A baseball pro named Whitaker (with one “t” just like mine) is almost certainly a good liberal Democrat. Why? Because he’s black.
Not everybody named Whitaker is white. Everybody knows that. Any pollster who did a poll to find out how Whitakers voted without breaking them down by race would be considered an idiot.
Any pollster who bunched all the Anglo-Saxon names together in a poll without making any racial distinction would be considered an idiot.
Now let’s look at the vote everybody calls Hispanic. People keep saying there are “cultural differences” between Hispanics. A Garcia from Honduras has a different “culture” than a Hispanic from Mexico.
Actually, that makes little political difference. A colored man from Mexico votes liberal Democratic, just as a colored man from Guatamala does.
What is needed is a poll of “Hispanics” based on the color of the skin.
“Culture” makes little difference in politics. Race makes ALL the difference in politics. The earlier, whiter Cubans who came to America are solid Republican. The darker ones (the ones who came later) have, to use the standard euphemism, “returned to more traditional Hispanic voting patterns.”
Translation: They’re colored, so they’re anti-white.
Simplisitic? This simple statement is a lot less “simplistic” than assuming that everybody named Garcia falls into the same group.
#1 by Joe R. on 11/12/2004 - 6:46 pm
I recall a boxing match on cable tv recently, televised from Fresno, between two contenders: A White Australian vs. a Black man from the Dominican Republic I think. I found it curious that the large Mexican crowd was fervently in favor the the Black man, most likely because he was “Spanish speaking.” It’s instinct, race comes first. They perceived one man as being at least “closer to their race or culture.” The other day when I walked up to an information counter, I saw two women: a short squat very dark Mexican woman and a taller Caucasian woman who turned out to be a light skinned Persian woman. I subconsciously chose the one who was “closer to my race” for the information. Liberals feel this way too, but can’t get themselves to admit it. I know liberals who choose the “whitest” areas that they can find to live in, but don’t admit it openly. Voting is the same way of course. There are exceptions. Hypothetically, I would probably vote for say an Alan Keyes over an Al Gore. Then again, their names signal off a message which is opposite of their own race. Therefore “Alan Keyes” would sort’ve be a “White vote.” Anyway, even massive propaganda can’t erase the natural instinct of the human race.
#2 by Alejandro on 11/12/2004 - 8:13 pm
Well put, Bob. In fact, before American institutions adopted the word ‘Hispanic’ around 1970, they used the more accurate though equally worthless term ‘Spanish-surnamed’. ‘Hispanic’ today means little more than ‘Spanish-surnamed’ and tells nothing of one’s race and culture. There are fully assimilated, non-Spanish-speaking, American-born White ‘Hispanics’; non-English-speaking, Nonwhite ‘Hispanics’ who have recently crossed the border and everything in between. Yet all are artificially grouped together.
Let’s drop this nonsense and call people what they are: White, Black, Indian, East Asian or, in the case of many ‘Hispanics’, Mestizo.
#3 by Joe R. on 11/13/2004 - 3:45 am
Alejandro, do you think there should be a “Spanish-American” subrace category? If there are “Irish-Americans,” “Polish-Americans,” “Greek-Americans,” etc., then what would make the heritage of Spain any different? Most Cubans are unmixed Whites I believe. This element in south Florida is prosperous and classy.