republican majority whip steve scalise spoke at a white supramacist conferance

[alcoholbob]

Fact is many Mexicans were left in California and the Southwest after the US took over the area after the US-Mexican war. However Mexicans were actually only in the area for some mere centuries and the original inhabitants still exist in California and the Southwest even today and some like the Navajo are very large and probably very powerful politically. They are not going to just assimilate into any Mexican overlords.

There were a few thousand families in the entire Southwest after the Mexican American war that could be categorized as "Hispanic", a far cry from the the 14.5 million of legal residents currently in California. Actually the rightful land should be to all of the Indian tribes that were cleared for westward expansion, of course America treats its Indians far better than Mexico does, so you can imagine the situation with the "wronged" American Indians will get more bleak.

With Hispanics an outright majority in Southern California with whites pretty almost nonexistent the real tension isn't between Mexicans and White privelege but with blacks, Asians, and other minority groups. Many traditional black neighorboods simply have been ethnically clensed by Mexicans as they presumably aren't very interested in White liberal multiculturalism. Presumably when Hispanics become an outright majority nationally they won't suddenly change their habits and become interested in White liberal multiculturalism either, so this country may look pretty interesting politically in 50 years. I wonder if the White liberals who are pushing for mass immigration actually understand that the country will lean quite conservative socially when the population of the U.S. is replaced with Mexicans in 50 years.

 

[Exophase]

but he didn't have a change of heart until caught.

If he had disavowed Duke and all he stands for in 2003 it would be ok.

How do we know that? If you were a member of something you no longer agree with would you want to draw attention to this fact by publicly disavowing it? If anything, being ashamed of it would indicate he doesn't stand by it, not that he does.

 

[HomerJS]

How do we know that? If you were a member of something you no longer agree with would you want to draw attention to this fact by publicly disavowing it? If anything, being ashamed of it would indicate he doesn't stand by it, not that he does.

If you are about to become a leader in a party that has a habit of making nice...nice with racists, yes.

 

[Jhhnn]

There were a few thousand families in the entire Southwest after the Mexican American war that could be categorized as "Hispanic", a far cry from the the 14.5 million of legal residents currently in California. Actually the rightful land should be to all of the Indian tribes that were cleared for westward expansion, of course America treats its Indians far better than Mexico does, so you can imagine the situation with the "wronged" American Indians will get more bleak.

With Hispanics an outright majority in Southern California with whites pretty almost nonexistent the real tension isn't between Mexicans and White privelege but with blacks, Asians, and other minority groups. Many traditional black neighorboods simply have been ethnically clensed by Mexicans as they presumably aren't very interested in White liberal multiculturalism. Presumably when Hispanics become an outright majority nationally they won't suddenly change their habits and become interested in White liberal multiculturalism either, so this country may look pretty interesting politically in 50 years. I wonder if the White liberals who are pushing for mass immigration actually understand that the country will lean quite conservative socially when the population of the U.S. is replaced with Mexicans in 50 years.

So much naked assertion. So little fact.

 

[Exophase]

If you are about to become a leader in a party that has a habit of making nice...nice with racists, yes.

No, I think that'd make you even less willing to admit it Not if you didn't think people would find out...

Just because you don't want something known doesn't mean that you still stand by that thing.

 

[werepossum]

Happy New Year Were!

I know absolutely nothing about La Raza. Could you tell us some more?

Happy New Year buddy. Uno covered that pretty well. "La Raza" literally translates to "The Race" and its model is "For the Race, everything. Outside the Race, nothing". It is based on the idea that Latinos are the superior race and originally and by rights owned everything until it was stolen by the white man, and La Raza is designed to get it back. This part is being taught in Mexican government schools and also in some American charter schools set up by La Raza using taxpayer funding via government grants, but its aims are now somewhat bifurcated. The Mexican Nationalist wing believes the American west and southwest are properly a part of Mexico. The MEChA wing believes that the American west and southwest are properly a separate nation, called Aztlan. But both wings pay allegiance to "For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.” And both wings agree that as an illegitimate nation America should be allowed no borders or immigration laws. As for the schools, La Raza operates over a hundred charter schools in America, most of which teach in Spanish and/or Nahuatl.

The origin of the term goes back to Jose Vasconcelos, who in the twenties developed a comprehensive theory arguing that the combination of climate, geography, and the mixture of Spanish and Native American blood created a super race, the mestizo. https://centerforimmigrationstudies.wordpress.com/tag/national-council-of-la-raza/

La Raza as a movement goes back to the 1920s (to the theory of Vasconcelos) and stems from southern (and to a lesser degree, eastern central) Mexico's Marxist/Nationalist movement. La Raza as a formal lobbying group goes back to the sixties when the Ford Foundation, the National Council of Churches, and the UAW funded its coalition into a unified movement first as NOMAS (National Organization for Mexican American Services) and soon thereafter as the Southwest Chapter of La Raza. Its political founders were political activists Herman Gallegos (a Saul Alinsky acolyte), Dr. Julian Samora, and Dr. Ernesto Galarza.

 

[Fern]

Oddly enough back then the only problem Scalise had with Duke was his "electability"

Almost the entire country knew about Duke and this was Scalise's concern??

Pretty telling.


http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/scalise-vitter-talked-to-roll-call-about-david-duke-in-1999/

I don't think so.

He was trying to get elected, not start a mud slinging war with Duke. His remakes seem appropriate to me, but then I don't consider restraint to be a character fault.

I still think it's important to know what his remarks were before passing judgement.

Fern

 

[HomerJS]

I don't think so.

He was trying to get elected, not start a mud slinging war with Duke. His remakes seem appropriate to me, but then I don't consider restraint to be a character fault.

I still think it's important to know what his remarks were before passing judgement.

Fern

Republicans are willing to say far worse things about gay people then they are about Duke.