Counter-Currents
A breakfast taco: the new n-word?
1,635 words
Mexicans are an undeniably proud people, whether they have reason to be proud or not.
I’ve written a lot about Texas lately, but only because Hispanics are goin’ bonkers down there killing other Hispanics in school shootings and migrant-smuggling disasters. In those two incidents alone, the first of which occurred about 85 miles from San Antonio and the other of which happened on San Antonio’s outskirts, Hispanics killed 74 Hispanics.
One would think that 74 dead Hispanics would be more concerning to the National Association of Hispanic Journalists than the fact that First Lady Jill Biden, in an overarchingly clumsy attempt to flatter San Antonio’s Hispanics, compared America’s Hispanics to tacos.
Ms. Biden had been flown into San Antonio — a town which is nearly two-thirds Hispanic and less than a quarter white — to grovel before the assembled Hispanics at the UnidosUS Annual Conference. Formerly known as the National Council of La Raza, the organization is allegedly America’s “largest” Hispanic advocacy group, although I don’t know whether they measure size in terms of membership, revenue, or aggregate height.
The non-profit organization was founded in 1968 with money from the Ford Foundation and initially focused its “outreach” efforts specifically toward Mexican Americans with the intent of squeezing as many of them as possible within US borders and keeping them from deportation once they’ve been squeezed in here. By 1980, the group had expanded to embrace all Spanish-speaking peoples in the United States and was receiving almost all of its funding from the federal government — i.e., indigenous gringo taxpayers. In 2017 it changed its name to UnidosUS, possibly due to the fact that there was no honest way of denying that “La Raza” meant “the race,” and some considered it to be an optical blunder to pretend you’re fighting “racism” while calling yourself “the race.”
The event where Biden was speaking was called “Siempre Adelante: Our Quest for Equity,” and she focused her speech on the work of Raul Yzaguirre, President of UnidosUS, former US Ambassador to the Dominican Republic, and, just last week, the recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which is the highest award possible for an American civilian. Yzaguirre is also a lifelong member of the Council of Foreign Relations, just like anyone who makes it their mission to fight on behalf of the poor and underprivileged.
Not bad for a fella who for about 50 years had been a pivotal player in an organization called the National Council for the Race.
While giving a tongue bath to Yzaguirre and the very notion of the noble Hispanic race, Ms. Biden’s blunder was to compare them all to tacos:
Raul helped build this organization with the understanding that the diversity of this community, as distinct as the bodegas of the Bronx, as beautiful as the blossoms of Miami, and as unique as the breakfast tacos here in San Antonio, is your strength.
Crammed firmly in there among all the awkward similes like rice rolled tightly into a burrito was the provably fraudulent notion that “diversity is our strength.”
Biden mispronounced “bodega” as “BOW-guh-dah,” recalling the time she told a largely Hispanic crowd “Si se puede!” (roughly, “Yes, we can!”), but instead pronounced it something along the lines of “See say pwodway!”
The one that really threw me for a loop was “the blossoms of Miami.” When you search for the term “the blossoms of Miami” in quotes on Google Images, all you get are pictures of Jill Biden. Did she make that up? The blossoms of Miami? Is that some kind of coded speech that rich pedophiles use? Have I just uncovered the next Pizzagate?
But the First Lady’s most incendiary comment proved to be the one about “breakfast tacos.” I’m familiar with breakfast burritos. It’s like a regular burrito, but with scrambled eggs rather than dog meat, right? But I’ve never heard of “breakfast tacos” until now. What in the name of Pancho Villa’s smelly corpse is a “breakfast taco”?
This passage suggests that it’s really no different from a breakfast burrito:
People in South Texas call them breakfast tacos, meanwhile, in the Panhandle of Texas and in California they are referred to as “breakfast burritos.” To some, it is considered an insult to call a breakfast taco a burrito because you don’t roll up your breakfast taco (you could, but why would you?), you fold your taco.
Biden’s comparison of Hispanics to tacos earned her a swift condemnation from the National Association of Hispanic Journalists:
Using breakfast tacos to try to demonstrate the uniqueness of Latinos in San Antonio demonstrates a lack of cultural knowledge and sensitivity to the diversity of Latinos in the region. NAHJ encourages Dr. Biden and her speech writing team to (take) the time in the future to better understand the complexities of our people and communities. . . . We are not tacos. Our heritage as Latinos is shaped by various diasporas, cultures & food traditions. Do not reduce us to stereotypes.
Come again, Speedy Gonzales? One of life’s greatest pastimes is reducing people to stereotypes, and I’ll be damned if I let some five-foot-tall Mesoamerican ingrate deny me that pleasure.
The National Association of Hispanic Journalists is sort of like the National Association of Black Journalists, the Asian American Journalists Association, and the American Jewish Press Association. Why is there no National Association of White Journalists? The fact that no mainstream journalist dares to ask that question is proof that journalism is effectively dead in America.
I will grant whoever wrote that “We are not tacos” passage the benefit of the doubt and assume that English is not their first language. Jill Biden did not call you tacos. She compared your alleged “diversity” to that of breakfast tacos. It was a simile, not a metaphor. And as far as I can tell, there isn’t much diversity among “breakfast tacos,” but there doesn’t seem to be much diversity when I search for pictures of “Mexicans,” either.
Perhaps Biden’s most grievous mistake, at least in factual matters, was to imply that either breakfast tacos or the Hispanic community was diverse.
I insist on using the term “Hispanic” to describe them. I will never call them “Latinos,” as it’s an affront to the great Roman Empire and anyone who’s ever sat through a Latin Mass. There is nothing “Latin” about Hispanics. In a quite literal sense, the mouth-breathing Dagos of Jersey Shore are more “Latino” than any Mexican boxer is.
They are rightly called “Hispanics” because they speak the language of their Spanish conquerors, and the Spanish had a tendency only to conquer short, brown peoples, whether in the Americas or way out yonder in the Philippines.
You can buy Jim Goad’s Whiteness: The Original Sin here.
In purely racial terms, Hispanics are white only to the degree to which Spanish blood courses through their veins. But the truest “diversity” among American Hispanics, at least in cultural terms, may be the degree to which they identify as white. As of 2010, about half of all Americans born in Mexico identified as white. On the high end of the “white Hispanic” spectrum, 85% of Cuban Americans identified as white. On the low end, only 30% of Dominican Americans considered themselves white.
One thing is for certain: They are definitely not so white that American politicians refuse to pander to them as a distinct racial constituency. It’s known as “Hispandering,” and nearly all politicians do it. Hillary Clinton infamously bragged about how she carries hot sauce wherever she goes, called herself “La Hillary,” and ran campaign ads about how she’s like your Spanish granny. In 1988, Vice President George H. W. Bush referred to his three Hispanic grandchildren as “the little brown ones.” But despite the fact that he never got a wall built, Donald Trump was absolutely hilarious about Mexicans — not only when he called them rapists, but when he tweeted a picture of himself on Cinco de Mayo with a Trump Tower “taco bowl” and the phrase “I love Hispanics!”
Many Hispanics took offense at Trump’s in-your-face attempt at pandering. Imagine being so entitled that you enjoy the privilege of getting offended even when someone tries to compliment you.
Chastened, humbled, and terrified by La Raza’s condemnation, Biden issued an apology through a spokesman on Tuesday: “The first lady apologizes that her words conveyed anything but pure admiration and love for the Latino community.”
So get this straight: The coolest thing Jill Biden ever did apart from eschewing bras in her youth was to upset Mexicans by comparing them to tacos, and here she goes and starts groveling.
It’s been a running joke for about 30 years that when asked to explain anything positive about diversity, the only thing that even its most ardent academic proponents can come up with is, “Well, we get a wider selection of ethnic restaurants in our high-priced, upscale, mostly white urban enclaves.”
Even though no one was literally referring to Mexicans as tacos, I can think of a lot worse things people could call them. “Mexcrement,” for one. Also, “car thieves,” “chili-shitters,” “garden gnomes,” and “Latrinos.” Tacos might be one of the few positive things that normal Americans associate with Mexicans. Why spoil a good thing?
Would they rather be known for rape, drug cartels, corruption, and being short?
I’m from Philly and would be downright flattered if you called me a cheese steak or a hoagie.
Where I grew up, we freckle-faced Celts referred to Italians as “meatballs,” and I don’t ever recall anyone taking offense. Everyone in my neighborhood, Irish and Italian alike, enjoyed spaghetti and meatballs.
Why en el mundo should they be offended at being compared to tacos when it’s a documented fact — and I’m the one who documented it — that the only thing Mexicans have ever invented was the nacho? Maybe they should be even more offended at the fact that no one has ever stereotyped them as geniuses.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
40 comments
Diversity is perversity (Michael Savage)
A mate of mine swears that public toilets frequented by Mexicans stink far worse than public toilets in areas where Mexicans are few.
If you’ve never had the pleasure of working in a shop with several dozen Hispanic men from south of the border, you would be surprised and disgusted at the fact that they do not flush their used toilet paper. By the end of the week there would be a pile of shitty paper in the corner next to the toilet. I wish I was making this up.
Can confirm. My mom was living in an apartment in a very posh part of Florida and called the office because the toilet wasn’t flushing properly. Mexican facilities guy shows up and tells her to STOP FLUSHING TOILET PAPER and put it in the garbage instead. She thought she misunderstood him and made him explain it like three times. Then she called the office to request a new guy.
The plumbing pipes in many countries are too small to carry paper, so they put their tp in the garbage
I wonder if this relates to not being able to read the frequent signs “Do not flush paper towels” which do clog toilets.
I asked a warehouse manager about this once as in ” why not post a sign in Spanish in the bathroom stalls?” He said his employees were illiterate in all languages
“Diversity is perversity”
Did Michael Savage, the Jewish podcast host, say that? If so, that’s rich coming from him.
I don’t understand why Mexicans are so proud of their country (and they are), but they want to leave their country by the tens and tens of millions.
When you ask them (as I have often done in Los Angeles), “What’s wrong with Mexico?” they give me many answers about the economy, drug cartels, corruption, but they never say “Mexicans.”
That is the very Michael Savage.
I think Mexicans are the only migrant group that doesn’t intend to stay in the US permanently.
I don’t know about where you all live but I’ve noticed here, a city awash in Mexicans, that when dining at a Mexican restaurant there are never Mexicans also dining there.
I know it will never be but we should pursue white South Africans for immigration. There are only a few of them here and one is now the wealthiest man on earth.
“Did she make that up? The blossoms of Miami? Is that some kind of coded speech that rich pedophiles use? Have I just uncovered the next Pizzagate?”
As likely as any other theory. This is how conspiracy theories start: by assuming these people mean what they say. We’re a long way from JFK. These people are all either senile (Biden, Pelosi, Schumer), coked to the gills, or simply don’t give a rat’s ass what they say, as no one pays any attention anyway. Some day a real storm will come and wash this trash away; until then, best to ignore what they say (but not what they do).
These people are coming by the millions, and they’re bringing a dysfunctional corrupt culture with them. Am I the only one worried by their documented gang violence? Mexico is a fascinating country, but it would be great if they stopped exporting so much drugs and criminality.
Myself, I’m waiting for the first ‘Cholo Loco Taco’ to make an appearance, probably here in L.A. man, L.A.– though no one from here even better say that one out loud!
As for ‘Latinx’ — I can just hear all the mamacitas from Tijuana to Tulare to Twin Falls shrieking: “My daughter is now calling herself a ‘La Tinks’! What the hell is a La Tinks?!
And “La Raza”, the organization, is still “La Raza” no matter how they attempt to whitewash themselves to gain ‘street creds’ with the NGOs that support them.
I agree with the mamacitas, and all of them that I see loath that dumb word whose creators can’t even get their bullshit grammatically correct. It should be Latin-X, not latinx cause I say la-tinks as well. I support all abuelitas beaning their chancletas at heads like Nolan Ryan.
They only invented nachos? You mean, like, they didn’t invent spray paint too?
Nope.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Rotheim
Erik Rotheim didn’t invent spray paint he only invented the aerosol can.
Ed Seymour invented spray paint when he was trying to find an easy way to demonstrate his aluminum coating for painting radiators and he gave in to his wife after he got tired of listening to her nag him about using a spray gun.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/magazine/who-made-spray-paint.html
I stand corrected. Thank you.
How many great inventions came about because men were tired of listening to women nag? No wonder they outlive us by several years.
Even Nacho’s were invented after a female customer nagged the chef for something different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nachos#History
Then I nominate both of them as honorary Tacos.
Senor Jim really was really seasoning the meal with spicy zingers this week. Indeed, everyone quickly mentions Americanized ethic food as great for diversity… until some affirmative action hits their paycheck. I also frequently hear “they are doing the jobs American’s don’t want to do”, which has already been well deconstructed. More savvy news outlets talk about what the science says, and highlight a not easily generalizable study that a diverse group got better results on some task, while overlooking studies that find the opposite.
“they are doing the jobs American’s don’t want to do”
Which, more or less, translates into “they lower the value of labor.”
Everyone should use “mestizo,” not Hispanic, Latino, Chicano, etc. I think mestizo is a neutral word that won’t get you in trouble, but I don’t think these “white” people like being reminded they have Indio blood either.
A long time ago Steve Sailer had a blog entry about how even full-blooded Indians will be considered mestizos by their fellow Indians–if they leave their village and go to work in the city. I thought that was fascinating. Steve did too and wrote he wished there was more research on this, but there are no academic grants to study race, for obvious reasons, so we have to rely on anecdotes.
“Mejorar la raza” means improve the race. This is what brown grandparents say when their grandkids marry a white person in Mexico. The USA has an inverted version of this, I.e. an obsession with brownness, probably because affirmative action has influenced our culture so much. Whites are dying to identify as Native American for the college benefits, and Hispanics get all kinds of grants and wildcards with social programs, university applications and loans. It’s created a false sense of pride for them. Though I’d be embarrassed if I needed special handicaps to succeed.
None of that stuff is safe for breakfast
Leave that poor woman alone. She’s got enough problems.
“Blanche? Have you seen my Metamucil?”
“Joe, my name is Jill.”
She probably awakes each day to gnarly-ass Hunter free-basing in the Grover Cleveland breakfast nook. Cut her some slack.
Try finding someone to Scotchgard the furniture at the last minute because the Clintons are stopping over.
Imagine having the Obamas to a state dinner and you have to be the one to tactfully ask that they not to put the plates in their lips?
Hahahahahahaha
Probably the only Mexicans she’s ever seen before were mowing her lawn so she can be forgiven for not knowing a taco from a Meximelt.
There’s still a lot of myths regarding Hispanics/Mexicans in the Mainstream/Cuckservative Right, from “Mexicans-as-natural-conservatives” to the “hot Latina” stereotype a lot of PUAs/dudebros/alpha male larpers seem to love. Joke’s on them, one of the mistakes of the right is focusing too much in blacks and not enough on hispanics, which can be as bad as blacks. They can be as loud, filthy, violent, victimist and backwards in general. Even the same ghetto blacks in cities like Chicago and Los Angeles are being replaced by fat, short, brown dudes who can’t even speak a word of English. if the peace of the midnight in you neighbourhood suddenly gets interrupted by that shitty Mexican polka made by dudes who can’t sing or play their instruments properly, time to move on to another place.
Everyone has heard the famous mariachi song “Cielito Lindo,” whether they know it or not. They even use it as an ice cream truck song now. My question is, when you were in elementary school, did kids sing the chorus like “Ay, ay, ay, ay/Your mother she douches with Drano”? There might have been other parody lines for the rest of the song, but the Drano bit was all you really needed in fourth grade.
The original song is a fine song, by the way. Kids must have known it then because it was used in Warner Bros. cartoons as the music whenever a stereotypical Mexican character was shown, that’s my guess.
Isn’t that the Frito Bandito song?
Damn, young Jill was fine.
“There is nothing ‘Latin’ about Hispanics… They are rightly called ‘Hispanics’ because they speak the language of their Spanish conquerors.”
Yes, but, in speaking the language of their Spanish conquerors (from whom they are also partially descended), they also speak a language derived from Latin, i.e. a Romance language, which languages are also sometimes referred to as ‘Latin‘ or ‘neo-Latin‘ languages.
Although I dislike both terms, I would say ‘Latino‘ is marginally less objectionable than ‘Hispanic‘, since the latter word literally means ‘Spanish‘ (or perhaps ‘Iberian‘ more generally), and, whatever else Latino/Hispanic people may be, they are certainly not Spanish, since they were not born and do not live in Spain (though most certainly have some Spanish ancestry).
However, all this is a bit pedantic. Almost all words have changed in meaning if you go back far enough.
For example, the ethonyms ‘Caucasian‘ and ‘Asian‘ both originally had very different meanings from their current American usage, original referring respectively to the Caucasus region and the Greek word for Anatolia, the indigenous populations of neither of which regions would likely be classed as ‘Caucasian‘ or ‘Asian‘ by modern American standards.
Does this mean these words too (and countless others) should be abandoned?
This may be a major inflection point. I think we could see an alliance between white conservative Republicans and a mix of conservative Hispanics but mostly disaffected Democratic Hispanics who feel their votes are being taken for granted by the Democrats.
I’m a little late to comment here but wouldn’t necessarily belittle this alliance. Most Mexicans are at least Mestizo, so they are in essence half Spanish, ergo half white. I’ve worked with Mexicans. They’re hard working and good people. Sure, there are the criminals but at least with Mexicans they seem to own up to it and don’t play the race card that blacks do. Also, Mexicans aren’t going to be brow-beaten the way whites are to have the hyper-altruism that whites do to go against their interests for the benefits of blacks. Thus there’s a sort of “player 3 [Hispanics] has entered the game” effect in the initial whites versus blacks ethnic conflict. Ostensibly, Hispanics had more in common with blacks but I think we’re beginning to see that it’s much more nuanced than that, to the extent that Hispanics may have more common ground with CC readers and even wignats.
Stop parroting the mainstream GOP points and watching Fox News dude. Mexicans and Central Americans aren’t “natural conservatives, hard working, anti-woke” anymore. That’s just a tired old meme without any basis on reality. Mexicans have a deep resentment towards the white gringo, but (still) are less open about about it than blacks. The Hispanics that could be mostly good people are South Americans and Caribbeans that came to USA legally. Mexicans being decente would be been true maybe in the 80s, but not nowadays. Thanks to Reagan and Bush the scum of Mexico and Central America flooded the Southwest. Who do you think are the foots soldiers of Mexican drug cartels who operate all kinds of shady stuff behind legit façades in the US? Who are the worst drivers along with blacks? Who are the most keen to child abuse, incest and child porn?
I was afraid I would come off as too much of the boomer, “Hispanics are natural conservatives!” meme. That was not my intent. My intent was that there could be just enough of the good Hispanics, the ones that came in legally, that may be upset by the taco remark and realize they have more in common with whitey. Yes, there are the illegals who as Trump said, “they aren’t sending there bests.” Chances are the Hispanics who are here legally don’t particularly like them either. IIRC, Cesear Chavez and his labor goons with beat the hell out of illegal aliens trying to come in and work for less. So what I’m saying is that these type of Hispanics may see that they have more in common with whites than blacks and thus break the united BIPOC paradigm. Thus they aren’t conservative per se but see that their racial interests are more interwoven with the interests of whites than blacks. And what with the Republican party being the party of implicit whiteness they may vote for Republicans. Liberal now basically means being anti-white. If you’re for social security, are pro-choice, but are also a white advocate than that ipso facto means you’re a right wing fascist.
“I was afraid I would come off as too much of the boomer, “Hispanics are natural conservatives!” meme.”
Ahh, those rascally “boomers”…kind of like this guy:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ronald_reagan_411959
“My intent was that there could be just enough of the good Hispanics, the ones that came in legally…”
It’s not good that there are ANY Hispanics migrating here, legally or otherwise. Having two distinct cultures trying to occupy the same territory will lead to nothing but conflict and ruin. When has that not been the case?
Keep in mind, the elites decided to destroy the country with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (before any “boomers” were even able to vote, by the way.)
A few months before the passage of that act a poll was taken asking citizens this question: “Thinking now about immigrants — that is, people who come from other countries to live here in the United States, in your view, should immigration be kept at its present level, increased or decreased?”
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx
Only 7% thought that immigration should be increased but the elites passed the act anyway.
To further the gaslighting, Senator Ted Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the Act, said, “...our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.”
Both statements proved to be egregiously incorrect.
Our nation was created by and established for white Europeans. That’s who they were referring to in the preamble of the Constitution when they mentioned “ourselves and our posterity.” Nothing in there about those “good Hispanics” legally migrating from the south.
I won’t argue that the founding father’s wanted the US to be a white ethnostate. The immigration of act of 1790 pretty much establishes that. I won’t disagree that racial homogeneity is an ideal to ensure less racial and ethnic conflict. Look at Japan. Ever hear of a bodega held up by Japanese school girls? But the fruits of the immigration act of 1965 have born their fruit and that fruit has had a lot of seeds.
I’m just speaking pragmatically. For the time being, a federally sanctioned white ethnostate somewhere in the US has about as much chance as Derek Chauvin winning his appeal. Diversity is our greatest strength and all that jazz. Oh, and lest we forget, the cartel that is the federal government needs the white middle and upper class to finance the very things that are to the determent of the white middle and upper class.
I think a lot of mestizos are race realists. They are content being in the working and middle class. The ruling class in most of Central and South America are mostly castizos. So pragmatically speaking a political alliance between conservative minded Hispanics and white Republicans make sense. It’s by no means ideal a la a white ethnostate but at least it will keep crazy leftists and soft on black crime types at bay. Republicans can use the diversity joker card as the left seethes that Hispanics are leaving them. Not to mention the optics of say Democrats noticing things like the whiteness of castizos and questioning their identity as Mexicans. I could just see the memes now.
After a few generations in America — as in at least three — mestizos generally become like white Americans of equivalent intelligence (this is an important qualification), except maybe still speaking Spanish. (I don’t, and neither do my parents.) The problem is that the white Americans they assimilate to be like are, on the whole, white liberals, and so they are absorbed into, and propagate, a culture where fealty to antiwhiteness is social capital.
My grandpa, who is old enough to have attended segregated schools, still kinda resents whitey, but he voted for Trump because he is a boomer who listens to conservative talk radio, which he does because he worked his whole life to move from the underclass to a comfortably retired middle-class existence on the North Side. There is no material or aesthetic appeal to being a lunatic Democrat, even if he feels bad when he hears about benighted migrant kids being separated from their parents (not that some white boomers didnt have their heartstrings plucked, too).
My parents, who are professional class with graduate degrees, simply have no incentive to do something as déclassé as vote Republican. Until a few years ago, when I had an epiphanic experience that led me to this comment section, I would certainly never have considered it. And it’s people from my class background, or people like Julian Castro whose mom was a La Raza activist, who become community leaders that can harness the electoral power of the aesthetically unappealing mestizo underclass by telling them “Peter Brimelow is going to put y’all back in chains!” The people whose parents started a successful contracting business, became Breitbart readers, and berate Beto O’Rourke to his face for being a gun grabber get useful jobs like their parents did, just like white Republicans’ kids.
Additionally, while you’ll find many mestizos who are fine with pulling the ladder up behind them, you’ll find barely none who are (like myself) willing to objectively admit that the American Majority would have almost certainly been better off if my ancestors had never been allowed in, and thus, they will never truly be comfortable with the idea that America was intended to be a nation-state that represents the posterity of those who founded it. Because immigration restriction, if honestly presented, is inescapably intertwined with this truth, it’s a sticky wicket even if mestizos fully know they came here to get away from the people on the other side of the Rio Grande.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment