Coming Soon! Americans Are Xenophobic Racists

Way on the back of the agenda stove, a pot is bubbling. It's hard to see at the moment given the roiling steam from the various kettles on the front of the stove: health care "reform," climate change "reform," the AfPak "review.

But, if one peers quite hard through the hot miasma it is just possible to see the small pot called immigration "reform." It's there. And, it will boil over sometime early next year.

The Mexican government is pushing for it. So also are large segments of the Mexican public opinion molding elite. Immigration (or as the Mexican government calls it "migration") reform is a must do for the Mexico City jefes grandes.

We Norteamericanos must make no mistake about the importance of opening our borders--or, failing that, to "regularize" the status of the estimated seven million or so Mexican nationals currently residing illegally within our borders. There are a couple of compelling reasons for this push by Mexicans both in and out of government.

The first reason is simply that the US is the safety valve protecting the status quo from the well merited wrath of the majority of the Mexican population. Without the US acting as a great vacuum sucking off the economically deprived, politically marginalized, socially repressed citizens, the status quo would be threatened to an extent far surpassing even the worst excesses of the narcotraffickers and other criminal organizations.

The second reason is tied to the first. The remittances sent home by Mexicans both legally and otherwise living and working in the US is a critical component of the Mexican economy. The cut back in remittances experienced since the onset of the Great Recession has cost the Mexican economy literally billions of pesos--or dollars, if you prefer. At the same time the decrease in remittances has forced the Mexican governments both Federal and State to increase their social program expenditures. This increase cannot be afforded without pain to either the government, or worse, the elite.

Mexican opinion molders have and continue to take the position that the American population is by and large composed of a foul mix of xenophobes and flat-out racists. This view is also held by Americans of the chattering class who are of Mexican descent. It is interesting to note that Mexicans themselves are far from free of the same alleged "sins" when queried about the presence of non-nationals in Mexico.

To put the situation bluntly, Mexicans are no less given to resent the presence of non-nationals, particularly those who are present illegally as much or even more than do Americans. The reasons are much the same: the nature of national identity, national pride, national loyalty.

Recent polls of Mexican opinion by both the Zogby and Pew organizations have found that roughly a third of all Mexicans would prefer to go to the US if given the opportunity. The reasons given focus on crime, governmental corruption, and, first among almost equals, the Mexican economy, or, to err on the side of accuracy, the lack of good jobs.

The Mexican respondents to the Zogby pollsters underscored that any form of amnesty would increase the number of illegal immigrants. This base line belief is underscored by the findings of the Public Policy Institute of California which determined that some forty-two percent of all Mexicans now having Green Cards were initially illegal immigrants.

The net effect of all the opinion polls is that any form of amnesty would constitute a green light for illegal immigration. There is no two ways about that. This reality in and of itself is not alarming.

"OK, Geek, if that isn't something to worry about, what is? Language? Or, how about religion?"

Well, bucko, neither is the big enchilada. At least not today. Both were critical in the past. You have to remember that the only reason the US did not take all--or even most--of Mexico following the Mexican-American war was the fear of Catholicism. Regarding language, any number of studies over the decades have shown that Mexican immigrants follow the general immigrant model of learning English--and assuring their children have English as their first language.

The largest potential problem comes in the form of primary loyalty. The most disturbing feature in the Zogby survey came in questions three and four.

The second of these questions focused on loyalty. When asked if Mexican-Americans (a category which was understood to include both Americans of Mexican descent and those immigrating to the US) owed primary loyalty to the US or to Mexico, 68.8 percent replied "Mexico." Only 19.7 percent thought it should accrue to the United States.

The first question asked if the Mexican government should represent the interests of Mexican-Americans (again including those born in the US of Mexican ancestry), 68.8 per cent said, "Yes." A minority of 21.6 percent replied in the negative. (9.6 percent weren't sure.)

These two beliefs are troubling. To think that a foreign government should act as advocate for the citizens of another country is disturbing to say the least. It is most assuredly not a behavior which would be tolerated by even the most easy-going administration. Then there is the matter of loyalty. One is not a benighted jingoist if one holds the view that a citizen's primary loyalty or allegiance is to the country of citizenship.

If the Mexicans or their government were to act on either or both of these beliefs it would result in a major self-inflicted wound. There is no doubt that Mexicans in Mexico would--and do--reject the proposition that other Latin American governments should act to advance or protect the interests of citizens of Mexico who are of external descent. Nor would the very nationalistic and proud Mexicans accept the proposition that a Mexican citizen whose ancestors hailed from elsewhere now held primary loyalty for the once-upon-a-time homeland.

The Geek's roots run deep, very deep in the soil of the Southwest. His Apache ancestors welcomed (construed broadly) Spanish, Mexican, and Anglo "immigrants." He has had a ringside seat for the battle between two broad segments within the population of Americans of Mexican descent.

On the one hand were those who saw themselves as Americans. They self-identified on census and similar forms as "White." Many eschewed even the "Spanish surnamed" category as they perceived no essential difference between themselves and other Americans, the "Anglos." These folks did not claim minority status. Nor did they embrace the politics of victimization. Even today they resist the tribalization of American society.

On the other hand were those primarily but not exclusively people born in the US to parents of American citizenship. These individuals vigorously embraced the concept of La Raza. They saw themselves as being "victims" of the numerically dominant population--and the hard pushing Blacks of the civil rights generation. To many it was--and is--a battle between tribes for power, even for supremacy. They see themselves as engaged in a fight to the finish between themselves and both the Anglos and Blacks. It is "our" tribe against "theirs."

When the pot on the far back burner of the agenda stove boils again, We the People will have to make a choice. No, not the simple choice between immigration "reform" and none.

We the People have to make a far more difficult set of decisions. We have to define just who we are and what we are all about. The people of the US have a long history of what might be properly termed "crises of national identity." In the past these recurrent identity crises have been ended abruptly by either defining people out of our nation (see the Chinese exclusion acts, or the "Gentlemen's Agreement on Japanese immigration or the assorted national quota acts of the past three quarters of a century) or by proclaiming the specious existence of the mythic "melting pot."

With the American population at or over three hundred million and the structural changes of the US economy, the time is past for either mindless exclusion or comforting myths. It is to be hoped that this time unlike the previous efforts to address the reality of burgeoning illegal immigration, We the People will hold a serious discussion of our nature, our characteristics, and, our capacity to absorb more people from backgrounds and cultural imperatives different from those prevailing here.

Simple answers such as those which will be offered by the multicultualists or the nativists will do us and our collective future no good. Espousing open borders and declaring the death of nationalism is both unrealistic and counterproductive. So is slamming the borders shut. Establishing a hermetic sealing keeping the bastards out is equally unrealistic and counterproductive. Only a genuine and far reaching debate over our collective nature, values, and defining characteristics will be both forward-looking and useful.

So, if history is the guide as it usually is, we won't do it.

What's New About Racism and Religion?

There are times when the Geek wants to quote Mr Natural (note for the chronologically challenged, Mr Natural was an iconic figure from the comix of the late Sixties and early Seventies.) This is one of those times.

The quote?

"Son, I'm a slow man to anger, but, frankly, this rankles my ass!"

Next question, what is rankling the Geek this time around?

Not politics. Not politicians. Not even John Edwards.

This time the Geek is torqued off by the perception, the allegation actually, that has been floating around the mainstream media, portions of the blogosphere, and the United Nations which holds that we in the US are "racist" if we do not accept without question every piece of spittle from Muslim lips as a precious pearl of wisdom.

Right at the giddy-up the Geek wants to make it clear that he has nothing against Islam--nor for it. He avers the same about all other religions as religions.

Until a religious derived ideology has an impact upon international politics, matters of diplomacy, war and peace.

Had the Geek been alive back in the Twenties and Thirties as the Japanese militarists came to power, he would have had no problem with either Shintoism or the code of Bushido. That is until the Japanese used both as the basis for a ethno-religiously derived ideology of regional and even global expansion.

Both Shintoism and the code of Bushido had and have many good points, but like any religious or semi-religious belief system, are ambiguous and easily distorted through situationally driven reinterpretation. That is what happened during the years before the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

In the hands of the expansionist oriented ideologues of Tokyo, reinterpretation of old beliefs led to the exultation of the Japanese at the expense of their "little brothers" in the rest of Asia. Beyond that, it led to a warped view of the Western nations, particularly the US and Great Britain.

Get a grip on this.

The ideologues reinterpreted ancient and honorable beliefs to excuse, justify, and rationalise both aggressive, unprovoked war and the gross mistreatment of civilians and military personnel so unfortunate as to fall into their hands.

Not different from the Islamists, is it?

In such official works as Read This Book and The War Is Won, The Way of the Subject, and, issued by War Minister Tojo in 1941, Field Service Code, the Japanese soldier, sailor, and civilian were all assured that a war of expansion through and beyond Asia, a war to "gather the eight corners of the world into the Emperor's house," was a "holy cause."

The soldier was told to live in a spirit of self-sacrifice, austerity, simplicity, honor, and commitment to the Living God. He was told, as was the civilian in the Home Islands, that death would mean eternal life.

Not unlike the Islamists, is it?

In the same official publications as well as those issued by the Ministry of Education and a slew of unofficial or semi-official books and articles, the Americans were portrayed as weak-willed, materialistic, lewd, decadent, exploitative, and, all-in-all, icky-poo, despicable and easy to defeat.

We were excoriated for our treatment of Blacks, Indians, and others. We were held up as the ultimate example of all that is bad, sinful, evil. Our lack of "moral fiber" was commented on repeatedly.

Even Admiral Yamamoto, a man who was fluent in English, had served for years in Washington as the Naval Attache, and had even driven from coast to coast meeting Americans and seeing the industrial strength of the US wrote that since, "...the Americans are merchants. They will not fight a protracted, unprofitable war."

Guess he got that one wrong.

The admiral also wrote that he "hoped with the massive attack on Pearl Harbor to cast the Americans into such despair that they would be unwilling to fight."

Guess he got that one wrong too.

Get a grip on this.

The Japanese were every bit as much racist as are the Islamists today.

Now, get a grip on this.

The Japanese were blinded to the real American temperment by their religiously derived racist ideology as are the Islamists today.

It is an interesting and important exercise to place the writings of the Japanese from seventy-five years ago alongside those of Islamists ranging from Qtub to bin Laden. The Islamists could have lifted the Japanese justifications for a holy war as well as their critique of the Americans nearly word for word.

(Hint to intelligence analysts: This comparison is relevant to understanding both strengths and weaknesses of today's Islamist adversaries. It is also relevant to appreciating the appeal of faith derived political ideologies.)

It is important to recognise that not all Japanese were willing, let alone eager, to die for the Emperor's crusade. It is important to acknowledge that the heavy emphasis placed by the militarists of Tokyo upon sacrifice and solidarity in the holy war was propaganda intended to enhance the coherence of the Japanese public in support of the war.

Similarly, it is critical to separate Islam from the Islamist ideology. Not only must we in the US and the West generally do this, so also must Muslims. Muslims must realise that most, if not all, the Islamist tracts are intended as propaganda intended to unify Islam behind the Islamist ideology and its practitioners. A believer in Islam who is not an adherent of the Islamist ideology must stand up and say so.

At the least, the Muslim who is not an Islamist must cease proclaming how offended he is by defining Western practices and values such as freedom of expression. Every single time that a Muslim objects to basic freedoms in the West, every single time he screams, "Racism" because someone somehow somewhere does something he finds offensive, he has joined the Islamist movement.

The Geek would suggest to Doudou Diene, the UN special rapporteur on racism and others of similar mind that the West with its freedoms of expression, belief, and dissent are not the racists. No. It is the Islamists like the Japanese expansionists of seventy-five years ago who deserve that designation.

Racism whether of the assertive sort as shown by the Japanese and Islamist ideologues or the passive version of paternalistic hyper-sensitivity exhibited by Mr Diene, is counterproductive. Assertive racism results in its own destruction as shown by World War II.

Passive racism, to the contrary, results in surrender. The active racists of Islamism have forced us into a new Cold War. Surrender is not an option.

Get a tight grip on this! Calling an Islamist with the gleam of conquest in his eye and a bomb under his shirt a racist is not Islamophobia--it's just the truth.