‘Hispanic’ vs. ‘White’

Political Correctness, Racism, Uncategorized, Vulgar Politics
By / / 3 Comments / 4 minutes of reading
Share

As a Hispanic, watching the media’s use of terms like “white” and “Hispanic” and “Latino” in the Zimmerman-Martin case has been an occasion for much eye-rolling. The way the press uses these terms betrays just how completely ignorant most reporters and talking heads are about even the basics of ethnicity and race in this country. Also, it’s a fair bet that the “journalists” at CNN and NBC have never actually seen a Hispanic who wasn’t scrubbing toilets or peeling potatoes back at the reporters’ Chevy Chase estates, so they can be forgiven for being so clueless on this matter. Our media elite might have to leave Martha’s Vineyard to actually meet a Hispanic who didn’t fit their preconceived notions of race and ethnicity.

With the Zimmerman-Martin case, Zimmerman is labeled as simply white, in spite of his claims of Hispanic heritage, because that’s what the media has determined will produce the most fertile ground for “racial” conflict. Had Zimmerman been the victim of a shooting, and the shooter were also white, then Zimmerman would of course then be labeled Latino, and the case would then be a national story on the oppression of Latino persons of color by whites in this country. In fact, Zimmerman is pretty obviously white or perhaps mestizo. What is not deniable however that he is also Hispanic. I don’t know why this is so hard for the media to grasp, but let’s just make this clear: According to anthropologists, ethnologists, historians, and census takers, “Hispanic” or “Latino” is not a racial designation. It is a term that denotes ethnicity.

Hispanics can be of any race. There are white Hispanics, black Hispanics, and even Asian Hispanics. Examples would be former Mexican president Vicente Fox, Cuban musician Ibrahim Ferrer, and former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori, respectively. There are also, of course, mestizo Hispanics, such as Benito Juarez. …

‘Hispanic’ vs. ‘White’Read More »

‘Hispanic’ vs. ‘White’ Read Post »

The myth of high Muslim fertility rates, and the threat they pose

Immigration, Racism, War
By / / 1 Comment / 3 minutes of reading
Share

Important to the anti-Muslim narrative is the idea that Muslims reproduce at prodigious rates, and that this poses an existential threat to the West. Specifically, Muslims are reproducing so quickly, that within a generation or two, they will overwhelm the entire Western world.

These predictions are usually muttered by brooding prophets of doom who predict the near-impossibility of Western civilization over triumphing over the implacable foe. This is a common theme at various “race realist” (i.e. racist) web sites and other nationalist web sites that forever repeat myths about American exceptionalism and the U.S. state’s duty to defeat the global threat of the foreign races.

Rick Santorum has more or less built his entire career on the idea that Muslims are the great threat of our age and that all of Western society must be reformed into militant soldiers against Islam. We must “wake up” to the threat, Santorum believes. Watching the anti-Muslim crowd alternate between violent screeching for Holy War and sombre brooding over the grave threat, it is difficult to not think of the anti-communists of the days of yore, like Whittaker Chambers and Frank Meyer, who, being ex-communists, were absolutely convinced that the world was but in the midst of a losing rear-guard action against the superhuman army of Stalinist Soldiers of the Millennium.

It turned out, however, that the communist ubermensch was more interested in blue jeans and Coca Cola than in immanentizing the eschaton.

What sort of apparel and soft drinks motivate Muslims, I can’t say, but it does seem they now have at least one more thing in common with the Westerners: collapsing birth rates. Notes one researcher:

“Of the three major monotheistic religions, all of which encourage fertility, Islam is the one that encourages procreation the least,” he explains. The factor that explains different fertility rates around the world continues to be, not religion, but education levels. In addition, there are other political and sociological factors that differ from country to country, and which the examples below illustrate.
In short, a demographic Homo Islamicus does not exist. And instead of clashing civilizations, the world is headed towards demographic convergence.

Meanwhile, according to John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter, the Catholic population in Africa has increased 6,700 percent over the past century. Globally, there are not many more Muslims than the 1.1 billion Catholics, and when we add in other Christians, there are nearly twice as many Christians as Muslims.

But the the purveyors the Holy War will never be satisfied, and just as the anti-communists beat the drum for more and more government, more war, and more police statism, just as William F. Buckley called for a totalitarian bureaucracy in America to defeat communism, so it is for the anti-Muslims. Rick Santorum will not rest until the last American freedom has been extinguished in the name of killing a few more Muslims, but even if he fails, it seems likely that debt, bankruptcy, war, tyranny and societal dysfunction here at home are much bigger threats than a bunch of supposedly hyper-fertile Muslims.

The myth of high Muslim fertility rates, and the threat they pose Read Post »

The State Still Wins In ‘The Hunger Games’

Pop Culture
By / / 4 Comments / 5 minutes of reading
Share

The question to The New York Times ethicist was whether it is ethical to watch NFL games given the large number of brain injuries being incurred by the players.   Ariel Kaminer asks Malcolm Gladwell to weigh in, given Gladwell’s authorship of an extensive piece for The New Yorker “Offensive Play: How different are dogfighting and football?” and his love of the game.

According to Kaminer, Gladwell compares football fans to fans of gladiator events. “Specifically because of the activity on the field that’s central to the game and a huge part of my pleasure, some percentage of people are going to die prematurely,” he said. “Quite prematurely.” Fan pleasure provides coaches and owners a clear reason to encourage riskier behavior, which in turn fuels fans to cheer more loudly, and so on.

However, it’s not just football fans cheering for blood.  “The Hunger Games” has brought in $251 million at the box office in just two weeks.  The local theater is showing the movie 14 times a day and I can vouch that the 3:25 screening on Saturday was nearly full.

Americans evidently have no problem dragging their youngsters out to see a film depicting two dozen kids savagely fighting to the death all for the amusement of garishly-dressed and made-up adults occupying a mythical capitol city.  The hunger games is a two-week party for those inhabiting the capitol with endless feasts, cocktailing, and wagering on who will be the last child standing.

The 12 to 18 year olds are drafted by lottery to participate and every minute of the proceedings are televised to every nook and cranny of Panem—as in panem et circenses, Latin for bread and circuses.  The districts may be poor, but there are massive Jumbotron screens available to watch the death match, 24 hours a day.

Most of these kids are poor and while a few from some districts train their whole young lives and then volunteer for the event, most are unprepared for the gory mayhem.   As punishment for rebelling against the capitol and losing the ensuing wars, each district offers up a boy and girl as tribute to fight to the death.

Of course these children are made out to be heroes as they are whisked off to the capitol to “bring honor to their districts.”  They get help with training and make-up and are provided the incentive to be charming so as to attract sponsors—who help throughout the competition.  Think Survivor meets American Idol.  They live the life of luxury for a few, short days and then are thrown into the competition to be killed.

While the kids fight for their lives, the government’s game master creates hazards and arbitrarily changes the rules, attempting to create the desired outcome.    The Panem control room plays a hi-tech form of chess–or maybe its closer to the Pentagon ordering drones be deployed from Indian Springs, Nevada to blow up insurgents in Afghanistan.   The actions are so removed from the killing that it seems like just a game—except for those who lose their lives and their families.

For sure “The Hunger Games” portrays a totalitarian government that doesn’t seem to be too great a leap from post-Patriot Act America.   And the film’s heroine is easy to root for as she overcomes countless obstacles.

But while there is gushing about the film being libertarian, it’s hard to make that case.  The state is overwhelming and despotic when the film starts and remains that way when it ends.  Nothing changes.  Our heroine doesn’t take her bow and arrow, go on strike, and start Hunger Gulch.  The people in the districts are still starving—although now they have something to cheer about.  The government isn’t overthrown.  Capitalism doesn’t take root, creating wonderful goods and services.

What happens is, the heroic Katniss plays Panem’s game and wins: Because for the moment, it suits the government’s purposes for her to come out on top.  And because she does, the game’s master is punished—by death.    Although the homefolks in District 12 greet her with wild cheers, there is no real sense of triumph.  She merely survived—and there is a sense that’s temporary.

Reportedly the book trilogy is all the rage amongst middle and high school aged kids.  This is viewed as a positive development and no one is worrying about whether it’s ethical or not.  Raven Clabough writes for The New American

At least in book form, it apparently has the ability to bring families together. Karin Westman, an English professor at Kansas State University who teaches this series as well as others such as Harry Potter, contends that The Hunger Games as well as the rest of the books in the trilogy are “powerful for families to share because it relates to so many primal issues such as sibling loyalty and family survival.”

Yet, in his very next sentence Clabough cautions parents not to bring small children to the movie because of the “graphic and brutal violence.”

“The Hunger Games” is not a transformative movie, but merely a reflection of America’s attitude.  The latest “The Elliott Wave Financial Forecast” sees the movie as a sign that the stock market is ready to resume its post-2000 decline.  The folks at EWFF point out the market turned in 2000 when Survivor took over as the nation’s most popular show from Who Wants to be a Millionaire.

Just as Survivor signaled the bearish cultural changes to come in the decade of the 2000s, The Hunger Games foreshadows the next phase.  With themes of alienation, “high-stakes consequences,” government control, violence and death, the movie points to a cornucopia of bear market fare.

Meanwhile, a couple weeks ago the BusinessWire reported that Charles Schwab “released new data showing that active traders are turning more bullish and plan to invest most of their tax refunds in the stock market.”

“May the odds be ever in your favor.”

The State Still Wins In ‘The Hunger Games’ Read Post »

Scroll to Top