La Raza in L.A.

Moonbat Monitor has the alarm bell ringing on our own immigration problems in light of Paris. This observation was bound to be made, and I for one don't necessarily think it shouldn't be made. After all, hordes of unassimilated immigrants was how Texas stopped being Mexican in the first place.


Yet I can't help recalling Boxing Alcibiades' Humble Proposal on the Mexican Border, in which he writes:

As a Texan "anglo" (I hate that stupid term), I may not celebrate the Day of the Dead, but I sure have a lot more in common with Mexican emigres I've met, especially from Gerrero, Tamalpais, and Coahuila, than I do the typical New Yorker or Bostonian, both of whom, to judge by the newspapers, are regularly embarrassed at my state's mere existence. And the average guy in Indiana probably has an easier time understanding one of the many Mennonites in Chihuahua than he does the Chomsky-worshipping residents of Berserkely...

And this:

In fact, language is pretty much the only barrier Mexicans face to assimilation, at least when politicians aren't busy using race as a divide-and-conquer issue in LA. It certainly isn't the ranchero music, which sounds alarmingly close to something you might hear a couple of old guys playing at a Polish wedding in upstate Wisconsin. Mexicans who desire to assimilate do so almost instantly, as soon as they can speak English, because their values are so nearly identical to our own. Much closer than other groups, even those who integrate well, but steadfastly refuse any notion of assimilation. Go on, tell some cute girl from India that she should marry a white guy or a Navajo. G'wan, try it.

All of which is well and good. But if it took numbers to make a Revolution, there'd never be one. So what DO we do about those racial mau-mauers and their dreams of a Republica del Norte? Shuddering in horror is not an answer.


UPDATE: Russ suggested I should take an actual stand on the issue, and Moonbat Moniter gave me a link promising "interesting bits of info". So I suppose I had better offer some. A few points:

Both the French and Russian Revolutions were launched by a small but determined clique of educated radicals. At no time did the balance of the populations support either revolution, indeed, both the National Convention and the Politburo had to engage in extensive counterguerilla warfare against the peasant populations who had risen up in armed resistance. The latter's campaign constitutes a largely unknown portion of Russian History; when the war against the Whites was over, the Reds still had to tangle with the "Greens", and that continued for several years.

Revolutions also tend to break down ruling classes that are weak or retreating. It is always after the tyrant releases his grip that the revolution happens, not before. Louie Seize and Nicky Deuce were no man's idea of tyrants; by any reasonable account, they were unsure, self-effacing family men who went along with the tied of reform. Louie Quatorze and Alex Trip would have devoured Danton and Lenin respectively (in point of fact, it was the execution of his elder brother for a plot against the life of Triple Al that, according to him anyway, turned Lenin into a revolutionary). Nor were the nobility any help. For decades before 1917 in Russia the nobility had feared and expected a Revolution, the causes of which they could not be bothered to mobilize against, and the French elite of 1789 was in many cases on the side of the bourgeoisie, or at any rate did not care to resist them.

In spite of all of this, a preponderance of firepower could have stifled either revolt in its infancy. A professor of mine at St. Joes was noted for saying that with a few thousand loyal riflemen the Tsar could have survived 1917, and the performance of the Swiss Guards in Paris in 1789 were not inspirational. But you must have men who are ready, willing, and able to fire on civilians, who perceive them as their enemies, and the enemies of their society.

The true questions, therefore, are these:

1) How popular are the Alte-Californians among the balance of the Hispanic community? Do our Mexican immigrants feel significant animus against the Treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo to desire revanche?

2) How serious are these radicals? Do they really want to create their Republica del Norte, and are they willing to shed the necessary blood to obtain it? Or is this merely a pose to bait the Man?

3) Is our elite prepared to deny them such, and stomp on them vociferously if the desire? Are they willing to shed blood?

4) If they are, will our police and soldiers respond to the call?


Question 4 seems to be a certain "yes", and I'm pretty sure that somewhere along the line 3 will turn out to be "yes" as well. For the rest, more data is required.