The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Douthat: "Liberalism's Latinx Problem"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Ross Douthat’s in the NYT:

Liberalism’s Latinx Problem

Why is Elizabeth Warren describing Latinos with a term that few would use themselves?

By Ross Douthat, Opinion Columnist, Nov. 5, 2019

But a lot of Trump-era polling shows the president holding or even expanding his Hispanic support, and it shows Warren, in particular, struggling with Latino voters, both in the primary and the general races.

Which is what you’d expect if, as my colleague Tom Edsall has argued, Hispanics (and African-Americans and Asians) now represent the moderate wing of the Democratic Party, the pocketbook-conscious, somewhat culturally conservative flank. In that case they’re a constituency where a less-bigoted-seeming G.O.P. could make substantial inroads, and where even a figure like Trump, if the economy is strong enough and the Democrat seems sufficiently culturally extreme, can at least win enough minority support to keep himself competitive.

A big question is whether the underlying Democratic strategy I first spelled out in full 6.5 years ago is going to work: Keep the Democrats’ Coalition of the Margins united by ginning up hate for the most non-marginal: cisgender straight white males.

For example, Senator Warren’s “Latinx” fetish is due to the Non-Binary having a lot of Intersectional Pokemon Points under the current dispensation, enough to trump less current year ideas like: Spanish is a major language with an impressive literature, so let’s act like we respect it.

One problem the Democrats have is that since nobody in the mainstream media will come out and explain that the central strategy of the Democrats is to demonize cisgender straight white males in order to unify everybody who is not a a cisgender straight white male (you are just supposed to grasp that from the mood music), a whole bunch of people wind up saying in effect: Well, I’m not a cisgender straight white male, but I am non-trans, not-gay, and white and non-trans, , straight, and male, or non-trans, white and male, or whatever else, and the democrats sure sound like they hate me.

 
Hide 64 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Why is Elizabeth Warren describing Latinos with a term that few would use themselves?

    Why would she celebrate a 9 year-old going transgender?

  2. Anon7 says:

    Let’s ask Latino persons. Here’s one opinion:

    …Although the target audiences for the MiTú and Fusion videos were mainstream consumers in their 20s — a demographic thought to be on board with “Latinx” — the comment sections of both videos were flooded with negative reactions, with some calling the term “ridiculous,” “stupid” and “offensive” to the Spanish language. “Please stop trying to force feed some millennials hipster buzzword,” one commenter said.

    The intentions behind “Latinx” may be benign, but as the son of immigrants who grew up in a community with “English-only” ordinances, I am among the many Americans who consider it an absurd Anglicization of a language that generations struggled to conserve.

    Not everyone is on board with the term. And yet “Latinx” — pronounced “La-teen-ex” in English — continues its march into more news outlets and magazines amid our growing public awareness of transgender and non-binary gender identities. The term is even used officially at some UC campuses and is being considered for inclusion in the Oxford English Dictionary.

    As deputy editor of Latino Rebels, Hector Luis Alamo described Latinx as “the bulldozing of Spanish.”

    In a column for the Los Angeles Times, a Hispanic writer noted that millennial media outlets who used it found their pages “flooded with negative reactions, with some calling the term ‘ridiculous,’ ‘stupid’ and ‘offensive.’ ”

    Not only is Latinx “laughably incomprehensible to any Spanish speaker without some fluency in English,” as two Latino Swarthmore College students argued in 2015, its use has been formally rejected by the Real Academia Española, the official body of linguists that preserves the language’s integrity. Who knew it was progressive to abrogate foreign grammar standards?

    LATimes op/ed by Daniel Hernandez

    Let’s talk about Senator Warren and the pronunciation of “Latinx”. In a recent video, she says “latinix” without emphasis on any syllable, the first part like “Latin” that you took in high school, with the last syllable like the word “nix”. She doesn’t say “La-teen-ex”. Maybe that’s the Cherokee pronunciation.

    The more Warren talks the more she puts her foot in her mouth.

    • Replies: @TheMediumIsTheMassage
  3. songbird says:

    I should like to ask Warren this question, in front of a Telemundo audience:
    Why isn’t the “x” in “Latinx” pronounced like the “x” in “México?”

    • Replies: @for-the-record
  4. Anon[620] • Disclaimer says:

    For example, Senator Warren’s “Latinx” fetish is due to the Non-Binary having a lot of Intersectional Pokemon Points under the current dispensation, enough to trump less current year ideas like: Spanish is a major language with an impressive literature, so let’s act like we respect it.

    Another reason is that Spanish does not have a lot of prestige these days because it’s associated with poor Latin American immigrants, and because Spain itself tends to be regarded as peripheral to and a backwater in Western Europe. So these fashionable Leftists don’t have a problem with screwing with the language. Spanish tends to be the default foreign language choice for high school students because it’s regarded as easiest and most useful, but lots of upper middle class and striver type parents tend to push French or even exotic languages like Chinese on their kids.

    • Agree: Kronos
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @Dave Pinsen
  5. they’re a constituency where a less-bigoted-seeming G.O.P. could make substantial inroads,

    Thanks for the advice, Ross, which I’m sure is well-intended, but we tried that with George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, and it hasn’t paid off so far. In fact, Trump did better with Hispanics than Pierre Delecto.

  6. @Anon

    Good luck to one’s kids learning Chinese in high school.

    Interestingly, a lot of the Spanish crown’s progressive tendencies went into language reform. The King of Spain would regularly assemble scholars to hash out how to make Spanish easier.

    Language reform of English was a huge movement a century ago with big names like GB Shaw and Andrew Carnegie pushing it ardently, but now it has virtually vanished.

  7. Thea says:

    Well Douthat, we really shouldn’t be in a position where either American political party needs to fight over the votes of the population of Guatemala at all now should we?

  8. Ed says:

    His part about a less bigoted Trump would win over minorities is simply drivel and fanciful. The GOP will be in trouble post Trump though because few Republicans politicians command anywhere close to the interest or loyalty of the white working class as Trump does.

    • Replies: @Kronos
  9. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Anon

    Spain itself tends to be regarded as peripheral to and a backwater in Western Europe.

    There seem to be two sides to this coin. On the one hand, London is the biggest city in Europe, and its biggest financial center; on the other hand (perhaps partly because of that), it’s full of burkas. Peripheral Madrid and Barcelona seem much nicer: solidly European and first world, but not so economically vibrant to attract as many scary third worlders.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  10. nebulafox says:

    > In that case they’re a constituency where a less-bigoted-seeming G.O.P. could make substantial inroads, and where even a figure like Trump, if the economy is strong enough and the Democrat seems sufficiently culturally extreme, can at least win enough minority support to keep himself competitive.

    No, buddy: a more economically *populist* GOP could do that. Let’s get this straight: the donor class, and Trump’s caving to them, is the real problem here. The Democrats have become the party of woke capital and affluent bien-pensants, with all the social fallout you are seeing in Seattle and San Francisco for everybody else. A GOP willing to run against this is one that will win. A GOP that revives Bushism is one that will lose.

    It doesn’t ever seem to occur to these people that an economic platform more geared toward the interests of average Americans over billionaires and the new gentry class would be far more effective in picking up Hispanic voters alongside the Rust Belt whites the GOP absolutely must keep in its camp than amnesty combined with Chamber of Commerce wet dreams ever would be. Trump managed to do better with minorities than Mitt Romney for a reason in 2016, and he didn’t even try that hard or was all that convincing. There is a reason for that. Voters of all stripes are willing to support just about anyone who promises to disrupt business-as-usual in Washington, DC.

    The answer does not lie in adhering closer to elite orthodoxy, the answer lies in promising to blow it apart entirely.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Anonymous
  11. Gunner says:

    How DARE Douthat mention this while his President is locking brown babies in cages!!!!!!

    -50% of NYT commenters

  12. nebulafox says:
    @Steve Sailer

    >Good luck to one’s kids learning Chinese in high school.

    I learned some Chinese and Japanese when I was in elementary school. It wasn’t that bad. You ask me, I was way more attentive than I would have been had I been a teenager when it was introduced.

    I honestly think math would be similar: if we didn’t spend 3 years teaching everybody how to add, far more kids would be genuinely interested in learning trig before they are in high school.

    • Agree: TTSSYF
  13. Adrian E. says:

    Whether a coalition of homosexuals, transgender people, African Americans, and Latinos can work, is an open question – these groups (e.g. white homosexuals and Black cisgender heterosexuals) don’t have too much in common.

    But is that really the coalition? Already the number of homosexuals is not that large that it is really clear that the reason sexual orientation figures so prominently is that the votes of homosexuals matter so much (of course, in narrow elections, the votes of small groups count, but focusing very strongly on certain small groups is not necessarily the ideal strategy). But non-binary people – the main reason why the word Latinx is used – are such a tiny percentage that it is certainly not the votes of these people that explains why these expressions are used.

    I think the Democratic coalition is something quite different. It is not a coalition of homosexuals, transgender people, Blacks, and Latinos. African Americans and Latinos are relevant in the sense that they are really pandered to because their votes are needed. But homosexuals, transgender people and people with special pronouns do not matter primarily because they deliver a significant percentage of votes. LGBT is mainly important because it offers lots of opportunities for a certain subset of educated, mostly white voters to do progressive signalling. Most of them are probably cisgender heterosexuals, but they need LGBT for this signalling.

    I think the Democratic coalition is mainly
    – a faction of the elite (another faction favors Republicans) – lots of power and money, but, of course irrelevant as far as the number of votes is concerned
    – probably still the majority of secret services and other elements of the deep state – again lots of power, but hardly any votes
    – the vast majority of African Americans and a (not so overwhelming, but still significant) majority of Latinos

    With these tiny elite groups and the majorities of African Americans and Latinos it is already a sizeable group, but that would not be enough for winning elections, so they also need some more whites (apart from the tiny elite). They haven’t had a majority among whites for a long time, but that does not matter so much because, together with African Americans and Latinos a sizeable minority of Whites is enough. But how do they keep these Whites when the Republican party has become the main party of White people? It seems they focus on those who went to college (preferably cultural and social sciences) and really liked the ideologies professors instilled them or lapped them up uncritically, and for whatever odd reasons it seems that the question of homosexuals and transgender people has become a central issue for this subgroup of Whites, even though most of them themselves are probably cisgender heterosexuals. They really hate conservative people who are thought to be very homophobic and transphobic.

    In the long run, it would probably be quite difficult to keep together a coalition of African Americans and Lations, which are, on the whole, a bit more culturally conservative than the overall American average, and a minority of Whites who have made very special theories about gender their tribal marker.

    The US system is so much dominated by rich people that most of the actual fights behind the scenes is between different factions of billionaires, some of which are more internationally oriented while others more nationally. These factions in principle have lots of interests in common, but they still fight each other and therefore, they pitch groups of the middle and working classes against each other. The different factions probably agree that it is crucial to pitch them against each other – otherwise, they would see that they have more in common with each other than with any of the elite/billionaire factions. But at the same time, the different elite factions also try to get more of the voting pawns on their side.

    But I think there is a lot of arbitrariness in the sets of groups these elite factions have managed to pitch against each other at a given moment. At the moment, working class African Americans and affluent “woke” White people are considered to be part of the same coalition and their big bogeyman is working class Whites (who are considered to be deplorables and bigots, even though things like homophobia are certainly not more common among the White working class than among the Black working class).

    There used to be something similar on the side of the pawns of the Republican elite. They mainly wanted their economic policies, but for getting votes, they needed their cultural bogeymen to get the votes of less affluent people. But now, it seems that this has largely been made superfluous because SJWs from the other side already do the job of motivating their opponents.

    But since these groups that are pitched against each other are probably mostly arbitrary, I would not be too surprised if the coalitions will suddenly change and new features on the basis of which people can be assigned to different groups will become relevant. The main thing for the billionaire class is probably that most of the rest is in either of two groups who fight each other passionately – then, they are less likely to challenge the power of the billionaires. It is also good when the two sides who fight each other are of a similar size – otherwise one of them would win too easily. But what exactly this is based on can change. Maybe, it will be seen as problematic that so far, Blacks and Latinos are not pitched against each other politically and that it would be better if they were on different sides. The most difficult question is probably how to split Whites because they are still the largest group and if too many Whites end up on one side, they could (at least for now) easily dominate.

    • Replies: @Laugh Track
  14. Hail says: • Website

    nobody in the mainstream media will come out and explain that the central strategy of the Democrats is to demonize cisgender straight white males in order to unify everybody who is not a a cisgender straight white male

    It’s not all whites (or white males, straight white males, etc.).

    Exceptions will be made.

    Those whites who are part of the solution to the Cancer of Human History get a pass.

  15. @Harry Baldwin

    How about a ruling class less bigoted against your own freaking people, Ross?

    You fancy yourselves leaders?

    Lead.

  16. Lot says:

    I like Ross more and more as I age, but he’s flat wrong as a factual matter for questioning the Sailer Strategy:

    “ Hispanics (and African-Americans and Asians) now represent the moderate wing of the Democratic Party, the pocketbook-conscious, somewhat culturally conservative flank. In that case they’re a constituency where a less-bigoted-seeming G.O.P. could make substantial inroads,”

    This really is a an empirical question. And 2010-2012 and 2016-2018 showed that it is overwhelmingly white voters who are open to both parties.

    2016-2018 also showed that there really isn’t anything Dems can do to drive up dismally low Hispanic and Asian voting rates.

    Now it is true the sheer number of Hispanics have created a few heavily Hispanic areas, like much of Texas and inland California (eg Devin Nunes’s district), where the GOP is still competitive because it gets plenty of conservative Hispanic voters, especially assimilated churchgoers. That still is pretty small compared to the number of districts decided by swing white voters.

  17. IHTG says:
    @Harry Baldwin

    It probably did pay off for Bush in 2004.

  18. OT Mr. Sailer,

    I used to be a Republican and I’m not a Democrat; I also used to be a Trump supporter but:

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/white-house-rejects-pelosis-plan-to-relieve-drug-prices-2019-11-05?mod=home-page

    • LOL: Desiderius
  19. They’re supposed to pick up the mood music! Great way to explain it. Yes, I think the anti-White leaders (most of whom are White) have a bunch of cats to herd who are never going to get the subtle nuances of the strategy.

    • Replies: @Erik L
  20. Kronos says:
    @Ed

    It’s raises some interesting questions though. Are Hispanics terrified of Trannies?

  21. They do hate you, white man. They really do.

  22. The Democratic Party will nominate someone who makes Trump look reasonable, even with the MSM in Full Narrative Mode.

  23. Anglicization

    I’m glad that somebody still has the decency to captitalize words like this. Oxford went Frog years ago. Anybody have their reasoning?

    Language reform of English was a huge movement a century ago with big names like GB Shaw and Andrew Carnegie pushing it ardently, but now it has virtually vanished.

    Scottish English written phonetically would be incomprehensible to the rest of us on paper, as well.

    Ironically, the concert hall named for Andrew is usually pronounced like it was named for Dale. Who changed his spelling to match Andrew’s.

  24. @nebulafox

    No, buddy: a more economically *populist* GOP could do that.

    “Eat the rich” can easily be turned into “Eat the whites”. Be careful what you wish for.

    It doesn’t ever seem to occur to these people that an economic platform more geared toward the interests of average Americans over billionaires and the new gentry class

    Other than ending immigration altogether, what would that entail? Socialized health insurance? How did that work out on the streets of Bradford and Malmö and Aulnay-sous-Bois? Free treatment when you’re raped!

    Benefits for the middle class are paid for by the middle class. And ours is already taxed enough.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Gabe Ruth
  25. Anonymous[706] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox

    Trump has squandered his one advantage over any generic Republican (defiance of donorism). It’s really the only thing that distinguished him and made for the single straight-face reason for supporting him in 2016. Everything else about him was laughably bad in big-name-candidate terms. “But he fights”? So what… Puncturing coastal media flunkies’ egos is not a real job, assuming anybody still considers the presidency to be one instead

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  26. Hail says: • Website
    @Harry Baldwin

    A less-bigoted-seeming G.O.P. could make substantial inroads

    This is a trope that really needs to be laid to rest.

    Anyone purported to be on the Right who says that is “loyal opposition.”

    we tried that with George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney

    The US has tried some variant of this for a long, long time.

    The same people blame California’s general decline on Pete Wilson, on the California Republican Party for being too white, on the noble immigration-restriction efforts in 1990s California — which they usually wave away as “immigrant bashing” or the like.

    Has Douthat ever called for general immigration restriction in any form?

    These people don’t seem to dare to counsel immigration restriction — (Why? What force are they so afraid of, one wonders) — so they make this weak, squishy argument that whites on the Right will/should win by being a Left Lite, a modest slow-down to Third World-ization. The best we can hope for, and very moral.

    • Replies: @Hail
    , @IHTG
    , @Art Deco
  27. @Steve Sailer

    “Language reform of English was a huge movement a century ago with big names like GB Shaw and Andrew Carnegie pushing it ardently, but now it has virtually vanished.”

    Virtually vanished??– Not if you consider the possibility that Ebonics took over where Carnegie left off.

    • Replies: @RichardTaylor
  28. Anon[280] • Disclaimer says:

    I was under the impression it was a reaction the “gendered” words, like actor/actress or guys or he/him referring to indefinite antecedents. Just more stupid. For some reason actor is OK for women now, but Latino and guy and he aren’t.

  29. Gabe Ruth says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    I love you Reg, but your inner boomer is clouding your judgment here.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @Reg Cæsar
  30. J.Ross says:
    @Gabe Ruth

    This, especially since the donor class effectively is woke capital anyway. The answer isn’t socialism, it’s the disruption of pseudo-socialist tax-and-wage avoidance schemes by donor class woke capital slave-owners.

  31. I sometimes wonder how stable the Coalition of the Fringes really is at times, if Liberals have to keep feeding endless fuel of hate against Straight White Men.

    Steve, you wrote a piece back then about how Asians were most realistic about the White-Black gap, with it also showing that Hispanics were far more realistic about the gap than Whites were.
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/asians-are-most-realistic-about-white-black-iq-gap/

    What is the chance that some candidate manages to get them to vote on racialist matters, like Whites are expected to do under a Sailer Strategy. Do you think a future modification of the Sailer Strategy could get Hispanics and Asians to vote like Whites on issues of immigration and crime?

    If you look at local politics, especially when it comes to building residential structures, Asians and Latinos are often the most reactionary in the way that they vote, often ensuring that no construction gets build that might change the neighborhood’s “community feel”.

    It doesn’t seem like a huge stretch for a candidate to extrapolate those feelings onto the national stage, especially on the issue of immigration.

    At least, I think this approach would work better than the typical approach of pandering to Latino’s love for foreign interventionalism and billionaire tax cuts…

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  32. The Simplified Spelling Board was one of those rational ideas, like the metric system, that just couldn’t get a foothold in the US. Some remnants of it remain: we write color rather than colour, theater rather than theatre, donut rather than doughnut, hiccup rather than hiccough, and encyclopedia rather than encyclopaedia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Spelling_Board

  33. @Steve Sailer

    Language reform of English was a huge movement a century ago with big names like GB Shaw and Andrew Carnegie pushing it ardently, but now it has virtually vanished.

    It’s almost as if language is something that grows up organically from a people, not dictated from governments and universities.

  34. JAhd says:

    “ Well, I’m not a cisgender straight white male, but I am non-trans, not-gay, and white and non-trans, , straight, and male, or non-trans, white and male, or whatever else, and the democrats sure sound like they hate me”

    1) you are goyim

    2) they hate you

  35. @Jim bob Lassiter

    Virtually vanished??– Not if you consider the possibility that Ebonics took over where Carnegie left off.

    To be fair, ebonics, or African-American Vernacular English as it’s more formally known, is the natural language of a people, it wasn’t really imposed from above. Go back and look at things written in the 19th century describing Black English. It’s not that different from what we hear today.

  36. Anonymous[429] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    The UK and Spain aren’t that different in terms of native proportion of population, and more non-Spaniards relative to Spaniards speak Spanish than non-Anglos speak English relative to Anglos. If we’re going by which languages are most exclusive to European populations, Spanish wouldn’t be among them, and those that are like the Scandinavian or Slavic languages generally aren’t studied as much.

    How peripheral or how much of a backwater a country is does not really have to do with how widely its language is spoken. For example, both France and Italy have been culturally central and leading countries of Western Europe (along with the UK and Germany), despite French being spoken by many non-French, while Italian being not spoken much by non-Italians.

    Phd students usually have to have some proficiency in 2 foreign languages, and you generally have to choose among French, German, and Italian, because those have been the chief languages of Western scholarship and cultural production.

  37. @Gabe Ruth

    If you think the welfare state will ever be on your side, you’re either a) seriously deluded or b) Japanese.

  38. At first I thought the
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Spelling_Board
    must be a kind of information-packed writing board for children that would help them spell, kind of like a pre-electronic
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speak_%26_Spell_(toy) . I turns out that here “Board” means “Council”.

    • Replies: @Dissident
  39. @Harry Baldwin

    Right- “bigotry” or lack of it has nothing to do with Republicans’ success with the Hispanic vote. They could amp up the anti-immigration talk and STILL get more of the Hispanic vote than they have in the past, if they talked less about tax cuts and entrepreneurship and other stupid Chamber of Commerce buzzwords.

    Trump got more of the Hispanic vote than Pierre Delecto and McCain because he didn’t run his mouth about tax cuts and deregulation quite as much as they did.

    A Republican candidate who espoused Bernie-lite economic policies would probably win in a landslide because they’d get close to 50 percent of Hispanics and around 20 percent of blacks. And a larger percentage of the white vote, too.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @Ed
  40. @Adrian E.

    Tl;dr. Admire the effort, but if you are going write at that length, submit it to American Thinker or Quillette. Blog comments are a harsh mistress.

  41. The only people jumping through the hoola hoops you reference are supposed intellectuals or those seeking to be seen as up on the alphabet soup labeling.

    Most voters simply don’t have the energy or desire to let it be known how alphabet soup laden they are.

  42. @Anon7

    “The intentions behind “Latinx” may be benign”

    Even when they try to be impartial, they can’t help slip in some propaganda. The intentions behind that term are anything but benign.

  43. ‘Latinx’ suffers from the same problem as the BLM movement, which is association with weirdo queer trans blue hair trysexuals and freaks.

    White liberals love POC homosexuals because at this stage every progressive of any sex is a fag hag, and a POC homosexual is double plus good. But POCs…don’t love homosexuals, let’s just say that.

  44. Hail says: • Website
    @Hail

    California’s general decline

    blame…the California Republican Party for being too white, on the noble immigration-restriction efforts in the 1990s

    The loyal-opposition talking-point Bigotry Lost California is just assumed by these people. A better explanation that California had an “Elect a New People” pulled on it.

    ____________

    Why not a national discussion on Who Lost California?

    (Follow-up question: Who could have saved California?)

    “Who Lost California” is much more relevant to us, today, than the “Who Lost China” talk of the late 1940s and 1950s. The US as a whole, in 2020, is at the same demographic point California was at in about 1985. Very few with mainstream pulpits seem to be willing to say this, except for Ann Coulter since at least the mid 2010s, and Tucker.

  45. @songbird

    I should like to ask Warren this question, in front of a Telemundo audience:
    Why isn’t the “x” in “Latinx” pronounced like the “x” in “México?”

    That’s probably not a great question to ask her, since the “x” in México is an exceptional case:

    “Mexico” and “Texas” are special cases. Historically, these words entered Spanish at a stage when x was still pronounced [sh]. They have never been pronounced by native Spanish speakers as [meKSico] or [teKSas], this being a later innovation by gringos. After Spanish [sh] had evolved to [h*], México and Texas had their x changed to j, analogous to Quixote > Quijote, but not in the Americas, where the locals remained attached to the original spelling (but not the original pronunciation) of the two names.

    Throughout most of its history, the RAE has unsuccessfully tried to convince Mexico (and the world) that the correct spellings were Méjico and mejicano. In 1992 it still listed them as the preferred forms. Only with the publication of its 2001 dictionary has it conceded defeat and accepted México and mexicano—as well as Texas and texano—as the preferred forms, although tejanos remains the only accepted spelling in the sense of “blue jeans”.

    Spanish Vocabulary, An Etymological Approach

    • Replies: @songbird
  46. IHTG says:
    @Hail

    Has Douthat ever called for general immigration restriction in any form?

    His positions on immigration are similar to those of the other “reformocons” (eg Reihan Salam, who wrote a book entitled “Melting Pot or Civil War?: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders”). Pro-restriction in concept, but taking the pragmatic approach that changing the composition of immigration to more skilled (similar to what Jared Kushner is pushing for) is the only politically realistic policy possible today.

  47. Ano says:

    Didn’t I read it’s Liz’s electoral strategy to open up the border to the world’s transgenders and flood the country with grateful wine box aunts with three day growths so that way she doesn’t need any kind of voter coalition at all?

    I mean, why wait for a Green Card when you can just slip into a green dress?

    PS: Is any iSteve reader interested in joining my TERFs for Trump PAC?

  48. danand says:
    @Steve Sailer

    “Language reform of English was a huge movement a century ago with big names like GB Shaw and Andrew Carnegie pushing it ardently, but now it has virtually vanished.”

    For a short period in the mid 90’s they took a stab at reform via Ebonics; but it kind of died out as African-Americans started their migration out of Oakland.

    “In 1996, the Oakland School Board in Oakland, California passed a resolution regarding a linguistic variety known as “ebonics.” Ebonics — a portmanteau combining the words ebony and phonics — is a dialect which linguists refer to as African American Vernacular English (AAVE). AAVE is a dialect associated with African-American speakers of English. This is not to say, of course, that all African-Americans use AAVE or that all users of AAVE are African-American, but it is a robust dialect among African-Americans in the US. The Oakland School Board declared Ebonics a language in order to raise its status, because languages have more prestige than “dialects.” The school board announced their goal of “maintaining the legitimacy and richness of such language… and to facilitate their acquisition and mastery of English language skills.””

  49. songbird says:
    @for-the-record

    I had trouble thinking of a Spanish word with the letter “x” in it. I would have used the pronunciation of the alphabet letter, but I like how “Mexico” evokes Mexican nationalism, over a decidedly post nationalist issue.

    In a sense, the base word Latino, is itself postnationalist, which makes its derivative ultra-postnationalist.

  50. @Harry Baldwin

    Bush did do OK with Hispanics, and he had a little bit of (affected) Texas swagger, but only a little. McCain is kind of macho but in a roundhead puritan way of being a bitter faced mega-scold. Romney is a complete bien pensant who is so polished the light reflecting off his hair causes global cooling. None of them has any machismo that hispanics would recognize that could hold a candle to el jefe Donaldo.

    The GOP probably could make inroads but they don’t have to drop the bigotry, they have to drop being the GOP.

  51. Erik L says:
    @RichardTaylor

    yeah “mood music”, that is apt

  52. nebulafox says:
    @Anonymous

    I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was the only thing. Trump’s explicit rejection of the morality-based foreign policy that has dominated DC since the 1990s was not just highly appealing to parts of the country that suffered hard from Iraq, but basically ended Jeb Bush’s campaign. Turd Blossom and Company invested a lot of resources in trying to force another Bush down people’s throats, so that ended any chance that the GOP establishment was going to dictate terms in Cleveland, at the very least. It even provided gristle for the general. When the New York Times complained about “America First”, they might as well have served as a Trumpian satire on establishment thinking, so far was their understanding of how the general public felt. After a quarter century of interventionist fiascos, what exactly was wrong with focusing on the United States for a while? Trump’s understanding of how the world worked might have been crude and incomplete, but taking a relatively straightforward costs/benefits approach to the world, framing it in terms of interests, made a helluva more sense than what the neoliberals, neoconservatives, and dissenting left-all of whom formulated foreign policy in sense of moral duties, even if they disagreed on what exactly that duty was-were proposing.

    But it was the *primary* thing. It’s not lost on the voters how controlled by the wealthy US politics have become. Having his own money and never lacking in media attention, Trump visibly could not be controlled, and that was what led many people who thought he was a clownish figure to nevertheless support him. Jeb Bush would defend elite orthodoxy to the hilt, as would Hillary Clinton. The Donald was meant to be gamble against that. That gamble failed. It doesn’t mean voters will stop gambling, though.

    Had Trump decided not to side with the donors over his base, then he’d probably have far more political insulation against attacks right now, so I can’t claim to have a great deal of sympathy for the man when he whines like a 7 year old on Twitter. Yeah, sure, the effect of the MSM openly outing itself as an extension of the DNC is good, but by allowing GOP ideological fantasies to continue rather than killing them while simultaneously fixing his clownish image to right-wing populism, he’s made things more difficult for nationalism going forward than they have to be.

  53. Art Deco says:
    @Hail

    Has Douthat ever called for general immigration restriction in any form?

    In regard to a particular time and place, Douthat’s parents have been eccentrics. It’s a reasonable wager he’s not alienated from them, so their perspective is a point of departure (in my family, the harsh leftists have one thing in common: they’re angry with their fathers). OTOH, he’s spent his entire life since 1997 around people whose worldview is unlike that of his parents. He’s not a contentious person and he doesn’t have the forensic skills of someone like Ryan Anderson or Robert George, so he’s forever apologizing for what he’s advocating (and responding rather than raising his own issues the way the moderator here does). He’s also taking a salary from The New York Times Company, who canned his predecessor, and that puts certain constraints on him.

  54. nebulafox says:
    @S. Anonyia

    >A Republican candidate who espoused Bernie-lite economic policies would probably win in a landslide because they’d get close to 50 percent of Hispanics and around 20 percent of blacks. And a larger percentage of the white vote, too.

    My point exactly. A candidate willing to espouse economic populism (including trust busting-and this is where you can *really* make Google and Co. hurt and earn the loyalty of aspiring startup founders), Hamiltonian views on trade policy, and non-interventionist foreign policy would not just win, but could remake American politics entirely.

    If you want to revive the American middle class that made the United States such an awesome country, the alliance between bottom and top needs to be broken up, and family formation made re-affordable as the population declines. A society split into the Saved and the Damned becomes feudal or explodes over time. That does mean that rentier policies must be curtailed, and that billionaires will have to be taxed more. Immigration restriction is part of the picture, not all of it. And rest assured, if they try moving to China, they are going to find out pretty quickly that Beijing has zero patience-and can enact its will more harshly than anything they are used to in the US-for businessmen who think that their profits can supersede national interests.

  55. nebulafox says:
    @John Arthur

    >Do you think a future modification of the Sailer Strategy could get Hispanics and Asians to vote like Whites on issues of immigration and crime?

    All the efforts to demonize white people in the press aren’t stopping Hispanics and East Asians from intermarrying with whites at an increasingly rapid rate. Crime is an easy issue, as is illegal immigration: immigrant sentiment against people who bypass the system and undercut wages isn’t particularly hard to find especially among working-class ones, i.e, Cesar Chavez. You’d have to get around the “hypocrite” feeling for first and second-generation immigrants with legal immigration, but remember, you don’t need to be perfect, you need to be better than the alternative. You can come off as way more sane and grounded in reality than pseudo-open borders advocates citing Emma Lazarus like the Bible.

    It is more desirable for the long-term future of our country than allowing racial identitarianism to become a permanent feature of US politics. Current policies-particularly on the left-are seemingly geared toward making that inevitable among whites, and when combined with the structural and socioeconomic issues the US faces, that’s not good for basic stability.

    >At least, I think this approach would work better than the typical approach of pandering to Latino’s love for foreign interventionalism and billionaire tax cuts…

    Does anybody outside the intellectual pundit class love that anymore?

  56. “Well, I’m not a cisgender straight white male, but …. the democrats sure sound like they hate me.”

    Is everyone here familiar with this classic article?
    “Straight Black Men Are the White People of Black People”
    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/straight-black-men-are-the-white-people-of-black-people-1814157214

    As more and more Americans hear they aren’t intersectional enough for the revolution they’ll oppose it.

  57. Muggles says:

    Isn’t Liz Warren a whitex?

    This sort of language deformation is part of the commie-left effort to force everyone to alter the normal word usage of everyday life (so far as I know this is only affecting the English language.)

    So we are supposed to use the latinate “people of color” (like “something de something” in Italian/Spanish, etc.) but not “colored people” which is how English usually handles adjectives. We don’t say “color of orange” or anything like that. How is “people of color” somehow less racist, etc. than “colored people?” It is a nonsensical change done only to subtly coerce normal people into speaking an artificial form of English. A subtle form of demanding obedience from others.

    “Hate speech” is now Left code for “free speech.” There are other examples. Of course language deformation in service of collectivism only affects whitex people who speak English properly. One thing about these malapropisms, this use is a dead giveaway that the speaker is a neo commie Identity Marxist. Who you “are” is what you were born as, unless you uh, snip-snip. So get used to it, Mr. Whitex, you are just being crucified for the sins of your fathers (mothers being saintly and all.)

  58. JAhd says:

    Don’t call me “goy”… the correct word is “gox”

  59. I support LatinX. Spanish is a failed, backwards language with no place in the modern world, and the Anglo world aquires more vitality by destroying it. I can’t believe I’m seeing “conservatives” defend this monkey language after years of complaining about it in the USA.

  60. Dissident says:
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    At first I thought the
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Spelling_Board
    must be a kind of information-packed writing board for children that would help them spell, kind of like a pre-electronic
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speak_%26_Spell_(toy) . I turns out that here “Board” means “Council”.

    How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?

  61. Ed says:
    @S. Anonyia

    The irony is that the avarice of their corporate class of the GOP wing has done them in. Ryanism is probably dead as a national governing ideology. The GOP going forward will take up the strategy you’re suggesting. I’ve noticed Rubio is now speaking up for fairer treatment of the working classes and is wrapping this up in Catholic social justice.

    The GOP can win presidential elections going forward even in the new America but it will be hard pressed to win running like Romney.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  62. @Ed

    Rubio is not hopeless.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
  63. Not Raul says:
    @Steve Sailer

    I agree.

    Rubio might be a contender in 2024.

    I think that Cruz is not as strong as he was in 2016. Evangelicals follow Trump now. Someone closer to Trump, like a member of his family, or a member of his administration (like Haley) looks stronger.

    Cotton is ambitious. Maybe he’ll be a serious contender for the nomination in 2024; but I don’t see him catching fire with independents, or Trump Democrats. He’s too square.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS