Hey, I'm just quoting a Mexican. Who isn't Chicano, right? Google tells me Chicano is Mexican-American.

Notice, please, that it is a Chicano movement. Not Mexican-American movement. So even they backed away from the word Mexican.

This is specifically about reclaiming the word Mexican, according to this smart, talented Mexican woman.

I have been stewing over @Crosswords post since I read it hours ago. Something about it bugged me.

I think what it is -- why bring up the reasons why the word Mexican has a bad rap? We know all that stereotypical stuff. Why not go the other direction and start to replace this narrow response to the word with other images of dignity?

Frida Kahlo. Diego Rivera. Entertainers, sports figures. Politicians. Cesar Chavez. The Dog Whisperer Cesar Millan. The millions of Mexicans who work hard, often living under a pall of fear of deportation, taking care of our children and our homes. Dedicated to their families, sending money back home. Mexican nationals who have lived their whole lives in America, choosing to become soldiers and fight for what they consider to be their country even though a piece of paper says otherwise. Even construction workers who work hard for a days pay, hoping that they will have a job the next day and in fact do a great job.

We need to start reprogramming ourselves to hear a different image when we hear the word Mexican. That is what I heard that famous Mexican woman talking about.

Mexican. Mexican. Mexican.

>> ^longde:

Have you never heard of the Chicano Movement? Chicano or mexican pride has been around for decades. >> ^bareboards2:
One pride movement that is starting, quietly, is the idea of Mexican Pride. I have only seen this a couple of places, and I am cheering it on.
Unfortunately, in America, the very word "Mexican" carries with it the echo of the phrase "dirty Mexican" -- one of the reasons we use back away to be "nice" and say Hispanic/Latino/Latina, when someone is clearly Mexican.
"Nice" becomes really ugly, when the word Mexican should be a descriptive word and not pejorative just by itself.
There are some Mexicans out there who are sick of it, and are starting to reclaim their national identity.
I had never thought of it this way, until I heard this famous actor interviewed (do wish I could remember who it was -- Salma Hayek? Someone smart and beautiful, I remember that.)
I have been trying to use the word Mexican ever since, and have screwed up, because it turns out I can't tell Guatamalen from Brazilian, so I end up insulting folks anyway. But I'm trying.
Mexican. Mexican. Mexican.

Have you never heard of the Chicano Movement? Chicano or mexican pride has been around for decades. >> ^bareboards2:
One pride movement that is starting, quietly, is the idea of Mexican Pride. I have only seen this a couple of places, and I am cheering it on.
Unfortunately, in America, the very word "Mexican" carries with it the echo of the phrase "dirty Mexican" -- one of the reasons we use back away to be "nice" and say Hispanic/Latino/Latina, when someone is clearly Mexican.
"Nice" becomes really ugly, when the word Mexican should be a descriptive word and not pejorative just by itself.
There are some Mexicans out there who are sick of it, and are starting to reclaim their national identity.
I had never thought of it this way, until I heard this famous actor interviewed (do wish I could remember who it was -- Salma Hayek? Someone smart and beautiful, I remember that.)
I have been trying to use the word Mexican ever since, and have screwed up, because it turns out I can't tell Guatamalen from Brazilian, so I end up insulting folks anyway. But I'm trying.
Mexican. Mexican. Mexican.

Part of the problem is often the face of Mexican nationality in the US isn't the successful educated Mexican's, its the day laborers. Hired as skilled labor, but largely unskilled and paid next to nothing, often below legal limits if they're undocumented. They tend to do a shit job, cutting corners and generally not caring about the quality of work they do and trying to communicate with them through the language barrier is frustrating as all get out. Of course this only happens because companies, and it seems people as a whole, prefer cheap labor over quality labor. They only exist because the market for that kind of labor is huge, so large I think its degraded the quality of labor overall. But people don't make that connection, they see bad work being done by low paid unskilled labor who happen to be Mexicans thus Mexicans are dirty and lazy. The real connection should be that builders and contractors are greedy shysters.

>> ^bareboards2:

One pride movement that is starting, quietly, is the idea of Mexican Pride. I have only seen this a couple of places, and I am cheering it on.
Unfortunately, in America, the very word "Mexican" carries with it the echo of the phrase "dirty Mexican" -- one of the reasons we use back away to be "nice" and say Hispanic/Latino/Latina, when someone is clearly Mexican.
"Nice" becomes really ugly, when the word Mexican should be a descriptive word and not pejorative just by itself.
There are some Mexicans out there who are sick of it, and are starting to reclaim their national identity.
I had never thought of it this way, until I heard this famous actor interviewed (do wish I could remember who it was -- Salma Hayek? Someone smart and beautiful, I remember that.)
I have been trying to use the word Mexican ever since, and have screwed up, because it turns out I can't tell Guatamalen from Brazilian, so I end up insulting folks anyway. But I'm trying.
Mexican. Mexican. Mexican.

Some people don't like "hispanic" because, essentially, it is referring to the Spaniards conquering a people, then raping their culture and their women. "Latino" or "Latina" is strange to me too, because I don't know where the reference to Latin is coming from other than the language.

The reason why it's harder to classify people than it is to classify animals is because we're all the same species. You can't call people of indigenous South American tribes "brownies" any more than you can call Jews "big noses" because people from the Middle East are also brown, just like Italians also have big noses. And Indians would really throw everybody off because they've got big noses like the Jews, dark skin like the Mexicans and hairy chests like Russian women.

The fact of the matter is, if it hasn't been conquered by the Spaniards or the British empire, it's probably a shit place to be. The French tried, but who the hell wants to go to Vietnam?

And that's how you offend a lot of people at once...>> ^bareboards2:

One pride movement that is starting, quietly, is the idea of Mexican Pride. I have only seen this a couple of places, and I am cheering it on.
Unfortunately, in America, the very word "Mexican" carries with it the echo of the phrase "dirty Mexican" -- one of the reasons we use back away to be "nice" and say Hispanic/Latino/Latina, when someone is clearly Mexican.
"Nice" becomes really ugly, when the word Mexican should be a descriptive word and not pejorative just by itself.
There are some Mexicans out there who are sick of it, and are starting to reclaim their national identity.
I had never thought of it this way, until I heard this famous actor interviewed (do wish I could remember who it was -- Salma Hayek? Someone smart and beautiful, I remember that.)
I have been trying to use the word Mexican ever since, and have screwed up, because it turns out I can't tell Guatamalen from Brazilian, so I end up insulting folks anyway. But I'm trying.
Mexican. Mexican. Mexican.

One pride movement that is starting, quietly, is the idea of Mexican Pride. I have only seen this a couple of places, and I am cheering it on.

Unfortunately, in America, the very word "Mexican" carries with it the echo of the phrase "dirty Mexican" -- one of the reasons we use back away to be "nice" and say Hispanic/Latino/Latina, when someone is clearly Mexican.

"Nice" becomes really ugly, when the word Mexican should be a descriptive word and not pejorative just by itself.

There are some Mexicans out there who are sick of it, and are starting to reclaim their national identity.

I had never thought of it this way, until I heard this famous actor interviewed (do wish I could remember who it was -- Salma Hayek? Someone smart and beautiful, I remember that.)

I have been trying to use the word Mexican ever since, and have screwed up, because it turns out I can't tell Guatamalen from Brazilian, so I end up insulting folks anyway. But I'm trying.

Mexican. Mexican. Mexican.

It's easy to scoff at other human's rights when you're in the majority that decides the value affixed to those rights. But what if you weren't?

Whites are already minorities, both by corruption and deliberately erasing American principles and history. Or didn't you notice that Whites are exempt from equal protection under the law ("hate crimes") when the assailant(s) are Black? Either everyone has the same rights or no one has any rights. And right now, you know as well as I do if you utter anything a minority finds offensive in 'polite' company--including demonstrable facts--our vicious, retarded 'multi-cultural' society-keepers will escort you to the street. And really, what is a "minority" anyway? Women outnumber men and yet the former remains a minority. Whites are already minorities in California. There is no "reverse affirmative action" there.

Let me put it in a way that might pique your sensibilities. It's only a matter of time before white people are no longer the majority in the US. I'm just assuming you're white, by the way. So, let's say Latinos and Hispanics make up the majority vote in ten years or so: let's say it's the year 2022.

And let's say they think you should pay trillions in foreign aid for South America and Mexico, and so they vote that as national policy. And let's say they think the US should protect interests in that region, so they send a lot of the poor, disenfranchised whites (who in this version of the future now make up the majority of the military) to be international defense for places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brasil and so on.

And they start to talk how they're the indigenous people of the Americas, and white people are just trespassers who staked their claim via conquest and war.

This is a retarded argument; I know you didn't create it, but yeah, it's out there, and "they" will believe anything as "they" have never been taught differently. These "clever" lefties who claim Whites were trespassers in primitive centuries the world over is ridiculous. Back then there were no unified nations with solid borders, language and culture in the New World to invade, just warring Indian "nations". They forget that England and France, countries filled with White guys--were at war with each other for centuries. And let's not forget all the Asian nations, each one a cultural gem...that wants all other Asian peoples destroyed. The Chinese and Japanese are mortal enemies, and neither likes Koreans.

Within years, you and your family are deported to Denmark - that is if any of you survived the civil war. And what if you lose the right to protest, or vote, or the right of Habeas Corpus? Who will stand up for you? Those already oppressed who were once in the majority? Or would you want some Libertarian-Latino to recognize your rights because you are a living, breathing human being?

If Mexican and African minorities are the future for America, I don't expect any respect of Whites' rights, or right to exist, just like now. There's a whole poor-me victimization industry out there. They create enemies (and excuses) out of whole cloth.

If you want a glimpse of America's fucked-up future, look at Mexico. Mexicans are fine people and Mexican immigrants who assimilate have enriched America, yet somehow their original cultural model in Mexico is simply fucked, an entire nation with enormous natural resources yet run by kleptocrats and drug lords. Anyone concerned with American 'plutocracy' should view the shit going on down yonder.

You sort-of asked but I'm telling you--all of you--anyway. When the White American population falls below 50%, it's Game Over for American principles. America in 2050 will be an even bigger parody of what it is now. Detroit is the future of America. Brokeass idiot California is the future of America. Americans all over are voting with their feet right now. They're leaving liberal meccas and moving to business-friendly states with low taxes (don't expect to hear anything about it on CNN or MS-DNC). But it can't last. Soon there'll be nowhere to run.

I've already made peace with the idea that there will be a civil war, hopefully States against the federal leviathan. And I fully expect DC to turn a war of principles into a racial thang to save its ugly ass.

This isn't about racial "superiority" in the slightest, but if you'll direct your attention to the screen, which races have invented the most advanced tech, including the best kinds of government (so far)? Don't answer that, you'll just be nailed to the cross of tolerance.

I'm Jewish (by blood, not faith) so I figure I'm screwed anyway. I guess I can scooch to Israel. Observe that many of the new kickass technologies were invented by Israelis, while Silicon Valley is stuck holding its dick with eco-green bullshit. "Next year in Jerusalem!" Nice and peaceful over there.

Really, I don't overly give a shit any more. The wrong people now control schools that shouldn't even exist, so the generations coming up are ignorami. The wrong peeps run most of the media and entertainment that arguably appeal to the worst sides of humanity. Freedom is hard work. Who wants that?

Getting angry at me for telling the truth will just waste your time. I already know how you FEEL. Those loudly announcing that neurosurgeons and witch doctors are cultural equals in the name of multicultural tolerance now run the show. And when the show ends they quietly go see the neurosurgeon.

Libertarian ethos ain't gonna save us. Neither will socialism. Mayhap it would be better if the world ended next year.


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^quantumushroom:
You can't hold a trial for a vermin who declares war on an entire society, hell, an entire civilization. It's as moronic as trying to "understand"--in the moment--the socio-cultural-economic motives of someone trying to kill you in an alley.
All we had to do was threaten to level mecca and the 'good' muslims would've turned his raggedy ass in by September 13th, 2001.
War works.

Of course we can hold trial for someone who declares war on entire societies. Yes, very much so. We can hold trial, or at least attempt to hold trial, for anyone. And we should.
It's easy to scoff at other human's rights when you're in the majority that decides the value affixed to those rights. But what if you weren't?
Let me put it in a way that might pique your sensibilities. It's only a matter of time before white people are no longer the majority in the US. I'm just assuming you're white, by the way. So, let's say Latinos and Hispanics make up the majority vote in ten years or so: let's say it's the year 2022.
And let's say they think you should pay trillions in foreign aid for South America and Mexico, and so they vote that as national policy. And let's say they think the US should protect interests in that region, so they send a lot of the poor, disenfranchised whites (who in this version of the future now make up the majority of the military) to be international defense for places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brasil and so on.
And they start to talk how they're the indigenous people of the Americas, and white people are just trespassers who staked their claim via conquest and war. Within years, you and your family are deported to Denmark - that is if any of you survived the civil war. And what if you lose the right to protest, or vote, or the right of Habeas Corpus? Who will stand up for you? Those already oppressed who were once in the majority? Or would you want some Libertarian-Latino to recognize your rights because you are a living, breathing human being?

>> ^quantumushroom:

You can't hold a trial for a vermin who declares war on an entire society, hell, an entire civilization. It's as moronic as trying to "understand"--in the moment--the socio-cultural-economic motives of someone trying to kill you in an alley.
All we had to do was threaten to level mecca and the 'good' muslims would've turned his raggedy ass in by September 13th, 2001.
War works.


Of course we can hold trial for someone who declares war on entire societies. Yes, very much so. We can hold trial, or at least attempt to hold trial, for anyone. And we should.

It's easy to scoff at other human's rights when you're in the majority that decides the value affixed to those rights. But what if you weren't?

Let me put it in a way that might pique your sensibilities. It's only a matter of time before white people are no longer the majority in the US. I'm just assuming you're white, by the way. So, let's say Latinos and Hispanics make up the majority vote in ten years or so: let's say it's the year 2022.

And let's say they think you should pay trillions in foreign aid for South America and Mexico, and so they vote that as national policy. And let's say they think the US should protect interests in that region, so they send a lot of the poor, disenfranchised whites (who in this version of the future now make up the majority of the military) to be international defense for places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brasil and so on.

And they start to talk how they're the indigenous people of the Americas, and white people are just trespassers who staked their claim via conquest and war. Within years, you and your family are deported to Denmark - that is if any of you survived the civil war. And what if you lose the right to protest, or vote, or the right of Habeas Corpus? Who will stand up for you? Those already oppressed who were once in the majority? Or would you want some Libertarian-Latino to recognize your rights because you are a living, breathing human being?

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^hpqp:
>> ^Yogi:
I like the idea of governments in the 2000's deciding people can no longer have a culture. Good for them...hey next maybe you should ban any sort of national identity.

Yeah, it's like how in Spain the great latino-macho culture is being suppressed by stricter you-can't-beat-up-your-wife laws...

That kinda proves my point...just because a woman wears a burka doesn't mean it's not their choice or that they're getting beaten every night. Last I checked not too many Spainish women wear burkas.
There's a lot of misinformation and reactionary BS going around these days. I say you let them do what they want unless they're hurting someone...forcing society into a dress code is stupid.

...or how to miss the satirical point entirely.
There are some elements of a people's/religion's "culture" that we should be eagerly trying to be rid of. While I agree that this is above all a populist legislation, especially when it is by far not the worst religion has to "offer" in the west (e.g. why are there no laws banning circumcision on minors?), it does not hamper a muslim woman's capacity of showing her religious affiliation: nothing prevents her from wearing a hijab.
As for all the apologists in the room, can you think of any reason why a woman would want to be covered from head to toe in sacloth? Now can you think of a reason that does not have to do with:
a) hiding a hideous difformity, or
b) submitting to the (patriarchal) rule of bronze-age customs?


See that's the point...we meddle and we don't have a right to says River Tam. I bet you don't go to other countries and tell the natives what they're doing wrong, this is the same it's ethnocentric and just plain wrong. The government shouldn't be telling people how to dress, they should fuck off.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^hpqp:
>> ^Yogi:
I like the idea of governments in the 2000's deciding people can no longer have a culture. Good for them...hey next maybe you should ban any sort of national identity.

Yeah, it's like how in Spain the great latino-macho culture is being suppressed by stricter you-can't-beat-up-your-wife laws...

That kinda proves my point...just because a woman wears a burka doesn't mean it's not their choice or that they're getting beaten every night. Last I checked not too many Spainish women wear burkas.
There's a lot of misinformation and reactionary BS going around these days. I say you let them do what they want unless they're hurting someone...forcing society into a dress code is stupid.


...or how to miss the satirical point entirely.

There are some elements of a people's/religion's "culture" that we should be eagerly trying to be rid of. While I agree that this is above all a populist legislation, especially when it is by far not the worst religion has to "offer" in the west (e.g. why are there no laws banning circumcision on minors?), it does not hamper a muslim woman's capacity of showing her religious affiliation: nothing prevents her from wearing a hijab.

As for all the apologists in the room, can you think of any reason why a woman would want to be covered from head to toe in sacloth? Now can you think of a reason that does not have to do with:

a) hiding a hideous difformity, or
b) submitting to the (patriarchal) rule of bronze-age customs?

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^Yogi:
I like the idea of governments in the 2000's deciding people can no longer have a culture. Good for them...hey next maybe you should ban any sort of national identity.

Yeah, it's like how in Spain the great latino-macho culture is being suppressed by stricter you-can't-beat-up-your-wife laws...


That kinda proves my point...just because a woman wears a burka doesn't mean it's not their choice or that they're getting beaten every night. Last I checked not too many Spainish women wear burkas.

There's a lot of misinformation and reactionary BS going around these days. I say you let them do what they want unless they're hurting someone...forcing society into a dress code is stupid.

>> ^Yogi:

I like the idea of governments in the 2000's deciding people can no longer have a culture. Good for them...hey next maybe you should ban any sort of national identity.

Yeah, it's like how in Spain the great latino-macho culture is being suppressed by stricter you-can't-beat-up-your-wife laws...

Using your logic and the logic of the billboard, one could easily replace the word "african american" with "white", "latino", or any substantive racial or ethnic group.

Again, why pick on and stigmatize african american women? >> ^bobknight33:
The billboard is about black American woman
>> ^longde:
>> ^bobknight33:
I guess then the real question is Who kill more blacks?
Black mothers having Abortions or Blacks being killed by all other methods?
From the 2006 state abortions data, NJ had 15,165 Abortions by black women.
The total( Black White other) murder rate for the NJ in 2006 was 428.
So I guess the poster is correct. Offensive yes but correct

Then you could say that about any ethnic group. Why single out african-americans?

>> ^Lodurr:

There's no social commentary in their racist jokes. Cartman calling people "jew" is social commentary because it reflects more on Cartman than on actual jews. Gabriel Iglesias' racist gift basket (see link in comment above) is social commentary. Even Michael Richards' "he's a nigger" episode had more social commentary than calling one race lazy and worthless. There isn't even a hint of truth in it. Latinos, as a group, are the hardest working people I've ever known, and most of them hardly sleep because they have multiple jobs.
A big part of the problem is that they're picking on a country with serious economic problems. It's easy for the French not to take offense at French jokes because they've been doing pretty well for the past thousand years. It was only a few hundred years ago that most Mexicans lived and worked as a systematically oppressed lower class, and they still have far to go to have a modern standard of living for the majority of their population.
Poking fun at a disadvantaged group when you're part of an advantaged one is always tasteless. Fuck these lazy talentless hacks and fuck the BBC for funding them.


South Park as social commentary... Right up there with Twain, Orwell and Oscar Wilde, isn't it?

Top Gear's characters routinely make fun of everyone and everything, it's the entire set-up of their characters and is meant to be as much of a 'commentary' as is Southpark. To suggest that of every group in the world they've already made fun of, the Mexicans should be off limits because they can't take it strikes me as more racist than Top Gear's even handed assaults on everything. And I shouldn't need to point out that SoutPark's assaults on everything go at least 5 steps further past 'good taste' than Top Gear ever does.

There's no social commentary in their racist jokes. Cartman calling people "jew" is social commentary because it reflects more on Cartman than on actual jews. Gabriel Iglesias' racist gift basket (see link in comment above) is social commentary. Even Michael Richards' "he's a nigger" episode had more social commentary than calling one race lazy and worthless. There isn't even a hint of truth in it. Latinos, as a group, are the hardest working people I've ever known, and most of them hardly sleep because they have multiple jobs.

A big part of the problem is that they're picking on a country with serious economic problems. It's easy for the French not to take offense at French jokes because they've been doing pretty well for the past thousand years. It was only a few hundred years ago that most Mexicans lived and worked as a systematically oppressed lower class, and they still have far to go to have a modern standard of living for the majority of their population.

Poking fun at a disadvantaged group when you're part of an advantaged one is always tasteless. Fuck these lazy talentless hacks and fuck the BBC for funding them.

I am CERT trained and on my neighborhoods CERT team (Community Emergency Response Teams), I organize a weekly neighborhood cleanup, my girlfriend is on our neighborhood city council, and we rent our house where we've lived for four years and have no plan on moving. If we do, it will be to another house in our community.

According to WP, we don't have any "skin in the game".

Although, I'll bet a gazillion dollars that WP has probably never lifted a finger for his community.

Also, as is usually with the fake conservatives who squack loudly on the internet, let's look at this a different way:


Home Ownership:
---
Whites: 70%
Asian American: 51%
African American: 42%
Hispanic/Latino: 41%

I think I now know the real reason why people like WP only want home owners to vote.