- Like
- Digg
- Del
- Tumblr
- VKontakte
- Buffer
- Love This
- Odnoklassniki
- Meneame
- Blogger
- Amazon
- Yahoo Mail
- Gmail
- AOL
- Newsvine
- HackerNews
- Evernote
- MySpace
- Mail.ru
- Viadeo
- Line
- Comments
- Yummly
- SMS
- Viber
- Telegram
- Subscribe
- Skype
- Facebook Messenger
- Kakao
- LiveJournal
- Yammer
- Edgar
- Fintel
- Mix
- Instapaper
- Copy Link
Poverty, injustice, over breeding, overpopulation, suffering, oppression, military rule, squalor, torture, terror, massacre: these ancient evils feed and breed on one another in synergistic symbiosis. To break the cycles of pain at least two new forces are required: social equity — and birth control. Population control. Our Hispanic neighbors are groping toward this discovery. If we truly wish to help them we must stop meddling in their domestic troubles and permit them to carry out the social, political, and moral revolution which is both necessary and inevitable.
Or if we must meddle, as we have always done, let us meddle for a change in a constructive way. Stop every campesino at our southern border, give him a handgun, a good rifle, and a case of ammunition, and send him home. He will know what to do with our gifts and good wishes. The people know who their enemies are.— Edward Abbey: “Immigration and Liberal Taboos,” 1987
Rullman and I sat down at The Gallery Restaurant in Sisters on Friday, knocking back that roadhouse coffee that burns up your insides and addressing the vicissitudes of life in 2019 America. As one does. The Californication of our adopted state, for one. Heavier and heavier taxation and more and more draconian gun restrictions.
Perhaps inevitably, the talk turned to immigration. You’d be hard-pressed to define where either of us stand in the “immigration debate.” That’s partly down to the fact that there isn’t an actual immigration debate — just pols wielding the issue for political advantage. As pols do. Mostly it’s down to the fact that both of us are temperamentally inclined to grapple with paradox. We can simultaneously recognize that tens of thousands of mostly unskilled, poorly educated and often desperate people coming across the border is an actual problem — and that, if we were in their shoes, we’d be doing the same.
Somewhere in the third cup of coffee, as Craig mopped up the remains of an egg yolk, we decided that perhaps the only thing resembling a “solution” to the immigration crisis is the one ol’ Cactus Ed proposed in a now-decades-old unpublished New York Times op-ed. (You know why it was not published). A critic spoke of the “macho swagger” in Abbey’s essay; he said it like it was a bad thing…
Abbey was, of course, accused of racism for his views on immigration, which is bullshit. Cactus Ed simply understood that if his beloved American West was to survive in any form that he (or we) could live with, it’s limited carrying capacity had to be respected, no matter whose sensibilities might be outraged. Abbey was opposed to invasions of swarms of people of ANY shape or size or creed or color. Too damn many people means fewer and fewer places where a man can piss in his own front yard, and if that’s your metric, well, you’ve got to draw a hard line.
So… send ’em home equipped to clean out their own nest. Why the hell not? It’s not like we’ve got a more coherent policy to work with.
Of course, there have been social, political, and moral revolutions across Latin America since the 19th Century, most of them ending up with some formulation of “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” This course of conversation turned us to some recent pictures scouted up by historian and author Samuel Kilborn, who specializes in he weird, wild and bloody history of the borderlands of the American Southwest. Kilborn has been posting some remarkable photos from the Mexican Revolution. You want some macho swagger?
Tomas Urbina (left), the Lion of Durango, one of Pancho Villa’s loyal commandantes — until he absconded with a train car full of gold and Villa sent his hit man Rodolfo Fierro to settle accounts. Fierro shot Urbina to pieces.
Rodolfo Fierro, El Jefe’s Red Right Hand. He was a bad, bad hombre.
The Mexican Revolution was one of the great social and political revolutions of the early 20th century. The scale was massive. As revolutions sometimes do, it degenerated into a civil war between competing revolutionary factions, which was even more savage than the original conflict. The decisive Battle of Celaya in 1915, where General Alvaro Obregon broke the power of Pancho Villa’s Division del Norte was as titanic a battle as Gettysburg. A million people lost their lives during the 10-year conflict.
The revolution and civil war triggered a refugee crisis that sent tens of thousands of Mexican nationals into the United States in the first big wave of immigration. The U.S. intervened twice — once to take the port of Veracruz on the Gulf and once to chase Villa after he struck the border town of Columbus, New Mexico, in a March 1916 raid.
The whole thing was a bloody mess that severely damaged the social and political fabric of Mexico in ways that have yet to heal. And it created tensions with the United States that persist a century on. In truth, Abbey’s formulation, as appealing as it is, is probably wrong. Fomenting social, political, and moral revolution would surely deepen the immigration crisis instead of resolving it.
So I guess Craig and I will have to go back to The Gallery, pour some more coffee and reformulate our position. In the meantime, we’ll study these images of la Revolution and crank up Los Lobos singing Carabina .30–30. ’Cuz damned if we’re not suckers for a little of that macho swagger…
Carabina 30–30
Que los rebeldes portaban
Y Decian los maderistas
Que con ella no matabanCarabina 30–30
Que los rebeldes portaban
Y Decian los maderistas
Que con ella no matabanCon mi 30–30
Me voy a marchar
A engrosar las filas de la rebelion
Si mi sangre piden, me sangre les doy
Por los habitantes de nuestra nacionGritaba Francisco Villa:
Donde de hallas, aguemedo?
Te quiero ver a frente a frente
Tu que nunca tienes miedoGritaba Francisco Villa:
Donde de hallas, aguemedo?
Te quiero ver a frente a frente
Tu que nunca tienes miedoCon mi 30–30
Me voy a marchar
A engrosar las filas de la rebelion
Si mi sangre piden, me sangre les doy
Por los habitantes de nuestra nacionYa nos vamos pa’Chihuahua
Ya se va tu negro santo
Si me quebra alguna bala
Ve a llorarme al camposantoYa nos vamos pa’Chihuahua
Ya se va tu negro santo
Si me quebra alguna bala
Ve a llorarme al camposantoCon mi 30–30
Me voy a marchar
A engrosar las filas de la rebelion
Si mi sangre piden, me sangre les doy
Por los habitantes de nuestra nacion*
The 30/30 carbine
Carried by the rebels
According to the Maderistas
Did not really killI’m off to battle with my 30/30
I entered the rebel ranks
If it’s blood they ask for, blood I’ll give them
For the people of our nationFransico Villa cried out
Where are you Argumedo?
Come and stand up in front
You, who are never afraidI’m off to battle with my 30/30
I entered the rebel ranks
If it’s blood they ask for, blood I’ll give them
For the people of our nationWe’ve headed for Chihuahua
Your Indian saint is leaving town
If they kill me in the war
Go and mourn me on hallowed groundI’m off to battle with my 30/30
I entered the rebel ranks
If it’s blood they ask for, blood I’ll give them
For the people of our nation
If I ponder south of the border revolutions, I always come back to A FISTFUL OF DYNAMITE (a.k.a. DUCK, YOU SUCKER!)
==
Juan Miranda: I know what I am talking about when I am talking about revolutions! The people who read the books go to the people who can’t read the books, the poor people, and say, “We have to have a change.” So, the poor people make the change, ah? And then, the people who read the books, they all sit around the big polished tables, and they talk and talk and talk and eat and eat and eat, eh? But what has happened to the poor people? THEY ARE DEAD! That’s your revolution! Sh… so, please… don’t tell me about revolutions. And what happens afterwards? The same *fucking* thing starts all over again!
==
I suppose our narcissistic viewpoint biases us toward saying revolution is a “good” thing. Given the history of revolutions, I’d say we were lucky we only had one. (the Civil War not withstanding.) In many nations, the cycle never ends.
That is one crazy-ass movie.
And as for revolution, I refer readers to the two part RIR examination of the radical right and left and their destructive doings.
Speaking of which, this from April 17 NYT:
Judith Clark, who as a young woman took part in a deadly attempted robbery of a Brink’s armored car that represented one of the last gasps of the violent left-wing extremism of the 1960s and 1970s, was paroled on Wednesday after being imprisoned in New York for 37 years, her lawyers said.
Ms. Clark, 69, was the getaway driver in the bungled 1981 heist in a suburb of New York City in which two police officers and a guard were killed.
During her trial, Ms. Clark clung to her revolutionary beliefs and maintained the violence was justified. But she underwent a transformation over her decades in prison, apologizing for the pain she had caused, doing good works and becoming a model of rehabilitation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/nyregion/judith-clark-parole-brinks-robbery.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Breaker Morant says
Well said.
I have tried to pin down people who favor open borders by asking how many people do you want in California? 100 million? 200 million?
One way I think of it is that: In the world there is an unlimited demand for “California” (as an example) but there is only so much “California” to go around without fundamentally not being California anymore.
Jim says
The interesting Mr. Abbey presents some curious ideas on handling immigration. Sadly he speaks more accurately about the problems with our country then with points south. If only those pesky Mexicans could be as self-actualized as Americans. Breed less, demand equal outcomes!
Anyone with an IQ above 80 or a reasonably honest emotional and apolitical self-reflection will recognize that the US is more affluent, healthy, safer and tolerant than any country in the world. Past and present. Bar none! But it has come at a price. We have turned into “nowists”. Why plant a tree if you won’t enjoy it’s shade. Why spend 200 years building Notre Dame when you don’t get to sit in it. Medieval barbarians!!! We have lost the need of the transcendent and that has come out in most of our policies and gives rise to the current socialist hatred of free will and the individual. We want those migrants out because they’re cutting in on our stuff. We want them in so they vote and give us power. Two sides of the same coin.
Yeah, they have a lot of children in Mexico but for anyone who has been in rural Mexico, (real Mexico not an Ensenada boozfest), children still matter and have purpose. I’m not a big fan of bringing life when you already can’t survive but these countries treat the poor like an export product. Don’t help them, they figure, export them and leave more for us urbanites. Yes they come for opportunity but not without a veritable bus ticket north.
But for our contribution our culture has reduced the birth of a child to the moral equivalency of a mortgage on a beach house or trips to Bali. X costs Y per year and that’s all. Central and South America is not yet to the level of nowism as we are but that doesn’t stop us from exporting our jealousy, avarice and instant gratification.
We need some type of immigration control. It’s not sustainable. The current left policy is pure cynical expediency. More votes. More immigrants voting, more excons voting, more children voting. I saw a funny meme recently. “ If we reduce the voting age to newborn, then the Democrats will outlaw abortion.” Whatever your view on abortion, that’s funny. Mostly because it has a note of truth in it.
We have lost the transcendent so now every decision deals with now. Forget 20, 40, 60 years. Give me power now, I want my stuff now, all decisions affect now. Forget maintaining a nation for another 200 years because we won’t see it.
Now you did it! You opened Pandora’s box. Great piece. Let the comments begin.
Yes it is.
Rick Schwertfeger says
Re: Birth control. My buddy and college classmate Dr. Mac and I have harped for years on the decline of efforts to control population growth. We came of age in the time of Zero Population Growth. It made sense then. It would really make sense now. But special interest groups of folks from certain religions, and supporters of endlessly growing economies eliminated that from the U.S. political landscape right quick. Now no politician would stand a chance in many parts of the country having a population control plank in her or his platform. The mantra is to proceed while building elementary schools at a rate almost impossible to keep up with; and building more roads, cars, and condos until they cover every square inch of land in cities — which also sprawl unchecked out into the forseeable future. That seems to be what the powers that be think of as utopia.
Breaker Morant says
Off-topic, but I ran across what appears to be an interesting book that touches on themes here.
“Real England: The Battle Against the Bland”
https://www.amazon.com/Real-England-Battle-Against-Bland/dp/1846270421
The tragedy of the Revolution, which was really a revolution followed by a civil war, was that the victory ended up going to the forces which simply compounded tragedy. Modero was not temperamentally suited to lead the nation, and turned on Zapata even while Huerta conspired against him. Carranza was a radical who detested the United States who none the less prevailed upon Wilson to allow him to transport U.S. troops across Texas so they could go into action against Villa, which in turn lead Villa to raid Columbus, New Mexico in retaliation.
Had Zapata and Villa finished off Carranza’s Constitutionalist when they drove Carranza out of Mexico City into Vera Cruz the following Mexican history would have been different. It wouldn’t have been perfect, but it wouldn’t have been as grim as it was. As it happened, Zapata was such a regionalist and idealist he simply went home, dooming the revolution to failure and dooming Mexico, in turn, to years of administration under what became the PRI.
What’s been missed in recent years is that Abbey was really wrong. Mexico now has a larger middle class than it does an impoverished class and is doing relatively well, in spite of what both Mexicans and Americans tend to believe. Illegal immigration from Mexico still exist, but in some years the outflow from the US to Mexico exceeds that from Mexico to the US. The current situation reflects the collapse of civil order in Central America, not Mexico, and is afflicting Mexico as well as the United States. And that has its own odd history:
https://lexanteinternet.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-central-american-mess-and-citations.html
None of which goes to the current situation. But whatever that situation is, it isn’t really a Mexican one, unless Mexico becomes destabilized by it.
True.