Everyone should read Linda Chavez’s “The Company You Keep,” now on National Review Online. Although apologizing for some of her earlier remarks, which she here says “went too far” and were not careful enough, she continues her argument, supported here by facts and figures, with conservatives whom she argues contribute to anti-Hispanic sentiment.
UPDATE [12 June]
A number of the conservative targets of Ms. Chavez’s criticism take vigorous issue with her here.
I think it is healthy, not harmful, that conservatives can disagree in public over important issues. But the personal animosity such disagreements often (as here) evoke is not healthy, and I share Ward Connerly’s concerns, expressed in the first response published in the symposium linked above, over “the inclination among conservatives to cannibalize our own. It seems to me,” he continued, “that we should acknowledge the right to disagree on specific issues, and not hold it against those who disagree with us within our conservative family.”
Linda Chavez is playing a dishonest race card. She is “OK” about discussing illegal immigration, but mentioning Mexico or Mexicans is off limits and proof of racial profiling and anti-Hispanic sentiment.
As proof of her willingness to falsely characterize opponents of open border policies she parades a list of “conservative” comments that are over the top ugly racist views. She pretends that she is unaware of the ability and stated strategy of liberal activists to shower websites with “ugly conservative” comments. She does so so that she can falsely portray those who criticize her.
While Chavez counts on anonymous false flag commenters to prove the racism of her opponents, Americans can count on public spokespeople for illegal immigration proponents to mouth ugly antiu-Americanism and anti-Anglo sentiments. They can look to mainstream Mexican organizations like THE RACE (as in the onlyn race that counts), which Chavez supports, for proof of the unapologetic, indeed in your face, racism of anti-enforcement and Mexican groups.
What a shock, another racial loyalist complaining about being misunderstood as she smears her opponents.
PS. Here’s a comment I read from a Linda Chavez supporter:
“You must be a big nosed Jew. Hitler was so right. You will all die in gas chambers when we Chavez supporters have our way. Frickin Nazi Jew! Bet you have ni**er blood to.”
Gasp. That says it all about Chavez supporters, doesn’t it?
PS. Here’s a comment I read from a Linda Chavez supporter:
“You must be a big nosed Jew. Hitler was so right. You will all die in gas chambers when we Chavez supporters have our way. Frickin Nazi Jew! Bet you have ni**er blood to.”
Gasp. That says it all about Chavez supporters, doesn’t it?
mikem – Are you creating here an example of what you accuse Linda Chavez of falling for, a made up fictional quote? I assume so, but if by chance you present that quote as real, and really by a Linda Chavez supporter, then you need to supply a cite. Failing that, I’ll probably delete it.
In any event it would also strengthen your argument if you gave examples of material she quoted in the article that were not really by the people she quotes.
Linda Chavez is correct in that some opposed to massive immigration are anti-Latino, and some have ties to white supremacists.
The problem is that, like the progressive Left, she is trying to use accusations of racism to squelch an honest discussion of the costs of large-scale immigration by people whose values are sometimes hostile to those of the U.S.
Citing WFBs expulsion of the anti-semite Buchanan from the former’s wing of the conservative movement is especially hypocritical. As recent ADL surveys have shown, about 35% percent of “Hispanic Immigrants” have strongly anti-semitic attitudes, compared to only 9% of whites.
The quotacracy advocated by Latino politicians like Fabian Nunez and Cruz Bustamante is no different that the Numerus Clausus.
It was Cruz Bustamante in particular who forced “comprehensive review” on the University of California to replace pre-209 preferences. (This was discussed by Ward Connerly in the Egalitarian newsletter.)
Again, Linda Chavez makes some good points about racism on the restrictionist right, but there is plenty of racism coming from MEChA, NCLR, etc. that she does not acknowledge. Just google on statements by Art Torres (current head of the California Democratic Party) who gleefully stated that Prop 209 was the last gasp of white California.
See link below for more examples of Latino racism by Art Torres, Armando Navarro and others.
http://www.cap-s.org/newsroom/media_coverage/cromer_last_gasp.html
“Are you creating here an example of what you accuse Linda Chavez of falling for, a made up fictional quote?”
I thought I was as transparent as could possibly be needed, but yes it is an example of the false flag comments that Chavez is using.
“it would also strengthen your argument…”
That’s ridiculous.
Just how do I go about proving that the anonymous false flags that Chavez cheerfully posts up as exemplifying her opponents are not actually conservatives? Do I look up party registration for “Conservative in Ohio” or prove that “Joe Ignowski” doesn’t actually vote conservative or that he usually posts at liberal sites? The website she culls from has open registration and I bet she spent as much time checking that she was properly attributing the remarks to actual conservatives as the MSM did checking John Kerry’s pre Carter amnesty discharge.
But just to be clear, if I run over to a website and post my above “Chavez supporter message” and link to it, you will challenge any critics to prove that it is not her supporters??
I’m still not sure what false flag quotes you’re referring to. In the article I linked she criticized, and quoted, John Derbyshire, Heather Mac Donald, Garret Hardin, and one or two others. I didn’t see the ones you mention, although I didn’t go through it with a fine-toothed comb.
But I certainly agree with your point: one shouldn’t attribute arguments made by anonymous commenters to one’s opponents (or friends), because they may well be false flags.
In the article you linked, she says: “But I’m not altogether unhappy I wrote the column, or a subsequent one describing the reaction it provoked which underlinks(?) to this:
(http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/chavez060107.php3)
“On Townhall.com, these delightful bon mots appeared (I’ve preserved the original spelling and punctuation):
“Mexicans are pigs”
“They can be referred to as: Human Locusts. ”
” Latino girls are baby factories. They fornicate like animals with no regard for the welfare of the child. Babies having babies while the boy goes out and screws someone else. Most latinos are liars. True again. Look at the corruption at all levels of the mexican government and it carries on to all the people.”
“Quickly, the fact is that we’re being invaded by an inferior culture. Every person of low quality we import plants a family-tree that bears low-quality fruit. The rotten fruit of that tree will rot our own fruit.”
“We don’t want spanish speaking little retards befouling our great country. REMEMBER SAN HACINTO1”
“And YES ,Illegals are lazy, disease infested, freeloading moochers. The fact they criminally enter the country automatically qualifies them as lazy freeloaders.”
“Get a clue Chavez…we dont want wetbacks mooching our system and NO we dont need them. They are simply slave labor.nothing more.”
“most Mexicans, especially men, are lazy good for nothing drunks who only care about sacking as many mujeres that they can.”
I could go on; there are more than 300 posts on Townhall and hundreds more on less mainstream sites, but you get the point. It’s hard to imagine that anyone could get away with posting such foul comments about blacks, or Jews, or gay people on a mainstream website.”
Notice she implies the approval of conservatives for the remarks (no links though, give her a spanking).
I have no doubt that Chavez knows exactly what she has done and how she has accomplished it. She is as dishonest as she is bigoted for her race (in her approved language, THE RACE).
“As proof of her willingness to falsely characterize opponents of open border policies she parades a list of “conservative” comments that are over the top ugly racist views. She pretends that she is unaware of the ability and stated strategy of liberal activists to shower websites with “ugly conservative” comments. She does so so that she can falsely portray those who criticize her.”
Really? You really think that racist comments on conservative sites are submitted by liberal “ringers” trying to besmirch the good name of conservatives? That’s a new one. Can I now claim that all (most? some?) anti-semitic remarks on liberal sites are REALLY posted by conservatives?
When I read Chavez’s article on Townhall I was surprised at the response and I’m still surprised that people are/were so aghast at the notion that some people who oppose illegal immigration are racist and/or argue against illegal immigration primarily on racial grounds.
Is this idea really that surprising? There are some racist conservatives. There are also some racist liberals. Chavez’s observation seems pretty unremarkable to me and I struggle to understand why many conservatives are so enraged by the mere suggestion that there are racists among their ranks.
If you disagree with illegal immigration and you’re not a racist, I would think that’s all you need to say: “I’m not racist, but I disagree with illegal immigration.”
“That’s a new one.”
You don’t follow the DailyKos or those websites that keep an ear to it, do you? You are also unaware of the filtering and approval functions on many liberal sites. Townhall is an open registration site and has no approval or filtering process.
Hull — You wrote:
Many people have tried stating: “I’m not racist, but I disagree with racial preferences.” That hasn’t been believed in the past, so why would there be any hope that opponents of current immigration reform would fare any better?
There are apparently too many graduates of the “Miss Cleo School of Mindreading” out there to take people at their word.
Heather MacDonald has a devastating response to Linda Chavez in today’s NRO online
http://www.tiny.cc/ua4eB
In particular, she cites several sources for the 50% or greater dropout rate among Latinos, as well as high illiteracy rates in Los Angeles. Again, the resulting underrepresentation of Latinos in higher education will create an unstoppable political force for imposition of racial preferences.
By supporting more immigration from Latin America, Ms. Chavez is working against her own interests in ending preferences, bilingualism and multiculturalism.
Finally, I appreciate that Ms. Chavez is against preferences. Unfortunately, there are next to zero Latino politicians who share her opposition, and they, along with their allies on the “progressive” left control the pursestrings for the University of California.
John writes:
>>>”I think it is healthy, not harmful, that conservatives can disagree in public over important issues. But the personal animosity such disagreements often (as here) evoke is not healthy, and I share Ward Connerly’s concerns, expressed in the first response published in the symposium linked above, over “the inclination among conservatives to cannibalize our own. It seems to me,” he continued, “that we should acknowledge the right to disagree on specific issues, and not hold it against those who disagree with us within our conservative family.”
Is the Council of Conservative Citizens part of Ward Connerly’s “conservative family?”
http://cofcc.org/cutenews/data/upimages/ward.jpg
From the Council of Conservative Citizens’ Statement of Principles #2–
>>>” We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.”
http://cofcc.org/?page_id=60
Hey, don’t get me wrong. Connerly can hug and kiss anybody he chooses to, including white separatist groups. But Linda Chavez, a person I’ve criticized here in the past at least, albeit feebly, ATTEMPTS to lift her anti-affirmative action type arguments above the most BLATANT suspicion…
>>>”As a leader in the fight against racial preferences, I’ve always been choosy in the company I keep. I will not appear with or allow myself or my organizations to be in any way associated with David Duke, Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, or others in the fringe “white identity” movement, as they sometimes call themselves. I’ve never hesitated to call such people racists; they are. It doesn’t matter that they share my opposition to racial preferences; we do so for very different reasons.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=Y2UxNmQ0NDBjYmU3MjkzYzc1ODAzMzFhYmY3ZjFlNTc=
But of course, ironically, all of this is going on in the NATIONAL REVIEW, an organization that was editorially OPPOSED to the notion of Civil Rights for minorities in the first place…
Oh…you didn’t know?
>>>”
Federalism has come a long way too. In the 60s it grew fat on segregation, taking up the states’ rights argument for allowing jim crow to die in bed. The Tribune couldn’t countenance the Birmingham bombings, but William Buckley’s National Review, which would champion Barry Goldwater for president the following year, was able to. “Let us gently say,” it said, “the fiend who set off the bomb does not have the sympathy of the white population in the South; in fact, he set back the cause of the white people there so dramatically as to raise the question whether in fact the explosion was the act of a provocateur — of a Communist, or of a crazed Negro.” The magazine said some evidence supported this possibility.
“And let it be said,” the National Review declared, “that the convulsions that go on, and are bound to continue, have resulted from revolutionary assaults on the status quo, and a contempt for the law, which are traceable to the Supreme Court’s manifest contempt for the settled traditions of Constitutional practice. Certainly it now appears that Birmingham’s Negroes will never be content so long as the white population is free to be free….”
…Fourteen months later the National Review weighed in on the murders of Goodman, Schwerner, and Cheney in Mississippi. It noted that a federal grand jury convened in Neshoba County had returned indictments against local police officers. “It is everyone’s impression, including ours, that some, at least, of the Neshoba police are a crummy lot,” said the magazine airily. “But we pause for reflection. Are ‘violation of the Civil Rights Act’ and the even more tenuous ‘conspiracy to violate’ going to become a catch-all charge by which the Federal Government can get its hands on nearly any citizen?”
In the view of this conservatism, which has slowly taken over the country, the cure for jim crow was far worse than the disease.”
http://www.chicagoreader.com/hottype/2005/050826_2.html
I personally find it quite refreshing for National Review writers to be OPENLY hostile towards minorities, as opposed to the code words, catch-phrases, winks and nods that most right winged pundits try to sneak through for public consumption.
Don’t you?
–Cobra
The burden of proof, was, and still remains, on the proponents of mass legalization of foreign criminals, to make their case.
Attempting a smear approach, by insinuation, by making it sound as if everyone else must now prove that they’re not parties to racism, and implicit slippery slopes toward violent ethnic hatred, shows weakness.
If rational arguments were available for S1348 or anything like it, Chavez and others would give them, not try smears and sentiment.
There is no decent argument for the massive increase in aggression on the net taxpayers of our citizenry, attendant upon such a legalization.
Loyalty is owed to fellow citizens, when they’re attacked by foreigners here, and Chavez reads herself out of the nation, and upon ideal considerations, into resident alien status, by taking the side of foreign hostiles against those to whom loyalty is owed. Can anyone be for America first, and also for S1348?
John S. Bolton writes:
>>>”Loyalty is owed to fellow citizens, when they’re attacked by foreigners here, and Chavez reads herself out of the nation, and upon ideal considerations, into resident alien status, by taking the side of foreign hostiles against those to whom loyalty is owed.”
So if Linda Chavez should be “ideally considered” a “resident alien” for supporting S1348, what is your classification for Senator McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Trent Lott and President George W. Bush for supporting the SAME MEASURE?
–Cobra