Political Theory

Re: Mexica Movement

Marko — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:22:18 GMT

Leviathan:

No European borders does not entail one continent. From what I read in Indian novels the animosities between various Indian ethnicities were high and personal. The message of this poster sounds forced in this context. Probably there would be a lot more borders than there are now.

Re: Mexica Movement

sicsempertyrannis — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:13:27 GMT

Leviathan:
]

It's not completely unrelated, as there's a popular misconception that all "Hispanics" are non-white, despite the fact that "Hispanics" merely refers to an ethnic group that can include persons of any race. Che Guevara was Irish (his father's maternal surname was Lynch), Basque, and Spanish, and while he probably had some indigenous blood in him and was thus a "castizo" (a predominantly white "mestizo"),

I can find no source for that, and he certainly referred to himself as 'Europeon'.

I've heard the quote, along with an alleged comment that "The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations." I don't know if they're legitimate or not; they're not on his Wikiquote article and I haven't seen any primary source for them. Do you have one?

A quick look, and I can find no source but it has been repeated enough (with no refutations) that it is probably true.

Regardless, I think his service in the black Congo and the Indian Bolivia are of greater value than whatever personal attitudes he may have had.

Value? He wanted to replace authoritarian governments with his own totalitarian governments.

Re: Mexica Movement

John Ess — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:09:20 GMT

How is continent anything less of a non-existent concept than nation? The US is a set of states. A continent is too.

It seems arbitary to dictate how much land you are indigenous to. Though, if you own land and have lived in a certain area; then it's a different story. We can grant that they belong where they wish to own land and that borders and laws are basically used stupidly. But to say it encompasses something called a "continent"... which did not exist in the absence of geographical markings after nation-based conquering... is nonsense.

The map is not the territory, as Korzybski used to say.

Furthermore "rights" do not exist at all either. And are equally non-existent concepts, rather than real things. And are a statist concept: the ability to petition a monopoly for some guarantee of some freedom. If they wish to live somewhere is a different issue if they have a right to. No one should begrudge them any wish, though... No one has a right to anything; going anywhere on the continent or anything else.

As long as they drift in "rights" land, they will never overcome any state and get what they wish. Malcolm X once said "Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it." That's not to say violence and expropriation is best... that isn't what is meant. But realize what you do depends on how you interact with others. Rather than what others owe to you by right.

Re: Mexica Movement

Leviathan — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:03:17 GMT

Daniel Muffinburg:
I don't either. Che was also white (mind you, my sources on this are Gael Garcia Bernal and Benecio del Toro, lol), but that is besides the point.

It's not completely unrelated, as there's a popular misconception that all "Hispanics" are non-white, despite the fact that "Hispanics" merely refers to an ethnic group that can include persons of any race. Che Guevara was Irish (his father's maternal surname was Lynch), Basque, and Spanish, and while he probably had some indigenous blood in him and was thus a "castizo" (a predominantly white "mestizo"), he was effectively white and certainly looked nothing like Jon Lee Anderson's depiction of him:

The terms "Hispanic" and "Latino" are categorizations of linguistically related nations, with the language in question being Spanish in the term of the "Hispanic" countries (though "Hispanic" is derived from "Hispania," the Roman word for Iberia, so Portuguese nations should probably be included), with "Latino" sometimes being used to incorporate the Portuguese nations that "Hispanic" excludes. Despite this, I usually don't encounter Filipinos or Spanish-speaking Africans (and sometimes even Latin American blacks) being considered "Hispanic." What the Mexica Movement and the like-minded object to is the erasure of indigenous ancestry that these terms cause; it's ridiculous for Benito Juarez to be incorporated into the same group as white men like Juan and Jonathan, for example. It would be odd for African-Americans to be considered "Anglos" because they typically have English names and speak English, so it should be just as odd for Amerindians to somehow lose that identity through "Hispanicization," since Anglicization hasn't done that to those in the U.S. Anyone with a drop of Cherokee blood boasts of it and those that lack it claim to have it.

So this sort of pro-Indian sentiment is occasionally seen; the Mexican anarchist Lazaro Gutierrez de Lara was certainly agitatedly concerned with it. In his The Mexican People: Their Struggle for Freedom (full view available there), he wrote:

It is commonly supposed that the Mexican race is made up of degraded half-castes, the joint product of the most backward nation in Europe (the Spanish) and the primitive savages of the southern portion of North America. The Aztecs, Toltecs, Zapotecs, Mixtecs, Mayas, and allied races which made up the entire population of Mexico at the time of the Conquest still constitute 60 per cent. of the population, and in spite of the fact that they have been compelled to adopt Spanish names and the Spanish language, this 60 per cent. of the nation - the working class of Mexico - still retain their ancient blood in all its purity.

These demographics aren't precisely true today, but it is the case that Mexico and many other Latin American countries are predominantly Indian, with this obfuscated by the classification of a substantial number of them as "mestizos," though most are not half-breeds, and more than that, it would certainly be odd to separate mulattoes from blacks, as we'd not have a black president if that was done. This ought to be similarly odd and out of place.

While Indians are more prevalent in southern Mexico than northern Mexico, and all territory in Mexico south of the central area is Mesoamerican and separate from the "Southwest" category that bands the Navajo and the Huichol, it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that through war, bloodshed, liberal revolution against monarchy, and the eventual establishment of peaceful relations between various Amerindian communities, the restrictions on immigration from one portion of America to another would likely not be present. So the gist is that sans British, Spanish, French, and Dutch importation of disease and ethically unjust acquisition (through force and fraud) of territory and productive resources from these Amerindians once they'd been sufficiently weakened by plague and conflict with each other, things would be quite different. And perhaps that arrangement should be honored, as property gained through theft is not rightfully owned at all.

sicsempertyrannis:
That is correct, he was white like most Argentinians (including our own dear Juan) and had no problem admitting as much. One of my favorite ironies is how often you will see his portrait in a march for Mexican immigrants, when he himself thought they were nothing but a bunch of illiterate indians.

I've heard the quote, along with an alleged comment that "The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations." I don't know if they're legitimate or not; they're not on his Wikiquote article and I haven't seen any primary source for them. Do you have one? Regardless, I think his service in the black Congo and the Indian Bolivia are of greater value than whatever personal attitudes he may have had.

Re: Mexica Movement

sicsempertyrannis — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:02:02 GMT

Stranger:

"Southerners" are just a mix of former native Americans with British, Spanish and French settlers.

If you look at the map as a socio-cultural map instead of a racial map, you have pretty much the America of today. It's funny how climate changes people.

"Southern" is both a fairly homogeneous ethnic group and a socio-cultural division. The map doesnt quite match reality, but it is close.

Re: Mexica Movement

DanielMuff — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:55:45 GMT

Stranger:

Daniel Muffinburg:

Byzantine:

Angurse:
It looks pretty accurate.

It does, actually. I was hoping for even more subdivision though.

Let's subdivide it until we get to the individual.

And then what? The individual stays holed up in his box of a territory?

No.

Re: Mexica Movement

Stranger — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:53:09 GMT

Daniel Muffinburg:

Byzantine:

Angurse:
It looks pretty accurate.

It does, actually. I was hoping for even more subdivision though.

Let's subdivide it until we get to the individual.

And then what? The individual stays holed up in his box of a territory?

Re: Mexica Movement

Stranger — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:52:25 GMT

sicsempertyrannis:

Except that the US based Indians have a pretty low birthrate, while some white groups such as Southerners (ie me) have at least replacement level birthrates. I can see places like southern California, southern Texas, and most of New Mexico/Arizona becoming dominated by meso-Americans, but not the whole continent (which is what the map was showing - different types of Indians, broadly speaking).

"Southerners" are just a mix of former native Americans with British, Spanish and French settlers.

If you look at the map as a socio-cultural map instead of a racial map, you have pretty much the America of today. It's funny how climate changes people.

Re: Mexica Movement

DanielMuff — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:51:45 GMT

Byzantine:

Angurse:
It looks pretty accurate.

It does, actually. I was hoping for even more subdivision though.

Let's subdivide it until we get to the individual.

Re: Mexica Movement

sicsempertyrannis — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:49:27 GMT

Angurse:

sicsempertyrannis:
Let's hope not.

It looks pretty accurate.

Except that the US based Indians have a pretty low birthrate, while some white groups such as Southerners (ie me) have at least replacement level birthrates. I can see places like southern California, southern Texas, and most of New Mexico/Arizona becoming dominated by meso-Americans, but not the whole continent (which is what the map was showing - different types of Indians, broadly speaking).

Re: Mexica Movement

Stranger — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:48:26 GMT

Angurse:

sicsempertyrannis:
Let's hope not.

It looks pretty accurate.

It's practically already split that way sociologically.

Re: Mexica Movement

Angurse — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:43:49 GMT

sicsempertyrannis:
Let's hope not.

It looks pretty accurate.

Re: Mexica Movement

sicsempertyrannis — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:29:55 GMT

Stranger:

The once and future America.

Let's hope not.

Re: Mexica Movement

sicsempertyrannis — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:28:41 GMT

Leviathan:

What we should also consider, however, is whether peaceable relations that facilitated freer or more libertarian migration without the rigid national divisions we now have would have developed (particularly among societies of the same cultural category), as they did among the European "tribes" of the English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Spanish, French, Dutch, Germans, etc. If so, the national boundaries derived from the unjust forcible and fraudulent acquisition of property that the creation of states in America entailed have no ethical basis.

Yes, but using their definition of "with the right to migrate everywhere on 'our' continent", it would therefore be OK if I as an 'indigenous' Scotsman (American of Scottish descent) to boot any Chinese, Englishmen, Irish or anyone else out of 'my country' - because alot of the radicals in this movement want to expel all Europeons. But if the white birthrate remains low like it is, then Meso-Americans might just depopulate at least southern California by the only non-aggressive means at their disposal.