Traicion a la Mejicana

Our Colombian correspondent Diego returns with an essay about the immigration crisis on the southern border of the United States, from a Latin American perspective.

Traicion a la Mejicana
by Diego

Yes, I have deliberately chosen this archaic spelling of the Spanish demonym for Mexico… now on to the important matters.

I must admit it hurts me when I see that most of the news about immigration here in South America is, as you could imagine, about Hispanic immigrants into the USA. Now, as a Latin American myself, I am sympathetic to their plight. While my own life standard would be considered decent for a middle-class US citizen, many people here do not have such comfort.

I have seen it when I head to university: homeless people sleeping right in front of the Palacio de Nariño… it is as if there were homeless people sleeping on the lawn of the White House. In such conditions, I would want to go there as well.

There is also the issue of the Venezuelan upper and middle classes leaving their country, most of them legally, of course. I can also see how in the end, the actions of some illegals (those who dedicate themselves to crime once they arrive in the US) have caused in some cases such visceral reactions from the locals. I can certainly understand, after all, that they see us now as an existential threat.

However, as a Latin American, I can also see the issues between the United States and the so-called “brother peoples”. I can see how the people here are, at best, apathetic about the USA, and an ever-growing number are openly hostile. There is a growing number who do not seem to know that Economic Communism does not work (for God’s, sake look at Cuba! look at Venezuela!). And barely anyone knows how much our safety depends on the well-being of our big northern neighbor.

We Latin Americans have an obsession with blaming the USA instead of the incompetence of our leaders. How do you think Maduro is able to go away with his “The Empire is sabotaging us” rhetoric? it is something that is deeply embedded in our culture by now. And it is sad, because I, as a Latin American, can also see where that goes.

Another man who saw the same path was George Friedman. While I despise his underestimating the Arab Disaster, his book, The Next Hundred Years, closes with an interesting and frightening scenario. The Mexican economy improves over the century, but the immigrants keep going. Then Mexico creates congressional seats for Mexicans in the USA, and eventually this leads to secessionist movements among the new majority of the US Southwest, leading to WWIV (WWIII is on the 2050s) and a second US Civil War. My only problem with that prediction is with the date: he sets that last part somewhere after 2090…

I find it sad, and painful how we, the sons and daughters of those brave men and women who gave their lives to see the Moors expelled from Iberia (here in Colombia there is a substantial proportion of people with the surname “Matamoros”, which basically means “Moor Slayer”) now regard a petty dispute over events that happened, at the most, fifty years ago, as more important than an existential threat to all of Western Civilization, of which we are an offshoot: the nexus between FARC and Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, and now the apparent nexus between the Mexican Cartels (none other than the so called Knights Templar, in a twist of cruel irony to that noble organization of the Middle Ages) to the Islamic State.

We South Americans have not had a good history with the United States, but if there is anything good at uniting countries with cultural ties yet with bad blood between them, it is a common enemy. For example, look how it worked for France and Britain after 1870. Sadly, US leaders refuse to acknowledge the real enemy, and Latin American leaders are actually fraternizing with them! It fills me with rage while I am on my way to one of my favorite restaurants to see the house of the ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a nation Colombia should not have any kind of ties to. My rage is even greater when I hear about the “Palestinian Diplomatic Committee”, or when the media treat them as actual ambassadors. I have seen so many “Free Palestine” posters and graffiti, not on some odd neighborhood, but inside my own university, set up by the people of the “Polo Democratico” a leftist party.

South and Central America are lands of lost opportunities. Brazil could have modernized in the early 1900s, and today it would be on par with China or the EU. If Colombia had a stronger central government during its federalist phase, we could have avoided the bloodshed of the 1000 days war, the poverty that followed, and the most recent outbreak of inter-party violence in 1948.

I am one of those who believe that we would be better off today had Mexico won the war, but that does not mean that the result should be reversed; quite the opposite, the status of the borders must be maintained and not allowed to shift.

As much as it hurts me as a South American to say this, and as much as it draws criticism from my fellow Hispanics, I believe that the US Government is obligated to deport the illegal immigrants, with no mercy given to those who dedicate themselves to a life of crime (maybe some mercy could be shown towards those who prove that they are actually working hard and not in illegal activities… maybe, but not citizenship).

And, drawing further rage from my fellow Hispanics, I also must say that, in my opinion at least, the United States has no real obligation to bail our nations out. We can do it ourselves, and we must do it ourselves. This is because the United States is not responsible for our problems; the real people who hold that responsibility are ourselves.

My people, as Hispanics, must look back, and then look forward, we must get out of our self-pity and our obsession with blaming those who are richer than us, and get to work on improving the conditions we live under. I am sure that, if that happens, not only will the illegal immigration be drastically reduced into the USA, but maybe, just maybe, we could get along.

Previous posts by Diego:

2015   Mar   19   The Islamization of South America
        23   On Rome, Russia and Multiculturalism

12 thoughts on “Traicion a la Mejicana

  1. I always wondered what the situation was actually like in Latin America in regards to Islam and any resistance against it. I’ve seen at my own university Latin American groups team with the MSA (Muslim Student Association), usually for rallies against Israel “Apartheid” (I refuse to use that word without quotation marks) or anything against America in general. These were the kind of Hispanics who idolized people like Castro and Che, and were eager for any anti-American allies, even if they were Muslims. I don’t even think most of these people knew anything about Islam.

    Granted, most, if not all, of these Hispanics were born in Canada, which is why I was always curious what it was actually like in South America. It sounds like it’s very similar to what I’ve seen. I agree whole-heartedly with the need for unity, because I’ve always thought South Americans could prove to be valuable allies in resisting Islam, though that’s another beast entirely.

    • Not all of South America. Argentina is a hotbed of Nazi intolerance and has attracted the support of Islam for a long time. Whether it’s Al-Q or the Muslim Brotherhood I don’t know. But Argentina’s Jews are in a tight spot.

      And BTW, since Pope Francis is from Argentina he knows darn well what the situation is. He ought to be in the forefront of a pushback against the anti-semitism in his native country.

      • I’m somewhat familiar with Argentina’s ties with Nazism, but truthfully South American politics and history is something I only have a shallow understanding of,let alone their views on Islam. I know some people from various Hispanic countries who are anti-Communist and anti-Islam, and they all got that way for different reasons. The one person I do know from Argentina is, as you said, anti-Semitic, though he purports to despise Islam. I don’t really associate with him because of his ridiculous distrust of Jews.

        Don’t even get me started on Pope Francis. All I can say about him is that I’m glad I’m not Catholic.

  2. Latin America is somewhat behind the rest of the west in such matters, we are still stuck in the cold war mentality of Communism vs Free Market, mix it with our obsession to stick the finger at the USA and you can imagine the situation, our far left parties have a collective orgasm at the mention of Lenin and Castro, while our ”moderate right” is closer to the people that in the USA and Europe are the left (Santos in Colombia being a prime example), the closest to a UKIP or a PVV we have, would be along the lines of Uribe… and while I admire his courage, he is also a potential tyrant a-la Bolivar or FDR, just far into the right instead of a socialist… (that coming from an Uribista Family)

    In Colombia at least, there is a still clear line between anti-Israel and anti-Semite, but I fear that the line could erode as it has on the west in the coming years, we are in a perilous situation where Santos gambles the future of my country away for a Nobel Price, and right now, the least of my worries, is that it ends up in FARCs hands…

    • I’m just having a problem understanding the “collective orgasm at the mention of Lenin and Castro” bit… surely it’s obvious enough that both of them, along with every other Communist state around the world – including the Venezuela of Chavez – have been complete and utter failures, ranging from mass murdering tyrannies (the Kims’ North Korea, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia or Stalin’s USSR) to economic basket cases (see all Communist countries ever to exist)? So how can people still see Lenin, Marx or Castro as anything like a saviour?

      That’s not a criticism of Latin America, by the way. In Britain, one of the most-popular “comedians” is a “revolutionary” called Russell Brand, who has come up with some highly original slogans (the enemy is the bankers and the rich), has an avatar styled on Che Guevara, and recently had a “debate” in a theatre with a fellow deluded leftist (and pseudo-working class) journalist called Owen Jones. Such was the demand to see the show, that it was screened in cinemas across Britain, with viewers paying £17 for the “pleasure” of watching these 2 geniuses show off their knowledge (and probably making a nice little Capitalist earning for them both). And the situation’s similar in other countries – Western countries who have got rich on the back of capitalism have quite often massive support for far-leftist groups trotting out the avatars of Fidel or Che. Especially among students… I guess I just fail to see the attraction.

  3. It’s interesting to hear talk about la Violencia. Naturally, I have heard people talk about it, what they saw as children or young adults during April 9th, 1948, or what their parents or grandparents told them. However, according to the newspapers like the Tiempo in Bogota, it never happened.

    • I don’t really know what are you talking about that part with El Tiempo, however, La Violencia was not a cause, it was a symptom of a disease that Colombia suffered since 1810…

      that is another case of ”everything is the Gringos’ fault!” many today in Colombia believe that Gaitan was murdered by the Conservatives along with the CIA… who were exactly the people who were in more risk of losing everything in Colombia considering that it was fairly obvious that such a murder would trigger such a reaction…

  4. I haven’t spent much time in Latin America (I’ve only ever been to Mexico) but I think I may have some idea why things like Communism and less authoritarian forms of Marxism are so appealing there.

    I hate to use this phrase because the leftists use it so often as nothing more than guilt-based propaganda to manipulate people into supporting them and not something that requires honest analysis, but I think what it comes down to is the “legacy of slavery” and the effect it has on people’s thinking.

    Some people buy into the false belief that Europeans were never slaves. Even if we ignore cases where some outside group captured and enslaved Europeans, even within Europe you had slaves, they were just called serfs instead of slaves. It took quite a while for serfdom to end.

    North America mostly seems to have involved a larger percentage of unorthodox individuals who just wanted to get out of Europe and live in their own communities. Central and South America seems to have involved a lot more conquistadors coming in and enslaving the locals and bringing in slaves from elsewhere. The result in Latin America was that there was a larger percentage of the population that was still thinking in slave-like terms even after winning independence from colonial powers.

    If someone is a slave and they don’t think they’ll ever be anything else, the sort of improvement they imagine is that of getting a better slave master who will give them better food and shelter than the minimal necessities that they’d usually get. Even after de jure slavery is ended, many people will still apply this sort of thinking to government leaders rather than literal slave owners.

    Therefore when someone like Castro comes along, many people essentially think “well… This guy sounds like the absolute best slave master we could possibly get! We will make him infinitely wealthy in our revolution by helping him seize all the wealth and then he will divide up the wealth equally among all us slaves, unlike the usual plantation owners who never give us any more than they absolutely have to.”

    So you end up with thinking like 1) the President is the great plantation owner and 2) we want the plantation owner who promises to share the most of his profits with us slaves. This thinking happens at the expense of thinking like “we want to self-organize, run our own plantation/business, and be left alone to keep our own profits”.

    So the aristocrat conquistador plantation owner may have been lynched or chased off, but neither the imaginary psychological plantation owner nor the psychological plantation have been eliminated and so people keep seeking out this archetype, constantly seeking the perfect superhuman and super fair plantation master.

    This is bad because no human or small group of humans can physically possess the computational resources needed to be this ideal command economist. Some superhuman AI might have the resources, but if such a thing existed then who knows how benign it would be by human standards?

    As for the anti-Israel stuff, it’s just more people with Marxist thinking who think of themselves as the proletariat seeking out others with the oppressed proletariat mentality.

  5. Some years back, before our school instituted uniforms, a Panamanian boy in one of my ESOL classes often showed up in a Che Guevara T-shirt. Whenever people asked if I knew who the face was, I said, “Yes, it’s Ernesto Guevara Serna y Lynch, a professional butcher of human beings for the despicable Fidel Castro.” That would shut up people.

    Anyway, this Panamanian kid fell in with a fellow student from eastern Bolivia, and the Guevara T-shirt disappeared. I understand that monuments Guevara in that part of the country need to be put under guard, lest they be vandalized.

    • “y Lynch”? I forget the protocols for Spanish naming orders. Is “and Lynch” his momma or daddy? There is IRISH blood in the Butcher? Oh my. LYNCH is certainly appropriate, though I’ll bet he never bothered with the trouble of a rope.

      Here’s the etymology I found: []

      1835, from earlier Lynch law (1811), likely named after William Lynch (1742-1820) of Pittsylvania, Virginia, who c. 1780 led a vigilance committee to keep order there during the Revolution. Other sources trace the name to Charles Lynch (1736-1796) a Virginia magistrate who fined and imprisoned Tories in his district c. 1782, but the connection to him is less likely. Originally any sort of summary justice, especially by flogging; narrowing of focus to “extralegal execution by hanging” is 20c.

      Lynch mob is attested from 1838. The surname is perhaps from Irish Loingseach “sailor.” Compare earlier Lydford law, from a place in Dartmoor, England, “where was held a Stannaries Court of summary jurisdiction” [Weekley], hence:
      Lydford law: is to hang men first, and indite them afterwards. [Thomas Blount, “Glossographia,” 1656]

      Ah, Virginia. Lynching. Who would have thought…

      • Dymphna: There’s lots of British Isles ancestry in Argentina–English, Irish, and Scots.

        I’m not a great Hispanicist. My other language is Chinese (Mandarin/Putonghua/Guoyu, read write, speak, plus smatterings of spoken Minnan and Kejia). But I couldn’t help but notice that personal contacts among people are great vectors for making changes.

        As for the Irish, much as I think there are lots of fine, upstanding, and downright wonderful Irish people, I still think that Boy Clinton and Shrillary Shrooooooo disgraced the White House when they had the bogtrotter Gerry Adams for a guest.

  6. Latin America was founded by Spain and Portugal that from 700 AD to 1492 AD was under Muslim rule. In the age of Discovery N.A. was settled by a free people wanting to start anew and the rest was plundered for its wealth. It is no coincidence that Spain and Portugal acted in the New World as they had been treated for 800 years. It is all they knew: Give the locals a religion and a language and steal everything else and ship it back to Mecca, I mean Seville, Madrid and Lisbon.

Comments are closed.