The wetbacks

It’s such fun seeing the Gringos above the Rio Bravo get themselves all worked up over their sensitivity  issues.

Right now the North Koreans are talking about firing missiles at Los Angeles, and the Iranians are working overtime to develop nuclear weapons for the same purpose, but if you call the former slopes and the latter ragheads, you’re a social outcast, a pariah, in the United States of America.*

wakeGotta be nice to folks who want to incinerate you.

An egregious outbreak of insensitivity occurred this week when a congressman named Don Young used the wetback word in reference to illegal Mexican aliens.

Young is pushing 80, lives in Alaska and likely has never seen an actual wetback. Plus, he’s Republican, people who tend to talk straight.

Guess what? You know what we Mexicans call wetbacks?

We call them wetbacks. We do it in Spanish, of course. Mojados. It means Wets. And we don’t think anything about it. We’re like Republicans.

And you know what we call you Gringos? We call you Gringos. Behind your backs, always, and to your face, often, sometimes with a smile, sometimes not.

It’s great living in a country with free speech.

* * * *

(Note: And if we catch you down here without a visa, we deport you quickly without getting all weepy about it. We don’t want no Gringo wetbacks.)

 * But that will change instantly when the first missile lands.

42 thoughts on “The wetbacks”

    1. Carole: The collectivists who currently control the American culture, to the detriment of all of you, love to call foul about so many verbal things. They really want to gag you.

      Here’s something you likely don’t know, and something I learned quite a few years back, rather painfully. Though estupido and idiota (it always ends in the letter a, by the way) are Spanish for stupid and idiot, they are far more powerful terms below the border, and not used nearly so cavalierly in Spanish as they are in English.


  1. Mexicans can call themselves whatever they want. But others cannot. Also. You mix up two separate issues. N. Korea and slandering a group of people. Btw, n. Korea won’t blow away anything or anyone. The whole world knows that.


    1. Señor Toth: Of course, we Mexicans can call ourselves what we want. The point here is that below the border wetback ain’t a fighting word. Up there, it is, and primarily it’s Latino Americans and their enablers, all riding the victim train, who get up in arms about it. Perhaps even a bigger point is that Americans are silly, and we are not.

      And, of course, the North Koreans are no threat to anyone but perhaps the South Koreans.


      1. N. Korea could not blow up a fly. They are not a threat to anyone. They are shaking the west down for some more cash so a select few there can live the good life. In past writings, you have made some excellent observations about Cuba. This is the same thing, but many times worse.

        Whatever a society deems a word to be, that is what it is, and the meaning has to be respected. If the word is acceptable in Mexico, that’s fine. But as you know, because you were born in the USA and lived and worked here, it is not acceptable here. That’s where it ends.


        1. Señor Toth: You are quite correct about the peril that North Korea presents. However, that was not the point at all of my mentioning the nutcase nation in the post. The regime hates the U.S. and would do harm were they able. And yet the PC mindset negates tossing racial/ethnic expletives at them. I say call ’em whatever comes to mind.


  2. You are right, as always. This sensitivity thing has gotten way out of control. People need to develop a thicker skin, so that they don’t get hurt at every small word, innuendo or saying. Just like the Indians didn’t like ball clubs being called the Redskins, as an example.

    Slander? Come on, Sensitivity is ruining the USA.

    Next we will need classes on self esteem … sorry, I forgot that we lost that battle already.


  3. It’s another example on constitutional erosion. The “right” to be protected from insensitive remarks is greater than the RIGHT of free speech. What a bunch of wusses. Problem is it is difficult to know what is insensitive and what is not. Some cultures just pick and choose what is insensitive.


    1. Carlos: One of the interesting things about living below the Rio Bravo is the utter lack of this “sensitivity” thing that has muzzled much of the American citizenry. It’s liberating. I can call you a wetback illegal alien (as some of my relatives have been), and you can call me a Gringo or redneck cracker boy. Neither of us care.


        1. Loulou: If someone calls me a redneck cracker boy, I am only amused. I don’t consider it name-calling. Anyway, true name-calling, of the evil kind, must be delivered with a bad attitude. And usually name-calling is a cuss word. Wetback and cracker are not cuss words.

          Bottom line is that I decide what’s name-calling around here! Ha.


        2. Loulou: Occurs to me that I did not adequately answer your question previously. When I say no name-calling, I mean nobody here on the comments section of this website can indulge in name-calling toward other commenters. You see that on other websites.

          I ceased to participate on two blogs, excellent ones by folks here in Mexico, a couple of years back purely because a couple of relatively calm name-calls were directed at me by other commenters, and the blog owners did nothing about it. One blog owner even defended it as “free speech,” which is patent nonsense but common in our day.

          It’s a question of decorum, courtesy and good breeding.

          And it’s the same reason we don’t do profanity here.


  4. It is interesting that this insensitive remark comes just when the GOP is desperately trying to convince Latinos in the US that the Republicans are not the bigoted bunch that they actually are. They have come to the realization that they must get more than 20% of the Latino vote if they are ever to form Government again.

    And then comes along Congressman Young. Young used a clearly offensive word to describe migrant workers and he was totally clueless when he said it. He has since given a canned apology, but that is too little, too late. Young’s casual use of the word “wetback”, as if it was natural, reinforces the culture of hate that has sent his bosses in the GOP scrambling and tripping over themselves to separate themselves from this idiot.

    The problem is, of course, that Young simply expressed what the majority of Republicans actually think of their Mexican neighbors.


    1. Señor Croft: Wetback is an impolite term for a more impolite concept, that of people who flout the law and enter another country illegally. That collectivists get upset over the term and not the flouting of the law is telling.

      Republicans are no more bigoted than Democrats as a group. Some of them are simply bigoted about different things than that which some Democrats are bigoted about.

      Migrant workers? Listen to yourself.

      I put to you that there is a far larger “culture of hate” on the left side of the political spectrum than on the other end. But, being human, neither end is innocent.

      Your “majority of Republicans” and, I think, many Democrats to boot would think better of us Mexicans if we Mexicans would stay home and take advantage of the many opportunities here instead of busting into the nation to our immediate north. There is no real need for us to leave home.


      1. “What’s in a word,” said Shakespeare. I don’t know of a single word that in and of itself is offensive. It’s the context and the intent of the speaker that makes it offensive. Young’s use of wetback was generic for brown-skinned Spanish speakers portrayed as hard-working employees, nothing else. In context as well as intent it was not derogatory. Now the race is on to condemn it even expanding it into bigoted, racist, prejudiced, idiotic and, yes, insensitive too.


        1. Carlos: I have to disagree that no word is offensive in and of itself. There are some words that over time simply seem soiled and abusive to our hearts, no matter the context. One of the strange aspects to my changing worlds and languages is that I do not instinctively respond to (or recoil from) some words that a native speaker recoils from. I doubt I ever will. I can know a word is profane, but it does not hit me in the gut because I did not grow up with it.

          A related and interesting (to me) issue is that I cannot associate temperature numbers in Celsius automatically into an inner notion of that heat level.

          I would also disagree that Young did not intend the word as derogatory. I think he did, but I defend his right to speak badly of law-breakers or, as Señor Croft phrased it in an earlier comment, “migrant workers.”

          I’m assuming we are speaking of illegals, not Mexicans in the country legally and picking grapes or whatever.

          Illegal aliens are to “migrant workers” what Willie Sutton was to a “bank visitor.”


          1. Name one! It is still context and intent. Did you read the text of Young’s radio statement. His first apology was that was only a term used at the time. In context it was neither offensive nor with derogatory intent. But just like most politicians he quickly got on his knees when the flack flew. The late 70’s movie “Roots” referred to terminology of the time and was acceptable. What’s wrong now?


            1. Carlos: Easy to name one. The f-word by itself or in any of its variations is nasty on the face of it. It needs no context.

              And, no, I did not delve further into the details of Young’s gaff, but I believe you.


      2. I am sure that convincing Latino Americans to vote Republican will take more than a halfhearted apology for a racial slur by an elected Congressman. BTW, Latino Americans who vote in the US are not of the illegal variety.

        I do agree with your point about there being no need for Mexicans to go to the USA for jobs. There are opportunities for them at home. It is the dream of wealth and a better life that drives them north I suppose, neither of which 99% of them find in the US, whether they cross legally or illegally.


        1. However, if the US did manage to stop migrant workers they would have to deal with the loss. According to the Latino Republican group, Somos Republicans:

          “40% of Yuma Arizona’s lettuce crop went un-harvested after 100,000 Hispanics fled Arizona following passage of SB 1070, even though Yuma has unemployment rates rivaling those of the great depression. Georgia passed a similar law, and now farmers are struggling to find migrant farm workers and now must decide which crops to leave rot. According to a recent study by the Cato institute, for every farm worker in the field, another 3.1 workers depending upon their work,”


          1. We live in San Antonio TX where Mexicans have been the majority for a longer time than anywhere, I think. But our culture (I say our because we have embraced the Mexican culture) is far more cosmopolitan in character than many places along the border. We live in a high end neighborhood where residents hardly notice that the surnames of their vecinos are Latino. For seasonal workers, Canada has a solution: they go to MX and bring back workers who are legal and they want to work to pick whatever. Then, after the colder weather sets up and the growing season winds down, the workers are bused back to their home country.


          2. Croft: It’s a complicated issue that has grown huge due to looking the other way so long while the border was being breached by cheap criminal labor. Had that not happened, the capitalist system would have adjusted, as it normally does, and found solutions.


        2. Croft: We have Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz on our side, and they are just a couple of the high-profile ones. We also have your higher-IQ blacks to boot. More Latinos will vote GOP, I am hoping, when they wise up and discard the Democrat-induced victim mindset.

          And, of course, Latino Americans who vote are citizens. Well, one assumes. With the American collectivists so opposed to true identification methods, skulduggery is ever available. Here in Mexico, of course, a photo ID is a given. It falls in the category of: Duh.


          1. “higher-IQ blacks”? Like Dr. Ben Carson who compares marriage equality to bestiality? Oh yes, he gave the old, “If I offended anyone” non-apology for that comparison. Or Herman Cain and his “alligator filled moats” remark that had Republican Latinos calling for him to quit the presidential race?

            No, the GOP is in big trouble, and they know it. Voter suppression, disguised as voter identification, will not help them. It only digs their hole deeper.


        1. Señor Toth: I know absolutely nothing of the sort. What you are thinking of is that lower-educated folks who live, say, in rural areas and vote Republican are likely, like less-educated people and less cosmopolitan people everywhere, to look askance at “different” people and speak unkindly of them. I grant you that.

          On the other end of the spectrum, let us look at high-profile Democrats like Bill Maher, Michael Moore, etc., and also including Hollywood types, wide swathes of university students and faculty, hardcore Democrats in general, why, these people absolutely loathe different opinions and the people who hold them. They also detest white people, even though most of them are white. Sneering at “old white men,” for instance, is common in those circles.

          It is full-tilt bigotry. We live in a bizarre world now.

          So no. Republicans are no more bigoted than Democrats. Fact is, I would say they are less so.


        2. And when is the last time you saw Republican students shouting down speakers they disagree with? Or trying to cancel commencement speakers they know to harbor different opinions?

          I’ll tell you: Never. Not even one time. Only Democratic students and faculty do that. 100 percent.

          Bigotry comes in many guises. You, I imagine, are thinking solely of the racial variety because that is how Democrats think. But what does Miriam-Webster have to say about bigotry, how a bigot is defined?

          A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.


    2. Which is why the only way Republicans can win on a national scale is to make it very hard for certain people to vote. Wait. That didn’t even work.


  5. Yes, temporary workers who come to Canada from Mexico are legal, pay taxes and are covered by minimum wage and worker’s compensation laws. They are treated decently and with respect. Just like migrant workers in the US would like to be treated if only they were given the opportunity to work legally.


    1. Croft: The U.S., like most all nations, has requirements to enter. If you don’t meet those requirements, you cannot enter. And those who do not meet the requirements cannot decide on their own they will just sneak in.

      There is no “right” to enter the U.S.


  6. Here’s a goodie. My soon-to-be daughter-in-law recounted a recent event where her “plain spoken” mother made some remarks about “niggers” in the presence of another daughter and her friends from the D.C. area. She was quickly informed that two of the friends (white ladies) were married to black men. HAHAHA!!! Oh boy, that was hilarious.


    1. Hoo-boy, Becky. That’s a nasty one. Of course, the n-word is in a category all by itself. Well, for white folks. Black folks toss it around like it was popcorn.

      From D.C., eh? I didn’t know white people lived there anymore.


  7. Really poor example. Look up the definition of (the F-word). It has no less than a dozen definitions, about half are not offensive in common usage. Where have you been?


    1. Carlos: I have no doubt the modern world has reached the point where it thinks the F-word is just another adjective. I know it’s tossed around ever so casually now because societal standards have almost vanished in the Western world. Everybody is FREE to do whatever suits them because it is their “right.”

      However, it remains, no matter how much one tries to deny it, the most powerful expletive in the English language.

      By the way, I bleeped your use of it. We remain, and always shall remain, at minimum a PG website.


Comments are closed.