January 4, 2005

NUEVO ARIZONA:

Hispanic births pass Anglos' in Arizona (Kerry Fehr-Snyder, Jan. 4, 2005, The Arizona Republic)

More Arizona babies were born to Hispanic women in 2003 than to their White, non-Hispanic counterparts, another reflection of the state's fast-growing Hispanic population.

That could explain how Jose became the most popular boy's name in the state last year, nudging aside Jacob and the long-running No. 1, Michael.

"What it really means to Arizona is that eventually Arizona will have come full circle," said Loui Olivas, a professor at the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University.

"Every demographer I've talked to thinks the majority of Arizona's population will be Hispanic by 2035 or 2045," he said.


While the nativists rave about borders they're being lapped in maternity wards.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 4, 2005 3:16 PM
Comments

There are several considerations here.

1. Like Florida and Nevada, much of the population growth in Arizona is not by natural increase or foreign immigration but by people moving there from other States, in its case most notably California. Thus, maternity wards are not a great indicator of what is really happening to population. Seniors, young unmarrieds middle-income people, and young families who have already had their children do not use maternity wards much.

2. The politics are a lot more complex than we are led to assume by the MSM, which believes that all Hispanics are lower class Puerto Ricans coming to the States to get on welfare. Nothing could be further from the truth with respect to Mexican immigrants who are fleeing a statist kleptocracy seeking freedom and opportunity to make something of themselves and get a halfway decent future for their families, just like millions of other immigrants.

3. If Mexicans and other Hispanics have tended to vote Democratic in the past, there are two main reasons. First, in much of the region where they lived, Democrats were the only game in town. That was certainly true in South and West Texas and in the Northern Highlands of New Mexico. All the action is in the Democratic primary. Second, Republicans, under Nixon, did go through a period of appealing to the worst bigots and racists in America. Whether it was the lamentable 'Southern Strategy' where segregationists were encouraged to join the GOP bandwagon or whether it was the various 'ethnic' Nixon organizations which were often run by former Nazi war criminals like Laszlo Pastor, the Nixon-era GOP wrapped itself in a White Nationalist mantle to a disgraceful degree. Democrats have waved that bloody shirt ever since. The difficulty so many Republicans have in treating Pat Buchanan like the despicable Hitler-loving America-hating Nazi bastard that he is just reinforces the stereotype of GOP=KKK.

4. Both political parties are going to have a problem with resentful Anglophones, both White and Black, who see themselves as under seige from the 'Messicans.' The sainted Barbara Jordan was every bit as racist as Tom Tancredo. That Anglo vote though is going to be a significant factor in a lot of races in the future and will react angrily to attempts to 'pander' to Hispanic voters. Will the Democrats continue to ignore working-class concerns? They've happily done so with White working class people, but when Blacks end up screaming about Hispanic immigration, the dynamic will change. Black/Hispanic hostility is a major factor in urban politics in LA, Houston, NYC and elsewhere already.

5. Hispanics are not a monolith. The middle class Cubans of the first Castro exile are small business people, skilled artisans and professionals so they have a natural tendency towards conservatism. The lesser skilled Cubans that came later do not. The Puerto Rican middle and upper class stays in Puerto Rico where they do quite nicely. The Mexican, Colombian and Dominican migrations resembles the migrations from Southern Italy in the 1880-1920 period, a large number of barely literate semi-skilled and unskilled workers. The most recent wave of affluent Venezuelans is something of an entirely different character.

6. Mexico is only a bus ride away. When immigrants came to this country from Europe or Asia, it was a major effort to go back. It was also difficult for them to maintain close ties. Even so, approximately 1/3 did return to their lands of origin permanently. The adjustment to America ain't easy. For Mexicans, there will be a larger disincentive to learning English because 'going home' is so easy.

7. Don't underestimate the importance of pandering. The Democrats and the ethnic activists want to keep Hispanics in a linguistic ghetto at least so that they can monopolize the conversation. If Hispanics start arguing about politics in English, all of a sudden they can find themselves capable of being represented by guys named O'Brien or Weinstein, not just by Hispanics. Of course, Hispanic politicians don't like that eventuality and will do anything they can to avoid it. Since Democrats are the party of the nanny state, the longer they can keep Hispanics in a condition of infantile dependence on the largesse of the government, the better it is for their prospects.

8. Learning Spanish ain't hard. The GOP should have a concerted program to make its voice heard on Spanish radio, to have its people seen on Spanish TV, and to be read about in Spanish language newspapers. It should not just send a DH (designated Hispanic) to these places but it should have ALL of its serious candidates in electorates where there is a significant Hispanic percentage doing so. If you seek to represent a State House seat where 20% of the voters speak Spanish in their daily lives, and your Spanish doesn't go beyond 'Yo quiero Taco Bell' you are wasting the party's time and money. The ability to speak Spanish and the willingness to address voters and respond to voter queries in their language will enhance the GOP's ability to get votes even if the bulk of Hispanic voters disagree. There will be some people listening, and the cheesy Democrat and MSM linkage of the GOP with the Klan will be laughable.


Posted by: Bart at January 4, 2005 4:13 PM

Reasonable summary of the issues Bart. Pluses and minuses for our culture and economy. You state that Mexicans do not come here for welfare, and they don't, however educational and medical resources are put under strain in certain areas of the country. (approximately 10 million illegals since 1990) For instance down below is a post relating to the poor results of California's schools even though there has been significant increases in funding. I think that is do to the high volume of Mexican immigrants dumped on California schools.

Presently Mexican immigrants are benefiting from Afirmative Action programs for minorities despite their lack of citizenship. This would tend to exacerbate the resentment you refer to.

(Affirmative Action was a creation of the Nixon Administration, which might seem to contradict your analysis of his appealing to segregationist. Although actually I think you got the gist of it right)

Posted by: h-man at January 4, 2005 7:26 PM

Pretty easy to say "Nuevo Arizona" from New Hampshire.

Posted by: Paul Cella at January 5, 2005 12:34 AM

There are millions of Mexican immmigrants in America. Millions more Mexicans aspire to come to America.These Mexicans are hard working, solid gold citizens, who are seeking to escape bad government in Mexico. If Mexico is populatated by millions of hard working, fair minded and highly intelligent citizens, who just want to have the same advantages American citizens enjoy, why haven't they installed an American style government and constitution? If Mexicans are so American, why is Mexico not a Hispanic version of Canada? Could it be that Mexico is Mexico, because of Mexicans and America and Canada are American and Canadian, because America and Canadaians are, or were, Northern European?

Posted by: Calvin at January 5, 2005 6:11 AM

Calvin,

I'm not 'Northern European.' A not insignificant percentage of my ancestors came from the Eastern Mediterranean, the rest is probably an amalgam of Slavic, German, Moorish, Tatar and Celtic. Yet, I'm certainly 'American' by any intelligent definition.

Or are you of the view that nobody darker than Arnold Schwarzenegger can be a true American?

If you are honestly looking for the reasons why the changes never occured in Mexico, it's quite simple. There is an old expression,'You can't fight City Hall.' The Mexicans who have the gumption to come here, to take enormous risks to gain the dubious honor of cutting your lawn, washing your dishes and picking up your garbage are precisely the Mexicans most similar to the European and Asian immigrants who have made America what it is, the greatest nation in the world. They had no more ability to change the world they came from than my maternal grandparents had of getting rid of the Tsar and replacing with anything other than a criminal, brutal autocracy.

Mexico has a bad political culture, because there are lots of people with lots of power who benefit from it being a bad political culture. That makes it no different from a lot of places, if not most places, on the globe. In fact most of the places which are the ports of departure for most immigrants from Europe to America were of precisely the same character.

Posted by: Bart at January 5, 2005 7:35 AM

Considering that three of the six ethnic groups you mention are Northern European, I don't quite know how you can support your objection to being classed as significantly Northern European. Is this denial of your ethnicity a fashion thing? Perhaps a middle-class version of wiggerism?

Anyway, that's not quite the point. In terms of ethnicity and culture the foundations of modern (post-aboriginal) America are Northern European. An overwheling percentage of Americas founders have surnames originating in Northern European countries. We are communicating in an Anglo-Saxon language and idiom. This is fact not opinion.

In point of fact, the freedoms we enjoy stem from the abilities of our ancestors to, as you put it,
"fight city hall". You need to study the history of the European working-classes. My ancestors were slaves, miners in craigmillar in Edinburgh, owned by the mining companies until 1725. Lot's of people benefited from the "bad political culture" which prevailed in these days. Fortunately the many who did not benefit from it fought for their rights. People who will not fight for rights and freedoms in their own countries, will not uphold these rights in the face of tyrany, in other peoples countries.

Posted by: Calvin at January 5, 2005 8:41 AM

Calvin:

That Mexicans so easily become just like other Americans does suggest that it is Americanism, not ethnicity, that is determinative. Jusdt as the dying off of white Europe suggests rot in their culture.

Meanwhile your prior point is lunatic--the average frenchman will be retired for 25 years--that;'s a long time on the teat.

Posted by: oj at January 5, 2005 8:51 AM

Calvin: By definition, our ancestors voted with their feet. That's all the Mexicans are doing.

Posted by: David Cohen at January 5, 2005 9:07 AM

Don't confuse culture and ethnicity. Northern Europeans are quite capable of creating dictatorships as brutal as anything on the planet. There is nothing in our genes that demands a particular political structure.

Since culture is learned, people can come here from pretty much anywhere and become 'Americans.' They do so not because of where they came from but because of what they do when they get here. A cursory review of Americans at the top rung in any field will show a staggering level of ethnic diversity, but interviews with the same people will show a staggering unity of opinion regarding individual and collective responsibility. That is a function of the culture and old line WASPs whose families are members of the closest thing America has to a native aristocracy and my Israeli born cousin can both hold endowed chairs at a leading American medical school.

Comparing the rights and privileges of Scottish whites of the 18th century with the conditions that prevailed for most people in much of the modern world is just laughable. To give you a simple example, in 18th century Scotland if you killed someone's indentured servant, you were subject to the death penalty. In Russia until the 1860s, if you killed someone else's serf, he got to kill one of yours.

Moreover, your notion that immigrants will not fight for the nation is disgusting. You might wish to look at the Almanac of American Politics where Michael Barone has written that the three congressional districts with the largest rates of military enlistment in the US are three overwhelmingly Hispanic districts in the LA Metro area. Moreover, who are advocating for a stronger America today, people like Ramesh Ponnuru, Francis Fukuyama and Charles Krauthammer or people like Michael Moore, Lewis Lapham and Jim McDermott?

Posted by: Bart at January 5, 2005 9:09 AM

OJ, I point blank refuse to discuss the French. France is a papular excrescence on the arse of Europe. The average British pensioner is in receipt of state provision for ten years as opposed to sixteen years and ten months for all under sixteens. It's not a rot, it's a deep slumber, stick around, things might get interesting in the time of the great awakening.

Mr Cohen, the natural instinct of the indigenous population (used to be called Indians?) was to fight back with everything they had against the incommers. I hear that people like you are big admirers of native American wisdom.

Bart, any culture, European included, can create misery and ugliness, no culture can rival the scientific, philosophical and artistic achievements of Europeans.

I'm sure that their is an astonishing degree of diversity among the top echelons of American society, just like Rome in it's period of imperialistic decadence.

The only difference between fighting against oppressive government now and oppressive government in the eighteenth century is that in the eighteenth century such a fight required a far greater degree of heroism.

I believe that there have already been incidents involving US Muslim soldiers in Iraq. Are you really trying to tell me that an army of Mexican Americans would defend the USA against a Mexican invasion? You find me laughable?

On culture. People create culture, culture cannot exist in a vacum. Effect must follow cause, therefore, culture is produced by humans. Different types of human (racial groups) create different cultures. Mexicans and Africans create African and Mexican cultures etc., etc.

Obviously environment plays a role in the formation and modalities of culture, but to ask me to assume that it played the only role, would be to ask me to assume an absolutist position which is incompatible with logical thinking. It seems obvious to me that, this being the self-evident truth, race is one of the key foundations of culture. I like my culture and want to preserve it. Before you respond, just imagine that that last statement had been made by a Black man.

Posted by: Calvin at January 5, 2005 9:55 AM

Calvin:

Closer to twenty.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/791298.stm

Posted by: oj at January 5, 2005 10:11 AM

Mr Cohen, the natural instinct of the indigenous population (used to be called Indians?) was to fight back with everything they had against the incommers. I hear that people like you are big admirers of native American wisdom.

I think I'm speechless. I have no idea what that means. People like me (actually, like Tigger, I'm the only one) think it's a shame that the Indians got in our way and that, for stone age peoples, they put up a good fight.

Nonetheless, I admire your ability to argue that we need to keep out Spanish speaking Catholics in order to defend European civilization.

Posted by: David Cohen at January 5, 2005 10:17 AM

Paul:

We say Nouvelle Hampshire. If you can assimilate Frogs you can anybody.

Posted by: oj at January 5, 2005 10:25 AM

Calvin,

Take a look at the Forbes Billionaires list, the Nobel Prize lists in the sciences, and the major mathematics prizes, look who's there, what nations they are from and what their last names are. If that's decadence, I'll take it. Need I also refer you to GDP figures and the fact that the US spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined, or that even with this earthquake in the Indian Ocean that the Europeans are whining about America not being involved enough even though our relief contributions dwarf theirs. I am every bit the Western Civilization chauvinist you are except that I do not see it in a Volkist manner. VS Naipaul is arguably the best writer in the English language today.

With your reference to a Muslim soldier, once again you confuse race and culture. The soldier in question became a Muslim, he was not indigenous to the Fertile Crescent, but was some malcontent from the SF area who decided to follow Allah. It would be like saying a Communist in the US military committed a terrorist act against Americans during the Cold War. Islam is an ideology essentially incompatible with civilization, like Communism or Nazism. If every Muslim in the world stopped being a Muslim tomorrow and became a Methodist or a Buddhist, we'd have a lot fewer problems.

A Mexican invasion of the US? That really is funny. Once they cross the border, their whole armies would run to the bus stations and desert. According to Robert Kaplan of Atlantic Monthly, the border with the greatest disparity of lifestyle is the one between Mexico and the US, and the ethnicity on both sides is identical. Nogales, Arizona is 99% Hispanic, as is Laredo, Texas. These folks are proud to be Americans and know first hand what life in Mexico is like and know that they don't want it. They have a far greater appreciation of the differences between America and Mexico than middle class whitebread suburbanites.

If you want to know where 42% of Hispanics who voted for Bush came from, it is places like Nogales and Laredo.

America is the perfect example of a place where people learned new cultures, that culture is not immutable in ones genes or ethnicity as you claim. 'Race' is a silly shorthand for culture, which really does matter but is harder to pin down. Are Jews white? If so what about Ethiopians? Are the people of Northern India? If not, how do you disqualify them when they speak a language fairly closely related to those of Europe? How about Basques? If you object to the mixed Native American and Spanish population of Mexico, do you also object to the mixed Native American and Anglo-Celtic population of the American South? If not, what is the basis of your distinction?

Posted by: Bart at January 5, 2005 10:54 AM

If every Muslim in the world stopped being a Muslim tomorrow and became a Methodist or a Buddhist, we'd have a lot fewer problems.

Harsh.

But true.

Just as for the rest of it, Bart, very well said.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 5, 2005 11:55 AM

Bart you don't believe in the racial origins of culture, fine, but you have not given me a single argument in support of your belief.

If you look at the Forbes index etc., I expect you will find that most of its luminaries are Jews, Asians and Caucasians. Indicating a discrepancy in racial aptitudes, but don't forget that these people thrive in a culture created and maintained, by and large, by one ethnic group.

Why don't you take a look at a biographical dictionary for a true indication of which people are the driving force of human progress?

In order to attack my argument you have to invent ficticious racial groups. The Mexicans are not a fusion of Spaniards and Indians. Mexicans are overwhelmingly Indian, as is obvious by their extrinsic phenotypical characteristics. There is no racial distinction between Anglos and Celts. The celts and the teutons are racial cousins. The population of the Southern states is in no way a fusion of Indian and European ethnic groups.

Why doesn't every Muslim become a Methodist overnight? Why did caucasians stop being Catholics overnight? We must be the luckiest race in the world to just keep stumbling over the best ideas.

There is a difference between being proud to be an American and being pleased to be an American.

If enough Mexicans had it in them to be Americans there would be no need for them to emigrate, because Mexico would be America, just like Canada is "America" with a funny accent and no cojones.

Posted by: Calvin at January 5, 2005 8:03 PM

Actually I addressed your argument directly through example demonstrating that 'race' is meaningless because it cannot be defined.

What the Forbes list and the Nobel Prizes and all those other things show is that people of various ethnic backgrounds can come to the US and they or their kids can adapt to the local culture, folkways and mores and succeed at the highest level. Again, I do not deny, in fact I endorse, much the culture of Robert Conquest's Anglosphere. Rule of law, a respect for the rights of the individual and an appreciation of discovery, risk and innovation are all really good things.

The driving force of human progress? From the 5th century BCE till about the 5th century CE, that would have been Romans and Greeks. From the 5th century CE to the 13th century CE, that would have been Arabs, Chinese, Persians and Hindus. From the 13th to the 16th century, it is the peoples of Italy and France. From the 16th century to the 20th, it is the peoples of Western Europe. Today, virtually all progress comes from America, East Asia and South Asia. IOW, the locus of the engine driving the world changes constantly.

The Mexicans define themselves as Mestizo, they speak Spanish, they observe a religion brought to them from Spain, they dress and eat in ways imported directly from Castile. One of the main stereotypes of Hispanics involves having copious amounts of body hair. People of Native American or African ancestry do not have copious amounts of body hair, quite the opposite. It is apparent that you know nothing about the region.

Anglo-Saxons and Celts are very different people. Celtic languages are for the most part unintelligible to Anglophones, whereas with a halfway decent English vocabulary you can muddle your way through Spanish or Italian or Romanian. Celtic attitudes towards time, religion and hard work have no analogue among Anglo-Saxons and their German and Nordic cousins. The seriousness with which Americans take punctuality is a product of German migration, not the Anglo-Celtics earlier waves. American openness to new ideas is not the product of the intellectually sclerotic world that is modern Britain.

You don't know much about the American South either. Something like 25% of all white Southerners have some Native American ancestry. Burt Reynolds springs to mind. In Oklahoma, people are damn proud of it. Political candidates make a point of emphasizing their Indian roots. By contrast, no Mexican in politics emphasizes how Indian he is.

Most Europeans are Catholics. If you want to know why Mexico isn't America, the answer is quite simple. They followed centuries of brutal Aztec oppression with centuries of brutal Spanish oppression. It is not unlike Russia which followed centuries of brutal Tatar oppression, with centuries of brutal Tsarist oppression and decades of Communist oppression. Are you writing Russians out of the White race?

Canada differs from America because the military preceded the settlers, Canadians didn't really face a wilderness in the way that American pioneers did, which is why the Anglosphere nation most like America is probably Australia whose development is similar.


Posted by: Bart at January 6, 2005 7:38 AM

Bart:

A+

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 6, 2005 7:42 AM

Of course race can be defined. Race is acquired genetic difference. The claim that race is an invalid taxanomic construct makes just about as much sense as claiming that there is no such thing as different breeds of dog. You don't see many sausage dogs pulling arctic sleds do you?

You wont find the next Beethoven, Rembrant, Van Gogh, Picasso, Mozart, Newton, Pastor, Nietsche, Pascal or Aquinas on the Forbes list will you? The Forbes list is a list of voracious money grubers. A talent for fiscal acquisition is not to be sniffed at, but it is no evidence of genius. Talent perhaps. The Nobel prize is becoming increasingly politicised.

DNA studies indicate that the cultivation of grain developed around the area of the Black Sea, among indo-Europeans, as did the domestication of the horse etc.,. These practices spread to the fertile crescent from the north. The ancient Greeks and Romans were white Europeans. The medieval French and Italians were white Europeans, the Wester Europeans of 16th to 20th century Europe were, funnily enough, white Europeans, until the sixties America was at least 70% white European in racial makeup.

The Chinese developed a sophisticated civilisation in relative isolation. The Arabs inherited, through conquest, the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans. The architecture described as Islamic, is no more Islamic than the archicture of Ravenna is Gothic. The Muslims imnherited their knowledge from Europeans. The Muslims acquired the arithmetical knowledge of the Hindus and used it to compute complex Islamic marriage laws. The high caste Hindus, who invented arithmetic, were indo-Europeans. This has been proven by genetic evidence. So we have a brief period in human history where non-Europeans usurped the intellectual inheritance of Western Europe and did nothing of great import with it. As soon as the knowledge of the classical world was regained by caucasians, however, we had the Renaisance.

The celts and teutons share a common artistic heritage originating in Scythia. They both speak an indo-european language and originate from the same geographical locus.

I have been to Mexico and to California. The only stereotypes concerning Mexicans I have heard involve a putative oleginousness, and their dietary preferences. Regardless of language and religion, the Mexicans are at least 70% indian, as is indicated by phenotype. The vast majority of Mexicans I saw were/are short, without much body hair and tend towards endomorphism. I didnt see too many green eyed Castilians. Maybe I was just in the working-class districts.

It does not matter a rats ass how much the people of Oklahoma pride themselves on their Indian ancestry, 25% having "some" non-european ancestry does not ammount to a mixed race. We would all like to believe that our ancestors were noble warriors warriors of the plains wouldn't we? These idiots would be a lot less proud of their Indian ancestry if they had to live on Indian reservations.

Russia still managed to produce, St Basils, St Petersburg, The Hermitage, Gogol, Chekov, Dostoyevsky, etc., etc., etc.,. As compared to whom and what exactly?

The most glaring similarity between Australia, Canada and America is the racial origin of their creators. That's a fine impersonation of an ostritch you are doing.

Posted by: Calvin at January 6, 2005 9:37 PM

Calvin:

Language.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 7, 2005 6:35 AM

To use your dog analogy, we are all mutts. I'll give you a couple of French examples. In his History of the Franks, Gregory of Tours, writing in the 6th century CE states upon visiting Strasbourg, the capital of Alsace(in the interest of full disclosure my father's family are Jews from Alsace), that it is disgraceful because 'you can't tell the Jews from the Christians.' There is another region of France called the Vendee. It is a marshy land along the Atlantic Coast, where a heavily Celtic form of French is spoken, it is also peculiarly a center of Catholic religious fervor and historically a place of royalist sentiment. The people there however frequently have yellowish skin and slanted eyes, Georges Clemenceau is a good example. The reason for this is that after Attila's defeat at Chalons Sur Marne a group of his soldiers settled there, intermarrying with the local inhabitants. You wouldn't want to start making racial distinctions in Southern Italy, where the slave population of the Roman Empire interbred.

If the Forbes list doesn't serve your needs, take a look at the Rhodes and Fulbright scholarship lists and the MacArthur or Guggenheim 'genius' grants. The same phenomenon is true. The Forbes list is easier to find and reflects the riposte every American academic hears from his relatives at every family gathering 'If you're so smart, how come you're not rich?' I also specifically said Nobels in the sciences, which are not politicized. No one has used the term 'Jewish physics' since a certain one-testicled paperhanger shot himself to death in a Berlin bunker in May, 1945.

East Asia has had domesticated animals and grain for thousands of years. It was probably a matter of parallel development. The populations of India are an ethnic mixed-bag by any reasonable standard and the great trading areas where the wealth and the power were are located in the South where the population is mostly Dravidian. The Europeanlanguage most closely related to Hindi is Lithuanian. I know a fair amount of Hindi speakers, as math geeks in the NYC Metro Area will, and not a one would be mistaken for Lithuanian.

Let us not forget it was also Indo-Europeans who made the West destroy its own knowledge base, and while autopsies proceeded apace in Cairo and Baghdad, they were banned in Christendom.

The Celts and Teutons(?) share a common artistic heritage? Their languages couldn't be more different and still be Indo-European. The mythology is completely different. The music has no connection. I can go to the northwest corner of the Iberian peninsula where the vestigial Celtic population still lives and hear bagpipe music. There ain't a single bagpipe east of the Rhine. Plenty of accordions, but no bagpipes. Now, I will grant that alcoholism is common to both peoples but that is also true among Native Americans, Slavs and Tamils.

If you aren't familiar with Mexican stereotypes, maybe you should watch a few more movies. Spaghetti westerns, Desperado, or Treasure of Sierra Madre will do quite nicely. (How different does the Malaga-born Banderas look from his Mexican fellow actors?)The 'banditto' is always hairy. In America, you can frequently hear people joking about the hairyness of Hispanic women. Since body hair is not a characteristic of either Native Americans or sub-Saharan Africans, the basis for that stereotype(and most stereotypes have some factual basis) came from European ancestry.

Mexicans are full of Indian ancestry. I have not denied this. But their culture is definitely Iberian, particularly Castellano, as Catalans were not permitted to settle in Latin America until the 18th century. Because Castillian culture, such as it is, is a brutal, superstitious, lazy, unproductive, grasping one characterized by illiterate thugs calling themselves conquistadores stealing everything that wasn't nailed down and killing anyone who got in the way but creating nothing other than misery, Latin America failed to develop the kind of institutions, folkways and mores that the US with its middle class and artisanal British and German population did. Yet Spanish and British cultures are ones you would define as 'White.' Go to Argentina, a nation whose population is currently fleeing to go to Mexico for job opportunities. Its population is about 95% White, mostly Italian, Spanish and German.

Nobody in America has to live on an Indian reservation. If you choose to live there, you get free medical care and a full exemption from Federal and State taxes. How people see themselves matters because that is how they will choose to live. I look like Chris Farley, my dad looks like Jackie Gleason and my mother looks like she came out of a Holbein painting(her ancestors are Jews who fled what is now Belarus during the late Tsarist period), yet I am most emphatically Jewish as are they.

Russia was about 99% illiterate for most of its history under the Tsars. Mexico certainly produced great things under the Aztec and Maya and today has perhaps the most vibrant Spanish-language literature. If anything, it was the period of SPanish dominance that squelched the natural creativity of the population. Let us also not forget that the Spanish monks set about destroying much of what the pre-Columbian civilizations had built.

I have not denied the similarity of Canada to America, merely pointed out that the differences result from governmental policy and that there are significant differences.

You seem to believe that culture is somehow genetic. I think it is learned. The obviously Dravidian VS Naipaul can go to Britain and win a Nobel in literature and be a world-renowned author and intellectual, the Anglo-Celtic Michael Mathers III can hang around the Black ghetto of Detroit and behave like any other gang-banging thug and transform himself into Eminem. My parents could come from non-English speaking immigrant homes and gain degrees from West Point, NYU, Juilliard and Columbia respectively. I came from my lower middle class Brooklyn and NJ ghettos and went to MIT and later became an academic at Rutgers. It has nothing to do with ethnicity and race, but everything to do with the choices one makes with how one adapts to the society one is thrown into. There is a genetic gradient, unquestionably, but to extrapolate from there into a general formula concerning 'race' is just a laughable proposition for which there is no evidence, and for which there is tons of evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: Bart at January 7, 2005 7:34 AM

Bart:

Excellent discussion, thanks.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 7, 2005 11:40 AM
« TWO FOR COOPERSTOWN: | Main | NOTICABLE ABSENCE OF CANADA (via Tom Corcoran): »