Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Multiculturalism = Cultural Insensitivity ...

 ...Diversity = Racism

Calling Pat Young! Calling Pat Young!

What is HAPPENING in the nutty northeast?

Buncha sorori-chicks and frat boys at Dartmouth College (Alpha Phi sorority and the Phi Delta fraternity) throw a fundraiser (for cardiac care) with a fiesta theme. They called it a "Phiesta."

Phi-esta? Get it?

Planned party fare: virgin Pina Coladas, strawberry daiquiris, chips and salsa, homemade guacamole and burritos. (I'm not a drinker, but the rest of it with a little sweet tea sounds good to me!)

So student Daniela Hernandez, a self described "Mexican-born, United States-raised, first-generation woman of color," pitches a hissy fit about it.

Cultural insensitivity? What hooey. Would I get upset if they had a cracka themed fundraiser with pulled pork barbecue, corn on the cob, baked beans, potato salad, deviled eggs, corn bread, Texas toast and a huge glass of sweet iced tea, followed by a cold, juicy slice of watermelon? Why, no. I'd figure they were getting an educated palate.

See, this is what happens when you encourge "offendedness" over things that don't amount to a hill of refried beans (or blackeye peas, for that matter).

Thanks to taking "diversity" and "multicultural" to wild extremes, this country has become a parody of itself.

What's next on the cultural-sensitivity agenda? Closing down Taco Bell?  Guess I'd better go scarf down an order of Nachos Bell Grande, just in case.


Thanks to Todd Starnes and Fox News for reporting on this bit of multicultural insanity.

17 comments :

  1. It was amusing that in her spiteful e-mail, Hernandez demonstrates anger and resentment regarding the phenomena of "Americanization". Why then, is she here in America? Good grief, if anything on earth has been "Americanized" , it mostly certainly is America.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don't forget the Beef Chalupa's, I like em.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I like Taco Bell."

      Racist!

      "I don't like Taco Bell."

      Racist!

      Delete
  3. Speaking of Patrick Young, he has a brief essay over at the blog site "Long Islnd Wins", and man oh man, does he ever tell some whoppers. In fact, the essay is so propagandistic and dishonest, it is actually reminiscent of the writing style of the old Soviet news gency Tass. Among the ridiculous eye-popping tall-tales Young tells is that France invaded Mexico to "remove democracy", and that Mexico was in solidarity with the Union cause because of its opposition to slavery. Th

    The truth, of course, is that the hostilities between France and Mexico originated in Mexico's refusal to honor its financial obligations to France.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a another romantic Union fantasy.

      The Republic of Mexico declared its neutrality early on in the war. IIRC Texas and the Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department were very well supplied and a lot of those supplies came through Mexico and Confederate officials were treated well by Mexican officials. And IIRC Emperor Max had a rather cool, stand-offish attitude toward the Confederates.

      Delete
    2. Correct. And what Young deliberately fails to mention, is that when Mexico fought its own war of secession against Spain, slavery was still practiced in Mexico.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for reading my blog from 3 years ago on the origins of Cinco de Mayo.

      http://www.longislandwins.com/news/detail/cinco_de_mayo_holiday_dates_back_to_the_american_civil_war

      The quote that you attribute to me as Tass-style writing was actually a quote from the Huffington Post, as is clearly indicated in the blog.

      Delete
    4. Ummm, I have no idea why you say that I "deliberately" failed to mention that when Mexico was a colonial possession of Spain many non-whites were slaves of whites. Independence was in 1821, whereas Cinco de Mayo commemorates a battle four decades later. I did not "fail" to mention it, it was simply not relevant.

      Slavery was abolished in Mexico by the Plan of Iguala of 1821. The 1824 Constitution created a constitutional protection against slavery. Mexico was created, in part, to end slavery. Slavery was practiced under Spanish control and abolished as soon as possible by the Mexican upon independence.

      Thank you for the chance to clear up that misconception.

      Delete
    5. Ummmm,joust a few things:

      1. The link to your essay was from an article published in May of 2014, so the author clearly intended your essay to be read, or re-read, in May of 2014.

      2. Your essay was published two, not three years ago. Why do you lie about even this?

      3. The fact that Mexico was fighting for its political freedom while practicing slavery is directly and immediately relevant to the discussion. According to you, the Confederates did not deserve political freedom because they held slaves. Accordingly, the Mexicans too, did not deserve freedom.

      4. You falsely claim that Mexico supported the Union cause because Mexico opposed slavery. The Union practiced slavery, and therefore the Mexicans, according to you, would have supported neither the CSA nor the USA, as again, the USA practiced slavery just as surely as the CSA did.

      5. The French went to Mexico to collect a debt owed to them. You attributed the cause to the ridiculous assertion that they went to "remove democracy". That you borrowed this particular language to use in your article cements the fact that you agree with this assertion, as your essay makes so very clear.

      Delete
    6. Austin, you wrote: "3. The fact that Mexico was fighting for its political freedom while practicing slavery is directly and immediately relevant to the discussion. According to you, the Confederates did not deserve political freedom because they held slaves. Accordingly, the Mexicans too, did not deserve freedom."

      Slavery was part of Spanish law. The Mexican revolutionaries endorsed the Plan of Iguala which would end slavery. The were fighting for independence from Spain. Accordingly, they were fighting to end slavery, not to preserve it. The Confederate Constitution protected slavery, in stark contrast to the Mexican Constitution.

      Delete
    7. Austin, you wrote: "4. You falsely claim that Mexico supported the Union cause because Mexico opposed slavery. The Union practiced slavery, and therefore the Mexicans, according to you, would have supported neither the CSA nor the USA, as again, the USA practiced slavery just as surely as the CSA did."

      I note that that is the contention of David Hayes-Bautista, the author of the thesis. I am not an expert on mid-19th Century Mexican history and would not make that claim.

      I think the Bautista thesis is interesting because Cinco de Mayo is often portrayed as a US appropriation of a Mexican holiday, whereas Bautista says it was originally, at least in part, a creation of Latinos living in Mexico.

      Delete
    8. Austin, you wrote:" 5. The French went to Mexico to collect a debt owed to them. You attributed the cause to the ridiculous assertion that they went to "remove democracy". That you borrowed this particular language to use in your article cements the fact that you agree with this assertion, as your essay makes so very clear."

      Ummm, I am quoting you here Austin and that does not mean that I agree with your assertion. Also, no reputable historian believes that the French takeover of Mexico was merely a debt-collection effort.

      As I have said elsewhere, I am not an expert on Mexican history and I will leave it to Professor Bautista to defend his thesis.

      Delete
    9. Patrick,
      1. The final phase of Mexican Independence began in 1810. No one, absolutely no one, claimed the Mexicans were seeking Independence in order to free the slaves. The idea is preposterous. Additionally, the Mexicans did achieve independence in 1821, yet slavery persisted in Mexico until 1829.again.

      2. I think I get it now. The French leadership sat around a big conference table and all decided where the best pace would be to wage a war to " remove democracy" and decided it was Mexico. That might be even more ludicrous than the idea that the Mexicans were fighting to free slaves.

      Delete
    10. Austin you wrote: "No one, absolutely no one, claimed the Mexicans were seeking Independence in order to free the slaves. The idea is preposterous." The Plan of Igala which embodied the ideals of the Independence movement stated in 1821: "All the inhabitants of New Spain, without any distinction between Europeans, Africans, nor Indians, are citizens". In other words, it would advocate in 1821 what the U.S. only achieved in 1867 with the 14th Amendment. Civil equality of the races was one of the three pillars of Mexican independence.

      Delete
  4. Wow, even her diatribe doesn't make much sense. She's all over the place, and seems to have a bit of a problem with English, grammar, and coherent thought. What the heck was she offended by....Mexican food? I hope she's happy she stopped the fund raiser. I'm sure her feelings are much more important than medical research that might help people. This is sick, and the university missed an opportunity to straighten this student out.
    My daughter is being contacted by many schools because of her high test scores. One thing for sure, she will NOT be attending any Ivy League schools.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So now if you are white or some other ethnic group and you eat a food belonging to some other group, that makes you a "racist" in the eyes of some over-sensitive social screw up?
    Guess I'm a "racist" because I happen to like Chinese food, and soul food too?

    What will it finally take? What sort of further silliness and pseudo-intellectualism will America finally have to put it with from the PC crowd? What is finally going to be the moment when this "jumps the shark" and someone just says "enough is enough!"?

    ReplyDelete

Comments are welcome, but monitored.