Quote:

The saddest part is that the vice principal and principal don’t even realize how it was they, not the five flag-wearers, who insulted and degraded the Mexican-American students yesterday. What could have been a teaching moment was instead warped by rampant political correctness into an incitement to racism and bigotry… against white students.

Let’s suppose some Chicano students complained that the five were wearing American flags on “the only day [Mexican Americans] celebrate their heritage.”

    * Think what a revelation it would have been had Miguel Rodriguez explained to them that, while their heritage may be Mexican, they themselves are American citizens… so the American flag is not insulting or disrespectful to them. (I doubt a single one of the protesting students is actually a Mexican citizen.)
    * Imagine if Rodriguez had told them that celebrating a victory by Mexico over France does not require them to attack the United States… which allied with Mexico in that very war.
    * Imagine if he had lectured them about showing civility themselves: The five students didn’t tell anyone else not to wear the colors of the Mexican flag; why should Hispanic students demand that their classmates not wear the colors of the American flag — which is, of course, also the flag of the Hispanic students?

But he didn’t.

Instead, the Hispanic assistant principal told all the Hispanic students at Live Oak High School that the American flag is insulting, offensive, and disrespectful… and that they have every right to demand it be excluded from an American school.

Good heavens, could a more bigotted, racist message have been sent if they had deliberately aimed for it? Ergo today, surprise, surprise, 200 Hispanic students marched through Morgan Hills chanting “We want respect!” and “Si se puede!” Oh yes, marching and chanting will get them loads of respect; how could we fail to respect children cutting class to demand we cater to their prejudices?

But it’s the subtext that really damages the Hispanic students: Beneath the outspoken charge of “disrespect” is the whispered insinuation that Hispanics are too emotionally fragile to understand that ethnicity is not the same as nationality, and neither is equivalent to identity; the implication that they are Mexicans, not real Americans; and the disconcerting suggestion that other people don’t enjoy the same First-Amendment right to freedom of speech as Hispanics themselves.

In other words, it’s what George W. Bush called “the soft bigotry of low expectations” all over again. Telling Hispanics they can suppress contrary opinion because it hurts too much is just as bad as telling blacks they should get extra “Negro-points” on their university applications because they’re not smart enough to compete fairly with whites, Orientals, and Jews. It’s an insidious form of “affirmative action”: Whites must tolerate contrary speech — but not Hispanics, because they can’t handle it. What a vile, oppressive, and lying meme to inject into the brain of an adolescent.

Hispanics do not need to be coccooned from the marketplace of ideas. They don’t need to be coddled, cradled, sequestered, or sealed in an ideological bubble. There is no reason Americans of Mexican and Central or South American heritage should be less able to handle alternate “truths” than any other ethnic or racial group. If everyone is held to the same standards, kids will understand:

---

Redstorm said:

If they can come here and find work from companies willing to hire for them, I can't blame them. I would do the same thing if I needed to survive.

---

Mr.Al said:

government goes against the will of the people and fails to secure the borders.  Illegal immigration is a real problem in this country.

---

Alan Rockefeller said:

Mr.Al said:

government goes against the will of the people and fails to secure the borders.  Illegal immigration is a real problem in this country.

---

The borders should not be secured.  All people should be free to cross any invisible line at any time.

---

Therian said:

This is about American citizens being unable to wear the flag of THEIR OWN country due to the fact others may not like it.

---

zappaisgod said:

No.  And there is nothing the least bit imaginary about the border.  Different sets of laws are enforced by different armed groups depending on which side of the line you inhabit.  There is not a goddam thing imaginary about that.

---

Alan Rockefeller said:

The borders should not be secured.  All people should be free to cross any invisible line at any time.

---

DieCommie said:

Its not invisible, Ive crossed it and I can see it just fine.  I see no difference between securing our borders as a nation, and locking our doors as a household.  Tell me, do you let anyone come into your house?  If not, then whats the difference?

---

Alan Rockefeller said:

zappaisgod said:

No.  And there is nothing the least bit imaginary about the border.  Different sets of laws are enforced by different armed groups depending on which side of the line you inhabit.  There is not a goddam thing imaginary about that.

---

You can draw invisible lines in the sand if you want but don't expect other people to respect those lines. 

Its fine if they want to enforce different laws in different places.  Telling people that they can not cross these lines is bullshit though.

---

zappaisgod said:

Bullshit or not, there is nothing imaginary about them.  And if they don't want to respect the line then they can eat the gun.  Guns most decidedly are not imaginary and they are definitely respect worthy.

---

DieCommie said:

To continue my comparison - How about shooting them for crossing an arbitrary line at your doorstep?  Is that not a good policy either?

---