When I criticized Christopher Columbus's legacy and the nature of the Spanish occupation of America, this underwent the usual rightist analysis of screeching about political correctness (is it not ironic that to be against "PC" is probably the most "PC" position out there?), and my commentary was depicted as anti-Anglo despite the fact that Columbus was an Italian of Genoa commanding a Hispanic occupation force. This conflation implies that there's some connection between Anglo and Hispanic identity because of common European origins. And yet, the incompatibility of aspects of Hispanic culture with Anglo culture and the "refusal to assimilate" on the part of modern Latin American immigrants of largely Native American descent is now cited as a reason for opposing "excessive" immigration.

What does this mean, exactly? Hispanic identity becomes divorced from Anglo identity once the Indians are successfully indoctrinated with it?