Dear Mr. Taylor,
I thoroughly enjoyed your latest interview with crazy Mexican, Dr. Jose Gutierrez.
Please note that I did not call Gutierrez a “Hispanic” and I sincerely hope to see that term disappear from your vocabulary as well.
True . . . it is a legal term and one used by the US government . . . but it is not advantageous to the political goals of white nationalism and its use masks the real problem (a problem pro-amnesty leaders don’t want you to recognize).
The term “Hispanic” is simply too broad. There is as much racial and cultural difference among “Hispanics” as there is among “Europeans” or “Americans.” You certainly have little in common with Al Sharpton, yet you are both “American.” Likewise, I have absolutely nothing in common with Jose Gutierrez, yet we are both “Hispanic.”
Cubans are an excellent example of this principle. The Cubans who emigrated here in the early 1960s were politically motivated to flee a communist dictatorship. Many were wealthy, highly educated or employed by American corporations. (If they were none of those things, they were at least intelligent enough to see what was coming.) Since then, wave after wave of Cuban urban poor and peasants (campesinos) have reached Miami. To lump these two distinct groups together under the term “Hispanic” is a tactical error. It simply dismisses the first group, most of who are culturally white-European, have assimilated well and are potential allies . . . allies we can’t afford to squander.
I would argue that it’s not “Hispanics” responsible for the vast illegal immigration, high medical costs, high illegitimacy rates, high crime and huge increase in youth gangs . . . but the wretched Mexican and Central American peasants who are flooding into the country while the best and brightest of those nations stay home.
Although up-to-date statistics are not available, the 2000 Census showed that there were 35 million Hispanics living in the US. Of these, 4% were from South America, 4% from Cuba and 2% from Spain and the Canary Islands. Another 10% were Puerto Rican.
That means that the remaining 80% were from Mexico and the other countries of Central America. And, let me emphasize, this is six-year old data. We know that the flow of mostly-illegal immigrants from Mexico has exploded in the last six years.
To really understand just how concentrated the Mexicans/Central American immigrants are, we have to look at where they come from and where they go once they get here.
Most of the immigration from Central America comes from the small countries on the southern Mexican border: Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. These countries along with the dense pockets of poverty in rural southern Mexico, make up an area of only 700,000 square miles or about the size of Alaska. Relatively speaking, it’s a very small area of concentrated poverty and misery.
These people are 60% Mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish), 30% Amerindian, and about 10% white.
Not only is the Hispanic population in the US primarily from this one very poor region of the world, but this group remains highly concentrated once it gets here. Over 72% live in the southwest (California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico). Almost 75% of these recent arrivals have lived in the US less than 20 years.
So what’s really going on here?
What pro-amnesty leaders want us to believe is that we’re seeing a re-awakening of the civil rights movement, only this time based on “Hispanics.”
But what we are really seeing is a political and economic power grab by disenfranchised Mestizo and Amerindian lower classes. This is the War With Mexico, Part 2. This is class struggle with socialist undertones mixed with a 170-year old nationalistic blood feud between Mexicans and Americans.
True, there are other “Hispanics” supporting the Mexicans, but the unifying political theme is Chicano-ism (with a dash of Mexican nationalism thrown in). In fact, if Mexicans like Gutierrez were to achieve everything they wanted, I sincerely doubt that many of their “Hispanic” supporters would be welcome in their new nation—any more than Guatemalans are welcome in Mexico today.
Gutierrez wants you to think in terms of “gringo versus Hispanics.” He wants to invoke “Pan-Hispanicism” on the side of his Mexican nationalism. Heck, he’d welcome little green space aliens on his side if they were available!
So let’s stop falling for the political spin and manipulation of socialists and slick Mexicans who hate America. Divide and conquer. Let’s call these people what they are: A disaffected lower class of Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, El Salvadorans, Mestizos, Aztecs and other Indians.
There are millions of Spanish-speaking whites opposing the Mexican invasion. Why cede these opponents to them? Why portray greater support than they have? Why create the impression that all Spanish-speaking people are marching in step with Mexican nationalism? By eliminating the term “Hispanic” as a nomenclature, you slice away support from people like Gutierrez and you unmask the ugly nationalistic motivations of this “pro-amnesty” movement.
I have carefully reviewed the transcript of your Gutierrez debate and substituted the term “Mexican” wherever you used the term “Hispanic.” It fits very nicely.
Instead of titling the debate: “Hispanicization: Good or Bad for America?”
Let’s call it “Mexicanization: Good or Bad for America?”