A Mexican lesson for Americans

Americans who have visited their southern neighbor or observed Mexican immigrants in California and Texas and observed their overwhelmingly Indian phenotype might find difficult to imagine that in the early 19th century — just before the War of Independence, in the country that would retake its ancient Aztec name, “Mexico” — whites constituted one-sixth of the population of New Spain. In modern Mexico, because of low white and high non-white birthrates, pure whites are almost on the brink of extinction. Thus the history of this nation should serve as a warning to the Americans against open borders, miscegenation, and affirmative action.

The following translation is taken from the chapter on “Independence” in A Brief History of Mexico (Breve historia de México, [México, D.F.: Ediciones Botas, 1944, first edition 1937], pp. 255–60). The author, José Vasconcelos, one of the most celebrated Mexican intellectuals of the 20th century, wrote: “El desprecio de la propia casta es el peor de los vicios del carácter” (Contempt for one’s race is the worst of character flaws).

(Mexican whites:
An endangered species)


The independence of the Latin American nations is the result of the disintegration of the Spanish empire. None of the nations of Latin America had, by a process of natural growth, reached the maturity required for emancipation. . . . . In the colonies, the men of clearer vision and greater patriotism, for example, the bishop Abad y Queipo, gave Mexico up for lost, and rightly so, after he saw that the independence was inevitable. . . .

From the beginning, the war was supposed to destroy the Spaniards, who represented the force and culture of the country, in the same way that later a fight against the criollo was developed, and today against the mestizo—all under the pretext of freeing the Indian—in order to uproot Spanish culture and replace it with American.

The two lands most imbued with Spanish influence, Mexico and Peru, resisted independence, which happened through foreign intervention. Peru was freed by Colombians and Argentines. . . .

In the United States, the independence movement was not a race war. For Morelos, for example, to be comparable to Washington, it must be assumed that Washington had decided to recruit blacks and mulattoes to kill the English. Instead, Washington disdained blacks and mulattoes and recruited the English of America, who did not commit the folly of killing their own brothers, uncles, and relatives, only because they were born in England. Quite the contrary, each participant of the American Revolution felt pride for his British ancestry and hoped for the betterment of the English. This should have been the sense of our own emancipation, to transform New Spain into an improved Spain, better than that of the peninsula but with its blood, our blood. The whole later disaster of Mexico is explained by the blind, criminal decision that emerged from the womb of Hidalgo’s mobs and is expressed in the suicidal cry: “Death to the Spaniards!”

The absurd idea never crossed the mind of Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, or any of the fathers of the Yankee Independence that a redskin should be the President or that blacks should occupy positions held by the English. What we should have done is to declare that all the Spanish residents in Mexico were to be treated like Mexicans.

The idea that independence would tend to devolve power to the Indian was not an Indian idea. The emancipation, as already said over and over again, was neither devised nor consummated by the Indians. The idea of stirring up the Indians appears in the leaders of the emancipation who had not found positive reception for their plans from the educated classes. They resorted to the dangerous decision of starting a caste war because they were unable to carry out a war of emancipation. Not even Bolívar escapes this charge, since in Colombia he stirred up blacks against the whites in order to recruit his armies. For the people of the North, such procedures would have seemed insane, as they were.

It was therefore a crime: stirring up the underdogs against the top brass without any social improvement, merely to have soldiers. In fact, the idea of putting the Indian in front of the insurrection was an English idea. One of the first people to speak of confederating the Hispanic continent under the rule of a descendant of the Incas was Miranda. This idea was given to Miranda by the two biggest enemies of the Spanish in America, namely the French and the English.

If, during the US War of Independence, an agitator had said that the country should be ruled again by the redskins, surely he would have been shot by patriots as a traitor. But among us, talk of returning the country to the Indians is greeted with smiles. The English originators of this propaganda knew well that the Indians would not even hear it, but they counted upon the unseriousness, the vanity, and the folly of the criollos and mestizos, both of whom took sides against the Spanish. Once the Spanish were destroyed, these countries could be easily divided and thus fall prey to a new form of domination. Undoubtedly, a Mexico ruled by Indians and becoming Aztec again would be as easy prey as it was for Cortés.

Even if the Indians deserved this restoration, which is absurd to imagine, it is obvious that people do not go back three hundred years—much less in the case of Mexico, where the race itself, apart from the customs and ideas, had been transformed. Contempt for one’s race is the worst of character flaws.

___________

I translated this excerpt for Counter-Currents Publishing (here).

9 Replies on “A Mexican lesson for Americans

  1. I may be misunderstanding here but wasn’t Vasconcelos a criollo who pushed (or predicted) miscegenation?

    Didn’t he think it might lift up “la raza de bronce?”

    1. You are not misunderstanding. Vasconcelos’ legacy is contradictory. He wrote that book you mention in 1925, and the one I mention more than a decade later: a far more mature Vasconcelos (unfortunately, after his Brief History of Mexico he wasted his time with enormous treatises on philosophy…).

  2. Thank you for affirming that Chechar. I read it recently. I found it odd that he would even write that to begin with frankly, coming from him I mean. It seems to be coming true, sort of, although not in the loving way he said it would. Even still I’ve heard him referred to as a ‘racist’ anyway.

    How is he tought of by Mexicans? By you?

    1. There’s a statue of Vasconcelos in Mexico City (see here) and he is still acclaimed here. Octavio Paz had a very high opinion on him, and I believe that Enrique Krauze is presently writing a bio of Vasconcelos. By the way, I am such an alien creature for the average Mexican, both physically and mentally, that I don’t consider me a “Mexican” in spite of the fact that I live in the town where I can see the above-mentioned statue.

  3. Thanks Chechar. Sorry to hear that you feel so alienated. Is it possible to go to a country with more criollos?

    How do you think Vasconcelos would view things in Mexico if he were alive today?

    1. I believe that he was a brilliant albeit very contradictory person. He was infinitely more honest than Paz and (Jewish) Krauze, who used to be my Mexican intellectual idols when I was much younger. But Vasconcelos’ contradictions would probably becloud his judgment today. He never awoke to the fact that IQ is a determining factor among the races, including of course the Mexican Amerindians, the miscegenated Mestizos and the Spaniards.

      I am not interested in Criollos. I might be interested in them if they were not body-snatched pods. The non-white swarm is overwhelming all of my nostalgic referents in Mexico City (which was still beautiful when I was born) and the Criollos do nothing, just as WASPs do nothing with the Mex invasion of Cali, Tex and other states.

      I am interested, mainly, in the preservation of Female Aryan beauty, which is why I am concerned that the drug cartels are starting to kill some Mennonites in Chihuahua during the nasty Mexican drug war. The pictures at the side of this blog, and especially those of Maxfield Parrish in its previous incarnation, explain in images what I couldn’t do with a thousand words…

      1. OK Chechar, thanks for taking time to answer so thoroughly. I am sorry to keep asking too much but I know very little about the Hispanic situation. It is terrible that you are so detached from everything around you. I wish I could say something that would help but I just wouldn’t know where to start.

        As far as Mennonites, did you know that some of U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s relatives are Mennonites in Mexico?

        “I am interested, mainly, in the preservation of Female Aryan beauty”

        Now that is a daunting task indeed. You are far more interested in it than the very women you wish to preserve. They throw away everything and will even fight your attempts at preservation Chechar.

  4. They throw away everything and will even…

    Which is why we must think outside the box when the dollar is killed and start contemplating the possibility of an abduction of Sabine women after the System crashes. With or without their will, their beauty must be preserved at all cost…

    1. Haha! Chechar that is very dramatic, romantic and Mediterranean of you! Only Mediterraneans or Slavs would do such a thing. Perhaps they will never understand it would be for their own good.