Black&Latino Relations--The Discourse
In a 2004 book entitled “The Presumed Alliance: The Unspoken Conflict Between Latinos and Black and What it Means for America,” Harvard Law School graduate Nicolás Vaca, asserts that Latinos in the United States have long had an acrimonious relationship with African-Americans. He further states that because Latinos are now the largest racial minority in the nation with no responsibility for the plight of African-Americans, that the status of inter-ethnic race relations will change to reflect a dominance by Latinos at the expense of African-Americans. Whether or not Vaca’s predictions are prescient, they have received a public attention that warrants closer attention because of the way they play into a public discourse that has consistently presented African-Americans as the sole cause of discord in “Black-Latino relations.”
To be specific, over the last four decades when the topic of Black-Latino relations has been broached, the discourse has often centered on just a few primary issues. These issues have repeatedly been: African-American fears of being displaced in the labor market by Latinos, African-American disenchantment with having the benefits of the civil rights movement extended to Latinos, African-American concern with the increased immigration of Latinos, African-American discontent with the growth of Spanish language usage in the United States, and African-American concern with the fear that bilingual education services divert resources from under-financed public schools in African-American areas. Similarly, discussions about the demographic explosion of Latinos and their desire to assume greater political clout has focused upon the presumed obstructionism and discontent of African-Americans who must “relinquish” their power to accommodate Latinos.
Absent from this list of favorite themes in the public discourse in the English and Spanish language media regarding the challenges to organizing Black-Latino coalitions, is any discussion of Latino agency. In fact, one is left with the simplistic impression that Latinos are the parties extending their friendship in solidarity, only to be consistently rebuffed by African-Americans. Black-Latino political turf wars in Dallas, Texas over the selection of a school superintendent in 1997, in Miami, Florida, over the 1996 mayoral election, and in Chicago, Illinois over the allocation of public housing units in 1994, have all been depicted as zero sum struggles to gain Latino political power by wrenching it away from the begrudging hands of African-Americans. Yet upon closer examination, the reality is much more complex and reveals Latinos to be agents of bias and racism themselves. (See Palgrave Macmillan press 2005 book “Neither Enemies Nor Friends: Latinos, Blacks, Afro-Latinos”).
The sociological concept of “social distance” measures the social unease one ethnic or racial group has for interacting with another ethnic or racial group. Social science studies of Latino racial attitudes often indicate a preference for maintaining social distance from African-Americans. And while the social distance level is largest for recent Latin American immigrants, more established communities of Latinos in the United States are also characterized by their social distance from African-Americans. For instance, in a 2002 survey of Latinos and African-Americans, the African-Americans had more positive views of Latinos than vice versa (See “Black-Brown Relations and Stereotypes,” by Tatcho Mindiola, Jr., et al. UT press 2002). This same study found that 46 percent of Latino immigrants who live in residential neighborhoods with African-Americans report almost no interaction with them whatsoever. The social distance of Latinos from African-Americans is consistently reflected in Latino responses to other surveys.
Similarly, in a 1993 study of inter-group relations, Latinos overwhelming responded that they had most in common with Whites and least in common with African-Americans (The National Conference Survey on Inter-Group Relations). In contrast, African-Americans responded that they felt they had more in common with Latinos and least in common with Whites and Asian Americans. It is somewhat ironic that African-Americans who are publicly depicted as being adverse to coalition building with Latinos, demonstrate survey responses that are more in accord with all the socioeconomic data that demonstrates the commonality of African-American and Latino communities. While Latinos, in contradistinction provide survey responses that fly in the face of all the socioeconomic data demonstrating African-American and Latino parallels. The Latino affinity for Whites over African-Americans is part and parcel of the Latino identification with whiteness. Is There Racism in Latin America and What Does That Mean for Race Relations in the United States?. Indeed, in contrast to the many reports of a Latino preference for mixed-race census racial categories, there is a strong Latino preference for the White racial category and some Latino groups like Cubans disproportionately select the White racial category (See “Bleach in the Rainbow: Latin Ethnicity and the Preference for Whiteness” by William A. Darity, Jr., et al).
In short, the public discourse about relations between African-Americans and Latinos is problematic because is over-simplistic and factually skewed. The changing demographics of the nation requires that we expand the analysis of racism to include considerations of how groups of color can be complicit and even active agents in the discrimination against other groups of color. But to be a useful tool against discrimination, the examination of racism amongst groups of color cannot be unidirectional and focused on just one group.
Pedagogy of the past
This week I re-read some literature on exploration and colonization. For some reason (one I haven’t been able to really pinpoint), I have been increasingly interested in this topic. My guess is that I'm intrigued because I like reading "history," in order to learn "facts" about the past, or perhaps a way to link the present to the past and vice versa. Regardless of the reasons, reading in-depth about these accounts makes me revisit the past without being an actual participant, for reading reminds me that it all is a cycle and that the past is the present and paradoxically the future.
This week I wont really go in-depth about the readings, since I'm still processing...but here is a brief summary/commentary on what I found intriguing and the link they all share, RELIGION, hopefully if you haven’t read them...maybe you'll check them out after this.
Reminiscent to the great North African: Ibn Batuta--Marco Polo, Montaigne and Heredotuos, all
conform to the label placed on them, that of explorers. Just like Ibn Batuta, who in 1325 became the first to extensively document sub-Saharan African (I really dislike this term, its such a construct, not to mention racially charged) societies before the boom of Colonization and slavery, so too was Marco Polo with his inscriptions
of mostly unknown cultures in the west.
Although Marco Polo was exploring "new worlds,” one notices
preconceived notions about the places he visits as he states that “The
inhabitants are idolaters, and are a most brutish and savage race,
having heads, eyes and teeth resembling those of the canine species…
they kill and eat” [281]. Marco Polo’s fixed ideas of non-human or
sub-human towards the populations he encounters has a clear defined
reason: religion. As stated in Leviticus, the only way to not be a
heathen was to follow strict dietary restrictions and to beware of
idolatry, which is what Marco Polo documents when he encounters a
different group of people along his voyage. His thinking process is
apparent as he writes down whether or not the inhabitants worship
idols, juxtaposed to their dietary habits. Therefore, the idea that a
person would eat another person was an automatic sin and for Marco
Polo, such behavior was sub-human. This is made clear by his attitudes
towards the natives.
Montaigne, however takes a different approach, he deconstructs
religion and has no clear basis for judgment other than intolerance.
The objectivity used in his thought processes, like Marco Polo, is
also apparent in his writing. Contraire to Marco Polo, he humanizes
the non-European populations and condemns the Europeans for their
backward way of thinking. He argues that the closeness to nature,
which the natives seem to have, is far better then the artificially
created world of science and art of the European. He also seems to
renounce the Leviticus code of holiness by accepting the fact natives
take part in certain rituals as a form of honor not for the sake of
killing, which is what the Europeans did when they took part in
cannibalism. Montaigne shows an early form of cultural relativism
that seemed to lack in many Christian cultures in the era of
exploration and colonialism.
The impression from Columbus’ accounts brought insights to the well-known and similarly elusive admiral. For his ideas and beliefs came across as he proceeded to “discover” the new world. The initial contact between Columbus and the Indigenous, much like Marco Polo, was seen through the eye of religion. The preconceived notion regarding what was “normal” and not, was displayed by Columbus’ regard and treatment of the natives. So it is obvious that Religion played a mayor role in the categorization of the indigenous and helped propagate negative European sentiments of natives and further establish a racial cast system.
The surprising side of Columbus was his love of nature. The description of certain trees, fruits and animals highlight a man keen on detail as he compares the unique beauty of the islands and downgrades that of Spain. The most interesting part of his accounts is that fact that he makes certain concession to the “new world” when it comes to its fauna and flora, seemingly not having any biases, but in regard to the natives he does not, thus displaying a duplicitous character.
Cortez is the other interesting figure in the conquest. It seems that the conquest of New Spain occurred at an interesting point in time, since the natives had been given signs of the arrival of certain Gods. Resultantly the Spanish success was due to religion, not the catholic faith, but the Mexica. It is often stated that Catholicism was the religion that gave reason for the conquest, but without the initial acceptance by the indigenous, the events that gave rise to the conquest would not have occurred. With Tenochtitlan as the prize along with Moctezuma, Cortez was relentless as he traversed the territory –devastating and converting the indigenous population. And finally battling and gaining the upper hand by manipulating the indigenous--using the Catholic faith and destroying an empire.
{To piggyback on this entry, I will introduce-- Bartolomeo De Las Casas: Lets talk about this interesting character in OUR colonized history.
Why is he so LOVED by many and HATED by others...
Lets discuss the effect this one man had in why YOU and I are HERE today. By “here” I mean this country, Hemisphere, this language, this present, this past, this future, this lifestyle, this ignorance, this oppression, this self-hate, this 500 year nightmare...}
The fact that one man dictated OUR trajectory is mind-blowing; is it not? What do you think about Bartolomeo De LAs Casas?
Tune in for my analysis on his life and his personal journal accounts...
Cuba: Proposal/Background of Documentary "HOLY SOuLD"
Intrigued by the complexities of Afro-Cuban religions and possessed by the desire to further my understanding of contemporary Cuban culture, I propose to document the impact of tourism on Afro-Cuban religions and participants. With many Cubans identifying Santeria, also known as La Regla de Ochoa, as a major player in their national identity, I seek to find out how Santeria and other Afro-Cuban religions are being influenced or changed by the tourism phenomenon.
The destabilizing effects of the fall of the Soviet Block gave subsequent rise to the Special Period in 1990. As a result tourism has increasingly played a major role in Cuban economy. My interest centers on locating the factors that have led to Santeria’s emergence into the public arena from the much-guarded private space it occupied prior to the Special Period.
Although the focus of my Documentary seeks to identify tourism during Cuba’s special period, it is important to note that tourism is not a new phenomenon to the island. In fact, prior to the triumph of the revolution of 1959, Cuba boasted one of the largest tourist industries in the world, in which many elites, mostly from North America, frequently frolicked. However, following the revolution, the image of an open Cuba quickly dissolved, as Fidel Castro declared Cuba’s past as “corrupt” and halted all tourist activities for the next thirty years.
With incentives from the Soviet Union, Cuba found itself in a favorable position, for the Soviet allegiance allowed Cuba to counter the United States’ embargo and sustain its population without resorting to any other foreign capital. However, the fall of the Soviet Bloc would prove detrimental to Cuba’s economy, reducing its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by fifty percent and similarly increasing the unemployment rate to fifty percent. With the collapse of the economy the Cuban government passed restrictions and implemented rations across the board, giving rise to the Special Period, still in operation today.
In 1982, despite Castro’s past staunch support for the ban on foreign capital, Cuba enacted a decree, which permitted restricted foreign investment for the first time since the triumph of the revolution. Thus, multinational companies were welcomed for business on the island with the condition that the state own fifty-one percent of the shares and the company forty-nine percent. This sudden change of Cuba’s economic stand created a dichotomy, since it rejected market-oriented economic reform, but heavily promoted foreign investment. Viewed as the “necessary evil” by the government, the hard currency brought in by international tourism allowed Cuba to have solvency of their ever-mounting foreign debt.
Despite the celebratory aspect of Afro-Cuban religions, one cannot undermine its tragic past, forged from struggle, for they were shaped by the oppressive colonial structure on bounded peoples. The slavery system induced a hybrid belief among those oppressed and subsequently also taken up by the European oppressors accepting it as their own. Although legitimized through the freedom clause in the new constitution of 1943, Afro-Cuban religions would once again become a vast underground belief system for the Cuban people, since after the triumph of the revolution Santeria was seen as a malevolent practice by a vast secular movement. Consequently, Santeria became forbidden from public display for thirty years. Thus, forcing an amalgamation between devotee and devotion. Eventually ending in 1991, with Fidel Castro easing the laws on worship, acknowledging that Santeria was the main legitimate religion of the Cuban people.
To conduct research on the subject of Afro-Cuban religions and tourism seems a daunting task at first glance. For the reason that empirical data is apparently limited, and the media rarely cover the topics. Moreover, as it is the case in other parts of Latin America like the Dominican Republic and Brazil, most Afro-religious practitioners are facing a similar struggle with their cultural heritages. This is the case mostly because of the consequences of modernity, in this case globalization in the form of tourism.. Nevertheless, sixteen years later Cuba is a drastically different country. While still having to bear severe economic problems, the country has implemented a Dollar and Euro economy in order to counter high inflation and has permitted its citizens to enter into self-employment which are believed to have a direct or indirect relationship with tourism. Thus giving rise to a new economic order in the country.
In the midst of the changes the relevant questions then become: how far-reaching into Cuban spirituality, specifically in Afro-Cuban religions, is this new economy? Are the economic pressures of the Special Period and the new employment model allowing for public performance/display of such practices to tourists, and if so, has religion become a commodity easily exploited at this juncture in Cuban history?
The uproarious reaction to The Da Vinci Code can be summed up in one word, cultish. As one who felt the need to follow the cultural transgression, I actively took part in the “Da Vinci Movement,” specifically by taking the Spanish version of the book I bought my mother for her enjoyment before she actually had a chance to. I admit it. I was enraptured by the page-turner. However, in retrospect, I can see that the story, although fascinating, had nothing to do with my wanting to read it. The reality was (is) that I (we) don’t want to feel excluded in society and so it is why we mimic: a part of socialization. Having said that and accepting my socialized reality, the next step was to watch the film. It’s only natural, right?
While doing the "grad. student thing:” sipping chais and lattes while studying and checking out the gorgeous females at Think Café by NYU, my peers and I decided to give the movie a shot. This being a funny situation since one of us, whom I’ll call CY, had just bought the book the previous night and stayed up in the hopes of finishing it in time for the premiere.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the theatre…
There was a 10:00pm slot with available tickets, but I suddenly noticed apprehension when I suggested the location. So… with my trusty MAC on hand, I was adamantly searching the web for something more “suitable” that would allow us to indulge in this American obsession of watching movies adapted from novels on opening night (thank you corporate America). But I digress.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the theatre…
With Da Vinci fever palpable on our brows, we were all in the heights of hysteria when I stated, “every ticket on the Island of Manhattan is sold-out except for Harlem’s Magic Johnson Theatre,” at which point I was told to “keep searching.” Assuming that they wanted a theatre closer to the Downtown/Village area, I proceeded to scavenge in a desert, despite being aware of the oasis-Harlem.
It was then when I realized that the “apprehension,” was nothing more and nothing less than us, brown people’s expression of the ultimate evil, a form of brown on brown crime: self discrimination. For this was a racial “apprehension,” and dare I say--part of a colonized mentality.
It is not rare to find this sort of sentiment. However, for obvious reasons (education) I did not expect this in this circle, especially after having a conversation on the black plight in America and speaking of the micro/macro ways of “uplifting the race.” But I should have known better since this disease does not discriminate. I mean, we are all culpable of this phenomenon, seeing that we are part of this society and as such we cannot evade the structural conforms of oppression. But this time, a disturbing reality was starring me in the face, one which I proceeded to address in awe.
How many of us do this?
This is a deeply imbedded self-hate promulgated by ancestral ills, which seem incapable of disappearing.
Colonized mentality:
I automatically linked the situation with a concept that has been increasingly present in my day to day (one which has allowed me to see the bigger picture of this oppressive society), the Panopticon. This paradigm, by Jeremy Bentham, posits that [the Panopticon] was designed for an observer to observe the masses in a prison without the prisoners knowing whether they were being observed or not, as a result creating a feeling of an invisible omniscience. Consequently inducing a psychological schism on the observed. For the observed also became the observer, thus inducing a systematically imposed "self-control," ergo developing pathology. Like the aforementioned theory, colonization has trained us to be our own "observers". And intrinsically we have become our own worst enemy, as we fear each other and follow stereotypes by perpetuating them onto ourselves.
It is imperative to know that although we attribute high value to our lives, as we rightfully should, a large part of what we hold to be true is purely and simply--unadulterated constructs which became imbedded and as a result are personified by us. By this I mean that colonization and its ramifications have proved to be the most successful system to date, for it has not just laid down the frameworks from which we “function,” but it has also and in respect to the issue at hand, created a self vigilant reality for us (brown folks).
I leave you to ponder the most important question of our time: How do/can we DECOLONIZE ourselves?
Start your own process by rejecting the "norm" and accepting the fact that you are a product of this construct, one that we can collectively de-construct. That is when change begins.
Oh, and by the way, the book was better than the movie, as it is often the case any time our imagination is summoned.
Reminiscent Mumbo-Jumbo
In a speech full of examples, to the grain, and above all quite out of the ordinary for the usual public persona presented to Americans and the world, President Bush has suddenly realized--five years into his administration--the need for comprehensive immigration policy. However, the buildup to his long awaited and expected epiphany deflated as it barely picked up steam.
Problematic aspects of the president’s speech:
From a historical perspective, what Mr. Bush presented as “innovative,” the “guest worker program,” is nothing but a rehashed idea. For it is reminiscent of the now debunked Bracero Program of the 40’s, 50’s, and early 60’s. Which was established in response to the shortage of people in the rural sector as a result of WWII. The agreement with Mexico allowed for 4.5 million Mexican nationals to take temporary agricultural work in the U.S. legally.
You might ask what happened, how successful was it? Well, that’s exactly it; you’re living in the repercussions of the Bracero reality. It did not work!
In theory and on paper many of the ideas proposed sound feasible, but what they fail to take into account are the countless variables in a person’s life, which cannot be mechanized or dictated. The facts are that people are not going to want to go back after 6-7 years of a living and settling, since people develop roots in this country, raise children and establish families. Furthermore, it was not a surprise during the Bracero years that a flip was done on the U.S. because these “guest workers” had already conformed to their reality and new identities. Consequently, when it was “time to go,” much to the U.S.’s dismay more came. The onetime guests, which helped maintain and essentially sustain America, were no longer welcomed and became deviants.
So what is the difference between then and now?
Wont these new “guest workers’ settle as humans have a tendency to do whenever they relocate? The sad reality is that this program is viewed as a solution to a daunting matter only to satisfy polarizing political interests and it is totally devoid of any reasonable attempt to regularize immigration for either side of the spectrum. Thus, instead of stitching the wound permeable bandages are applied.
Implications of Immigration
The passion I feel for immigrant rights and issues pertaining to those who are disenfranchised stems directly from the closest case of reference—my life. In the society we live in, certain groups have been and still are subjected to an unfair reality. As a Latino, the category of disadvantaged is befitting, since my background along with my immigrant reality has placed me in a most unfavorable role in society.
As evidence of this cast-system, I offer you my experiences in the educational process. Growing up in the inner city can be taxing spiritually let a lone developmentally, for one; the notion of college was elusive to me as well as to those in my circle. While growing up there were no expectations of higher education since most parents were not high school graduates. For the reality in my immigrant enclave was of having an occupation, not a “drawn out” career. Thus the immediacy in which people had certain necessities—like financial--determined their educational aspirations.
The pertinent question being: who is at fault? Is anyone to blame for my and many other young peoples casting in the supporting role? Why aren’t we protagonists?
The sole responsibility is not entirely attributable to parents, since there are other factors at work in the lives of those who lack in this society. I am one not to ever complain about the blessings received in my life, for I am truly grateful. Despite this feeling, I am aware of the fact that there is not an equilibrium in terms of equality for all. Early on in my academic life the English language proved to be a seemingly physical barrier in my development. While many were learning core subjects in a comprehensive language, I was essentially learning a language. The reason why I focus on this stage of my life is because I believe it to be the most crucial, since the bilingual education I received lasted four years during my formative years, from the age of seven until eleven before I could move on to all English courses. All the while experiencing a sense of confusion. Thus, taking up English literature as a major in college was a way for me to counteract that which initially harmed me, since I knew the role of importance the English language would play in my future.
Retrospectively speaking: what would have been of me if I had accepted the hand dealt from the stack? What happens to those who don't know or can’t discern trick cards in the shuffle?
Consequently, this is not to say that bilingual education is not needed, in the contrary, it is essential. Having said that, my experience proved to be deleterious, as it is often the case in a single parent household. As the sole breadwinner, at times my mother needed to work several low-wage jobs in order to cover the household expenses in the United States and equally in the Dominican Republic for the family left behind. This meant that the constraints of my mother’s situation were key in the delay of my development. For in the efforts of providing for me, she seldom had time to devote to my education to know that two years into the bilingual courses would have been enough.
Can we (this society and you the reader), attribute this harm to happenstance, as it is often thought to be the case?
I offer my life experiences and place myself as the guinea pig to be picked on as a quasi case study. Despite these open-ended questions, I still feel wronged. The phrase heard often: “a product of the system,” is not a cliché in my situation. In this case the system failed me.
In the case of the disempowered/disenfranchised accountability needs to be represented in the form of policy and voice. For me voicing wrongs has served as impetus to restructure an often daunting immigrant reality for my life, as well as try to ease the chokehold for others.
So…I ask you to join in and “pick up” where they/you/we leave off. No! Not in the backbreaking agricultural sense (as fruit pickers), but in the clamor against hypocrisy. Now is the opportunity to piggyback on the current national dialogue and regardless of your legal status, speak for the silent heroes--immigrants.
