"Coconuts" (brown on the outside and white on the inside) is the pejorative term or racist epithet used by some Hispanics, like Dee Perez-Scott, to describe their more enlightened brethren who actually support the national interest, character, ideals, language, security, quality of life, standard of living, and culture of the U.S. I guess that "Brownies" (brown all the way through) must then be the antonym applicable to those ethnocentrists who give precedence to their particular ethnic group instead of the national interest.
The term “Coconuts” is similar to the pejorative terms “Oreo” or “Uncle Tom” applied to the Blacks who have been successful in leaving the ghetto and the “projects” to become productive members of society. If it leads to success, is “Acting White” really so bad? What’s wrong with emulating those who are successful regardless of their skin color? Think of it as emulating success. Dee claims to have worked for a Fortune 500 company in Dallas, Texas. I wonder, was she thought of by some as being a coconut?
Dee wrote, "Posada is NOT one of US Latinos who are fighting for CIR, but instead a Coconut Republican paid flunkie. This guy is despicable, a racist and hates his own skin!"
Robert wrote: “Exactly how is he a ‘racist’? I was under the impression that a racist is supposed to be someone who has too high a regard for his own skin.
Even though Dee claims to be a grandmotherly type who never indulges in name-calling on her blog, the above sample of her remarks indicates otherwise. Clearly, she has reverted to her typical form of expression in that regard. I wonder if she also uses the terms “Oreo” or “Uncle Tom?”
Dee added, “Posada …receives funds from the Repugs to form this group and attempts to go on Univision with an ad that says "we".. who is he talking to? Other coconuts like himself who have never fought for CIR? He has not fought for CIR. Never. Nope. Never! So how on earth can he say "we" should not vote?!?!
It’s interesting that Dee believes that support of CIR is essential to be a member of her ethnic group. This apparently means, as usual, that if someone, like Posada, disagrees with her point of view, he is wrong and she is right. I guess only Dee is entitled to express an opinion or support a particular political philosophy. Posada obviously was using the pronoun “we” to refer to all those of his persuasion, just as Dee uses it to refer to all those of her persuasion. It is incredible that she does not comprehend these elementary facts about the English language. Or is this just another example of the negative spin she places on everything that she disagrees with? She seems unable to accept that other people have the same rights as she does to favor or disagree with any reform or political movement.
She gives Posada points for his Machiavellian thinking. “It takes both creativity and chutzpah to encourage Latinos to give a boost to candidates who actually oppose the reform they seek.” She obviously has jumped to the conclusion that every Hispanic in Nevada is of a like mind and seeks a reform of immigration rules that will increase their numbers competing for jobs that currently are in short supply in Nevada.
Finally Dee quoted Senator Reid on immigration: "We must not forget that we are a nation founded on and built by immigrants. Our grandparents and great-grandparents came here to pursue the American dream, and we should honor that proud heritage as we work to reform our immigration laws," Reid said. Reid is living in the past. This is the 21st century. America is fully settled, populated, and developed. An immigration policy that was appropriate in the past is not longer relevant.
Many Americans share Candidate Angle’s views on immigration: "Every state should have a sheriff like Joe Arpaio. Go, Arizona, go."
Working for logical immigation reform based on a stable population, a recognition of the finite nature of our natural resources and the adverse impact of continued growth on our quality of life, standard of living, national interest, character, language, sovereignty and the rule of law. Pushing back and countering the disloyal elements in American society and the anti-American rhetoric of the leftwing illegal alien lobbies. In a debate, when your opponents turn to name calling, it's a good sign you've already won.