexico in the 20th Century, Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson's conspiring in 1913 to oust the democratically elected president, mild-mannered Francisco Madero, helped set off the bloodiest portion of the Mexican Revolution. This suggests that we would have just made things even worse.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mr Sailer

This probably isn't the place to ask, but do you have any response to Gladwell's New Yorker foray into the IQ debate?

I'm getting the impression that the so-called "Flynn effect" is nothing more than an example of historical academic bias. A normal response to this would be to attempt to refine the testing methodology, instead it seems to have led environmentalists to question the very concept of intelligence.

I'm also interested in Elsie Moore's study. It seems to be almost impossible to access these "definitive" studies online.

Anonymous said...

I like it too. I was in Tijuana a few days after Colosio was killed - it was spooky. In 1913, US Ambassador Henry Wilson conspired with General Victoriano Huerta to overthrow the more-or-less democratically elected Mexican government of President Madero and Vice President Suarez. This deal was called the Embassy Pact because it was reached at the US embassy. Huerta's men had Madero and Suarez arrested and murdered and Huerta seized power and instituted a brutal military dictatorship. Huerta then fell out of favor with President Woodrow Wilson (who was shocked, shocked! to discover that Huerta wasn't a very nice man and certainly wasn't a Jeffersonian democrat, to put it mildly). This led to all sorts of complications, including the almost-laughable Tampico Affair and the US occupation of the port of Veracruz for over six months. Eventually the Mexican government was overthrown and Huerta got off easy - he was exiled. Easy, because a lot of Mexican leaders from this period were assassinated, including Madero, Suarez, Obregon, Carranza and Calles, the founder of the PRI. Still, Mexico seems to have grown up from all this instability and lately has been doing pretty well; indeed, compared to Pakistan, it looks almost like Sweden. One thing is sure - US meddling in these countries is bound to be counterproductive - just look at what US involvement in Cuba and Iran produced. Best to stay out.

JWO said...

I agree strongly with Steve that anti-Americanism among the Mexican elite is a good thing, if we could spread this anti-Americanism to the poor that would be good. The best way to slow Mexican immigration may be to remind Mexicans that the USA will be a difficult place for their children and may not be the land of opportunity that they think it is. Tell them they are leaving much of their support system and that drugs and alcohol will entice their children in the USA.

JWO said...

I agree strongly with Steve that anti-Americanism among the Mexican elite is a good thing, if we could spread this anti-Americanism to the poor that would be good. The best way to slow Mexican immigration may be to remind Mexicans that the USA will be a difficult place for their children and may not be the land of opportunity that they think it is. Tell them they are leaving much of their support system and that drugs and alcohol will entice their children in the USA.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I like not being responsible for Mexico.

But you are, Steve. A lot of Mexico is here.

I like Mexico's anti-Americanism.

As long as it comes with a gated community and security system.

(Not criticizing you personally. For all we know, you really live in Montana, raising pits.)

Anonymous said...

Steve -- Libertarianism makes you stupid. This is (sorry) one of your lesser moments.

Pakistan is ... hell look at a map. Without a friendly regime in Pakistan, supply of Afghanistan is impossible and our troops there face total destruction.

This is why the Iraq War is winnable and Afghanistan is not. Logistics 101. Pakistan and Russia (through it's influence in the Central Asian republics) will permit only limited US forces there. Loss of friendly Pakistan would require a "fighting retreat" ala Chosin Resevoir to Uzbekistan with concession after concession to Russia to evacuate our troops in a humiliating defeat certain to spur further mass casualty attacks by an emboldened Al Qaeda.

Iraq by contrast can be supplied by the sea directly, or through Kuwait which being tiny requires US military support to merely exist and not be swallowed up by it's much larger neighbors.

This leaves aside the question of Al Qaeda effectively seizing control of Pakistan and it's nukes.

Like I said, Libertarianism makes you stupid by blinding people to reality.

As far as Mexico stands, recall something called the Monroe Doctrine. US policy since the early days of the Republic has been to limit as far as possible hostile foreign powers seeking influence in the Western Hemisphere. At the time of US intervention, Pancho Villa (recall him) was raiding US border towns and nearly everyone struggling for power had a German adviser. Promises of restoring the Southwest to Mexico were made. That alone guaranteed intervention in Mexico.

Normal, rational, intelligent adults don't expect PC-Multi-culti nonsense in the affairs of nations. The United States should always seek to maximize the benefit to it's people in intervening abroad. "Morality" and "responsibility" are the arguments of PC-Liberals who argue that the United States should be erased as a nation by Open Borders and unlimited immigration legal or otherwise.

More evidence that Libertarianism makes you stupid Steve (with all due respect): You are echoing the sentiments and arguments of the Open Borders Crowd.

Anti-Americanism is a bad thing, particularly in Mexico, because it leads to Mexico doing things (protecting anti-American terrorists, exporting social unrest to the US through illegal immigration) that are against the US interests.

Stupid Libertarians (looking at you Ron Paul) want the US to put it's head in the sand, allow hostile foreign powers and movements to act as they please against vital US interests, and pretend bad things will go away if ... we return to the Gold Standard. It's UFO-ology 'magical thinking' and not the mark of anyone serious.

[The only argument is how effective and useful US intervention is abroad, not more self-loathing and view that the US is inherently evil and can do nothing to protect itself.]

Anonymous said...

Mexican anti-Americanism is much more benign than Pakistani anti-Americanism which might explain some of the disparity in reporting. Pakistani anti-Americanism begot Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mexican anti-Americanism begot your local Chicano studies department.

Anonymous said...

I am Lugash.

JW Ogden,

The poor Mexicans are probably have anti-Americanism already. Or maybe a bit more precisely: they don't Americans they deal with on a day to day basis, or the American culture that they have to live in. This is different than Mexico's elite hating our foreign policy.

A lot of immigrants I talk to are here for money, and nothing else. They would leave in a heart beat if they could find decent work in the old country.

I am Lugash.

Anonymous said...

Actually, it was anti-Israeli sentiment that begot Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Anonymous said...

it was anti-Israeli sentiment that begot Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.


If only you could tie Israel and Jooos to Bhutto murder and Katrina, you would be one happy aryan

Anonymous said...

Stupid Libertarians (looking at you Ron Paul) want the US to put it's [sic] head in the sand, allow hostile foreign powers and movements to act as they please against vital US interests, and pretend bad things will go away if ... we return to the Gold Standard.

What are you smoking? Here for Dr. Paul on foreign policy.

We have "vital interests" that we must protect with military force...in 130 countries?

To require Congress - and not a unitary executive - to declare war is the same as pretending that bad things will go away if we return to the gold standard?

Ye gods and little fishes.

There's more! Ron Paul wants open borders? False. "Morality" and "responsibility" are the arguments of PC-Liberals. I thought they were the arguments of interventionists. Libertarianism makes you stupid [...] Like I said, Libertarianism makes you stupid by blinding people to reality. [sic] [...] More evidence that Libertarianism makes you stupid [...] Stupid Libertarians (looking at you Ron Paul) [...] Ad hominem ad nauseum.

(Am I feeding the troll?)

Anonymous said...

The United States should always seek to maximize the benefit to it's people in intervening abroad

Evil neocon, our Iraq intervention has cost us a trillion bucks (not counting the devaluation of our dollar) and 4000 soldiers (plus an unknown additional number maimed badly enought to put them into the "might as well be dead" category), and has managed to make billions of people around the world hate us (more). And the benefit to Americans from this intervention has been...?

Anonymous said...

Anti-Americanism, and the rise of a kind of belligerent Mexican nationalism, seems to me more marked among Mexican nationals living illegally in the US than those still in the motherland. While blissfully cocooned south of the border, they are not faced with the daily onslaught of inescapable evidence reminding them of the clear inferiority of the society their culture has created. The vivid comparison between the two nations -- what Mexican culture has wrought vs. what the despised Anglo Europeans have built -- is an infuriating slap to mestizos arriving from that blighted, chaotic backwater. And, a huge hit on what is their single most cherished value: that hot-blooded and famously eggshell-thin sense of "pride." Thus, you find a lot of mestizos in this country walking around with an enormous chip on their shoulder soon after they arrive. Thus, also, the high-pitched self-reinforcement of "Mexican Pride" in constant celebrations, parades, festivals, etc. In southern Califpornia there's one almost every day of the week. What other immigrant group arriving on these shores has felt such an obviously desperate need to re-inflate itself with these non-stop bellicose bloviations? Vietnamese Pride? Swedish Pride? Ethiopian Pride? Even one who slept thru Psych 101 can clearly see at work the over-the-top over-compensation that always masks a massive inferiority complex.