Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Absolut Faux Pas
When vodka ads offend nativists
Did you hear the one about the Swedish vodka company recently purchased by a French conglomerate marketing to Mexican consumers that pissed off U.S. bloggers? Ah, the perils of globalism! In early March, Absolut ran an ad in Mexican magazines as part of its "In an Absolut World" campaign. The ad featured a map of North America from the 1830s, when Mexico still controlled great portions of land it eventually coughed up one way or another to the United States. If the real world were as perfect as it sometimes seems when you're smashed on vodka, Absolut suggested coyly, the Dallas Cowboys would be Mexico's team, not America's, and the Beach Boys would've had to settle for Nebraska girls.
Apparently, Absolut's ad agency put too much faith in news stories that we gringos are so geographically illiterate we think maps are just promotional posters for globes. But as any border patrol vigilante worth his margarita salt can tell you, what happens in Mexico City doesn't always stay in Mexico City. The controversial Absolut ads crossed the Rio Grande via the Internet, and U.S. bloggers with anti-immigration leanings, already sensitive to the idea of being undermined by an army of dishwashers and day laborers, demanded a boycottini.
But do these angry patriots really believe drunken Mexicans fantasize about owning Salt Lake City? Do they really believe Absolut wants to decrease the size of its most lucrative market, America? It's just an ad, part of a campaign that portrays a glibly "idealized" alternate universe. In another ad in the campaign, men get pregnant instead of women. In a third, the Almighty Bartender reaches down from the heavens to dump ice cubes into an ocean that is presumably hot with the sweat of boiling dolphins. As much as Absolut may position itself as a light-hearted advocate for gender equality and the War on Climate Change, it's mostly a light-hearted advocate for selling as much vodka as possible—and it's not above sucking up to its many different constituencies to do so.
Indeed, over the last three decades Absolut has done a brilliant job of this. In 1980, vodka had a reputation as a cheap commodity that was so generic even Communists couldn't screw it up too badly. Then the Swedes began exporting Absolut in those chic medicinal bottles. And running ads in virtually every magazine big enough to earn a spot on your local newsrack. (Possibly the one thing Martha Stewart Living, The New Republic, Garden Design, Scientific American, and Hustler have in common is that they've all run Absolut ads.)
The spare but glamorous layouts of those initial Absolut ads transformed vodka's status from cheap commodity to yuppie status item: They were like a pair of designer jeans that got you drunk! Over the next 25 years, Absolut employed a strategy of versatile monotony, producing more than 1,500 ads that followed the same simple template as the first one—a depiction of the bottle plus a short phrase beginning with the word "Absolut."
As the campaign progressed, it grew more and more abstract, and thus more and more effective. The boastful language of the earliest ads ("Absolut Perfection," "Absolut Gem") gave way to puns that said nothing about the product itself. A bottle wrapped in chains was paired with the phrase "Absolut Security." A bottle turned on its head was paired with the phrase "Absolut Yoga." The company was no longer selling itself as a maker of vodka; it was selling itself as a maker of witty but empty advertising. In the same way that vodka is so tasteless, odorless, and colorless it can be mixed with just about anything, the Absolut brand was so meaningless it could be mixed with just about anything too.
Thanks to this chameleon-like ability to appeal to so many different kinds of consumers, Absolut is the most popular imported vodka in America. It's the third largest liquor brand worldwide. Two years ago, however, it decided to finally retire its traditional ads. Last year, it unveiled its first "In an Absolut World" ads; unlike their empty, eye-catching predecessors, these ones convey actual messages, often with a progressive slant. And that, Absolut has learned in the wake of its fantasy annexation of a sizable chunk of the American West and Southwest, is a recipe for trouble.
Still, is a single controversial ad grounds for boycotts and disownment? Last year, America drank approximately 1.68 billion shots of Absolut. Think of all the drunken hook-ups that represents! Think of all the business deals Absolut helped seal, the concerts and football games and slow Thursday afternoons it enhanced. Plus there's the question of whose "perfect world" Absolut's border realignment really represents. Ultimately, more Mexico would just mean less America; the net result would be fewer illegal immigrants invading the U.S. in search of a better life. That doesn't sound like a Mexican fantasy at all. Instead, it's a scenario nativists would toast.
Contributing Editor Greg Beato is a writer in San Francisco.
|4.10.08 @ 4:44PM|#
Ok, this is in all seriousness.
The immigration restrictionists say theres a secret plot to take
back the southwest for Mexico.
At the same time, the same people ALSO say theres a plot to unite
Mexico, Canada, and the United States under one federal
government.
Seems like the two are mutually exclusive. Which is it?
|4.10.08 @ 4:45PM|#
"But do these angry patriots really believe drunken Mexicans
fantasize about owning Salt Lake City?..."
If it were such a non-issue in their marketing demographic why
would they use it? I'm guessing it is something a respectable
portion of the Mexican population thinks about occasionally.
But wasn't that Spanish territory?
|4.10.08 @ 4:47PM|#
They should just run an add in Britain that shows the United States east of the Mississippi as British colonies.
The Whine Commonsewer|4.10.08 @ 4:47PM|#
Swedish vodka company recently purchased by a French
conglomerate
Sounds like the French are just getting even with us for giving
them shit about having rear view mirrors in their tanks so they
could see how the battle was going.
Personally, I think we should offer both Baja's statehood and
federal revenue sharing to entice them to leave Mexico.
Better yet, Let's make Baja the destination de jour for the Free
State Project.
|4.10.08 @ 4:48PM|#
StupendousMan,
No, Mexico was an independent nation by the time of the
Mexican-American War, etc.
J sub D|4.10.08 @ 4:48PM|#
It's the third largest liquor brand worldwide.
Don't leave us hanging. What are numbers one and two
Bingo|4.10.08 @ 4:49PM|#
Contributing Editor Greg Beato is a writer in San Francisco.
Paging Casey Sarin!
javier|4.10.08 @ 4:49PM|#
Ultimately, more Mexico would just mean less America; the
net result would be fewer illegal immigrants invading the U.S. in
search of a better life
More mexico just means more of the continent would have been
destroyed by socialist nonsense and we would have even more people
coming to the US for a better life.
The Whine Commonsewer|4.10.08 @ 4:51PM|#
But wasn't that Spanish territory?
I once heard a Mexican national arguing with a Gringo in Cabo and
she asserted that:
technically, California is part of Mexico anyway..
I thought to myself, wait, by that logic wouldn't it be that
technically Alta California AND Mexico belongs to Spain?
Actually, I was troubled by this conversation, otherwise I liked
this chick, she was obviously bright, friendly, outgoing, educated
in Mexico and the US, had a great job, but......
The Whine Commonsewer|4.10.08 @ 4:53PM|#
Contributing Editor Greg Beato is a writer in San
Francisco.
Well, that explains his liberal attitude. After the reconquista,
he's still in the US.
x,y|4.10.08 @ 4:55PM|#
The immigration restrictionists say theres a secret plot to take back the southwest for Mexico.
At the same time, the same people ALSO say theres a plot to unite Mexico, Canada, and the United States under one federal government.
Seems like the two are mutually exclusive. Which is it?
I'm not defending the "Save R Jobs" or "Protect R Borders" crowd,
but this is a weak argument because it is too vague. Who are "the
same people"? Show me the same person or organization making both
those claims and then I'll take it seriously.
Arhnuld|4.10.08 @ 4:57PM|#
What if we gave them southern california, basically the LA area,
think they'd be happy with that?
I dont think it would be missed too much...
Episiarch|4.10.08 @ 4:58PM|#
The idea that Mexico could ever actually take anything away from
the US is so absurd that I find myself wondering what people are
actually upset about in this ad.
It's like showing an ad in Canada with everything in the Oregon
Country as part of Canada. I mean, come on.
Pre-emptive Candian response: "But we burned down the White House
in 1814!"
|4.10.08 @ 5:00PM|#
x,y,--
Michelle Malkin, VDARE, and of course LoneWacko all make both
arguments.
So does Lou Dobbs.
Orange Line Special|4.10.08 @ 5:02PM|#
Since Greg Beato didn't offer anything beyond a stock open
borders/up with globalism piece, and since he didn't engage his
opponents' arguments in an honest fashion, let me help provide some
background on the issue.
1. A ZogbyPoll in Mexico found that 58% thought the U.S. southwest
rightfully belongs to Mexico. That means that a good percentage of
those who corrupt hacks are allowing to come here illegally think
they're resettling their homeland.
2. Various MexicanAmerican politicians are former members of a
racial separatist group whose founding documents advocated that
homeland. One of those includes L.A.'s mayor, and another is a U.S.
Rep.
3. For examples of literally anti-American sentiments that deny our
sovereign right to our territory, here's a Clinton
co-chair, and here's a national official
with a major group.
4. And, here's one of Reason's
new heroes on the issue.
|4.10.08 @ 5:08PM|#
More fun with comments on LoneWackos site:
Its not going to be over until Juan McCain, Jorge Bush, and all the other anti-American traitors to our racial/ethnic heritage are PURGED from the government!
Fed Up! | 04.10.08 - 4:39 pm | #
Orange Line Special|4.10.08 @ 5:08PM|#
Episiarch says: The idea that Mexico could ever actually
take anything away from the US is so absurd that I find myself
wondering what people are actually upset about in this
ad.
Obviously, the ancestors of those who run Mexico were quite adept
at taking things away from people. And, there are possibilities
beyond the southwest becoming an actual part of Mexico. It could
also become an autonomous region of some kind. If everyone in CA
now decided to become their own state, there's nothing the rest of
the U.S. could do about it. And, with a supermajority being
MexicanAmerican or Mexican, there's the possibility that that might
happen.
It's not like things like that have happened before in world
history, and certainly not in the U.S., right?
|4.10.08 @ 5:08PM|#
I'm not defending the "Save R Jobs" or "Protect R Borders"
crowd, but this is a weak argument because it is too vague. Who are
"the same people"? Show me the same person or organization making
both those claims and then I'll take it seriously.
Obviously, you have not clicked. If you have, then you have not
learned.
economist|4.10.08 @ 5:10PM|#
Actually, I think that in the absence of US territorial gains in southwest, there would be more illegal immigrants in the US. It has mostly to do with the instability and economic policies of Mexico, which would presumably be larger in the absence Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty.
Episiarch|4.10.08 @ 5:11PM|#
If everyone in CA now decided to become their own state,
there's nothing the rest of the U.S. could do about it.
Really? So that whole Civil War thing didn't resolve the secession
issue, I guess.
Oh noes the wetbacks are going to super-populate CA and vote to
leave the US! And the Feds will let them, presumably? Who again has
all the military assets?
|4.10.08 @ 5:12PM|#
Lonewacko, do you pee your pants when a truck goes by? Do you
tremble with fear while crossing the street.
Find yourself something real to worry about. There is plenty of
horrible stuff out there.
|4.10.08 @ 5:13PM|#
Obviously, you have not clicked. If you have, then you have
not learned.
Heh, good one.
economist|4.10.08 @ 5:16PM|#
I think we should renegotiate the treaty. For $50,000,000,000 Mexico can have California, Texas, New Mexico (it's got Mexico built right into its name!), Arizona (sorry John McCain), and California. If Felipe Calderon is interested he can support my bid to become dictador supremo de los Estados Unidos.
|4.10.08 @ 5:17PM|#
"Oh noes the wetbacks..." etc.
The numbers of immigrants from the south has increased dramatically
in the past two decades. Has it slowed? I don't know, but the
numbers combined with identity politics and ethnic pride garbage
doesn't make the idea crazy. Low probability, but not absurd,
IMO.
As OLS said, similar things have been known to happen throughout
history.
|4.10.08 @ 5:22PM|#
Episiarch | April 10, 2008, 4:58pm | #
The idea that Mexico could ever actually take anything away from the US is so absurd that I find myself wondering what people are actually upset about in this ad.
It's like showing an ad in Canada with everything in the Oregon Country as part of Canada. I mean, come on.
Episiarch
I'm miffed they didn't. And the Ohio territories ceded in
1818.
RE: Burning down the White House in 1814. How about a bicentennial
reenactment? You choose the occupant.
|4.10.08 @ 5:24PM|#
Absolut is pretty shitty Vodka, but they do commision some
pretty good ads. A case in point from Tim and Eric:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p0QtJMKt1s
Orange Line Special|4.10.08 @ 5:27PM|#
Episiarch says: So that whole Civil War thing didn't resolve
the secession issue, I guess... Who again has all the military
assets?
I already had this discussion with another set of useful idiots a
couple days ago, that time of the "liberal" variety:
----
[You] might want to check the populations and weaponry involved
then and now. Hint: there are at least three times as many *Mexican
citizens* in California as there are people in our entire armed
forces. There's absolutely no way that we could "re-invade" our own
territory without massive losses on our side or their side,
depending on how we did it.
---
It's long past time that we recognized "libertarians" as the
present-day equivalent of yesterday's CommieSymps and
collaborateurs.
Colin|4.10.08 @ 5:27PM|#
I thought the ad was quite witty.
Americans' sense of humor (both from the right and the left) seem
to be a all-time low.
The Whine Commonsewer|4.10.08 @ 5:28PM|#
I dont think it would be missed too much...
Except that 70 Billion flowing from So Cal into the state
coffers
Episiarch|4.10.08 @ 5:30PM|#
OK, that's all the LoneWacko arguing I can handle. It's like arguing with Chewbacca; he grunts and makes noises that make no sense, and you speak back to him in English.
The Whine Commonsewer|4.10.08 @ 5:32PM|#
If the ad ran only in Mexico, why was it in
English?
Toooo-got-dang-shay Mr Oliver. Nicely done.
|4.10.08 @ 5:44PM|#
If the ad ran only in Mexico, why was it in
English?
The Reconquista aren't stupid. They recognize that Aztlán will need
to be bilingual.
|4.10.08 @ 5:45PM|#
Why would anyone fantasise about owning SLC?
By the way, I'm down with a reenactment of the burning of the White
House. But only if we get to torch the Canadian houses of
parliament again. (Although we might let you go first this time;
that seems fair, eh?)
Brandybuck|4.10.08 @ 5:50PM|#
The Mexican-American war started as a result of Texas secceding
from Mexico and subsequently joining the US. While there are some
legitimate complaints that Polk maneuvered us into that war, it was
still Mexico that fired the first shot. There was a very real
possibility that the US could have annexed ALL of mexico! Maybe
there should be another Absolut ad showing the borders of the US
extending down to Chiapas and Yucatan.
Yeah, California used to belong to Mexico. GET OVER IT! It belonged
to Spain before that, and parts to Russia. And don't forget the
Amerindians. If you're going to give the land back to the original
owners, you'll have to rustle up some coyotes and jackrabbits to
hand the deeds over to.
From the \"But that\'s differe|4.10.08 @ 5:54PM|#
So what would happen if Absolut de Guatemala SA de CV ran an ad
showing Chiapas as being part of Mexico?
PS: Peachy wins the thread when he asks why anyone would want Salt
Lake City.
Franklin Harris|4.10.08 @ 5:54PM|#
Michelle Malkin, VDARE, and of course LoneWacko all make both arguments.
So does Lou Dobbs.
I really wish cognitive dissonance made people's heads explode. It
would be fun watching these people melt down like a computer that's
just lost an argument with Capt. Kirk.
bubba|4.10.08 @ 5:57PM|#
Regardless of the merits of the border argument:
If it's ok for me to buy a product because I like an ad, it's also
ok for me to decline a product because I don't like an ad.
|4.10.08 @ 6:21PM|#
Greg Beato-
Absolut stupidity!
Why not a map that shows Western Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan,
Korea, Israel, Iraq, Mexico, and all of Central America to the
Canal Zone- and also parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan- in a
advertisement for "Absolut America"?
Or, might that possibly offend some of their
customers in one of those countries where Absolut
doesn't already sell 1.6 billion
shots/yr?
Ska|4.10.08 @ 6:25PM|#
As far as I'm concerned, you can have vodka. I'll take gin over vodka every time.
|4.10.08 @ 6:33PM|#
Mr Beato,
Unfortunately you could not be more hopelessly wrong.
Should Absolute sell to the Germans with a 1940's map showing Paris
as a part of greater Germany.
The Phillipines as part of Japan's Greater Asian Prosperity
Sphere?
Or perhaps a map of the old Soviet Union would be to your
liking.
You see, when you write an article you should try thinking
first.
BOYCOTT ABSOLUT!
Kolohe|4.10.08 @ 6:45PM|#
"If everyone in CA now decided to become their own state,
there's nothing the rest of the U.S. could do about it."
Zombie Lincoln in '08!
Virgil|4.10.08 @ 6:48PM|#
David DeCarlo, you tiresome halfwit, maybe they should just sell
ads with a picture of you without your head all the way up your
ass, although I'm afraid that scenario is even more implausible
than the ads they're actually running.
Only an AbsolutParanoidMoron like Lonewacko (and, apparently, you)
thinks we're under some legitimate threat from Mexico or Mexican
immigrants. And only an AbsolutAhistoricalDipshit thinks this map
is remotely comparable to one involving Nazi Germany or the
USSR.
You see, when you post at a blog you should try thinking
first.
BOYCOTT DUMBASSES!
james b|4.10.08 @ 6:52PM|#
If everyone in CA now decided to become their own state,
there's nothing the rest of the U.S. could do about it.
If everyone wants to go, why make them stay?
Kolohe|4.10.08 @ 6:52PM|#
"It's not like things like that have happened before in world
history, and certainly not in the U.S., right?"
You know, I conceed that this is the most cogent argument the
restrictionists make, comparing US vs Cherokee,et al. to Mexico vs
US.
However, the weakness of this line of reasoning is:
Population wasn't the only thing the manifest density forces had at
their disposal. They also had the holy trinity of 'lawyers, guns,
and money' I know one would argue on who now has the upper hand on
the first two, with ManyLinks, but the third is undeniably a
NorteAmericano advantage.
Kolohe|4.10.08 @ 7:09PM|#
[You] might want to check the populations and weaponry involved then and now. Hint: there are at least three times as many *Mexican citizens* in California as there are people in our entire armed forces. There's absolutely no way that we could "re-invade" our own territory without massive losses on our side or their side, depending on how we did it.
1st:
(white male) of future confederacy at time of sumter = 2.5
million
size of US army at the time of sumter = 16,000
ratio: 150:1 (which is greater than 3:1)
2nd:
Grant nor Sherman really didn't give a shit about massive losses on
either side. I don't see how that trend wouldn't continue.
3rd:
Weaponry then and now:
modern weaponry makes a battle between 'unionists' and
'seperatists' even more uneven.
(but what about Iraq? Iraq has a myriad of factions all trying to
kill each other as well as us.
but what about Vietnam? vietnam had foreign backers that we could
not go after directly)
|4.10.08 @ 7:11PM|#
"Animals are crapping in our houses, and we're picking it up. Did we lose a war? That's not America. That's not even Mexico!"
|4.10.08 @ 7:22PM|#
Ska, you do realize that Gin is basically Vodka with Juniper oil added to alter the tatse, right. And for the idiot who said Vodka has "no" taste, try a GOOD one. Not Stoli or Grey Goose, but a REAL Vodka, like Vincent, or Chopin would be a decent start. Yummy
Franklin Harris|4.10.08 @ 7:31PM|#
Not Stoli or Grey Goose, but a REAL Vodka, like Vincent, or Chopin would be a decent start.
Chopin tastes like potatoes and gives me the worst. hangovers.
ever. Meh.
|4.10.08 @ 7:41PM|#
The immigration restrictionists say theres a secret plot to take back the southwest for Mexico.
At the same time, the same people ALSO say theres a plot to unite Mexico, Canada, and the United States under one federal government.
Seems like the two are mutually exclusive.
Seems, but is not necessarily. If one group, say a group founded in
Mexico and transferred partly to the US, is trying to return the
Southwest to the control of Mexico. Also, another group, lets use
the Bildeburgers since they don't get as much ink as they used to,
is trying to unify the three countries in order to take over the
world. In this case, you have two plots that are at odds with each
other.
Both can't happen at the same time and fulfill both ambitions, but
then again, I doubt those people actually believe both will or
could happen simultaneously, just both could possibly happen.
ps - I am not one of "those people"
|4.10.08 @ 7:46PM|#
Mexican Joke:
"It isn't that the Gringos stole half our country that pisses us
off, it's that they stole the half with the good roads."
Lonewako, have you ever talked to those immigrants you are so-so
afraid of? Heard how every third ad on spanish radio is a class or
tape to learn english in three weeks? Why is the vodka ad in
english?
Mexico is dying. She looses hundreds of thousands of productive
citizens every year and the oligarchs just shrug. Her children are
emos and punks and headbangers - getting their culture from the
North. The language of the middle class is changing to Spanglish
and the indians are learning english before they bother to learn
spanish. In fifty years Mexican culture will just be somthing
hispanic studies students discuss in US universities. The nation of
Mexico will be rotting husk.
Gahan|4.10.08 @ 7:55PM|#
It'll be like when all those immigrants back in the 19th century carved up the eastern seaboard for Ireland and Italy and forced everyone east of the Mississippi to convert to Catholicism. Before you know it, California will be turned upside down and the cities will all have scary Mexican names like Sacramento or San Francisco.
|4.10.08 @ 8:10PM|#
Damn LoneWhackjob! How many names do you plan on using this
month? Even Gunnels didn't change names as often as you do these
days.
Well, while the names may change your shit still stinks.
|4.10.08 @ 8:11PM|#
Ali | April 10, 2008, 8:08pm | #
What would an Absolut ad be like in Canada?
Absolute Hockey! Eh?
Gahan|4.10.08 @ 8:13PM|#
By the way, having lived in Mexico for a couple years now (in
the north, no less), I can tell you that any complaint about lost
territory is more likely to be followed up with a shrug and another
sip of Tecate than a rifle raised in the air. The national motto
down here is "ni modo" (Which loosely translates as "Oh well" or
"What are you gonna do?"), an attitude that has been pretty
ingrained ever since the Spanish conquest. Those who fear a Mexican
invasion are paranoid nutjobs.
I was recently back in California (Monterey area) with my Mexican
wife and her friends. As we were driving down Highway 1 through Big
Sur, they began to muse about what it would look like if it still
belonged to Mexico. The consensus was that there would be a lot
more litter and the road would be jammed with motorized taco
carts.
|4.10.08 @ 8:14PM|#
It'll be like when all those immigrants back in the 19th
century carved up the eastern seaboard for Ireland and Italy and
forced everyone east of the Mississippi to convert to Catholicism.
Before you know it, California will be turned upside down and the
cities will all have scary Mexican names like Sacramento or San
Francisco.
Just goes to show how little you know about the papist infiltration
of America, the sobordination of our proud Anglo-Saxon culture.
Here's two examples to think over you smug bastard:
St Patrick's Day
Pizzarias
What do have to say about that?
Ali|4.10.08 @ 8:15PM|#
Absolute Hockey! Eh?
Since Canadians are such nice people, I was thinking may be a map
of the US extending across the Canadian midwest. Add that ad to the
ad from Mexico, and we're even! Problem solved.
Ali|4.10.08 @ 8:27PM|#
Another fun question:
What would be an Absolut ad that appeals to LoneWack, MM, et
al.?
|4.10.08 @ 8:27PM|#
lolbrownpeoplesuck
You've got it wrong. The rule is:
When the subject is melanin, words shall twin.
Gahan|4.10.08 @ 8:35PM|#
"What do have to say about that?"
What better way to de-Catholicize St. Patrick's Day than to turn it
into a binge-drinking green puke-athon where gays are allowed to
march in the parade?
And as for pizzerias, well... my local pizzeria has a condom
machine in the restroom. IN YOUR FACE, POPE!
Stephen Smith|4.10.08 @ 8:36PM|#
Apparently, Absolut's ad agency put too much faith in news
stories that we gringos are so geographically illiterate we think
maps are just promotional posters for globes.
I think the real problem is that Absolut didn't put enough faith
into the commonly-known fact that gringos can't stand reading other
languages and just put the damn thing in Spanish. If they had,
photo editors wouldn't have liked it so much and it wouldn't have
gained so much traction in the press here.
J sub D|4.10.08 @ 8:50PM|#
What better way to de-Catholicize St. Patrick's Day than to
turn it into a binge-drinking green puke-athon where gays are
allowed to march in the parade?
And as for pizzerias, well... my local pizzeria has a condom
machine in the restroom. IN YOUR FACE, POPE!
lol - ★★★★
el WackoSolitario|4.10.08 @ 8:53PM|#
"...gringos can't stand reading other languages and just put the
damn thing in Spanish"
AyCaramba!! El SupercarreteraNorteamericano!!
Neil|4.10.08 @ 8:59PM|#
Why nothing on our President's speech today?
It looks like we're going to strike Iran!
The Global War on Terror marches on.
Nasikabatrachus|4.10.08 @ 9:03PM|#
First Cinco de Mayo, now this! As if celebrating a holiday for a
country that doesn't even celebrate it wasn't bad enough, the
alcohol companies are re-drawing our maps!
Next thing you know, they're going to draw up an El Constitutione
that says that gringos like me are forbidden from mowing their own
lawns and picking their own strawberries for low wages.
|4.10.08 @ 9:09PM|#
Seems like the two are mutually exclusive. Which is
it?
x,y...why do you hate America?
|4.10.08 @ 9:28PM|#
Why would anyone fantasise about owning SLC?
I'm sure there's quite a few people in Utah who would love the
state to secede, install Mitt as their new president, and replace
the Bill of Rights with the Articles of Faith.
Y.|4.10.08 @ 9:43PM|#
I fear I must disagree with this article. While there's no
chance of the American Southwest ever rejoining Mexico, there may
be one day a sufficient amount of crazies who may actually try to
do this, and it's best to avoid encouraging this attitude in any
way.
Imagine how many restriction on freedom may happen after events
like
this.
JB|4.10.08 @ 10:29PM|#
Stick head in sand more please. Have you ever heard of La Raza?
These fringe groups do exist...even just one 5 second Google search
would show that. Reason editors, please make your writers do at
least 5 seconds of work for each article.
Still, if it was 'just an ad' why did the US get singled out? It is
any surprise that Absolut has no problem redrawing American
borders, but stayed away from messing with anyone else's?
The ad is stupid at best. The US, the natives, and Spain in that
order have more claim to that land than Mexico. Stupid ads for
stupid Mexicans, now there is an ad slogan. Not quite sure how that
sells vodka though. And I'm not saying Mexicans are stupid, but
those that liked this ad probably are.
This reason writer is a hick and a hack. There are plenty of
reasons to be pissed off at this ad that have nothing to do with
nativism. By the same logic, the writer is a racist if he doesn't
support affirmative action. This is the type of crap I expect to
see spewed by Republidemotard bloggers and media; I thought reason
actually put more reason into their articles.
|4.10.08 @ 11:01PM|#
The US got singled out because everyone knows we're secure about ourselves and have a sense of humor. Please don't ruin that for all of us.
Exham|4.10.08 @ 11:19PM|#
"The idea that Mexico could ever actually take anything away
from the US is so absurd that I find myself wondering what people
are actually upset about in this ad.
It's like showing an ad in Canada with everything in the Oregon
Country as part of Canada. I mean, come on.
Pre-emptive Candian response: "But we burned down the White
House in 1814!""
Apparently they also invented time travel, since Canada didn't
exist until the 1860's
|4.10.08 @ 11:29PM|#
"The US got singled out because everyone knows we're secure
about ourselves and have a sense of humor. Please don't ruin that
for all of us."
Which is why the ads were run in.... Mexico City
|4.10.08 @ 11:49PM|#
That's taking pedantry to an extreme, even for H&R. It's true that the first stage of confederation wasn't until 1867, but the terms 'Canada' and 'Canadian' had been in use for many decades prior. At the time of the war, the controlling constitutional document for the region was the Canada Act of 1791 (the formal name is a paragraph in itself), which had established the provinces of Lower Canada (essentially Quebec) and Upper Canada (Ontario.) And indeed, the burning of government buildings in Washington was - to some degree - retaliation for destruction caused during the American attack on York (which is to say Toronto, capital of Upper Canada) the previous year.
j|4.11.08 @ 12:11AM|#
You cannot even buy a US-made beer at a bar in TJ, and it's a faux pas to even ask. It's no wonder to me that you cannot buy Swedish or French beverage there either. I wonder if Greg Beato has ever been there.
|4.11.08 @ 12:37AM|#
Peachy
If we promise to burn down Washington again, will you please burn
down York (Toronto) again?
Isn't that what friends are for?
Exham|4.11.08 @ 1:03AM|#
The fact remains that there was no nation-state of Canada, even in concept, Upper and Lower Canada were colonies of Great Britain, it was the British that burned the white house.
The Whine Commonsewer|4.11.08 @ 1:13AM|#
The problem with the reconquista is that it is impractical. The recent immigrants left Mexico for a reason. The third generations are comfortable, they have good jobs, bitch about how much taxes they pay, and own a couple of rentals they hung onto as they moved up the ladder. There is no percentage for either group, so you're left with the disenchanted college students, who'll ultimately wise up, once they get real jobs and a bun in the oven.
The Whine Commonsewer|4.11.08 @ 1:17AM|#
Oh, and BTW, I am not the 999,999 visitor (Swear to God!) for
the thirteenth time this week. I hope those schmoes are paying big
bucks to flash that ad at us, because it sure is annoying and it
sure does make the page load for crap.
transferring data from Reason ads......
|4.11.08 @ 1:21AM|#
Exham
Picky, picky, picky.
My ancestors were with the first crew.
Do we have a deal or not?
The Whine Commonsewer|4.11.08 @ 1:24AM|#
You cannot even buy a US-made beer at a bar in
TJ....
Maybe not, but you can buy these.
|4.11.08 @ 1:27AM|#
Sure is, Aresen. We can probably stretch a point and burn down
Ottawa instead if you'd prefer - probably inconvenience more
politicians that way. (A capital's a capital, right?)
Now, M'sieur Exham, if we want to be really extremely technical,
I'm not sure we could say there was a "nation-state" of Canada even
in 1867 - the Confederation was a Dominion, still subject at a
remove to Westminster. It wasn't until 1931 that the British
Parliament was excluded from making legislation for Canada, and not
until 1982 - 1982! - that Canada became completely self-governing.
I'm going to let you be the one to tell Aresen that Canada
wasn't a nation-state before that...
But if we define 'Canada' simply as a distinct but not necessarily
sovereign political entity,
then its existence can very easily be stretched back to the war.
And it was their capital whose destruction kicked off all this
tit-for-tat we're joking about, even if the tat was executed by the
greater entity into which 'Upper' Canada was then subsumed. (This
definition will also spare us a barrage of polite Canadian
epithets, not to mention the goodwill a present-day burning of
'York' would provide.)
La Vox De Aztlan|4.11.08 @ 2:47AM|#
Reconquista is inevitable gringos, I suggest you leave the territories of Mexico North of the Rio Grande, if not you WILL be removed after the our work is complete.
1138|4.11.08 @ 3:29AM|#
really believe drunken Mexicans fantasize about owning Salt
Lake City?
Well, a good number of them are awfully vocal about it (Southern
California rathwer than Salt Lake City). If some of you Libertarian
ideologues would get your heads out of your asses, you'd know
this.
No, it'll never happen, of course, but to pretend there isn't a
deeply held feeling amongst the Mexican population here is just
ignoring reality.
Ford|4.11.08 @ 3:35AM|#
The idea that Mexico could ever actually take anything away
from the US is so absurd that I find myself wondering what people
are actually upset about in this ad.
It's just something that further divides people. The Mexicans in
SoCal are some of the most insular immigrants ever to come to our
shores, and I'm not even talking about the illegals. Although I
know you L's have your rosy open border scenario along with an host
of other ridiculous fantasies.
Anything that perpetuates the "such and such part of the US is part
of Mexico" is tiresome bullshit and divisive.
|4.11.08 @ 3:36AM|#
And as for pizzerias, well... my local pizzeria has a condom
machine in the restroom. IN YOUR FACE, POPE!
I thought condoms were supposed to prevent that.
\"Cigar Bill\" J. Clinton|4.11.08 @ 6:36AM|#
I thought condoms were supposed to prevent that.
Condoms are for safe sex - blowjobs aren't really sex.
B.J. Clinton
|4.11.08 @ 6:47AM|#
The company was no longer selling itself as a maker of vodka; it was selling itself as a maker of witty but empty advertising.
How about an ad depicting a couple of bums with bottles sticking
out of them, accompanied by the phrase: Absolut Assholes ?
|4.11.08 @ 8:43AM|#
Yes, those immigrants, after working 12-16 hour days, saving
money to buy a truck and house and sending hundreds of dollars a
month back to family in Mexico, say to themselves
"You know what would make this country great? If we had those
corrupt sons-of-bitches in Mexico City running things instead of
these corrupt anglo sons-of-bitches. Yeah, they really know how to
run a country in Mexico City." /eyeroll/
|4.11.08 @ 10:00AM|#
If some of you Libertarian ideologues would get your heads out of your asses, you'd know this.
Ok, have the dring game rules been revised to require shots of
absolut for this thread or can I just take a slug of whatever I
have on hand.
|4.11.08 @ 10:02AM|#
drinking game...dammit.
And here I thought nobody would notice that I'd already
started.
TallDave|4.11.08 @ 10:22AM|#
The immigration restrictionists say theres a secret plot to
take back the southwest for Mexico.
It's not a secret plot, it's the stated aim of the Aztlan
movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztlan
The name Aztlán was first taken up by a group of Chicano
independence activists led by Oscar Zeta Acosta during the Chicano
movement of the 1960s and 1970s. They used the name "Aztlán" to
refer to the lands of Northern Mexico that were annexed by the
United States as a result of the Mexican-American War. Combined
with the claim of some historical linguists and anthropologists
that the original homeland of the Aztecan peoples was located in
the southwestern United states, Aztlán in this sense became a
symbol of mestizo activists who believe they have a legal and
primordial right to the land.
They may be a harmless lunatic fringe, but they aren't a fantasy or
a secret.
|4.11.08 @ 10:22AM|#
there are at least three times as many *Mexican citizens* in
California as there are people in our entire armed
forces.
I might point out that apparently these Mexicans prefer living in
the US. Why would they put up a fight so they can live in Mexico,
when they just left there?
|4.11.08 @ 10:53AM|#
"The name Aztlán was first taken up by a group of Chicano
independence activists..."
While I studied in Denver I dated a Chicano who was involved with
La Raza. I attended some of their gatherings/parties. ALL of them
were chicanos, NOT Mexican. Their parents or grandparents were born
in Mexico, but they were American- most couldnt even speak Spanish.
The funny thing was that these Chicanos wanted desperately to be
Mejicanos but the true immigrants from Mexico didn't like them
because they couldnt speak Spanish. Mexicans see Chicanos as more
gringo than Mexican.
La Raza is pretty radical but harmless. And it is important to
point out that its the Chicanos who are calling for el movimiento
de Azatlan... not the poeple in Mexico. Gahan has it right:
Mexicans simply figure "ni modo".
rana|4.11.08 @ 11:03AM|#
And something else,
I am a white/blonde latina, which is not typical. When I went to
the first La Raza party, I entered a room where there was more than
a dozen Chicanos and Chicanas, and the room went completely SILENT
(I swear I think the music even stopped playing). EVERYONE turned
to stare at who they assumed was a gringa and gave me a dirty look.
I stood there for a few seconds and said "well I can see I am not
welcomed, pero al menos aprendan a hablar español. Desgraciados"...
I left the party immediately. ;)
Radicals can be such assholes.
Mike M.|4.11.08 @ 11:04AM|#
The idea that Mexico could ever actually take anything away
from the US is so absurd that I find myself wondering what people
are actually upset about in this ad.
The illegals may not be able to take away American land, but I'll
tell you one thing that they can definitely take away: the lives of
innocent American citizens.
Citizens like 19 year old Jamiel Shaw, Jr. of Los Angeles,
assassinated in cold blood by an illegal alien gang-banging scumbag
for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
frankstallone|4.11.08 @ 11:23AM|#
I've never met or heard anyone, including lou dobbs, who was anti-immigration; Anti-illegal immigration yes. Huge difference.
|4.11.08 @ 11:34AM|#
I've never met or heard anyone, including lou dobbs, who was
anti-immigration; Anti-illegal immigration yes. Huge
difference.
Can you explain how, in a country full of people who are not
anti-immigration, someone manages to pass laws against
immigration?
Virgil|4.11.08 @ 11:44AM|#
"...but I'll tell you one thing that they can definitely take
away: the lives of innocent American citizens."
Yes, they're so dramatically different from American citizens in
that way. Thank god we _never_ kill each other. Stay strong, Mike
M! Your dream of wholesome American purity will only be achieved
through your ongoing nativist delusion!
frankstallone|4.11.08 @ 11:44AM|#
You're going to have to be more specific b/c I don't know what law you are talking about. Whatever the law is, it must not be doing a very good job since the US has more legal immigration than any country in the world.
Mike M.|4.11.08 @ 11:52AM|#
Yes, they're so dramatically different from American
citizens in that way.
I'm sure such blithe, laconic dismissals would be very reassuring
to the friends and family of Jamiel Shaw indeed.
|4.11.08 @ 11:53AM|#
You're going to have to be more specific b/c I don't know
what law you are talking about.
The law that says that immigration visas have quotas and
expirations. That is most definitely anti-immigration -- just as a
law that dictates some maximum legal quantity of apple pie would be
anti-apple pie.
Virgil|4.11.08 @ 11:57AM|#
"I'm sure such blithe, laconic dismissals would be very
reassuring to the friends and family of Jamiel Shaw indeed."
And I'm sure the intellectually dishonest swill you're spewing here
is very reassuring to the many honest, decent immigrants who are
deemed guilty by association by halfwit nativist shitbags such as
yourself.
Mike M.|4.11.08 @ 12:04PM|#
And I'm sure the intellectually dishonest swill you're
spewing here is very reassuring to the many honest, decent
immigrants who are deemed guilty by association by halfwit nativist
shitbags such as yourself.
There's absolutely nothing dishonest or false whatsoever about
anything I said. Jamiel Shaw was assassinated by someone who wasn't
even even supposed to be in this country, for absolutely no reason
whatsoever. An entire family's life has been ruined. He should
still be alive, in spite of your "who cares" attitude.
And if you can't conduct a debate without having to resort to
insults and name-calling, then just go f*ck yourself buddy.
frankstallone|4.11.08 @ 12:11PM|#
I would say that is bullshit - I can't argue w/ apple pie logic.
If the system is too difficult for Mexicans, which it probably is,
then that needs to change; I just don't think stepping over an
invisible line in the desert is the best way to allow a person
citizenship.
I also find it humorous that the most vocal (non-libertarian) open
borders advocates argue that immigration laws are bad for business,
i.e. - businesses benefit from exploiting workers, also act as if
they are on the cutting edge of human/workers rights. Something
just smells fishy too me.
Virgil|4.11.08 @ 12:14PM|#
"There's absolutely nothing dishonest or false whatsoever about
anything I said...."
The clear implication of your post was that illegal immigrants are
coming here and killing American citizens in disproportionate
numbers. You know as well as I do that was the intended
implication, and if you're denying that you are in fact a blatant
bald-faced liar.
You have no interest in having a meaningful, honest debate - your
goal with your post was to appeal to emotion in order to smear all
illegal immigrants based on a single anecdote. I never even
remotely suggested that I have a "who cares" attitude; in fact I
care very much that intellectually dishonest nativists such as
yourself are called on it at every opportunity.
Ace|4.11.08 @ 12:17PM|#
Can we all agree that an ad showing any other country's borders
reconfigured by an old enemy (perhaps not a current one) would
cause indignation and anger from that country's people, even their
government? (Think France/England/Germany)
If so, then why are you surprised that some Americans responded
exactly the same way?
My only worry is that libertarianism, as fragile a political
movement that it is, only really thrives in the US, where
individuality is privileged over the group. Do the massive influx
of Mexican immigrants think this way? Will they eventually? It
doesn't seem to me that the same cultural pressures exist to
encourage/force assimilation.
frankstallone|4.11.08 @ 12:28PM|#
just fyi, Jamiel Shaw was murdered by a criminal illegal alien who had just been released from prison (just 28 hours before the murder)after of course the LA police Dept. failed to notify feds. I'm not in to raids or anything like that - but violent criminal illegal aliens in custody should be deported.
Mike M.|4.11.08 @ 12:31PM|#
The clear implication of your post was that illegal
immigrants are coming here and killing American citizens in
disproportionate numbers. You know as well as I do that was the
intended implication, and if you're denying that you are in fact a
blatant bald-faced liar.
Nobody knows with absolute certainty what the numbers are, since
for some reason the government refuses to keep official statistics
on crimes committed by illegal aliens. But independent groups have
done their own studies, and I've seen ones that show as many as 15%
of all homicides in America today are being committed by illegal
aliens! If that number is even close to accurate, it is most
definitely out of proportion with their numbers. Nobody believes
that illegals make up 15% of the population.
But personally, I don't care a whit what the actual numbers are.
One is too many in my opinion. And as far as I'm concerned, cities
like Los Angeles that have an official policy of providing
"sancutary" to illegals have blood on their hands and are partially
complicit in the needless murders of innocent Americans like Jamiel
Shaw.
|4.11.08 @ 12:33PM|#
You know, if the southwest was part of Mexico, the Mexicans
would be sneaking into Oklahoma.
Nothing would change.
|4.11.08 @ 12:34PM|#
What you said...
My only worry is that libertarianism, as fragile a political
movement that it is, only really thrives in the US, where
individuality is privileged over the group. Do the massive influx
of Mexican immigrants think this way? Will they eventually? It
doesn't seem to me that the same cultural pressures exist to
encourage/force assimilation.
What your dog heard...
Blah blah blah blah in the US, where individuality is privileged
over the group blah blah blah blah cultural pressures exist to
encourage/force assimilation.
Virgil|4.11.08 @ 1:47PM|#
"...and I've seen ones that show as many as 15% of all homicides
in America today are being committed by illegal aliens!"
No one who is even remotely informed and honest thinks that 15%
number is worth a shit. It's not the least bit plausible. You
probably don't want to go throwing that number around if you want
to maintain any shred of credibility with people who actually know
something about this.
"But personally, I don't care a whit what the actual numbers
are."
And that is exactly why you're not worth listening to. Crime rates
of illegal immigrants are obviously extremely relevant to the
question of their costs and benefits to American society. But you
have no interest in addressing that question; you're only
interested in continuing to use a single emotionally charged
anecdote to smear all illegal immigrants. All further posts from
you will be given all the attention they deserve, which is to say
they will be cheerfully ignored.
Mike M.|4.11.08 @ 2:11PM|#
No one who is even remotely informed and honest thinks that
15% number is worth a shit. It's not the least bit plausible. You
probably don't want to go throwing that number around if you want
to maintain any shred of credibility with people who actually know
something about this.
Without something to back up your assertion, say another study,
your rebuttal is completely worthless to me.
The obvious solution to this problem is for some agency in the
government, say the FBI, to give us the official numbers regarding
crimes committed by illegal aliens in America. This government
keeps statistics on just about everything under the sun through the
census, police reports, and other such means.
So why is it that they refuse to give us the official numbers? I
don't know for certain, but I sure suspect that it's because they
don't want the American people to know just how bad the problem
is.
But rest assured, the people in this country are not going to put
up with this forever and sit idly by while more and more of our
people get killed. We're going to get new laws passed to fight
sanctuary and put pressure on employers and the government, and
it's already happening in Arizona, Los Angeles, and this battle
will continue.
|4.11.08 @ 2:22PM|#
I don't really appreciate the use of the word "nativist" by the
author of this piece.
Yes, America was founded by immigrants and will always need
immigrants. But America also has some marginal (to say the least)
interest in defending its borders.
Mike M.|4.11.08 @ 2:36PM|#
Have no fear, the days of the open-borders folks such as "Virgil" being able to intimidate and silence people through insults and name-calling are rapidly coming to an end, because people are just getting fed up.
|4.11.08 @ 2:37PM|#
Boycotts and disownment? Nah - too formal.
But it is real easy to pick another brand of vodka - there are
plenty behind any bar. Vodka is, after all, a cheap commodity
product, just one notch up from industrial grade ethanol (aka
Everclear).
For fun, I went to Absolut's website and sent them a note with the
following link:
The
Swedish Empire in 1658
|4.11.08 @ 3:17PM|#
Absolut could attempt to market its vodka to the south, the
French via the Louisiana Territory map, the Spanish via a New Spain
map of Mexico.
Here is a good illustration...
http://www.nolanchart.com/article3404.html
Exham|4.11.08 @ 5:32PM|#
Note that the Vodka bottle sits on Venezuela, coincidence? I think not! Hugo Chavez shall liberate the Southwest!
|4.11.08 @ 7:26PM|#
Note too that the only people who can drink from the bottle live
in Puerto Rico.
Being from a semi-autonomous commonwealth, are they natural allies
for Aztlán? Are they better allies drunk than sober?
Scooby|4.11.08 @ 8:03PM|#
Without something to back up your assertion, say another
study, your rebuttal is completely worthless to me.
You didn't actually cite a study, so we can be pretty sure that you
just pulled that "15%" number directly from your ass. Find your
study, and link to it, or we will just assume that you are the
ignorant shit-breath you appear to be.
Meanwhile, I agree with MikeP.
ABC|4.12.08 @ 4:31PM|#
"Ok, this is in all seriousness.
The immigration restrictionists say theres a secret plot to take
back the southwest for Mexico.
At the same time, the same people ALSO say theres a plot to unite
Mexico, Canada, and the United States under one federal
government.
Seems like the two are mutually exclusive. Which is it?"
The latter. If had any knowledge about the history of the
development of the EU then you'd be a bit more suspicious of NAFTA
as well. Unless of course an even more expanded federal state
within the realms of an expanding supranational governmental
organization are acceptable within your understanding of
libertarianism.
This ad campaign was intelligent; the anti-immigration folks gave
Absolut a lot of publicity. If anything the ad campaign is more
insulting to Mexicans; it reminds them of what they lost.
|4.14.08 @ 1:42PM|#
A Zogby Poll in Mexico found that 58% thought the U.S.
southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.
It's been a long time since we took most of the territory following
the Mexican-American War, but it's kind of hard to argue with their
logic.
I wonder what percent of Poles thought Poland rightfully belonged
to Germany in 1942?
Tim|4.21.08 @ 1:24AM|#
Why do libertarians favor amnesty? Both the neo-cons under Bush and the democrats are also pro-open borders, it would be nice if a major political party adopted a stance on this issue that the majority of Americans agreed with. I am a libertarian on many issues such as the war on drugs but I think that you are missing the boat here. Also, finding this ad offensive is perfectly reasonable and the silly, juvenile name calling is not needed.
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Greg Beato
- In Defense of Extreme Pornography, Greg Beato, October 27, 2009
- Fading Print, Greg Beato, October 22, 2009
- Smile, You're on Hidden Camera, Greg Beato, September 22, 2009
Related Articles (Immigration, Consumer Issues)
- Strangers in a Strange Land, Peter Suderman, August 14, 2009
- Nativist International, Jeff Winkler, August 3, 2009
- Markets, Not Mandates, Ronald Bailey, July 28, 2009
- The El Paso Miracle, Radley Balko, July 6, 2009
- I.T. Go Home, Brian Doherty, May 29, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245