America no longer white, united, English-speaking

The Miami Herald ^ | 02 April 2004 | Patrick J. Buchanan

[MegaSilver]

In 1960, when JFK defeated Nixon, America was a nation of 160 million, 90 percent white and 10 percent black, with a few million Hispanics and Asians sprinkled among us.

We were one nation, one people. We worshipped the same God, spoke the same English language, studied American history and English literature, honored the same heroes, read the same books, watched the same TV shows, went to the same movies and saw ourselves as defenders of Western civilization against the godless communism of the Soviet Empire.

We were confident and proud of who we were. That was yesterday. But due to the Immigration Act of 1965 and the cultural revolution of the '60s, that America is now gone forever. And as one studies the latest projections of the Census Bureau, the America of our grandchildren will be another country altogether, a nation unrecognizable to our parents, a giant Brazil of the North.

In 2050, there will be three times as many people living here as in 1960 -- 420 million. White Americans will be a minority, 49 percent, and falling. Hispanics in the United States, more than 100 million, will be equal to the population of today's Mexico. Our Asian population will be almost as large as our African-American population today.

By countries of origin, America will be a Third World nation. Our cities will look like Los Angeles today. Los Angeles and the cities of Texas, Arizona and California will look like Mexico City.

Writing in Foreign Policy, Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington, author of Who We Are, raises an alarm about the huge infusion of Hispanics into the Southwest, and for many reasons.

Much of this mass immigration is illegal. Vast numbers are coming here only to work. They are not assimilating. They do not want to become Americans. They are concentrating in states bordering Mexico, which is their country and a nation with a historic grievance against us. They are holding on to their language and culture, creating a Hispanic nation within our nation. By 2050, there will be scores of millions of people living here whose loyalty is to a foreign country.

Moreover, as multiculturalism has captured our schools and colleges, immigrant children will have prejudices and grievances against America and the West reinforced as they learn. The academic elite that controls these schools already paints America as a nation with a rancid history of genocide, slavery, racism, oppression and imperialism.

Is the Census Bureau future the future that Americans wish? No. Are they willing to risk it for their grandchildren? No.

Why, then, does that future appear inevitable?

Answer: Though a majority of Americans wish to preserve the land they grew up in for their children, our elites -- political, academic, cultural and corporate -- are either unwilling to conserve that America or indifferent to its disappearance.

Most Americans want immigration cut back and all illegal aliens sent back. Why is the will of the majority, expressed in polls and referenda, not reflected in law or policy? Because we no longer live in a democratic republic; we are ruled by a managerial elite.

America's corporate elites want an endless supply of cheap labor. Our judges throw out popularly enacted laws to which they object. Our academic elites work to see ''white, racist America'' disappear. Our neo-Marxist cultural elites wish to be the gravediggers of the West and of Christian culture. And America's conservative party, the Republican Party, believes that Hispanics hold the key to retention of presidential power and is anxious not to offend Mexican President Vicente Fox.

If, by 2050, the America we grew up in has become a Tower of Babel of squabbling minorities that is falling apart, it will be because of the treason of the elites, and our lack of will to overthrow them.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well, it doesn't mean Amerindian, who are the people indigenous to the area.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The people of the Americas, or at least the Americas that existed prior to the European invasion, didn't have the divisions that you are discussing.

[William Wallace]

Or would you also eliminate dimwits, etc. from your master race's gene pool?

Eliminating dimwits cannot be part of Buchanan's agenda, Luis. That would be as shortsighted as the National Enquirer telling its readers how they can increase their intelligence.

[george wythe]

Brazillian are mistaken for Mexicans by ordinary people all the time.

False.

I had a hard time telling them apart.

Sorry to hear that. Most people know the difference between brown Amerindian and black African, or between mestizo and Germanic looking.

How does a modern census describe the population?

Facts.

The major ethnic group in Mexico represents less than 1% of the population of Brazil. The only overlap occurs with European descendants.

CIA World Factbook: Brazil

Ethnic groups

white (includes Portuguese, German, Italian, Spanish, Polish) 55%,
mixed white and black 38%,
black 6%,
other (includes Japanese, Arab, Amerindian) 1%

CIA World Factbook: Mexico

Ethnic groups

mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%,
Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian 30%,
white 9%,
other 1%

South America has a lot of the same kind of people for Mexico to be filled up with.

I have never said otherwise.

Your original contention about Brazil is still wrong.

[TLI]

You picked `em bubba. And as usual when confronted with a whiff of reality, accusers go screaming off into lala land spouting racism. Using such shortcuts and making unfounded accusations is typical of unsupportable arguments. Actually, it is typical fodder found over on DU. Are you lost?

As for "political agenda" and "racial purity". . . huh? I pointed out an inconsistency in a statement. Racial purity seems to be heavy on your mind as is your hast to declare someone a raciest.

Must have been when I actually stated the source to back up the origin of the pic....

[William Terrell]

I look at a average full-blooded American indian and an average Mexican and the distinction is obvious.

[William Terrell]

I look at a average full-blooded American indian and an average Mexican and the distinction is obvious.

[William Terrell]

The people of the Americas, or at least the Americas that existed prior to the European invasion, didn't have the divisions that you are discussing.

What divisions am I discussing?

[William Terrell]

I'm not talking about fine, artificial distinctions. I'm talking about root races. The indigenous Brazilians I have seen look like Mexicans. I'm sure some bleedover between races have occurred.

I'm also sure that lots of European types have moved to Brazil, but that has nothing to do with the indigenous people in Brazil, which bear the same characteristics as the rest of South America.

My original position was that Mexico was settled in the dim past by South Americans.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I can stand a Dutch woman next to an Italian woman and see the obvious differences.

But you would never argue that the Italian woman is not white, would you?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"My original position was that Mexico was settled in the dim past by South Americans."

There was no "South" America in the dim past.

North, Central, and South America are post-Columbian divisions.

[george wythe]

The indigenous Brazilians I have seen look like Mexicans.

Yes, of course, but they are less than 1% of the Brazilian population, and they mostly live in the Amazon jungle, not Texas.

99.999999999% of the Brazilians who come to the US are either white, black, or a black/white mixture. They do not look like the average Mexican; the only confusion may occur among whites, irrespective of whether they are from Mexico, Germany or Brazil.

Brazillian are mistaken for Mexicans by ordinary people all the time.

Still false.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You used an inconsistency to illustrate a fallacy.

Amerindians are no more representative of Hispanics, than Navajos are representative of Americans.

[TLI]

Well, well. Welcome back to earth...

I did not identify or create the photo, I pointed out commonly accepted differences with it. Then I pointed out the origin of the photo. I know that such documentation makes it difficult to refute but you should not shoot the messenger.. it makes a mess.

However, I must insist that most "latinos" (define any way you like) are "white" as stated by quidnunc is incorrect. That they are not white (or Caucasians) is somthing that I find to be true.

If you believe differently, offer proof. I would submit that it will be quite a shocker to most of the population of Central and South America.

[PRND21]

That they are not white is somthing that I find to be true.

How fun for you.

[William Wallace]

As for "political agenda" and "racial purity". . . huh? I pointed out an inconsistency in a statement.

You did nothing of the kind. You posted photos of an Indian family and a little blonde, blue-eyed Scandanavian girl (part of your Vast jpeg collection I presume). You continue to insist, even after your mistake has been pointed out repeatedly, that the Indians in the first pic are somehow representative of Hispanics. Which is comparable to using photos of Geronimo and Sitting Bull to "prove" our Founding Fathers weren't white.

[William Wallace]

A few more pics for your collection:

NOT WHITE (According to TLI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WHITE

[TLI]

You did nothing of the kind.

Actually, that is precisely what I posted. If your "interpretation" of facts causes you to post offensive photos in an apparently sick and bitter attempt to convince someone that up is down and left is right, there are sources of help for you.

As for your reference to me engaging in pedophilia, I find your remark even more offensive than you clumsly attempt at what you apparently believe to be "humor" through your posted photos. Continuing on such a track is not advisable. If you can not defend an opinion any better than that, it's back to school for you, young man!

[ronnieb]

Europeans designed America.

To build it, they imported Africans, Chinese, and a spattering of other races as a workforce.

No they didn't, they did the vast majority of the physical work themselves, I am aware of the contribution of African Americans through slavery, which lasted hundreds of years, but they were vastly outnumbered by laboring, working and sweating Europeans that labored their way coast to coast. Those Chinese worked next to Irish Immigrants. They did not work alone. Europeans did the vast, vast majority of the dying in war, and what they were dying for, namely the country they built, from top to bottom, sea to sea. Its just a fact. This country was 90% European in 1965, and America was almost 200 years old. Sorry man, but that is the way it is...and was

[ronnieb]

I do think that fantasizing about America being built strictly by Europeans, and ignoring the obvious contributions of non-Europeans is rewriting history.

Nice try, you make up a quote and than argue against it. America was built by Europeans, everything from its name, its political and cultural institutions, it was created by and is an extension of European culture. Not only is it created in that image, the planning, and the vast, vast amount of physical labor that went into it, including the dying, to establish its political standing, was done by Europeans. Of course, they were other non-Europeans involved, principally African Americans, who were here as long as the Europeans. But that doesn't change the essence of it all. This is like arguing wether the sun is shining or not, the facts are pretty plain. I am not the one engaged in fantasy.