#39 ¿Que pasó? with Señor B - week of 12/22

A recent video from a Mexican American creator has been making the rounds, posing a hypothetical that feels more like a loyalty test than a genuine question: If the U.S. and Mexico went to war tomorrow, which side would you choose?

The fella argues for an "America First" stance, claiming anyone who wouldn't immediately take up arms against Mexico is in the wrong. Here is why that logic is not only flawed but historically blind.

The creator says that people need to come here the "right way," just as his family did four generations ago.

The disconnect here is glaring: the "right way" of four generations ago doesn't exist today. The immigration system has been systematically dismantled and restricted to the point where the safety and permanent pathways his ancestors accessed are now a labyrinth of decades-long waits and bureaucratic dead ends. Wanting today’s families to have the same access to safety his family had isn't radical: it’s a call for consistency and compassion.

The question "which side would you choose?" assumes that the government will give you the grace of choosing. History tells a different story.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the U.S. didn't ask Japanese Americans to "pick a side." Instead, they forcibly incarcerated over 120,000 people, two-thirds of whom were U.S. citizens, into internment camps.

While the U.S. was also at war with Germany and Italy, the mass detention of those populations never reached the same scale. Japanese Americans were deemed a "national security risk" based solely on their ancestry.

When we look at the current climate of mass detention and surveillance, we see the blueprint for history repeating itself. In a conflict, the "side" you choose might not matter to a system that sees your heritage as a threat.

Beyond the politics, there is the human reality: I refuse to entertain a hypothetical that involves the unaliving of my own people. True progress isn't found in choosing which side of a war to fight on; it’s found in dismantling the systems that make such a war, and the dehumanization that precedes it, possible in the first place. That is why we see Japanese American communities today standing in solidarity with those targeted by ICE; they know exactly where this road leads.

A recent viral video shows a woman hurling racist insults at a group of women for the "crime" of speaking Spanish in public. Her demand? That they "go back to Mexico."

There is a irony in this story that we can't ignore. We are living within the Americas. Mexico is in America. The borders we see today are political constructs, yet they are used as weapons to decide who "belongs" on land that has indigenous roots long predating current national lines.

What makes this specific interaction even more complex is the racial ambiguity of the woman shouting the insults. It serves as a reminder of how white supremacy functions: it doesn't always require a white person to uphold it. By adopting the language of the oppressor, individuals from marginalized or racially ambiguous backgrounds often attempt to distance themselves from "the other" to gain a sense of proximity to power. It is a classic divide-and-conquer tactic that keeps us fighting one another instead of questioning the systems that benefit from our fragmentation.

While the verbal assault on these women was inexcusable, we also have to look at the response. In the heat of the moment, the women being attacked referred to the aggressor as "India"; using the term as a slur or a negative connotation.

Colorism and anti-indigeneity are deeply rooted within the Latino community. When we use indigenous identity as an insult, we are perpetuating the very same hierarchy that the woman in the video was using against us. We cannot demand respect for our culture while simultaneously degrading the indigenous roots of our people. If we want to dismantle the harm done to us, we must stop creating harm within our own circles.