“Step aside,” the Times tells white America

From the November 17 New York Times:

In Name Count, Garcias Are Catching Up to Joneses

By SAM ROBERTS

Step aside Moore and Taylor. Welcome Garcia and Rodriguez.

Smith remains the most common surname in the United States, according to a new analysis released yesterday by the Census Bureau. But for the first time, two Hispanic surnames—Garcia and Rodriguez—are among the top 10 most common in the nation, and Martinez nearly edged out Wilson for 10th place.

The number of Hispanics living in the United States grew by 58 percent in the 1990s to nearly 13 percent of the total population, and cracking the list of top 10 names suggests just how pervasively the Latino migration has permeated everyday American culture….

Luis Padilla, 48, a banker who has lived in Miami since he arrived from Colombia 14 years ago, greeted the ascendance of Hispanic surnames enthusiastically.

“It shows we’re getting stronger,” Mr. Padilla said. “If there’s that many of us to outnumber the Anglo names, it’s a great thing.”

Of course, George W. Bush agrees with this openly expressed desire of an Hispanic immigrant that Hispanics become the majority and take over this country numerically and culturally. Bush said in a major speech in Miami in August 2000:

We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We’re a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey … and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.

For years our nation has debated this change—some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.

Notice how there’s no difference between the openly anti-white, left-liberal New York Times the supposedly race-blind Republican Bush: both positively celebrate the Hispanization of the United States and the steady marginalizations of its historic peoplehood and culture. Up to this point, there’s been no active, organized, broad-based opposition to the nation-killers. That’s not going to last.
- end of initial entry -

Stephen T. writes:

As you say, there is virtually no difference between the liberal NY Times and Bush on this issue. But there’s a major difference between Bush’s fantasy and the aspirations of the other party quoted in the NY Times article. Bush invited us in 2000 to “close your eyes” and join him in a dream world where these Hispanic aliens are all becoming Americans just like us—except not speaking English. But catch the subtle “us-vs-them” drift in the Times quote from the Miami banker who immigrated from that bloody Hispanic narco-regime to the south: “It shows we are getting stronger. If there’s that many of us to outnumber the Anglo names, it’s a great thing.” [LA replies: There’s nothing subtle about it.] These are not the words of grateful assimilation like Bush hears when he closes his eyes.

I submit that any Anglo expressing similar sentiments about what “a great thing” it is that “we’re getting stronger” and “outnumbering” some group or other would be suspected of being a racial supremacist. I also assert that you could not easily elicit similar aspirations from any other immigrant group to this country of the past. No, that almost HAS to have come from the mouth of an Hispanic immigrant and, even if it hadn’t been so attributed in the article, could anyone paying attention fail to guess that it did? There are clear giveaways to their distinctive mentality: His immediate and instinctive response to the new statistics of Spanish names in the U.S. is to interpret it boastfully as evidence of la Raza’s potential to outnumber Anglos and marshal increasing strength, obviously as a group distinct from the rest of America, rather than assimilated into it. (Though a naturalized citizen for a decade and a half, he refers to Hispanics as “we” and “us,” which presumably makes native-born Anglos “them.”) Obviously, he has at least some concept of Hispanic immigration into the U.S. as a power struggle where one ethnicity or tribe, steadfastly united by blood, may wrest power and wield supremacy over others. Rather than Anglo-American style democracy which built this country, that’s classic Hispanic “strongman” politics. It’s also part of the mentality that has kept countries like Colombia et al chaotic backwaters stuck in the 19th century. Then there’s his jubilation: “it’s a great thing.” What’s such a “great thing” about it, anyway? If I decided to bail out of my home country and start all over by immigrating to, say, Finland, why would I necessarily think it “a great thing” if other Americans started following me there—assuming, that is, that what I really aspired to do was become a true Finn, assimilate into Finnish society, and adopt Finland as my new homeland. That Colombian banker couldn’t have made his own true loyalties clearer if he had closed the interview by capping a few 9mm rounds into the air and letting loose a shrill, stirring cry in Spanish.

Laurium writes:

I read the article carefully, and think I see several things going on below the surface. As much as I dislike the deconstructionists, there is something to be said for a very close reading.

First, the headline writer is trying to minimize the article’s impact by emphasizing the mere “name-counting” of the article. As he writes, “In name count” (but not, presumably in other aspects) the Garcias are “catching up with” the Joneses. “Catching up” is a good thing. It means you are behind but are becoming more equal. One is never bad for “catching up” or being equal. Very positive spin … if one were talking about GPA, crime rate, educational level or IQ. But names? I don’t think anyone has ever thought there was a “name gap” or “name deficit” that America needed to address.

The headline writer is trying to minimize the article’s impact and spin what is left.

Second, the article is not about any name gap at all. It is about the replacement of Americans with Hispanics. In the lead sentence Moore and Taylor are hereby commanded to “step aside.” One “steps aside” to let someone else pass and get ahead. One “steps aside” if one is too slow to compete, too slow to keep up: “Step aside, I’m coming through!” Sam Roberts is yelling for us to get out of the way, someone else needs to pass us by, and that is not “catching up.” It could be taken as humor and not a warning, though. A bit flip and airy. For those that worship diversity it would be seen as a flip, casual, fun-loving statement. for those who see America as being taken over, it would reflect our deepest fears.

So where does the author stand? Who is he talking to?

I think he is worried, but perhaps not even consciously at this point.

Reading further, he is ambivalent, but carefully so. He does not talk about “new Americans,” and the nation being “blended” or “leavened” with Latinos, for example. Instead, he talks of “American culture” being “pervasively permeated” by a Latino “migration.” How to read this? Latinos are in motion, they are not a part of America culture, but infiltrating, or pervading, i.e. having the power to spread throughout. The word “pervasive” is technically neutral but used in a general negative manner: “pervasive irony” and “pervasive odor” are the examples given by my dictionary. Latinos are not “blending,” “leavening,” or “seasoning,” but “pervading.”

And then consider the author’s quote from the Colombian banker, carefully mentioning that the banker has been here for “14 years,” but still speaks and thinks in “us” versus “them” terms. Sam Roberts is not saying it, of course, the banker is saying it. All Sam Roberts is doing is innocently reporting the banker’s comments.

I think Sam is telling us, as loudly as he can while still following the NYT party line, that Latinos are invading, they are wealthy, that even after several decades they will not assimilate (and do not want to) and that they have the wealth, desire and intention to set up and maintain a separate society and culture indefinitely.

I think his headline writer wants to disguise that as much as he can by spinning the article to be about “name counting.”

I don’t know how (or whether) to encourage Sam. It may be unconscious in his part. He may have just a creeping awareness that something is wrong that is seeping into his writing. On the other hand, he may be quite conscious of it. He may know he cannot push things very far or fast if he wants to keep his job and feed his family.

Perhaps a letter to the editor saying how much we appreciate his writing?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 17, 2007 10:12 AM | Send