Replies

Follow the thread.

My comment — and not to you, by the way — was that Grijalva was an ethhic bigot, and that his allegiance was to Mexico.

You piped up with questioning if by ‘Mexico’ I meant “New Spain” or the “indigenous Mexicans.”

I replied to that, explaining that I meant just what I said: i.e., that Grijalva’s allegiance was to Mexico, and that “New Spain” (which was what that part of the Western hemisphere — principally that area presently known as Mexico and Central America — was known as) ceased to exist as a soveriegn entity with the Mexican Constitution of 1824, which reiterated and affirmed that Mexico was sovereign and independent from Spanish rule (i.e, that New Spain as a political entity was abolished).

You, incredibly, took that to mean I was somehow inferring that Mexico was not racist.

Do you see your disconnect?

Now, follow this: (1) Grijalva is an ethnic bigot whose allegiance is to Mexico (i.e., the present political entity that is known as Mexico); (2) the present political entity that is known as Mexico used to be part of what was known as New Spain, and became so via the Constitution of 1824; (3) Since I never disclaimed that Mexico was racist, it must necessarily follow that Grijalva’s allegiance is to a racist Mexico (since I never disclaimed — or denied — that Mexico was racist).

Isn’t elementary logic fun?