Now that the election results are in and Barack Obama is our new president, many people in the United States are viewing the election as the crowning achievement to the civil rights movement. I believe that nothing could be further from the truth. Obama is one of many leaders throughout history, that will be thrust in the limelight and have his every move, thought and word scrutinized by an American public that still today, demonstrates its intolerance on a daily basis. Since Barack Obama's victory at the polls, we have seen an increase in violence towards immigrants and ethnic minorities in the United States.(See:http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=e364948690a6224ef864120ae2543f6f)
While Obama and King are two very different leaders in two very different times, lessons from Dr. King are still relevant today and my hope is that Barack Obama will use that to guide him through the difficult times ahead. Great leaders inspire other great leaders, just as Mohandas Gandhi inspired Martin Luther King Jr., so have many other leaders around the world and throughout time done the same. An argument has been made that perhaps the civil rights movement should have groomed multiple leaders instead of just one in Martin Luther King Jr. While I understand that Martin Luther King was a leader that emerges just once in a great while, I am inclined to agree with the multiple leader approach. However, this is not to say that Martin Luther King Jr. did not directly affect new leadership because as I stated before, he was a great leader that not only inspired but put lessons into practice that new leaders could use. He took Gandhi's practice of non-violent resistance and made it his own because the lessons he learned from Gandhi were molded by him to fit his struggle. One example of King's implementation of non-violence that was unique to the civil rights struggle in the United States was when the civil rights movement leadership in Montgomery, Alabama turned themselves in to the police in mass as a result of the mass indictment by the Montgomery Police Department. It was nonviolent disobedience but it was actually something new as Stewart Burns explains in his book, To the Mountaintop, "But it was disobedience turned into its opposite, mass civil obedience-an imaginative leap of collective action, contrived in grassroots spontaneity, that even Gandhi had never tried". Mohandas Gandhi did not know Dr. King but he would affect the civil rights leader in such an intimate manner that it would seem that part of his spirit lived through Dr. King. In this same manner Dr. King's spirit lives in great leaders that he may have never met.
It is up to generations following Dr. King to not only learn from his methods but continue the struggle towards complete equality for all people because civil rights is simply not just a black and white issue. We must mold his approach and his lessons to our struggle because while King's struggle might have the same purpose as people of color today, the enemy of we are fighting, the methods we are seeing are much different. The forces of injustice are much more devious and underhanded than before so we must be creative if we are to defeat such a cunning adversary. Bus boycotts, sit ins, mass incarcerations may work to combat a blatantly racist society but today, things are not that way save for some parts of the country. Many people believe that racism does not exist anymore and hold up Barack Obama as living proof, so the challenge is demonstrating to people that not only does racism still exist but that we all are part of the system that perpetuates it's existence.
The reality is that since Dr. King was the only recognized leader of the civil rights movement, his becoming a martyr may have ultimately hurt the movement more than people have come to realize. This is because with the principal leader being killed and no one to step in his place immediately filling the void and thus not losing the momentum of the civil rights movement, his death brought about the commemoration of the movement as if the civil rights struggle was itself dead. To a certain extent it did die because after Dr. King's death, his message was considerably toned down to appease the masses as Dr. King being the great "American" hero. His rhetoric was toned down so much that Martin Luther King Jr. is known more for his message of non-violence and not for his more effective non-violent resistance. Resistance, even though it is non-violent is still resistance to something and in this case it was against what the United States stood for. So to commemorate Dr. King as an "American" hero as if his ideals were the entire country's ideals all along is misleading.
Vincent Harding in his book, The Inconvenient Hero touches on this when he explains how the public today perceives Martin Luther King Jr. as a, "great orator, harmless dreamer of black and white children on the hillside". It seems that in order to accept Dr. King into the national fabric of our society, his reputation had to be softened and that could only be achieved after his death and with time. Harding also elaborates on this point as he wrote, "It appears as if the price for the first national holiday honoring a black man is the development of a massive case of national amnesia concerning who that black man really was". King's untimely death not only did not allow him to speak for himself anymore but it also did not allow for the defense of the civil rights movement which came immediately under attack after his death.
Perhaps if there had been multiple leaders, the resistance aspect of the movement would not have lost momentum and greater progress could have been made towards racial equality. Instead, we live in a society where many believe racism does not exist while the system of inequality remains intact. I believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was leading up to this point towards the end of his life when he speaks of the "triple evils" that Harding also mentions in his book. In fact, Harding quotes from Dr. King directly saying, "the problem of racism, the problem of economic exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together". The civil rights movement in the latter days of Dr. King's life was preparing to educate the public on how racism against any ethnic group was tied into economic inequality and how that inequality was perpetuated by war; In short, the system of racism in all it's forms was still stubbornly in place. Martin Luther King Jr. did not have the opportunity to bring that message into the national consciousness and without the momentum of the civil rights movement, convincing people of the existence of systemic racism in today's society must start from square one because the message is now falling on deaf ears. Especially now that the nation has elected a black president, it will be that much more difficult for people to acknowledge a blatantly racist system.
Another important aspect of Dr. King to remember is that his opinions were not popular during the time he was alive and that although loved and even revered by many white people today, many of his opinions are still not popular with the white majority, such as the aforementioned, "triple evils". Therefore it only stands to reason that to continue his vision and his struggle is to embrace ideals that will not be popular in American society today. To continue his vision is to display a courage and commitment that speaks out against the racist system of today because to even state that racism still exists is an unpopular opinion. The fact remains that there is an ugly undercurrent of hatred and paranoia of people from the Middle East in the United States and that there is a condescending attitude and hatred towards people from Latin America and as evidenced from the catastrophe from hurricane Katrina, the United States still has a long way to go towards fully integrating the black community if not only economically then spiritually and politically. From illegal immigration and manipulation of the fear of terrorism to past and present economic exploitation along racial lines, American society is far from achieving the goal that Martin Luther King Jr. had in mind.
Racism is making a comeback in the mainstream media under the guise of comedy, patriotism and fear and although racist attitudes never really left, it is becoming overtly popular again. More than ever, we need to learn from Dr. King to lead our own movement of today and groom the leaders of tomorrow and while President elect Obama is just beginning his journey, he is already affecting the leaders of tomorrow.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Oh, did you think you could get the Latino vote just by talking about immigration?
In light of the upcoming presidential elections some people are asking; Who is going to get that elusive Latino vote? That question should be rephrased into; Who is going to get the majority Latino vote?The reason for this distinction should be because Latinos although unified in many ways are not going to all vote the same.Republicans and Democrats alike are actually addressing the needs and concerns of certain groups of Latinos in the United States as defined by economic status, community, and ideals. What is abundantly clear, however is that Latinos are becoming divided even amongst ourselves due to a host of social and economic forces and these forces have cause and effect relationships. We can expound on many of these social constructions, but the two that I think are more important in allowing us to visualize the stratification of the Latino population are assimilation and race.
On the one hand, Latinos are viewed and sometimes view themselves as one big monolithic group. An example of this would be when in 1994, Ana Luz Gonzalez, A Ph.d candidate in urban planning at UCLA at the time, conducted a field study at a center for day laborers in Los Angeles. One of the questions she asked the men in the group was whether they identified themselves primarily by the country of their origin, be it El Salvador or Mexico for example, or if they identified themselves primarily as Latino. The unanimous answer was Latino. The primary reason for this way of thinking stems from the way White-Americans regard immigrants from any country in Latin America and parts of the Carribean as being Hispanic or Latino. Although consolidating such diverse peoples and cultures takes away the uniqueness of each country and shows a blatant disinterest from White-Americans to learn about these differences, it also provides a single homogenous group that can be attacked collectively as "aliens". Latinos are now in the process of losing their national identity in much the same way as many Europeans did before them, however Latinos, as a whole, are falling short of fully being considered "White" Americans.
Yet there is one positive effect of becoming a single group and that is unity. Regardless of where in Latin America Latinos are emigrating from, the common denominators are that the journey is often treacherous and long, the reception in this country is not warm and the cause for the journey invariably boils down to either escape from violence, economic need or both. Some might conclude then that because of these common denominators there would be competition amongst Latinos say from Central America competing with those from the Carribean or Mexico but that doesn't seem to be the case. In fact what we are experiencing is more of a unification process because of common goals and common obstacles in arriving and making a life here in the United States. The realization seems to be that if one of us earns a piece of the proverbial pie, it doesn't mean the other will have a smaller piece but that it may open the door for others of us to have a piece at all. Common goals, obstacles and experiences are the strong ties that bind us. Forming bonds of friendship and family in adversity in spite of a hostile environment gives us strength. Yet there is another subtle commonality that make Latinos become even closer and that is a common language.
I don't think that Latinos are likely to give up Spanish anytime soon because it works to our benefit to retain it. To start off with, Latinos, especially Mexicanos, enjoy a relatively close proximity with our mother countries and as John Micklethwait points out in his article, The United States: The mixture as never before, in The Economist, bilingualism is much easier in the United States due to technological advances in television with regards to being able to see foreign programming. This is coupled with the facts that there are a vast number of Spanish language radio stations and the steady influx of immigrants from our countries, who still speak our native tongue, has not slowed down. Spanish opens doors in our community by creating a sense of trust and familiarity to the point where speaking English is frowned upon in certain social circles. So then how are Latinos becoming divided in the face of such overwhelming solidarity?
Let's take language into account again and we can see that right about the second or third generation it slowly becomes more English and less Spanish. In some instances the Spanish language goes away alltogether, however in most cases we are looking at phenomenohs like "Spanglish" which is a mixture of both languages being used. What this situation illustrates is not only assimilation but the resisistance to it which brings about the fusion of cultures that results in "Spanglish" or tortillas at your local grocery store,(which are sometimes called "wraps" in an attempt to sound less foreign), or the celebration of Cinco de Mayo by Americans who have no idea and the celebration of Halloween by Mexicanos that have no idea as well.
Therefore we now have on the other hand, evidence that shows us that the degree of assimilation is splintering Latinos into groups that are defined by our interests. Our interests being our economic, political and social interests that change with the groups that we move in and out of. A very prominent boundary marker in the United States is race. Some Latinos have wondered aloud whether we will be "raced" like African-Americans have been for so many centuries and with Latinos covering both ends of the color spectrum with everything in between, one can only speculate. What we know for certain is that the expanding definition of whiteness has alot to do with African-Americans not being fully integrated after being here for so long and that the expanding definition of whiteness will be a deciding factor in the fate of Latinos in the United States.
One theory proposed by Jonathon W. Warren and France Winddance Twine in their publication, WHITE AMERICANS THE NEW MINORITY? Non-Blacks and the Ever-Expanding Boundaries of Whiteness, In the Journal of Black Studies, suggests that white people may never become the minority in America and will always be the standard to be compared to. Warren and Twine argue that the definition of white is not static, rather it changes to fit the newly integerated group of people that have been accepted by whites whether by a high rate of intermarriage, physical features, or the economic succes of the group as a whole. Some scholars of whiteness, according to Warren and Twine, have even suggested that whiteness is a void or lack of culture, to be so shapeless and abstract that in order to define it we must compare it to others. Who would those "others" be? When asked what would be non-white, most people answer, "black". This creates a phenomenon I like to refer to as the "blackdrop". What I mean by that phrase is simply that in order to be considered white one of the first, "tests" one must "pass", is to be non-black. Black is an example of what not to be if one is to be accepted as white. Warren and Twine even go as far as to say, "Thus Blacks at least at the national level, serve as the anchor for Whiteness". Therefore if one is to assimilate, the process must begin by distancing oneself from what is considered black and consequently begin flirting with adopting anti-black ideals and ideas. In order to achieve "whiteness" the method is at the expense of African-Americans, so that to become an unhyphenated American, one can simply slip through the "back door into whiteness that is open to non-blacks.
How Latinos are affected by this is not hard to imagine because those Latinos with lighter complexions have been more readily accepted by the mainstream and the ones with darker complexions have been classified as black or black-Latino or black-Hispanic. These divisions just as with African-Americans, have political, sociological and economic consequences. All these factors will affect how individual Latinos vote or if many even vote at all. What seems almost certain is that all Latinos will not vote the same because not all of us fall into the same economic, social and political brackets. Race and color is only one aspect of the lives of many Latinos that causes divisions, however race and color leads to economic and political divisions and those two factors unquestionably affect the way we vote depending on which candidate best serves our needs because after all, it seems that everyone is voting according to their own interests in the belief that it is in the best interest of the country as a whole.
On the one hand, Latinos are viewed and sometimes view themselves as one big monolithic group. An example of this would be when in 1994, Ana Luz Gonzalez, A Ph.d candidate in urban planning at UCLA at the time, conducted a field study at a center for day laborers in Los Angeles. One of the questions she asked the men in the group was whether they identified themselves primarily by the country of their origin, be it El Salvador or Mexico for example, or if they identified themselves primarily as Latino. The unanimous answer was Latino. The primary reason for this way of thinking stems from the way White-Americans regard immigrants from any country in Latin America and parts of the Carribean as being Hispanic or Latino. Although consolidating such diverse peoples and cultures takes away the uniqueness of each country and shows a blatant disinterest from White-Americans to learn about these differences, it also provides a single homogenous group that can be attacked collectively as "aliens". Latinos are now in the process of losing their national identity in much the same way as many Europeans did before them, however Latinos, as a whole, are falling short of fully being considered "White" Americans.
Yet there is one positive effect of becoming a single group and that is unity. Regardless of where in Latin America Latinos are emigrating from, the common denominators are that the journey is often treacherous and long, the reception in this country is not warm and the cause for the journey invariably boils down to either escape from violence, economic need or both. Some might conclude then that because of these common denominators there would be competition amongst Latinos say from Central America competing with those from the Carribean or Mexico but that doesn't seem to be the case. In fact what we are experiencing is more of a unification process because of common goals and common obstacles in arriving and making a life here in the United States. The realization seems to be that if one of us earns a piece of the proverbial pie, it doesn't mean the other will have a smaller piece but that it may open the door for others of us to have a piece at all. Common goals, obstacles and experiences are the strong ties that bind us. Forming bonds of friendship and family in adversity in spite of a hostile environment gives us strength. Yet there is another subtle commonality that make Latinos become even closer and that is a common language.
I don't think that Latinos are likely to give up Spanish anytime soon because it works to our benefit to retain it. To start off with, Latinos, especially Mexicanos, enjoy a relatively close proximity with our mother countries and as John Micklethwait points out in his article, The United States: The mixture as never before, in The Economist, bilingualism is much easier in the United States due to technological advances in television with regards to being able to see foreign programming. This is coupled with the facts that there are a vast number of Spanish language radio stations and the steady influx of immigrants from our countries, who still speak our native tongue, has not slowed down. Spanish opens doors in our community by creating a sense of trust and familiarity to the point where speaking English is frowned upon in certain social circles. So then how are Latinos becoming divided in the face of such overwhelming solidarity?
Let's take language into account again and we can see that right about the second or third generation it slowly becomes more English and less Spanish. In some instances the Spanish language goes away alltogether, however in most cases we are looking at phenomenohs like "Spanglish" which is a mixture of both languages being used. What this situation illustrates is not only assimilation but the resisistance to it which brings about the fusion of cultures that results in "Spanglish" or tortillas at your local grocery store,(which are sometimes called "wraps" in an attempt to sound less foreign), or the celebration of Cinco de Mayo by Americans who have no idea and the celebration of Halloween by Mexicanos that have no idea as well.
Therefore we now have on the other hand, evidence that shows us that the degree of assimilation is splintering Latinos into groups that are defined by our interests. Our interests being our economic, political and social interests that change with the groups that we move in and out of. A very prominent boundary marker in the United States is race. Some Latinos have wondered aloud whether we will be "raced" like African-Americans have been for so many centuries and with Latinos covering both ends of the color spectrum with everything in between, one can only speculate. What we know for certain is that the expanding definition of whiteness has alot to do with African-Americans not being fully integrated after being here for so long and that the expanding definition of whiteness will be a deciding factor in the fate of Latinos in the United States.
One theory proposed by Jonathon W. Warren and France Winddance Twine in their publication, WHITE AMERICANS THE NEW MINORITY? Non-Blacks and the Ever-Expanding Boundaries of Whiteness, In the Journal of Black Studies, suggests that white people may never become the minority in America and will always be the standard to be compared to. Warren and Twine argue that the definition of white is not static, rather it changes to fit the newly integerated group of people that have been accepted by whites whether by a high rate of intermarriage, physical features, or the economic succes of the group as a whole. Some scholars of whiteness, according to Warren and Twine, have even suggested that whiteness is a void or lack of culture, to be so shapeless and abstract that in order to define it we must compare it to others. Who would those "others" be? When asked what would be non-white, most people answer, "black". This creates a phenomenon I like to refer to as the "blackdrop". What I mean by that phrase is simply that in order to be considered white one of the first, "tests" one must "pass", is to be non-black. Black is an example of what not to be if one is to be accepted as white. Warren and Twine even go as far as to say, "Thus Blacks at least at the national level, serve as the anchor for Whiteness". Therefore if one is to assimilate, the process must begin by distancing oneself from what is considered black and consequently begin flirting with adopting anti-black ideals and ideas. In order to achieve "whiteness" the method is at the expense of African-Americans, so that to become an unhyphenated American, one can simply slip through the "back door into whiteness that is open to non-blacks.
How Latinos are affected by this is not hard to imagine because those Latinos with lighter complexions have been more readily accepted by the mainstream and the ones with darker complexions have been classified as black or black-Latino or black-Hispanic. These divisions just as with African-Americans, have political, sociological and economic consequences. All these factors will affect how individual Latinos vote or if many even vote at all. What seems almost certain is that all Latinos will not vote the same because not all of us fall into the same economic, social and political brackets. Race and color is only one aspect of the lives of many Latinos that causes divisions, however race and color leads to economic and political divisions and those two factors unquestionably affect the way we vote depending on which candidate best serves our needs because after all, it seems that everyone is voting according to their own interests in the belief that it is in the best interest of the country as a whole.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Oreos, Twinkies and Coconuts
Welcome! I wanted to share the reason why this blog has come into fruition and allow some insight into the contradiction of our existence. For the past few years around the time of my birthday I experience a unique tension from a number of social constructions that have continually molded me into the person I am today. The situation is as follows; My birthday is on September 11Th which happens to coincide with one of the most tragic and infamous events in American history yet I always took pride on my date of birth because it was so close to Mexican Independence day. As I am a child of Mexican immigrants, and therefore a child of Mexico, I observe September 16Th in relatively subdued fashion only because of where I live.
This situation is a small example of the contradiction of our existence. The existence of the Mexican-American in the United States. Although born in this country, many have not forgotten the land of our parents and have become thoroughly familiar with the culture that comes with it. Yet, not everyone of Mexican descent is as familiar with Mexico or it's culture and this is where this blog comes in. It seems that with the issue of illegal immigration making its way back into the limelight, there will be many opinions being voiced about what a "good" or "bad" immigrant should be like.
This, of course, is a question of assimilation and to what degree it can or should be done. Let's face it, we have all heard those derogatory terms, "Oreo", "Twinkie"," coconut" and I'm sure there are many more. These terms are used by some ethnic minorities to describe an individual who has fully assimilated into the American way of life. It is a visualization; Black, yellow or brown on the outside, white on the inside. Why is there such a resistance to assimilation? It would seem that many people who are of immigrant roots would want to become more Americanized to reflect the place they call home.
One factor to take into consideration is that assimilation is not always a matter of choice. Some ethnic groups are not readily able to assimilate into mainstream America, such as Asians, some Latinos and even African-Americans are still struggling with that. Racism, prejudice and bigotry are still very powerful social factors in the United States today. While on the other hand, Irish, Italians and Germans have done a remarkable job in becoming, unhyphenated Americans.
It would seem that many ethnic groups in the United States are experiencing a cultural reawakening of sorts, where there is visible pride in one's ethnic background once again. It would also seem that because of this pride, many people are not ready to pay the price that comes with complete assimilation into American society, however there is a price that is paid when one doesn't assimilate completely as well. Factors such as cultural identity, race, economic class and language are forms of "cultural currency" that could help measure what has been given up, what has been retained and what has been gained by an individual who is in the process of assimilation.
Some "cultural currency" is trivial to most such as eating tortillas or playing futbol (soccer) while other "currency" is controversial such as language and identity. I daresay that it is possible that many immigrants, legal as well as illegal, are here for economic reasons and not because of a love for the United States. I also believe that pride in one's ethnicity could in many instances be taken as a form of defiance and arrogance to many unhyphenated Americans. For example although I was born here, I don't swell up with pride when I hear the American national anthem at ball games,(although I do take my hat off and listen as a sign of respect) as much as I do the Mexican national anthem, the fourth of July feels like someone else's party every year and and I view the tragedy of 9/11 as a human tragedy rather than an American tragedy, mainly because I also wonder what or who would drive the perpetrators to commit such a horrible and cowardly act.
On a personal level people may find this disturbing but on a national level, to many it is downright frightening. In an election year it is easy to see how many Mexicans and Mexican-Americans can be painted as public enemy number one. Politics has a way of manipulating people's fears into irrational action. What is important for all of us to realize is that there is fear and perhaps irrational action on both sides.
This situation is a small example of the contradiction of our existence. The existence of the Mexican-American in the United States. Although born in this country, many have not forgotten the land of our parents and have become thoroughly familiar with the culture that comes with it. Yet, not everyone of Mexican descent is as familiar with Mexico or it's culture and this is where this blog comes in. It seems that with the issue of illegal immigration making its way back into the limelight, there will be many opinions being voiced about what a "good" or "bad" immigrant should be like.
This, of course, is a question of assimilation and to what degree it can or should be done. Let's face it, we have all heard those derogatory terms, "Oreo", "Twinkie"," coconut" and I'm sure there are many more. These terms are used by some ethnic minorities to describe an individual who has fully assimilated into the American way of life. It is a visualization; Black, yellow or brown on the outside, white on the inside. Why is there such a resistance to assimilation? It would seem that many people who are of immigrant roots would want to become more Americanized to reflect the place they call home.
One factor to take into consideration is that assimilation is not always a matter of choice. Some ethnic groups are not readily able to assimilate into mainstream America, such as Asians, some Latinos and even African-Americans are still struggling with that. Racism, prejudice and bigotry are still very powerful social factors in the United States today. While on the other hand, Irish, Italians and Germans have done a remarkable job in becoming, unhyphenated Americans.
It would seem that many ethnic groups in the United States are experiencing a cultural reawakening of sorts, where there is visible pride in one's ethnic background once again. It would also seem that because of this pride, many people are not ready to pay the price that comes with complete assimilation into American society, however there is a price that is paid when one doesn't assimilate completely as well. Factors such as cultural identity, race, economic class and language are forms of "cultural currency" that could help measure what has been given up, what has been retained and what has been gained by an individual who is in the process of assimilation.
Some "cultural currency" is trivial to most such as eating tortillas or playing futbol (soccer) while other "currency" is controversial such as language and identity. I daresay that it is possible that many immigrants, legal as well as illegal, are here for economic reasons and not because of a love for the United States. I also believe that pride in one's ethnicity could in many instances be taken as a form of defiance and arrogance to many unhyphenated Americans. For example although I was born here, I don't swell up with pride when I hear the American national anthem at ball games,(although I do take my hat off and listen as a sign of respect) as much as I do the Mexican national anthem, the fourth of July feels like someone else's party every year and and I view the tragedy of 9/11 as a human tragedy rather than an American tragedy, mainly because I also wonder what or who would drive the perpetrators to commit such a horrible and cowardly act.
On a personal level people may find this disturbing but on a national level, to many it is downright frightening. In an election year it is easy to see how many Mexicans and Mexican-Americans can be painted as public enemy number one. Politics has a way of manipulating people's fears into irrational action. What is important for all of us to realize is that there is fear and perhaps irrational action on both sides.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
