"So, it's not true that the American media doesn't cover Mexico, but what's lacking is any kind of resonance in the NY-DC media echo chamber."
I am familiar with DC, and one reason the left finds it hard to focus on Hispanics is because the establishment left has spent so many decades investing their time, soul and energy to promote blacks that liberals don’t have the same emotional bond with Mexicans in the way they have with blacks.
You also are correct Steve that white liberals struggle to stay interested in the welfare of Hispanics because they are, in your words, “bored” with Mexicans.
And really, why shouldn’t people be bored with them?
Mexicans aren’t good at much, nor do they have charismatic leaders and entertainers and athletes like blacks do. So it is hard for even liberals to get excited about their wellbeing.
Old Right
8/5/07, 7:27 AM
Anonymous said...
Well, say what you will, Mexico at least has entertaining corrupt politicians, as opposed to boring buffoons like Ted Kennedy and Arlen Specter. No wonder Fred Reed likes it down there.
8/5/07, 9:01 AM
Anonymous said...
Really? A zoo?
8/5/07, 12:23 PM
essex said...
Don't forget that focusing on something like this will be seen by the Hispanic lobby as "anti-Latino bias," even though the story is absolute fact. Especially here in the NE, where familiarity with Mexican immigrants is low and familiarity with Mexico itself even lower, a journalist runs the risk of being accused of "focusing on negative stereotypes," "holding Latinos up to ridicule," etc. and being Mau-Mau'd into an apology. Why bother to run that risk when 75% of your audience will move on to the next story as soon as they see "Mexico" in the headline?
8/5/07, 2:28 PM
Anonymous said...
Really? A zoo?
a zoo is not a big deal. many of the respectable men of mexico have a zoo. it is good entertainment for the grandchildren. and it's a workable option for quick body disposal. uppity competitor makes a good tiger treat no?
in mexico these days it's not enough just to kill a man. you must do it with style and that will send the message. after all this is a place where they put a policemen's head on the city hall steps as form of communication. "...can you hear me now?"
8/5/07, 4:05 PM
Anonymous said...
I laughed so hard it hurt, anon 4:05. : )
8/5/07, 6:37 PM
Fred said...
"Mexicans aren’t good at much, nor do they have charismatic leaders and entertainers and athletes like blacks do."
What about Salma Hayek? Gael Garcia Bernal? Or Mexican-American boxer/promoter/producer/philanthropist Oscar De La Hoya? They can probably scrape up a little charisma between the three of them, no?
8/5/07, 7:32 PM
Anonymous said...
I knew someone-probably Fred- would bring up Oscar De La Hoya. KInd of like Eddie Murphy(in some movie) when playing a barber complains: "Evratim' I start talkin' boxin' some white guy pulls Rocky Marciano outta 'is ass."
8/5/07, 9:52 PM
Fred said...
"I knew someone-probably Fred- would bring up Oscar De La Hoya. KInd of like Eddie Murphy(in some movie) when playing a barber complains: "Evratim' I start talkin' boxin' some white guy pulls Rocky Marciano outta 'is ass."
The movie was "Coming to America".
The problem with your analogy is that boxing is something Mexicans are actually good at: there are plenty of talented Mexican-American and Mexican boxers besides De La Hoya. Any boxing fan knows that, and most will tell you that the greatest fight they saw this decade featured a Mexican fighter (Jose Luis Castillo, in his first bout against the late Diego Corralles, who was half-Mexican).
8/6/07, 12:16 AM
Anonymous said...
But of course the NE elite pays almost no attention to boxing anymore, so they are not going to notice charismatic mexican boxers. It's not like the 1930's, when boxing was the second most popular sport, behind baseball.
8/6/07, 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...
It's not like the 1930's, when boxing was the second most popular sport, behind baseball.
The USA in the 1930's was still a patriarchy. The USA in 2007 is no longer a patriarchy and is on the way to full-blown matriarchy.
If the trend toward matriarchy were to continue, boxing would be marginalized further and eventually disappear. But, of course, the trend can't continue much further as all matriarchies are by definition unstable and will succumb to external patriarchy.
Patriarchal latino culture is invading the USA and they are big supporters of boxing. Good news for boxing fans.
On the other hand, the father of latino culture, patriarchal Islam (thru Moorish Spain), is on the march globally. Islam is the fastest growing religion in Latin America. And Islam doesn't much approve of boxing culture.
8/6/07, 4:14 PM
Anonymous said...
Salma Hayek is unrepresentative of the Latin mestizo population. She is half Spanish conquistador and half Lebanese-Assyrian. She is not La Raza.
8/6/07, 4:20 PM
Fred said...
"The USA in the 1930's was still a patriarchy. The USA in 2007 is no longer a patriarchy and is on the way to full-blown matriarchy.
If the trend toward matriarchy were to continue, boxing would be marginalized further and eventually disappear."
Boxing's recent problems are largely endogenous -- multiple alphabet soup organizations sponsoring belts, a corrupt ranking and promoting system, etc. As a result, belt-holders fight infrequently, and often only after lengthy legal proceedings. Despite any trend toward "matriarchy", America's most popular sport by far is NFL football, which is also our most violent sport. Our fastest-growing new sport is mixed martial arts/ultimate fighting.
8/6/07, 7:27 PM
Anonymous said...
The USA in 2007 is no longer a patriarchy and is on the way to full-blown matriarchy.
Matriarchy?!?
The word implies that the women in question actually slept with men and nine months later produced live births.
Would that we could even aspire to matriarchy.
What we're dealing with in post-modern society is full-blown dyke-iarchy.
Government of the butch, by the butch, and for the butch.
All hail the velvet mafia.
8/6/07, 9:17 PM
The LA Times reports on the campaign for governor of the northern half of Baja California by former Tijuana mayor Jorge Hank Rhon (whom I wrote about a month ago in VDARE.com): He offers reporters drinks of his favorite tequila, custom-brewed by a Chinese-Mexican restaurateur and fermented with rattlesnake hides and penises of lions and tigers, which the father of 19 swears makes him virile.
On a recent swing through the Valle de Mexicali, Hank took the wheel of a van carrying 14 volunteers and screeched around tight turns, ran stop signs and blew through red lights. In the rush to keep up, one volunteer almost slammed the door on a woman trying to give Hank a letter.
Hank, 51, is PRI royalty, the son of Carlos Hank Gonzalez, an early party stalwart and former governor of the state of Mexico and Mexico City mayor who amassed a billion-dollar fortune and, according to legend, coined the phrase, "A politician who is poor is a poor politician."
The younger Hank moved to Tijuana in 1985 to run the historic Agua Caliente track, which features dog races. The enormous grandstand is the showcase property in an empire that includes shopping centers, hotels and off-track betting parlors.
Hank, who inherited half his father's wealth, estimates his worth has doubled to $1 billion in the last three years.
To many, he appears to spend every penny of it.
This year he flew in superstar singers Julio Iglesias and Luis Miguel to entertain at personal parties. He owns about 30 cars and a house in Vail, Colo. Three times a year, he throws open the doors at the racetrack for gift-giving extravaganzas. On Mother's Day, thousands of women cart home stoves, refrigerators and other appliances.
Behind his home he keeps an enormous private zoo. It has bears and lions, kangaroos and ostriches, and three rare white tigers. The zoo, which has 20,000 animals, isn't that impressive, Hank says. "Any sultan or guy in Africa has a zoo," he once said. ...In a comic book distributed to children at events, Hank is depicted as a caped superhero, Hombre H., a fearless crime fighter and protector of the poor. Fun stuff.
So, it's not true that the American media doesn't cover Mexico, but what's lacking is any kind of resonance in the NY-DC media echo chamber. This kind of south-of-the-border color gets dutifully reported upon, but that's as far as it goes in the press.
"Covering Mexico"
14 Comments -
"So, it's not true that the American media doesn't cover Mexico, but what's lacking is any kind of resonance in the NY-DC media echo chamber."
I am familiar with DC, and one reason the left finds it hard to focus on Hispanics is because the establishment left has spent so many decades investing their time, soul and energy to promote blacks that liberals don’t have the same emotional bond with Mexicans in the way they have with blacks.
You also are correct Steve that white liberals struggle to stay interested in the welfare of Hispanics because they are, in your words, “bored” with Mexicans.
And really, why shouldn’t people be bored with them?
Mexicans aren’t good at much, nor do they have charismatic leaders and entertainers and athletes like blacks do. So it is hard for even liberals to get excited about their wellbeing.
Old Right
8/5/07, 7:27 AM
Well, say what you will, Mexico at least has entertaining corrupt politicians, as opposed to boring buffoons like Ted Kennedy and Arlen Specter. No wonder Fred Reed likes it down there.
8/5/07, 9:01 AM
Really? A zoo?
8/5/07, 12:23 PM
Don't forget that focusing on something like this will be seen by the Hispanic lobby as "anti-Latino bias," even though the story is absolute fact. Especially here in the NE, where familiarity with Mexican immigrants is low and familiarity with Mexico itself even lower, a journalist runs the risk of being accused of "focusing on negative stereotypes," "holding Latinos up to ridicule," etc. and being Mau-Mau'd into an apology. Why bother to run that risk when 75% of your audience will move on to the next story as soon as they see "Mexico" in the headline?
8/5/07, 2:28 PM
Really? A zoo?
a zoo is not a big deal. many of the respectable men of mexico have a zoo. it is good entertainment for the grandchildren. and it's a workable option for quick body disposal. uppity competitor makes a good tiger treat no?
in mexico these days it's not enough just to kill a man. you must do it with style and that will send the message. after all this is a place where they put a policemen's head on the city hall steps as form of communication. "...can you hear me now?"
8/5/07, 4:05 PM
I laughed so hard it hurt, anon 4:05. : )
8/5/07, 6:37 PM
"Mexicans aren’t good at much, nor do they have charismatic leaders and entertainers and athletes like blacks do."
What about Salma Hayek? Gael Garcia Bernal? Or Mexican-American boxer/promoter/producer/philanthropist Oscar De La Hoya? They can probably scrape up a little charisma between the three of them, no?
8/5/07, 7:32 PM
I knew someone-probably Fred- would bring up Oscar De La Hoya. KInd of like Eddie Murphy(in some movie) when playing a barber complains: "Evratim' I start talkin' boxin' some white guy pulls Rocky Marciano outta 'is ass."
8/5/07, 9:52 PM
"I knew someone-probably Fred- would bring up Oscar De La Hoya. KInd of like Eddie Murphy(in some movie) when playing a barber complains: "Evratim' I start talkin' boxin' some white guy pulls Rocky Marciano outta 'is ass."
The movie was "Coming to America".
The problem with your analogy is that boxing is something Mexicans are actually good at: there are plenty of talented Mexican-American and Mexican boxers besides De La Hoya. Any boxing fan knows that, and most will tell you that the greatest fight they saw this decade featured a Mexican fighter (Jose Luis Castillo, in his first bout against the late Diego Corralles, who was half-Mexican).
8/6/07, 12:16 AM
But of course the NE elite pays almost no attention to boxing anymore, so they are not going to notice charismatic mexican boxers. It's not like the 1930's, when boxing was the second most popular sport, behind baseball.
8/6/07, 2:24 PM
It's not like the 1930's, when boxing was the second most popular sport, behind baseball.
The USA in the 1930's was still a patriarchy. The USA in 2007 is no longer a patriarchy and is on the way to full-blown matriarchy.
If the trend toward matriarchy were to continue, boxing would be marginalized further and eventually disappear. But, of course, the trend can't continue much further as all matriarchies are by definition unstable and will succumb to external patriarchy.
Patriarchal latino culture is invading the USA and they are big supporters of boxing. Good news for boxing fans.
On the other hand, the father of latino culture, patriarchal Islam (thru Moorish Spain), is on the march globally. Islam is the fastest growing religion in Latin America. And Islam doesn't much approve of boxing culture.
8/6/07, 4:14 PM
Salma Hayek is unrepresentative of the Latin mestizo population. She is half Spanish conquistador and half Lebanese-Assyrian. She is not La Raza.
8/6/07, 4:20 PM
"The USA in the 1930's was still a patriarchy. The USA in 2007 is no longer a patriarchy and is on the way to full-blown matriarchy.
If the trend toward matriarchy were to continue, boxing would be marginalized further and eventually disappear."
Boxing's recent problems are largely endogenous -- multiple alphabet soup organizations sponsoring belts, a corrupt ranking and promoting system, etc. As a result, belt-holders fight infrequently, and often only after lengthy legal proceedings. Despite any trend toward "matriarchy", America's most popular sport by far is NFL football, which is also our most violent sport. Our fastest-growing new sport is mixed martial arts/ultimate fighting.
8/6/07, 7:27 PM
The USA in 2007 is no longer a patriarchy and is on the way to full-blown matriarchy.
Matriarchy?!?
The word implies that the women in question actually slept with men and nine months later produced live births.
Would that we could even aspire to matriarchy.
What we're dealing with in post-modern society is full-blown dyke-iarchy.
Government of the butch, by the butch, and for the butch.
All hail the velvet mafia.
8/6/07, 9:17 PM