Re homelessness: my wild-ass guess is that the strong family-oriented ethic of Mexican and Asian communities, in which extended relatives frequently live very close to each other and can rely more easily on each other, may mean that family members who lose their income or no longer have a place to live can turn to their more fortunate loved ones in times of need, thereby averting the possibility of having to live on the street.
Just a hypothesis. If someone can prove or disprove this theory, I'd be interested to hear it.
Quick aside: "Withlacoochee" is derived from the Mvskoke language which is one of the Seminole languages and Creek language. It has nothing to do with Nahua. Michigan, on the other hand, not my language or culture, but I'm fairly confident thats derived from Anishanaabeg. Maybe the author was just messing around, but it aint cool if people start believing that stuff. White people already try to erase our presence and history in our ancestral lands. We don't need our Xicano brothers and sisters helping them out. Assuming it wasn't just a joke.
Mexicans tend to be there for one another and extremely family orientated. Also, the adults never move out of their parents homes or the entire family lives together. And i have to admit, especially in the southern states, that there is more availability for the Hispanic because there's more of them. I think knowing the Spanish language is a plus in the job market. With the influx of immigrants; they're obviously in demand. That pretty much explains their success because I find them to be incredibly dimwitted and immature into old age.
"Assimilated"? I know brown families who have been here long, long before the whites showed up. Your use of "assimilated" vs. "immigrant" seems disingenuous at best and downright bigoted at worst.
Well, you fall into the lazy trap of blaming homelessness on laziness. Most homeless are in that position due to mental illness, drug addiction (including alcoholism) or both. Of the rest, many are not lazy, they just can't manage to fit into our crazy 9to5 world.
It's all for yucks I know, but I hate that stupid cliche.
I take exception, in part, to your response to Mandilón in Manhattan. This part, "But, like El Norte, Mexican culture keeps coarsening, making pinche more acceptable than ever." This is an answer from a Mexican Mexican.
Mandilón, excuse me, "pussy-whipped pocho" asks if pinche is a "bad" word among Mexican-americans. You reply that "#fucktrump" is acceptable from 5 yr olds and up. Then you add that you would never in front of "Mámi". Good boy! Then comes the "But"...
Mexican Americans, estado-unidenses, are, for the most part, pochos. But we fear the "chancla" like everybody else. So, it seems to me, that slang use is a matter of respect. PW pussy wants to know if we use it liberally or not.
Allow me to make comparison between language use and seasoning food. Some people cannot stomach spicy food. So, don't serve them spicy food, unless you don't like them. But we, Mexican-americans like it hot and spicy. And we anticipate the continued popularity of all things mexican. "Taco trucks on every corner..." Then why hold back on the "spicy"language? Americans want more hot and spicy. Let them season to taste.
Mexicans in the "states" are a mixture of cultures. But are "we" coarsening the the culture? En serío? Seriously! The newer arrivals find everything wrong with everybody, pinche gueros, pinche pochos, and yes, pinche putos.
!No seas gúey! Give your readers the entire menu of spanish expression.
I enjoy your advice column. I work in customer service and get similar questions from my customers and non-Spanish speaking friends.
And 'greaser' has not always referred to anyone of a specific ethnic heritage. In S.E. Hintons wonderful 1967 book 'The Outsiders,' the "Greasers' were the group of lower economic class kids who wore grease in their hair, motorcycle jackets, etc. It had less to do with ethnicity/race and more to do with a class of people or subculture. Of course S.E. Hinton is referencing the greaser sub culture that existed across American throughout the 40's, 50's, 60's and also had nothing to do with race, it was a sub culture that revolved around music, cars and a rejection of their parents culture, no different than later youth movements like the hippies, the punks, etc.
Words are powerful things and it always amazes me that two people can use the same word and interpret it in very different ways. Instead of assuming the context, just ask about it and seek understanding. We can live in a better world!
Thank you Carlos for your insight!
Y a mi me contaron que "greaser" venia de la brillantina y pomada que se usaba en el cabello en los 50;s.
Greaser. It's like gabacho.
Keep your hands off my ketchup Gus.
He absolutely did have an answer to the question, a pretty good one too, you just didn't seek to understand beyond the obvious.
Of course he had no answer for El Humano who puts Mr. Arellano right in his disingenuous hypocritical place.
And then there's Los Apson (for killer Mexican bands from Back In The Day).
Get Wrong, Again!
Make him pay!
Get Whitey! Make him pay.
Mexico IS getting back the Southwest (Aztlan) one illegal at a time. Power doesn't come through force alone but through time and careful planning. If any, it looks like Mexicans learned something right out of the history books before the time of the Alamo when Mexico let Anglo settlers move into Texas. As soon as Mexico saw a big number of Anglos moving into the lands they pulled the red flag and tried halting Anglo immigration towards Texas. However, it was too late and Anglo settlers outnumbered the local Mexican. The thing is that Mexico has found an unlikely ally in the form of the Democratic party to get their agenda going.
Land belongs to those who are strong enough to TAKE it and KEEP it.
If you don't believe me, go ask the ancestors of the indigenous pre columbians who used to inhabit the Americas.
The proper answer to "Why did whites steal California from Mexico?" is, "...because they could." The history of the entire human race is one of territorial land grabs, invasion, empire building, dubious purchases, genocide, and plain old "I was here first" exploration. It has ever been thus. Sour grapes over what "used to be Mexico" is simply losers weepers. If land grabs are immoral, then the entire concept of being a "nation" is immoral. The solution is to stop crying over spilt milk, take pride in your country and maybe, one day, if your nation grows big and strong enough, you'll be able to grab the land back. I guarantee that nobody is just going to give it to you because you called dibs first.
Mexico possessed California for about 30 years after they took it from Spain by force. They had little or no settlement there. Of course Spain stole it from the native people who stole it from the native people who got there before them who stole it from the Mastodons.
Mexico has less claim to California than any of the above, including the Mastodons. The U.S. has possessed California for about 165 years and developed it to such a point that, if it were a nation, it would be the world's 6th largest economy. Mexico would then be 16th.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation