When I talk about immigration in my classes, one of my favorite questions to ask is: who is an "illegal" immigrant. Most of my students think all undocumented immigrants are Latin American. I then show them a group picture of undocumented immigrants receiving assistance from a local immigration center here in Boston. With only a handful of exceptions, the group of about two dozen people are white. I would imagine that they are probably Irish. My students are usually dumbfounded. Depending on the time available we discuss whether it changes their view of the issue. Most of my students need more time to think it through. Or at least time to forget what they just saw.
Today in the Boston Globe, Kevin Cullen wrote about a local undocumented immigrant who died of pneumonia. As he states, no one will ever know if the young man didn't go to the hospital because of fear of getting caught and deported, "stubborn pride", or simple lack of knowledge. The young man in the article is Irish.
I give Cullen credit for humanizing the often overheated rhetoric around immigration. If you listen too much to the likes of Lou Dobbs, it would be very easy to forget or ignore the fact that immigrants are human beings. Strategically, Cullen's article is helpful in showing people, mainly white Americans, that undocumented immigrants are not some unknowable "other". Undocumented immigrants are, and look, just like them.
And that is also why I find this article discomfitting. Human beings have a knack for rationalizing contradictory rules in order to reduce cognitive dissonance. This means that behavior that is considered unacceptable for some is excused for others. This happens in race relations all the time. Even today, it is o.k. for white men to have sexual relations with women of color, however there is widespread discomfort when black men have sexual relations with white women. Studies of the sentences given to white men versus black men who have committed murder find that the harshness of the sentence is significantly related to the race of the victim; black murderers of white victims get considerably longer sentences and are more likely to receive capital punishment than white murderers of black victims. In this case, Cullen's article may simply lead white people to forgive the undocumented status of this Irishman but continue to view undocumented Latinos and Asians as criminal.
The Irishman in the article was hardworking, skilled, and employed. There is no mention of whether he paid his taxes, or whether his employers made their Social Security and Medicare contributions as they are supposed to. I would bet that most would assume that he did, if only because he is white. I would also bet that an equally sympathetic portrayal of a hardworking, skilled Latino immigrant would be met with accusations or at least assumptions of not paying taxes and taking jobs away from people who are allegedly "entitled" to those jobs.
Cullen's article is necessary in order to inject a little bit of rationality and understanding in this discussion. It is may also unfortunately have the effect of reifying racialized understandings of which "illegal" immigrants deserve sympathy. It is time to see the immigration debate as one based primarily on race. An undocumented Irishman faces the same risks and likely harbors the same fears as an undocumented Latino. Except that I doubt that South Boston or Dorchester is on ICE's list of next likely places to raid. I would bet that if an ICE agent walked into the Eire Pub, it would be to have a beer after coming from community sweeps of Chelsea or New Bedford.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Why I might vote for Obama
I realized the other day that I have become inclined to vote for Obama, despite some reservations I have about some of his positions, because I have become more conscious of the racism in this country. When I lived in California, I was a member of the largest non-white group in the state and the large demographic group in So.Cal. Almost everyone I went to school with at CSULA was non-white. Everyone I worked with was Latino and, if I wanted to move up in my profession, others would see me as white and I would still be Latina. Granted, I lived in L.A. during the governorship of Pete Wilson, which I see now as the beginning of the contemporary wave of anti-Latino sentiment. But I don't think I felt the level racism that his policies embodied because when I looked around, I saw my people everywhere. They were definitely in low paying janitorial jobs at my college and they were picking strawberries in Ventura County. But they were also reporters on the news, they were sitting on the city council, they were teachers, doctors, lawyers and business owners.
Moving out to the East Coast where I was truly in the minority really opened my eyes to this thing called racism and the issue of race relations. It also made me more aware of my white skin privilege. Here people took it for granted that I was white and would say things to me or in front of me that they would never say in front of my darker skinned parents or my long-haired, mustachoed, Mexican American husband. Moreover, many white people here are so racist they don't even see the racism in their words and deeds. In California, white racists owned their racism. Here, they don't see the prejudice in making assertions about who deserves to have access to a college education, to be able to get health care, to be provided the same rights in the criminal justice system, to even be in this country. And pointing it out to them just makes them either really uncomfortable or really angry. They aren't racist. They have friends who are brown. They give scholarships to brown people all the time. They don't necessarily want too many them sitting on the board of directors of local organizations, but they are happy with providing them with social services and other benefits. We aren't racist, they say, because we give them free after school tutoring and basketball uniforms.
I also think my experience with a friend's campaign for the state legislature this last summer reinforced to me that we have a long way to go to improve race relations. This became clear not just because the campaign brought out the racism that I already knew existed in this neighborhood, but because of the blindness to racism among these white "progressives" who were assisting us. These folks, although clearly understanding and sympathetic to the issue of racism and prejudice, had also clearly never seen it. They not only did not know how to handle racist comments when confronted with them, they still could not get themselves to see that people still do believe these things. Whenever confronted with it, it was treated as a fluke and not a norm. In fact, it is the norm in this neighborhood and in many others. It may be more overt here and more subtly pernicious elsewhere. But racism and prejudice is alive and well and I see that more clearly today than ever before.
I suppose I hope that if Obama were to be elected president, maybe, just maybe, it might start to change the way white people think about non-white people. Maybe they would see us as less of a threat. Maybe they would be willing to open up their neighborhoods, their loan funds, and their play groups to us. Maybe the teachers, school counselors, and administrators will be less likely to write so many of us off. Maybe, just maybe, it might inspire black and brown folks to believe that things could actually be different for them. Maybe the lack of hope that pervades our brown and black neighborhoods would ebb just enough so that there is one less excuse for believing that doing well in school is "acting white", one less excuse for the drug dealing, gun slinging, gang banging way of life. Maybe the apathy will subside just enough to get people out to vote and involved in their local schools, local non-profit organizations, or at least involved with their neighbors.
Yes, it is a vote for the symbol. But, no more so than voting for Clinton because she is a woman. When there is little difference between candidates on the issues, don't we then vote on ideology? Don't you then vote for the person who symbolizes, and hopefully will put into action, a world that you would like to see made into reality? Obama symbolizes the hope that maybe this country can get past the specter of race so that brown and black peoples can finally have the freedoms and opportunities promised to us.
Moving out to the East Coast where I was truly in the minority really opened my eyes to this thing called racism and the issue of race relations. It also made me more aware of my white skin privilege. Here people took it for granted that I was white and would say things to me or in front of me that they would never say in front of my darker skinned parents or my long-haired, mustachoed, Mexican American husband. Moreover, many white people here are so racist they don't even see the racism in their words and deeds. In California, white racists owned their racism. Here, they don't see the prejudice in making assertions about who deserves to have access to a college education, to be able to get health care, to be provided the same rights in the criminal justice system, to even be in this country. And pointing it out to them just makes them either really uncomfortable or really angry. They aren't racist. They have friends who are brown. They give scholarships to brown people all the time. They don't necessarily want too many them sitting on the board of directors of local organizations, but they are happy with providing them with social services and other benefits. We aren't racist, they say, because we give them free after school tutoring and basketball uniforms.
I also think my experience with a friend's campaign for the state legislature this last summer reinforced to me that we have a long way to go to improve race relations. This became clear not just because the campaign brought out the racism that I already knew existed in this neighborhood, but because of the blindness to racism among these white "progressives" who were assisting us. These folks, although clearly understanding and sympathetic to the issue of racism and prejudice, had also clearly never seen it. They not only did not know how to handle racist comments when confronted with them, they still could not get themselves to see that people still do believe these things. Whenever confronted with it, it was treated as a fluke and not a norm. In fact, it is the norm in this neighborhood and in many others. It may be more overt here and more subtly pernicious elsewhere. But racism and prejudice is alive and well and I see that more clearly today than ever before.
I suppose I hope that if Obama were to be elected president, maybe, just maybe, it might start to change the way white people think about non-white people. Maybe they would see us as less of a threat. Maybe they would be willing to open up their neighborhoods, their loan funds, and their play groups to us. Maybe the teachers, school counselors, and administrators will be less likely to write so many of us off. Maybe, just maybe, it might inspire black and brown folks to believe that things could actually be different for them. Maybe the lack of hope that pervades our brown and black neighborhoods would ebb just enough so that there is one less excuse for believing that doing well in school is "acting white", one less excuse for the drug dealing, gun slinging, gang banging way of life. Maybe the apathy will subside just enough to get people out to vote and involved in their local schools, local non-profit organizations, or at least involved with their neighbors.
Yes, it is a vote for the symbol. But, no more so than voting for Clinton because she is a woman. When there is little difference between candidates on the issues, don't we then vote on ideology? Don't you then vote for the person who symbolizes, and hopefully will put into action, a world that you would like to see made into reality? Obama symbolizes the hope that maybe this country can get past the specter of race so that brown and black peoples can finally have the freedoms and opportunities promised to us.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Gender roles in the postmodern era
I just returned from a wedding. It was one of the most fun weddings I've ever been to. Even my husband danced. I was hoarse at the end of the night from singing and shouting. It was great.
In addition to a soundtrack that included songs from my generation, there was a really interesting twist in the evenings obligatory speeches. Usually, the father of the bride is teary-eyed, the maid of honor (or bride's best friend in this case) is sappy and emotional, and the best man is funny, often making use of double-entendres. But not at this wedding. In this case, the father of the bride was teary-eyed, but it was the best man who could hardly get through his speech. And the bridesmaid/best friend was absolutely hilarious. The best man had to stop at one point to catch his breath and find his notes. The bridesmaid gave the new husband advice on how to live with his new wife, including telling him that it is really, really important to watch the Twilight Zone marathon with her.
There's a lot to criticize in our new postmodern era, particularly when it comes to gender roles. But I think it is great that a man can get up during a wedding and get choked up over his best friend's marriage and that a woman can make the jokes and the double entendres. We live in a good time.
In addition to a soundtrack that included songs from my generation, there was a really interesting twist in the evenings obligatory speeches. Usually, the father of the bride is teary-eyed, the maid of honor (or bride's best friend in this case) is sappy and emotional, and the best man is funny, often making use of double-entendres. But not at this wedding. In this case, the father of the bride was teary-eyed, but it was the best man who could hardly get through his speech. And the bridesmaid/best friend was absolutely hilarious. The best man had to stop at one point to catch his breath and find his notes. The bridesmaid gave the new husband advice on how to live with his new wife, including telling him that it is really, really important to watch the Twilight Zone marathon with her.
There's a lot to criticize in our new postmodern era, particularly when it comes to gender roles. But I think it is great that a man can get up during a wedding and get choked up over his best friend's marriage and that a woman can make the jokes and the double entendres. We live in a good time.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Ideology versus ethnic politics
I've been ruminating over my recent experience helping a friend in a local election. We did not win. It is painful to accept, but not entirely surprising.
In our recent wrap up conversations, the issue of what to do next is the main topic of conversation. In these conversations, the group appears to bounce back and forth between pursuing a progressive agenda and paving the path for a more electable progressive candidate or continuing the try to elect a Latino/a. While these are not mutually exclusive endeavors, they are two different foci. If you focus on the former, then we don't worry about the ethnic background of the person we support, as long as they are ideologically progressive. If you focus on the latter, then we have to work to overcome the anti-immigrant sentiment that exists here, in addition to organizing, educating, helping eligible immigrants become citizens, and voter registration.
I'm torn about this. In principle, I am much more in favor of an alliance of progressives that is inclusive of all groups. I do not believe that ethnic politics is useful in the long term. Ethnocentrism too easily morphs into racism, as Latinos in East Boston are now experiencing. Ideologically based coalitions who share common values are longer lasting and more powerful than coalitions comprised of people who have only one thing in common. The Latino ethnic identity is too transient, too squishy, and too unreliable a characteristic to create a long lasting political coalition here. There are too many different national groups, too many different generational differences among those national groups, and the supply isn't as readily replenished as seen in the Southwest.
At the same time, an issues based coalition will not necessarily be able to do the really hard work of overcoming the xenophobia, racism, and sexism that surfaced in this past election. An issues based coalition works to get various issues addressed. This often does not require dealing with the electorate, but instead dealing with decision makers and leaders. It does not necessarily result in a change in leadership or opportunities for leadership.
I'm not sure which way is the best way to go, and whether there is a third way that balances these concerns. I do feel like we need to decide soon, otherwise this group will either splinter or will simply dissipate.
In our recent wrap up conversations, the issue of what to do next is the main topic of conversation. In these conversations, the group appears to bounce back and forth between pursuing a progressive agenda and paving the path for a more electable progressive candidate or continuing the try to elect a Latino/a. While these are not mutually exclusive endeavors, they are two different foci. If you focus on the former, then we don't worry about the ethnic background of the person we support, as long as they are ideologically progressive. If you focus on the latter, then we have to work to overcome the anti-immigrant sentiment that exists here, in addition to organizing, educating, helping eligible immigrants become citizens, and voter registration.
I'm torn about this. In principle, I am much more in favor of an alliance of progressives that is inclusive of all groups. I do not believe that ethnic politics is useful in the long term. Ethnocentrism too easily morphs into racism, as Latinos in East Boston are now experiencing. Ideologically based coalitions who share common values are longer lasting and more powerful than coalitions comprised of people who have only one thing in common. The Latino ethnic identity is too transient, too squishy, and too unreliable a characteristic to create a long lasting political coalition here. There are too many different national groups, too many different generational differences among those national groups, and the supply isn't as readily replenished as seen in the Southwest.
At the same time, an issues based coalition will not necessarily be able to do the really hard work of overcoming the xenophobia, racism, and sexism that surfaced in this past election. An issues based coalition works to get various issues addressed. This often does not require dealing with the electorate, but instead dealing with decision makers and leaders. It does not necessarily result in a change in leadership or opportunities for leadership.
I'm not sure which way is the best way to go, and whether there is a third way that balances these concerns. I do feel like we need to decide soon, otherwise this group will either splinter or will simply dissipate.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Political mailings
There is a special election happening for the state house rep seat that represents my district. There are 4 candidates. I am volunteering for one candidate doing backroom stuff that needs to get done. Bookkeeping, financial management, tech support. I go out doorknocking every once in a while with the candidate, but my role there is to be supportive and record people's responses. Fairly low profile stuff, I would say.
In the 8 or so weeks of this election cycle, my husband and I have received campaign literature only from the candidate we already support. We have not received a single piece of mail from any of the other candidates - until today.
My husband received a postcard from the Republican-Running-As-A-Democrat. On the back, there was a handwritten note from a local businessman and member of the chamber of commerce urging my husband to vote for the candidate.
This by itself says nothing more than his campaign is finally reaching beyond their traditional base. I know he has a good voter database (it's listed on his campaign finance report). But every candidate decides which kind of voter he or she will target and in what manner. Until now, we just weren't in his target universe.
Receiving the mailing does not bother me. What does bother me, however is that the note written on the back is in Spanish. Apparently, they assumed that my husband, who is Latino, does not speak English. Not that he can't speak or read in Spanish, but English is his primary language. The assumption that we don't speak English bothers me. I've told this to the candidate that I support as well. We shouldn't assume anything about the Latino voter. According to the 2000 census, half of Latino residents speak English only, or speak English well or very well.
I support policies that require that signs, official documents, ballots, etc. be available in multiple languages. I would much rather have the money spent ensuring that a person whose mother tongue is not English understands what they are doing in the voting booth, on the road, and when they sign legal documents. However, the assumption that we do not speak English is patronizing. It is also patronizing to think that I am going to support you because you are Latino. There are a lot of Latinos out there that deserve to have the opportunity to represent our community. And there are many, many more that do not. I am certainly not going to vote for someone just because they speak Spanish. And I get irritated by campaigns that assume that we don't speak English.
In the 8 or so weeks of this election cycle, my husband and I have received campaign literature only from the candidate we already support. We have not received a single piece of mail from any of the other candidates - until today.
My husband received a postcard from the Republican-Running-As-A-Democrat. On the back, there was a handwritten note from a local businessman and member of the chamber of commerce urging my husband to vote for the candidate.
This by itself says nothing more than his campaign is finally reaching beyond their traditional base. I know he has a good voter database (it's listed on his campaign finance report). But every candidate decides which kind of voter he or she will target and in what manner. Until now, we just weren't in his target universe.
Receiving the mailing does not bother me. What does bother me, however is that the note written on the back is in Spanish. Apparently, they assumed that my husband, who is Latino, does not speak English. Not that he can't speak or read in Spanish, but English is his primary language. The assumption that we don't speak English bothers me. I've told this to the candidate that I support as well. We shouldn't assume anything about the Latino voter. According to the 2000 census, half of Latino residents speak English only, or speak English well or very well.
I support policies that require that signs, official documents, ballots, etc. be available in multiple languages. I would much rather have the money spent ensuring that a person whose mother tongue is not English understands what they are doing in the voting booth, on the road, and when they sign legal documents. However, the assumption that we do not speak English is patronizing. It is also patronizing to think that I am going to support you because you are Latino. There are a lot of Latinos out there that deserve to have the opportunity to represent our community. And there are many, many more that do not. I am certainly not going to vote for someone just because they speak Spanish. And I get irritated by campaigns that assume that we don't speak English.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)