Cut From the Same Cloth
Put forth on April 3, 2007 by XicanoPwr
Posted in Classism, Immigration, Política Estados Unidos, Prejudices, Racism, Raza
Here in the United States, native-born citizens and leaders take great pride mythologize their historical success of the great “melting pot” ability to absorb and unify people coming from diverse lands and cultures. America and immigration are strongly linked and have been so throughout US history. Many would say that the US would not exist without immigration, and some would argue that it cannot proceed to develop without further immigration. At the same time, it is said we are now in the midst of the largest wave of immigration in history, America is once again contemplating the nagging fear that the most recent arrivals is reworking the future of the fabric of the nation. Concerns regarding the threat posed by newer immigrants to the Anglocentric nature of the United States are not new. According to political scientist and author of Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America, Daniel Tichenor, in nearly every era of U.S. history, there has been fierce debate on the economic, social, cultural, and national security consequences of new immigration.
In fact, this debate predates the Declaration of Independence. In 1751, in an essay to James Parker focusing on the nature of economic growth in the colonies Benjamin Franklin addressed the concerns posed by German and other immigration to the British character of Pennsylvania. Franklin wrote:1
And since Detachments of English from Britain sent to America, will have their Places at Home so soon supply’d and increase so largely here; why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.
Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionally very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.
Franklin has reaffirmed the English nature of his society, denounced immigration and ethno-linguistic enclaves, expressed the classic fear of demographic change, and even attempted, with his reference to “complexion” to conceptualize them either as “black,” “tawneys,” “swarthy” and “herding” is what can be considered as the designated “other.” To us, these words sound eerily familiar to language used in much of the contemporary argument.
However, the stew in the American melting pot is by no means diverse as many have us believe. In reality, the myth of the melting pot overgeneralized the past assimilation patterns of white European immigrant groups and tended to obliterate the long history of exclusion, racial discrimination, and social and civil rights struggles shared by people of color in US society. The social model to which current immigrants are expected to live by if they wish to become an “American” comprises of learning English; adhering to the Anglo-Protestant culture of religious commitment, individualism, and the work ethic; and identifying oneself psychologically as a patriotic American. In other words, adopting to “American” way of life.
The influx of new immigrants has also personally affected most Americans; many are put off by the moral decline that appears to have affected American society during the second half of the twentieth century. They worry that it will be exported to their own children and societies. Ironically, for immigrant children it is the best of times and the worst. These children, unlike previous generation of immigrants, will either to end up in Ivy League universities or unschooled, on parole, or in prison. Their fate is met with huge obstacles to success, such as poverty, prejudice, the burden of immigration itself, and exposure to the materialistic, hedonistic world of their native-born peers. This is where the problem lies.
Politics plays a critical role in the “social construction” of group/ethnic/racial identities. In today’s current society, individuals belong to different, usually overlapping groups, including national, regional, ethnic, and professional groups. Those who are native-born Americans have already assimilated to the different lifestyles in order to navigate through our system society. Recently, in discussing my last post to a fellow Latino, I was puzzled when this person made a statement regarding not feeling guilty for having “made it” and not having anything in common with those who recently arrived or living in the barrio. I have been puzzled by that statement because it wasn’t the first I have heard it and I am pretty sure it is not the last time. If one were to step back for a moment and were to look at the bigger picture, despite this person liberal political leanings, this person’s statement is no different from another Latino I know who is on the opposite side of the political spectrum with the same middle-class background. The difference between the two, one is more sympathetic to the plight while the other resembles the views of the dominate culture.
Life as a Latino in America is complicated. Living between the two worlds of being Latino and American can generate great uncertainty. And the strange mixture of ethnic pride and racial prejudice creates another sort of confusion. Inter-generational progress is key to achieving the American Dream. Through education and hard work, each generation hopes for a better life -improvement in health, income, and well-being – for their children. However, this is not message that is being told by the corporate media. We are told that Latinos are not assimilating. Rather, Mexican and other Latinos immigrants are naturalizing at extremely low rates, these immigrants and native-born Latinos, especially Mexican Americans, maintain their mother tongue even for generations, concentrate in particular regions and neighborhoods, and perhaps are even strategizing to take over sections of the US by building upon historical claims to the Southwest.
In the US, socioeconomic status (SES) is used to define ones status, although the idea may also pertain to circumstances such as social capital, social stigma, and racism. The antecedents of loss relate a person’s racial perceptions to his or her educational background, geographical location, socioeconomic status, and social and political orientation. In order to navigate through this system, one quickly learns what America’s mythology of opportunity is all about and what it truly means in becoming “American.” Are Mexicans following the same intergenerational path as European immigrants?
Unfortunately, however, the Latino community, like all communities today, is divided by conflicting class interests. According to a study done by Dennis Chong and Dukhong Kim, entitled “The Experiences and Effects of Economic Status Among Racial and Ethnic Minorities,” they found that “successful Latinos and Asian Americans place less emphasis on racial or ethnic considerations in their political attitudes and policy preferences.” The authors furthermore found that, “in general, for all minority individuals who perceive equal opportunity and experience social acceptance, an enhanced standard of living tends to lead to a weaker focus on race and ethnicity.” This pattern is showed among minority attitudes towards public policies such as affirmative action in employment and education, as well as government programs to ensure justice in jobs, health care, schools, and the administration of the law. What is more eye opening Chong and Kim, that when successful Latinos and Asian Americans did encounter racial or ethnic discrimination that impinged there their own economic success and social mobility, it is then, they are more likely to identify with the group and pursue collective means to improve their status. They found that individuals gave greater weight to their own life circumstances as opposed to the group’s condition, and the only reason one got involved was in terms of how the current situation will impinge on them. Therefore, those who feel less constrained by their minority status, individual group members tend differentiate themselves from the group by not “acting [insert ethnic/racial group of choice here]” in order to avoid the attributes and behaviors associated with it.
These findings does shed light in understanding the ways we juggle our multiple and fluid identities – those reconstituted or remolded from generation to generation from our cultural cross-connections with the native culture, with the US mainstream culture that marginalizes us, and with the cultures of other minor groups.
As a consequence of these cultural dynamics, many are encountering difficulties in establishing their own ethnic identity as they try to fit into both the Latino community and mainstream American society. Personally, there are constant internal struggles, on one hand, “Who am I as a Latino?” and on the other, “Who am I as an American?” My intent in writing this post was partly informational on what is happening within the Latino community and partly personal – a personal journey into finding out about myself. It has provided me an insight to what I am currently experiencing within my own family structure and, truthfully, it very disheartening. It has helped explain why my parents has mixed feelings when they see that one of their children is a “contributing member” to society, while the other one can be viewed as a “blight” to society. It further explains why some find it difficult to phantom the rise of racism when it comes to hiring practices when one is able to find employment, while another remains unemployed.
- The
Papers of Benjamin Franklin, Vols. 1-34. New Haven: Yale University Library, 1959-1998.[back]
Related posts
Tags: affirmative action, American Dream, Asian American, Education, ICE, Immigration, Latinos-as, Racism, undocumented immigrants | 
Print This Post
|
This is the blog of Edmundo "XicanoPwr" Rocha, a social worker, an activist, freelance writer and founder and editor of The Sanctuary. My interests include: immigration reform, critical race theory and it's interaction with equality/inequality and freedom/oppression as they relate to the experiences of people of color in the Americas.
Para Justicia y Libertad is a Latino-centered political blog focusing on the humanistic perspective of politics, history, and society as they relate to the Latina/o community throughout Texas and the United States.
3 Comments
You can follow any responses to this entry through the
Comments (RSS) feed.
Independent film shines a light in the dark canyons of immigration
By Bill Conroy,
Posted on Sun Feb 11th, 2007 at 02:43:26 PM EST
The hypocrisy of U.S. immigration policy is underscored by a little-known reality of Mexican migrants in the border city of San Diego.
An estimated 2,000 undocumented Mexicans live in tiny shacks in the rocky, rattlesnake-invested, brush-covered canyons abutting high-end San Diego communities that boast multi-million dollar mansions.
The owners of these mansions employ the undocumented workers for substandard wages to prune their gardens and to do maintenance work on their estates. The Mexican laborers each day make the trek by foot from their humble shacks, made of plastic-tarps and discarded wood, to the sprawling estates that overlook the canyons. Their sole purpose is to make a little money to send back to their families in Mexico, since their ability to make a living off the land south of the border has been destroyed by the price-deflating realities of free trade.
But even in the midst of the dire poverty that marks their lives in the rugged canyons, the Mexican workers maintain a sense of community and in one section of the canyons have even constructed a small chapel where they gather for Sunday church services.
But as housing development pushes ever-nearer the San Diego canyons, the Mexican worker are being displaced (run out by the very same people that employ them) because their shantytowns are deemed unsightly blights from the window views of the mansion dwellers.
These facts are brought to light by Los Angeles independent filmmaker John Carlos Frey, himself the son of Mexican immigrants and a native of San Diego. Frey decided to document this human tragedy on film to expose the plight of these people with the hope that it might prompt changes that lead to a better life for the workers. Maybe, he hoped, his film would open the eyes of the mansion dwellers to the price the Mexican workers are paying to tend to the rich man’s gardens.
Last November, Frey released his documentary, called “The Invisible Mexicans of Deer Canyon.” The DVD jacket for the documentary includes this description:
Mr. Frey spent a year documenting Mexican immigrants living in the clandestine shacks and shantytowns within eyesight of multi-million dollar mansions. Over two thousand individuals live outdoors in the secluded canyons of San Diego, CA — invisible to the local population. Their shacks have no electricity, running water or sanitation. The migrants live within several yards of some of the most expensive real estate in America and work in the local landscape, construction, agriculture and tourism industries.
The film is definitely worth seeing because it does tell the truth, which is a rare happening in the context of the highly charged debate over immigration in this country.
But I have to be honest about a question that was in the back of my mind after being enlightened by Frey’s work.
So I asked Frey:
How did you deal with these people as individuals in the sense that once they show up in the film, they might well be targeted by the authorities and bigots, if for no other reason than to retaliate against them for the embarrassment they cause the power structure?
Did they understand this potential consequence?
It’s clear that the community in the area must know who they are, since they hire them and send church folks out to the canyon to preach the so-called gospel, but once they show up in a powerful film like this, these immigrants essentially become public figures who might well be targeted by less-than-scrupulous people for political reasons.
This is a dilemma filmmakers face in particular, since they can’t really expose these issues without tripping that switch of injustice in our system.
I think it is important to know how you dealt with that, or how you view it, because it is bound to be a question in the back of the minds of some folks who watch the film.
Frey’s response:
Your question … is something I thought about deeply in the planning stages of the film. I did not use anyone’s real name nor is the locale ‘Deer Canyon’ a real name for the location. That being said, the scenario you speak of happened just as you describe — much to my terrible disappointment.
The film was screened in several locations in the San Diego area soon after it was completed in late November 2006. There were protests against the film and it’s contents as you elude. Anti-immigrant groups, including right wing radio and the Minutemen, staged a “campout with the illegals” to force them out of the canyon. As you can imagine the rhetoric was KKK in nature. It felt like a lynching was going to take place.
The groups accused the migrants of running a prostitution ring in the camp. They were portrayed as drug dealers, rapists and even pedophiles. The press ate it up as it was good for ratings. In short, they were not going to let this film show any other side of the story and the press was happy to participate.
As a result of much press coverage and immigrant bashing, the migrants were once again forced out the canyon since the film was completed. The chapel featured in the film was demolished on Jan. 8, 2007. I was granted sole access to the last Sunday service, and I filmed the entire event as the migrants themselves, with sledge hammers and power saws, brought down their sanctuary of over 20 years.
I am currently working on a follow-up film that will deal specifically with the events I just described culminating with the demolition of the chapel. I was incensed. I tried to get the press to cover the fact that a place of worship had been shut down by hate groups, but no one wanted to listen. The demolition of the long-standing chapel got NO coverage, and it is one of the reasons I am going forward with the follow-up film.
I do not feel responsible for what happened. There was a period of time that I blamed myself for the eviction of the migrants from the canyon and the demolition of their chapel, but I am not the one who perpetuated such violence. What I am responsible for is helping to reveal some deep sentiments of hate and xenophobia. I think it has to happen if the situation is ever going to resolve itself. Feelings and secrets have to be exposed so that they can be dealt with.
As a result, the San Diego chapter of the Minutemen are being seen as a hate group. There may even be charges brought against them. San Diego is getting a reputation as a racist city — something they certainly don’t want and are working to resolve some of the issues they have swept aside for so many years.
I have lost many nights of sleep over the question you put to me. My only resolve and answer is to continue to expose the light of truth because I firmly believe it is the only thing that will eventually expose the lies for what they are. Maybe I am wrong in my beliefs but I will continue to work on this next film and do just that: Expose the hate and xenophobia for what it is — ignorance and fear.
Are you sorry you asked?
I replied to Frey as follows:
I’m not sorry I asked. I have had to ask myself similar questions in stories I’ve covered over the years.
Way back in the 1980s, I covered a story about an arson that nearly cost the lives of a dozen people in Milwaukee. I investigated and tracked down the arsonist, a local slum landlord who had burned the buildings down as part of a dispute with another landlord. He was simply trying to get even.
In the wake of publishing a story that basically fingered the guy, the slum landlord went off the deep end knowing he was exposed. Shortly after, he murdered his wife and then went down to a river that ran along his property and put a bullet through his brain.
I’m still sorting that one out some 20 years later.
We all have to be honest with ourselves if we ever hope to tell the truth in the media. That honesty includes recognizing that, as writers or filmmakers, we become part of the stories we cover and share in the consequences those stories have on our communities, on other human beings.
Telling the truth always has consequences. That is a burden that can never be washed away with a paycheck.
For more information on Frey’s film and future screenings, check out the following Web site.
http://www.invisiblemexicans.com
Great post XP. Ha exprimido muy claramente la corazon de los asuntos que nos afectan tanto hoy dia.
Your reference to Ben Franklin really hits the nail on the head, and it’s precisely this damaging, media-fueled misperception (and misrepresentation) of the meaning of the “melting pot” and “assimilation,” that’s causing so many problems for Latinos today.
Specifically– far too many Americans are stuck in the very outdated, and quite inaccurate myth that “assimilation” is a one-way street, abandoning one’s native culture to become “American” in the sense of being a bland Anglophone, Anglo-Protestant, flag-waving ‘Merikun. That’s also where we get this dumb, false representation of the Ellis Islanders as “unhyphenated 100% ‘Merikun by the 3rd generation, and those greasers oughtta be doing the same.”
As I’ve come to learn, and as I’ve communicated to my fellow Latinos and to open-minded non-Latinos, this myth isn’t some benevolent national ethos of mere “assimilation” and “togetherness”– it’s nothing more than thinly disguised Anglo imperialism, passed down from the Founding Fathers (like Franklin) through each succeeding generation.
This is especially true when Anglos aim this myth in the direction of African-Americans, native Americans and of course Latinos, all of whom were brutally attacked and invaded in our own native lands by Anglo peoples, who now wish to deny us our heritage and our own cultural pedigree. Initially they attacked us militarily, and now, after the military assault on our peoples and our ancient lands, it’s been followed by a cultural assault: “You, loser Latinos, we took your land, your territory, your emotional connections to your Chicano roots away– now, we also want to take away your language and your very cultural identity itself, so that you merely become rubber-stamped servants of us.”
I’ve long been rankled by the way the term “immigrant” is applied to Latinos as though we were just like the Ellis Islanders from a century ago. The Poles, Hungarians, Armenians, Czechs and others who came in then contributed to this country, yes, but they were fellow White Europeans who came in as guests– and only as guests– to the Anglo-Saxons in power.
It’s very different for us Latinos. As they say, “no cruzamos la frontera, la frontera nos cruzo.” We’re not just immigrants coming in as guests– we’re dwelling on our own ancestral lands. Anglo demands to us, to “assimilate” to their culture and their way of running things, is nothing more than the arrogance of an imperial power trying to dictate things to a colonized people.
And we have no obligation to succumb to the demands of Anglo imperialists. I’m fine to learn from and absorb elements of the Anglo culture here, but especially in the US Southwest and in Florida and Puerto Rico, the Latino/Chicano culture, Spanish, our ancient traditions and land rights, are sacred and are permanent features of the land.
Now, I don’t know many people who go off on irredentist claims about reversing the Mexican War and seceding. But that’s in part because the laws and treaties after the Mexican War explicitly guarantee rights to Latinos, then and in perpetuity thereafter, in the territories seized in 1848, especially in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas– to our homes and property with the original land deeds honored, to hablar y usar espanol in all public places such as offices, schools, parks and wherever else, to celebrate our holidays and to maintain our culture indefinitely. So long as these are respected for us and we are fully allowed to participate in them, we can be full participants as members of the US nation.
IOW, “assimilation” in the Southwest means harmoniously accepting the Latino culture and language right alongside Anglo culture and language as prominent in the public sphere. Spanish is legally equivalent to English for all public purposes in these states owing to the history of the Mexican War and treaties and statutes thereafter, and this and other provisos for us can never be infringed upon.
That’s why I find this very Samuel Huntington-esque whine to be hilarious– “native-born Latinos, especially Mexican Americans, maintain their mother tongue even for generations.” Huntington and other Latino haters utter this like it’s a bad thing or a new thing, which cracks me up. But the US has always been multilingual– it’s a myth, stemming from Ellis Island days, that immigrants give up their non-English tongues by the third generation. It’s never happened that way– go to Wisconsin or northern Indiana, and whole towns are still using German since 2 centuries back.
This is even more so for us Latinos, since Spanish was not merely coincident with English in the SW, Spanish *preceded* English there and was the principal public language prior to the Mexican War. Trying to push Spanish out has long been considered unacceptable by the courts as it would represent naked imperialism– again, Spanish is an original language there, not an immigrant guest language like Armenian or Hungarian, for example. The courts have long given protected status to original languages in a particular region– native American languages in tribal lands, Hawaiian and Aleutian languages, German in portions of PA and WI, and of course, above all Spanish throughout the SW, Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico.
So in answer to Huntington and others fretting about Latinos’ retaining Spanish across generations, our answer is– damn right we’re retaining it, permanently. Spanish will never be “assimilated away” to English in the territories that constitute our ancestral homelands– it is equal to English and we will demand that it be respected as such for all public uses.
We are finally getting rid of the more damaging misrepresentations of the Anglo-dominated “melting pot” myth and better recognizing the contributions and current importance of the native peoples, African-Americans and Latinos in “setting” the standard culture, not just the Anglos to the exclusion of others.
Es finalmente una oportunidad para rectificar los errores, los crimenes y las injusticias que los Anglos han perpetrado contra nostros, y siguen perpetrando, desde siglos. Nuestras culturas van a co-existir aqui, no una dominar sobre la otra.
Gracias Lazaro. The sad truth is el desdén del vecino formidable, que no la conoce, es el peligro mayor de nuestra América. Las repúblicas han purgado en las tiranías su incapacideldad para conocer los elementos verdaderos del país, derivar de ellos la forma de gobierno y gobernar con ellos.
We have reached a crucial period in our educational existence that only history being taught to our youth is a history reflective of los gringos, our colonizers, we are just a footnote to them. We are just the obstacle that stood in the way of their Manifest Destiny. Nuestra América
Where is our history, who is telling the story of our side. Why is that in order to teach our people our own history, they have to search through the internets, hoping to land on sites like mine. We are at the mercy of the flotsam and jetsam of the white writers.
It is time to push harder the concept of nuestra América so we can once and for all break down the barriers that continue to divide us, we must remind every Latino we are all cut from the same raza cloth that continues to be shredded by the American imperial monster.
Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.