I received an e-mail this morning that was rather odd, and I did something that I normally don’t do: I responded and then had a mostly unfruitful interchange with the author of the piece. I cannot find a web-based source for the following, but I thought I would address the issues.

First, the e-mail breathlessly notes that something called “The British Conservative” asserted:

Not many people realize it, but the U.S. may cease being a Western Nation.

The evidence for this? Well it starts with this:

According to the CIA World Factbook, most Mexicans are of Amerindian blood. It is estimated that over 90% of Mexicans are of pure or mostly (90%+) Amerindian blood.

Although you have a very small population (3% or less) of the upper upper class in Mexico (and other Central America countries) of European blood, the are wealthy, could come to the U.S. legally and are not illegal immigrants.

and then adds this:

Those immigrating to the U.S., however, are either pure or mostly of Amerindian blood.

What is Amerindian blood? Although research varies, most DNA experts and historians believe that they descend from population groups either in India, Mongolia, or S.E. Asia.

So, if the U.S. Senate bill allows for another 100 million or more people, it is very plausible that the U.S. could stop being a “Western Nation” and start being an “Asian Nation.”

First off, this distorts the Factbook figures, which are actually:

mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%, Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian 30%, white 9%, other 1%

Those numbers do not show 90%+ of Mexicans being “pure or mostly” Amerindian. Of course, if one is caught up in what DNA one has, then I suppose one might think that any mix is “mostly.” The figure above also mis-reports the white percentages (although the e-mailer told me that that number included Central America).

Second, I have debunked that 100 million number before. (Short version: such estimates assume that practically every Mexican is going to migrate to the US. The current population of Mexico is just over 107 million).

Third, that thousands of years ago some ancestor of a Mexican immigrant may have come from Asia thousands of years ago makes that person “Asian” in any sense that matters is utter nonsense.

Fourth, this line of thinking seem to assume that the current occupants of the US will leave (or perhaps they will interbreed with the Mexicoasians and produce more Asians, or something that isn’t “Western”).

Fifth, one gets the distinct feeling that if the wealthy white Latins wanted to migrate, that would be just fine.

Of course, by the logic above, any Latin American country with a substantial presence of “Amerindian blood” is really an “Asian nation”—which is news to me after studying the region for roughly two decades.

When I tried to engage the guy who sent the e-mail about the problems with his position, he kept pointing to the idea that “blood and soil” has always trumped culture as defining identity in what he referred to as “Western conservatism.” He rejected the culture idea as being part of the “liberal enlightenment.” I think I was supposed to recoil at the notion that I would be associated with a “liberal” idea. Of course, I noted that much of what is considered “conservative” thought in American political thought also derives from the Enlightenment, but no go.

I also pointed out that Alberto Gonzalez has “Amerindian blood” and wondered if that made him “Asian.” I also pondered how he would classify Condaleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas. Oddly, no answer.

Indeed, when I see “Western Nation” I see a set of ideas and ideals. It would seem that the author of this e-mail, with his “blood and soil theory” sees white people. I can’t find another interpretation and my inter-change with him simply reinforced that notion.

Amazing and sad.