From the Dept. of Speaking Inconvenient Truths, a Mexican consular official in San Diego confronts protesters last week, and speaks his mind:
"This has been, and will be, Mexico."
Got it. Useful to get that learnt.
(H/T: Maximos, who remarks that "American cosmopolitanism simply means that the nationalisms of others dominate.")
UPDATE: Be warned: there is a Spanish-language profanity in the last frame of that video.
UPDATE.2: That clip needs to be seen in context of Heather Mac Donald's City Journal piece about "Mexico's Undiplomatic Diplomats," and excerpt of which is here:
It’s a strain being a Mexican diplomat in the United States these days, as the plaintive expression on Mario Velázquez-Suárez’s dignified features suggests. Diplomacy may be the art of lying for one’s country, but Mexican diplomacy requires taking that art to virtuosic heights. Sitting in his expansive office in Mexico’s Los Angeles consulate, Deputy Consul General Velázquez-Suárez gamely insists that he and his peers observe the diplomatic duty not to interfere in America’s internal affairs, including immigration matters. “Immigration is an internal discussion,” he says. “We have to respect that regardless of whether it pleases us.”Well, at least one part of the deputy consul general’s statement is true: immigration is an “internal discussion.” The decision about who can enter and permanently reside in a country is central to its identity. The rest of his statement, though, is utterly false. Mexican officials here and abroad are involved in a massive and almost daily interference in American sovereignty. The dozens of illegals milling in the consulate’s courtyard as Velázquez-Suárez speaks, and the millions more radiating outward from Los Angeles across the country, are not a naturally occurring phenomenon, like the tides. They are there thanks in part to Mexico’s efforts to get them into the U.S. in violation of American law, and to normalize their status once here in violation of the popular will. Mexican consulates are engineering a backdoor amnesty for their illegal migrants and trying to discredit American immigration enforcement—activities clearly beyond diplomatic bounds.
Here in the Dallas area last fall, the consulate was advising Mexicans here illegally to avoid driving through a particular suburb because they might get caught and deported. Is it the responsibility of consulates to tell citizens of its nation who are in other countries illegally how to get away with breaking the law?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
It's unfortunate to see you post that video, Rod. Take a look at the other videos linked to after it's through playing. Whoever called this agitprop had it absolutely correct.
I'm actually quite shocked to read the comments of readers.
This entire post is pretty disappointing. It has nothing to do with being a good Christian or not, you shouldn't post crap like that and give voice to ignorant protesters such as these. "Go back to your crappy 3rd world country"?
I thought you were better than that Rod.
You are absolutely right, Rod. I apologize because there is certainly no contradiction between professing Christianity and folly - personal, political or sexual. This is the lesson that the controversy over Rev. Wright - the latest in a long line, right and left - of public stumbling blocks reminds us.
There is no reason discernment should be seen as a particularly Christian virtue.
Quoting Heather McDonald about "massive interference in American sovereignty" is a bit hilarious though. Invaded any countries recently, have we? Interfered in the affairs of sovereign states over, say, the past couple of centuries, have we?
Mexico's abolition of slavery occurred in the 1820's, the war of Texican independence occurred over a decade later, in the 1830's. It is simply absurd to blame a revolt in 1836 on law changes that were already settled long before then.
You're oversimplifying the time lines a bit.
Depending on what you mean by "abolished slavery," you can say Mexico "abolished slavery" in 1820 (or rather, Spain did), 1824 or 1829. Also the state legislature of Coahuila y Tejas varyingly restricted slavery throughout the 1820s (forbidding their sale, emancipating children ... that sort of thing). But the final, definitive law abolishing slavery in Mexico was passed in September 1829, was amended that very October to allow slavery in Texas, per Texan request (and a desire to tax the lucrative cotton crop). In 1830, Mexico prohibited the importation of new slaves into Texas and throughout the 1830s both Mexico City and Saltillo played whack-a-mole with Texan efforts at circumvention (like indentured servitude, say). And Santa Anna abolished slavery outright everywhere in Mexico in December 1835, just months before Texas declared independence and adopted a constitution that specified slavery as legal. To call slavery a "long-settled" issue in 1836 is just plain not true. And in May 1836, the Texans were seeking US recognition and discussing the terms of a possible annexation, and slave-state status was one of the explicit conditions the Texans insisted on.
As I said, it's absurd to call the Mexican War a plot to spread slavery, as the uninformed person above did. I'm also aware that the Texas Declaration of Independence does not list slavery as one of the "bill of particulars." But such precursors as the Anahuac Disturbances -- over the jailing of a lawyer (Travis) who threatened an attack from Louisiana over a runaway-slave case and Texan efforts to rescue him from jail -- show the status of slavery in Mexico was definitely *one issue among others* for the Texans. Others were official Catholicism, calls for surrender of arms and Santa Anna getting near-dictatorial powers.
This entire post is pretty disappointing. It has nothing to do with being a good Christian or not...
Of course, had Rod posted a video of some white Christians calling for the deportation of all Hispanics "back where they belong" ... THAT would have been prophetic witness, right???
Thank you for the correction, Victor Morton. It has been many years since I studied Mexican history and some of the particulars had faded from my memory. Also, I was not aware of the Anahuac Disturbances, although certainly I should have been. From my perspective, the critical issues in the bill of particulars was always the surrender of arms, specifically the Goliad cannon, and the assumption of dictatorial powers by Lopez de Santa Anna. The Texicans were not the only Mexican citizens to rise up in revolt against Santa Anna, by the way, they were the only ones to succeed. The troops that arrived at San Antonio de Bexar had already put down opposition to the "Napoleon of the West", for example.
Again, thank you for the correction. It is useful to me.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.