Columnist Ruben Navarrette, Jr. is very proud of his Mexican heritage and makes this a central theme in many of his writings. His pride is so great, apparently, that when those of equal or greater Mexican heritage oppose amnesty for illegal aliens, specifically ones entering the United States through its southwestern border, he is nothing short of outraged. Enter former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney, whose father was born in a Chihuahua Mormon colony and later emigrated to America. Being "just one generation removed from our ancestral homeland," Navarrette proclaims, Romney might become our "first Hispanic president."
Here we go:
"This is ironic given that I've spent the last 20 years criticizing politicians who twist the facts, propose simple solutions, and pick on those who don't have a voice....Romney has spent the last several months doing precisely that," he continues. It gets better, though: "Listen up, Primo Mitt. You've made your bed. You're persona non grata with Latino voters, and it's your own fault. You can't win without them, but they can help make sure you lose. We don't care where your family's from. What matters is where your heart is." There was quite a bit in between these quotes, but, believe me, not a line of it was worth your time.
I will not beat around the bush in stating my opinion about Navarrette. As far as I am concerned, he is no objective analyst or impartial historian, but somebody who makes a profession out of being a perceived sociocultural minority. People like him serve as the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the Hispanic realm; nothing more and nothing less. They contribute very little of substance to the national dialogue, but detract a great deal from it. In Navarrette's tribalist alternate reality, one is bound to look after those sharing his or her ancestry. Whether this is good for the individual in question, or contemporary society as a whole, matters not a whit. If you had Mexican forefathers, then you should be unflinchingly sympathetic to the plight of Mexicans, even if they break the laws of your real homeland; the country of which you are actually a citizen.
This sort of primitive nonsense cannot even be described as ethnicity-based due to the fact that there is no such thing as a Mexican ethnicity. As Navarrette essentially puts it, the issue here is Hispanic solidarity. What does the term Hispanic really mean, though? Many afford it with pseudo-racial, let alone ethnic, significance, but it merely denotes an extremely broad social and historical concept of those descending from Spaniard settlers of present-day Latin America. For Navarrette and his ilk, however, this definition might as well include an actual genetic tie amongst those choosing to identify with it.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Clavos
Ironic that Navarrette uses the term, Hispanic in his diatribes. It's a meaningless designation, since today's Latinos (the term most of us prefer) are descendants of ancestors who emigrated from Spain, not Hispaniola (the home of Haiti and the Dominican Republic)' which is located on the Iberian peninsula.
Hispanic is an artificial construct perpetrated by the federal government, probably the Census Bureau.
2 - Clavos
Poorly written comment above. Spain is on the Iberian peninsula, not Hispaniola.
3 - roger nowosielski
Left a couple of comments for you, Joseph, on the ethic thread.
4 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Spoken like someone who lives not too far from Hispaniola, as the crow flies....
5 - Joseph Cotto
Clavos,
An elderly uncle of mine, who I mentioned a few days ago, told me exactly that about the Hispanic label. It is amazing how people consistently fail to realize that they are so often used as pawns on a chess board by clever politicos. Yet these same individuals wonder why the political process is in such disarray.
6 - John Williams
A Jew denouncing "rabid collectivism" is the height of hypocrisy. Just tell me what happens to those ethnic Jews who decide to convert to Christianity? They automatically stop being Jews, and are ostracized from the "Jewish community". Yeah, that's neither rabid nor collectivism.
But besides Jewish hypocrisy (they get outraged that the crazy Hitler mass-murdered them, but are happy and proud to have mass-murdered Canaanites to rob their land and have massacred other Jews in the first century for believing in Jesus of Nazareth), Romney's screwed "moral" knows no limits. Mexico gave refugee to his grandfather and citizenship to his sons but Mitt opposes a path to citizenship to those Mexicans who came here for a better life (just what his grandfather was looking for in Mexico). Yeah, let the circus continue!
7 - John Williams
"So the candidate who winds up vilifying Mexico is the same one whose father was born in Mexico? Who can make sense of this?"
That's according to Joseph F. Cotto something that is not "worth your time".
8 - REMF(MCH)
According to Cheech Marin, the correct term is Chicano.
9 - Cannonshop
#8 Only if you're talking about a Los Angelino, and really, it's also wrong-they're Californios out there. :P
The term "Hispanic" was cooked up by white guys in D.C. who wanted to sound all cultured and civilized and open-minded with their bigotry-in this case, a Bigotry based on dividing people along as many ethnic lines as possible to create new targets for loaded offers of special "affirmative actions". The term didn't even exist before the 1970's.
10 - Clavos
The term "Hispanic" was cooked up by white guys in D.C. who wanted to sound all cultured and civilized and open-minded with their bigotry...
QFT
11 - Clavos
Chicano only applies to Mexicans; it does not refer to any of the other Latinos.
Middle and upper class Mexican-Americans reject the Chicano label.
12 - roger nowosielski
@10
It's a political term, Clav, not ethnic, cultural, demographic or sociological, don't you think?
I'm well-aware of the level of prejudice, mostly cultural and class-related, between disparate people of the same Spanish origin, and they surely resent this rather crude attempt at grouping all into one, but there are exceptions, no?
The political usefulness of the term is to employ identity politics. Of course it's bound to be perceived as suspect by the intended recipient, especially when issued from the mouth of an Anglo.
13 - roger nowosielski
... but these are exceptions ...
14 - Igor
Perhaps Warren might suggest that it is just a technicality that many Hispanics are not from Hispaniola.
15 - Cannonshop
#12 Roger, "Identity Politics" is one of the bigger evils we have in this society, and really, it's about creating divisions and distractions, facilitating corruption, graft, and misrule, and furthers the march of tyranny for everyone.
16 - zingzing
cannon: ""Identity Politics" is one of the bigger evils we have in this society..."
"self-interest," when white, is right, in all ways. "self-interest," when not white, is "evil" and "tyranny." amazing, ain't it?
why is that the right wing is the only one allowed to function with self-interest in mind? in a world where someone can claim that thinking about your social group (it's not just race, "identity politics" could refer to any facet of what makes you you,) is "evil," even if they play the same game on a much larger scale, you'd be damn smart to think about protecting yourself. the right has a way with wanting to deny people the rights they themselves enjoy.
17 - Clavos
why is that the right wing is the only one allowed to function with self-interest in mind?
It's not a question of "allowing." Virtually all human beings (yes even the "altruistic" ones) function first and foremost with their own self interest in mind.
Always have. always will.
18 - zingzing
ok, so why is it "evil" when minorities do it?
19 - zingzing
before someone else points it out, what i mean to be doing here is questioning why "self-interest," when it comes from the mouth of a conservative/right-winger/etc, is considered a high and noble goal, but when "identity politics" is spoken of, even though means almost 100% the same thing (just attributed to a minority of some sort), it is deemed "evil" and "tyrannical."
one could take it far enough that i think using politics to protect your race or your cultural subset is a good thing, but i wouldn't go that far. at least not to the exclusion of all other factors and ideas.
but i'm just wondering why the double-speak, and why does it not seem to bother the right? (and i guess you could take it the other way and aim that question right back at the left, although i think it would be a little bit more difficult to make it stick.)
20 - Clavos
Since I never said it's evil, I'm assuming your questions are not directed at me.
Of course the downtrodden will look after their self interests (to the extent for which they have resources), as will those of us who aren't downtrodden.
It's human nature, and only evil to the extent humanity is evil. Oh, wait...
21 - Zingzing
no, you didn't say it was evil, although I've heard plenty of negative things about "identity politics" from the right and it's a bit baffling. so, no, that wasn't aimed directly at you, clavos, although I do wonder if you think it's as strange as I do...
22 - Cannonshop
#19 Interesting, Zing... You think I, Clavos, and Baronius are leftists, then...
Fascinating.
Heads up, Zing-the only racist in the room, is on your side of the aisle. He's the guy who thinks Minorities are too fucking stupid to handle their own affairs without Uncle Sam's clear-headed and consistent guidance.
23 - El Bicho
Cannonshop, if you think there's only racists on one side of the aisle, you disqualify yourself from speaking on the matter because it's clear you don't know wtf you are talking about
24 - zingzing
"You think I, Clavos, and Baronius are leftists, then..."
tell me how you reached that conclusion. because i don't quite follow. i think you, at least, show signs of some hypocrisy, although i don't think you do so consciously... i just don't think you've quite thought it through. unless you think "identity politics" means something totally different than "self-interest."
why is that self-interest is good when expressed as "self-interest," and bad when expressed as "identity politics"? i'd really like to know. this isn't a "gotcha" thing... i'm just wondering what your getting out of "self-interest" and "identity politics" that i'm not.
"Heads up, Zing-the only racist in the room, is on your side of the aisle. He's the guy who thinks Minorities are too fucking stupid to handle their own affairs without Uncle Sam's clear-headed and consistent guidance."
and on the other side of the room is the side that thinks minorities are too fucking stupid to vote for someone that might actually do them some good. great. everyone thinks the minorities are stupid. this is our world.
(and "the only racist in the room"? come on, man...)
25 - zingzing
ugh. you're. fu, clavos... a typo's a typo sometimes.