User loginLive Discussions
Google searchMost popular threads
Weekly Archives
Blog linksAfrican American Political Pundit |
Tip jarThe Public LibraryReality checksNews sourcesLink CollectionsDropping KnowledgeLibrary of Congress African American Odyssey Who's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 23 guests online.
Online users
...Syndicate |
I'm going to chicken out and not comment on this one for a minuteSubmitted by Prometheus 6 on January 7, 2007 - 12:37pm.
on Race and Identity And a particularly trenchant bit of cowardice it is, given the closing paragraph. Roots of Latino/black anger THE ACRIMONIOUS relationship between Latinos and African Americans in Los Angeles is growing hard to ignore. Although last weekend's black-versus-Latino race riot at Chino state prison is unfortunately not an aberration, the Dec. 15 murder in the Harbor Gateway neighborhood of Cheryl Green, a 14-year-old African American, allegedly by members of a Latino gang, was shocking. Yet there was nothing really new about it. Rather, the murder was a manifestation of an increasingly common trend: Latino ethnic cleansing of African Americans from multiracial neighborhoods. Just last August, federal prosecutors convicted four Latino gang members of engaging in a six-year conspiracy to assault and murder African Americans in Highland Park. During the trial, prosecutors demonstrated that African American residents (with no gang ties at all) were being terrorized in an effort to force them out of a neighborhood now perceived as Latino. For example, one African American resident was murdered by Latino gang members as he looked for a parking space near his Highland Park home. In another case, a woman was knocked off her bicycle and her husband was threatened with a box cutter by one of the defendants, who said, "You niggers have been here long enough." At first blush, it may be mystifying why such animosity exists between two ethnic groups that share so many of the same socioeconomic deprivations. Over the years, the hostility has been explained as a natural reaction to competition for blue-collar jobs in a tight labor market, or as the result of turf battles and cultural disputes in changing neighborhoods. Others have suggested that perhaps Latinos have simply been adept at learning the U.S. lesson of anti-black racism, or that perhaps black Americans are resentful at having the benefits of the civil rights movement extended to Latinos. Although there may be a degree of truth to some or all of these explanations, they are insufficient to explain the extremity of the ethnic violence. Over the years, there's also been a tendency on the part of observers to blame the conflict more on African Americans (who are often portrayed as the aggressors) than on Latinos. But although it's certainly true that there's plenty of blame to go around, it's important not to ignore the effect of Latino culture and history in fueling the rift. The fact is that racism — and anti-black racism in particular — is a pervasive and historically entrenched reality of life in Latin America and the Caribbean. More than 90% of the approximately 10 million enslaved Africans brought to the Americas were taken to Latin America and the Caribbean (by the French, Spanish and British, primarily), whereas only 4.6% were brought to the United States. By 1793, colonial Mexico had a population of 370,000 Africans (and descendants of Africans) — the largest concentration in all of Spanish America. The legacy of the slave period in Latin America and the Caribbean is similar to that in the United States: Having lighter skin and European features increases the chances of socioeconomic opportunity, while having darker skin and African features severely limits social mobility. White supremacy is deeply ingrained in Latin America and continues into the present. In Mexico, for instance, citizens of African descent (who are estimated to make up 1% of the population) report that they regularly experience racial harassment at the hands of local and state police, according to recent studies by Antonieta Gimeno, then of Mount Holyoke College, and Sagrario Cruz-Carretero of the University of Veracruz. Mexican public discourse reflects the hostility toward blackness; consider such common phrases as "getting black" to denote getting angry, and "a supper of blacks" to describe a riotous gathering of people. Similarly, the word "black" is often used to mean "ugly." It is not surprising that Mexicans who have been surveyed indicate a disinclination to marry darker-skinned partners, as reported in a 2001 study by Bobby Vaughn, an anthropology professor at Notre Dame de Namur University. Anti-black sentiment also manifests itself in Mexican politics. During the 2001 elections, for instance, Lazaro Cardenas, a candidate for governor of the state of Michoacan, is believed to have lost substantial support among voters for having an Afro Cuban wife. Even though Cardenas had great name recognition (as the grandson of Mexico's most popular president), he only won by 5 percentage points — largely because of the anti-black platform of his opponent, Alfredo Anaya, who said that "there is a great feeling that we want to be governed by our own race, by our own people." Given this, it should not be surprising that migrants from Mexico and other areas of Latin America and the Caribbean arrive in the U.S. carrying the baggage of racism. Nor that this facet of Latino culture is in turn transmitted, to some degree, to younger generations along with all other manifestations of the culture. The sociological concept of "social distance" measures the unease one ethnic or racial group has for interacting with another. Social science studies of Latino racial attitudes often indicate a preference for maintaining social distance from African Americans. And although the social distance level is largest for recent immigrants, more established communities of Latinos in the United States also show a marked social distance from African Americans. For instance, in University of Houston sociologist Tatcho Mindiola's 2002 survey of 600 Latinos in Houston (two-thirds of whom were Mexican, the remainder Salvadoran and Colombian) and 600 African Americans, the African Americans had substantially more positive views of Latinos than Latinos had of African Americans. Although a slim majority of the U.S.-born Latinos used positive identifiers when describing African Americans, only a minority of the foreign-born Latinos did so. One typical foreign-born Latino respondent stated: "I just don't trust them…. The men, especially, all use drugs, and they all carry guns." This same study found that 46% of Latino immigrants who lived in residential neighborhoods with African Americans reported almost no interaction with them. The social distance of Latinos from African Americans is consistently reflected in Latino responses to survey questions. In a 2000 study of residential segregation, Camille Zubrinsky Charles, a sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, found that Latinos were more likely to reject African Americans as neighbors than they were to reject members of other racial groups. In addition, in the 1999-2000 Lilly Survey of American Attitudes and Friendships, Latinos identified African Americans as their least desirable marriage partners, whereas African Americans proved to be more accepting of intermarriage with Latinos. Ironically, African Americans, who are often depicted as being averse to coalition-building with Latinos, have repeatedly demonstrated in their survey responses that they feel less hostility toward Latinos than Latinos feel toward them. Although some commentators have attributed the Latino hostility to African Americans to the stress of competition in the job market, a 1996 sociological study of racial group competition suggests otherwise. In a study of 477 Latinos from the 1992 Los Angeles County Social Survey, professors Lawrence Bobo, then of Harvard, and Vincent Hutchings of the University of Michigan found that underlying prejudices and existing animosities contribute to the perception that African Americans pose an economic threat — not the other way around. It is certainly true that the acrimony between African Americans and Latinos cannot be resolved until both sides address their own unconscious biases about one another. But it would be a mistake to ignore the Latino side of the equation as some observers have done — particularly now, when the recent violence in Los Angeles has involved Latinos targeting peaceful African American citizens. This conflict cannot be sloughed off as simply another generation of ethnic group competition in the United States (like the familiar rivalries between Irish, Italians and Jews in the early part of the last century). Rather, as the violence grows, the "diasporic" origins of the anti-black sentiment — the entrenched anti-black prejudice among Latinos that exists not just in the United States but across the Americas — will need to be directly confronted. T3 nice. I still can't phantom why folks are so insanely adamant in facilitating the legalization of illegal immigrants. It's as if we're cutting off our own effing heads. Notice that they are not smacking whites, or ethnically cleansing white communites. They seem to operate like shock troops for whites, in fact. But no. We're not supposed to broach the idea that they are not our "friends." You go into any country south of the American border, any. And you find that the Blacks who are citizens there are treated like shit for the most part. Yet when these people, nonBlack Hispanics, get here, they somehow become bossom buddies to us and pimp off of the tragedies and triumps of the Black struggle. It makes me sick!
I grew up in New York, and in New York, Latino basically meant Puerto Rican or Dominican, and PR or DR basically meant light-skinned Black who speaks spanish. That will be my full disclosure and indication of where my biases lie. Let's say there is a dispute between the Minute Men and Mexicans. With the Minute Men openly saying that the Mexican threat is that the United States will have too many non-white people, non-white voters, people who make the Minute Men uncomfortable. In that situation, I could not imagine a situation where Black people side with White people against Mexicans. Also, I still think of Magic Johnson's endorsement of a White liberal over a Mexican politician for mayor of LA as Clarence-Thomas-esque race treachery. On the issue of should poor Mexicans be able to come to the US, I think the answer is clearly yes and Black people should support that - just for the extra voters who know what it means to be poor. In disputes between Mexican and White, if Black people get involved it should be on the Mexican side. On the issue of Mexican-Black gang wars in prison or turf battles, I'm on the Black side if there must be a fight. I hope the case gets convictions. I don't expect White prosecutors to be nearly as biased as they would if the assailants were White, but if they are, that should be protested. There is a difference between always agreeing with Mexicans on everything and siding with the most racist element of the White community on issues like immigration. I got four words for you east coast bruthas who only know la raza from what you see when you channel surf past Univision..., I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!! OBM. Poor or whatever, I don't see these mexicans doing anything in a positive coalition with Blacks other than attempting to gain or snatch what little scraps we're afforded. Under these circumstances I will not take the fatal drink brotherhood or the oath of kumbaya. Even if the Racist are against them, well.......BTW, what's a moyo?And Craig, I know what ya talking about son. I'm in the choir.
this is a job for the minutemen and their paleoconservative brethren..., Let's all write to Dr. Keyes and get him on task to engage around our concerns out there in Cobb's backyard! CN as far as I'm concerned these wingnuts of color are more concern ed middle class white issues such as job migration and the like while at the same time mocking (ala Patterson and his ilk) similarly affected brothers and Black families. I personally feel these people are very confused about our history, and in addtion, suffer from a form of willful ignorance of our collective tribulations, and concerns. Based on their actions and polity, it's as if our issues, to them, occurred, and still occurs, in a social and cultural vacuum. It is a kind cowardice, in effect, that I have yet to completely think through.
ya at. The capacity to peep Mexican nationalism for what it is - with all of its complex historical contours and grounding in ethno-centrism and white supremacy (an entirely non-unique marriage for peoples of color across the globe) - is not a function of east coast - west coast or no coast. I see exactly what you see - and don't need Univision to set it straight for me. Moreover, this notion of light-skinned black folks constituting New York's definitive Afro-Latino population is absolutely preposterous. There are so many dark-skinned Spanish-speaking Africans in New York that counting is not an option...and ignoring them is to misunderstand, entirely, what it means to be Latino in New York. Outside of the African diasporan experience, there is no Puerto Rican or Dominican New York. Africans are as much a part of this as any other collective. I grew up in El Barrio and was born in the Bronx and spent plenty of time in Washington Heights...those areas are largely Puerto Rican and Dominican and there are plenty of dark-skinned folks in those neighborhoods. This demographic condition is precisely why I separated the Mexican cultural-political tradition. It's an entirely different ballgame - and the experience here is not what it is in Kansas City or LA, but aggressive nationalism is only invisible to those who refuse to see. There place of birth need not be relevant - unless they choose blind parochialism, or if they persist in watching Channel Zero.
40 years ago that wasn't the case. OBM was talking history, describing the situation at the timehis views initially formed. "On the issue of should poor Mexicans be able to come to the US, I think the answer is clearly yes and Black people should support that - just for the extra voters who know what it means to be poor. In disputes between Mexican and White, if Black people get involved it should be on the Mexican side." I appreciate your sentiments but African Americans should not support amnesty or any other programs created to ease the path to American citizenship for illegal Mexican and Hispanic immigrants. One of the great achievements of the American system and acculturation process is how quickly it causes the descendants of poor people to forget their roots. Illegal immigrants, regardless of their national origins, are not coming to America to be poor and they certainly are not coming here to make common cause with black folks. African Americans should not delude themselves as to how immigrant groups view them or how these same groups will treat them once they have established themselves in this country. America’s immigration policies since the founding of this country have been crafted with an eye toward keeping native Blacks at a competitive disadvantage with respect to white immigrants. When Congress passed the nation’s first naturalization law in 1790 a zero quota was allotted for free Black immigrants. Throughout this nation’s history Blacks have again and again been displaced from jobs and businesses by successive waves of immigrants. In 1865, a study by the Department of Commerce found that nearly 100,000 of the country’s estimated 120,000 skilled workers and artisan were former slaves. These craftsmen were not brought in to the workplace but were methodically and systematically driven out to a large degree by immigration policies that admitted more than 26 million Europeans by 1900. The unions formed by these “white ethnics” were ruthless in discriminating against Blacks and preventing them from working in the skilled trades such as carpentry, plumbing and boilermaking. In other words, native Blacks and their labor were seen an expendable unless Blacks agreed to work in the lowest paid, filthiest and most dangerous jobs. In principled disputes between Mexicans and Euro-Americans African Americans should support that side whose position promises to be the most beneficial or least detrimental to African Americans and the United States as a whole. I think it is appropriate and fair for African Americans to point out certain hypocritical elements of U.S. policy with regard to Mexico and the whole of Latin America but these folks are not our friends and we should never think that they are simply because they get into a pissing match with white folks here. |
|
This site best viewed with a jaundiced eye
|
||
Mexican nationalism is functional within the Mexican community as most other forms of nationalism. La Raza was never intended to include Black folk, nor should it. Many Mexicans see themselves as heirs to a legacy of conquest which was rudely interrupted by the miraculous redemption of the Texans following their defeat at the Alamo. As such, there are no misgivings about the pitched battle for land and space in the southwest - because the border (historically) is a fungible line that has changed before - and can change again. It's not a permanent barrier. It's a line to be crossed. I believe that is a perfectly understandable position to take. Is it moral? Don't know. I suspect that Saddam Hussein felt the same way about Kuwait - and that Poles feel the same way about land they lost to Germany - and that Russians feel that way about the new republics.
In this context of Mexican nationalism, who are Black folks? Black folks must be perceived through two lenses: 1) a dismissive ethno-centric lens and 2) through the white supremacist lens of the dominant culture. The fact that the first lens is tinged with over five centuries of white supremacism provides connective tissue to strengthen perceptions and predispositions. The same can be said of any region in which whites established a colonial presence. How are Black folks getting along with Indians - in South Africa or Trinidad or elsewhere? Economically, its the same deal, but Indians have not been a national majority in these places and have not, therefore, sought to use violence to displace Blacks...instead, they've generally sought to use the power of the white-controlled state and economics to impose their will.
The extent to which Mexicans are using violence is, to me, an indicator of the extent to which they see themselves as "owners" of the land on which they reside. They do not see themselves as immigrants or visitors or minorities - but as part of a larger, organic, indigenous La Raza with a priori claims to the land that mitigate against the rights of blacks - and by extension whites. Of course, the issue is that Mexicans cannot use force or the power of the state against whites...but, this collective which is currently engaged in this violence would use it - if afforded the opportunity.
Such was the case when Italian, Jewish and Irish gangs victimized Blacks and competed for control of force with the state. These gangs dominated cities like New York, Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia in order to establish footholds in commerce, trade, vice and areas that provide a substantial source of revenue. They were sufficiently effective in the case of the Sicilians-Italians to parley that WORK into the creation of Las Vegas, control of all major shipping ports, control of labor unions, and even cultural protection through the glamorization of their most ruthless enforcers. Irish gangs were able to translate their roots in crime to control in law enforcement. New York, Boston and Philadelphia police forces (and their unions) are still run by cabals of Irish officers. As for the Jews, their origins in crime were used to subsidize entree into legal platforms for the aggregation of power - including law enforcement, judgships, institutional access, and front money for film ventures.
For Mexican gangs, it's not clear what the next frontier will be, but the use of violence to codify identity, claim territory and generate revenue is an old practice.
It is important, however, to distinguish Mexican and Central American nationalism with its grounding in Spanish/Indian cultures from those Latino nations with a more definitive African identity. The Dominican Republic and Cuba, while not paragons of racial equity (far from it), could not operationalize the same dynamics because the demographics would not support it - too many Africans. Mexicans are not surrounded by African cultural norms - and as such should not be referred to as Latino - but as Hispanic. After all, Mexican leaders have seldom sought a Pan-Latin approach to leadership in the Americas. Mexican leaders, like Argentinians in South America, have consistently asserted their regional dominance in Central America as a path to concessions, negotiations and access with the dominant Spanish, then American powers (NAFTA).
White supremacy was central to Spanish identity formation following the Inquisition and the expulsion of the Moors. After 7 centuries of using Moorish libraries, public baths and other icons of civilizations, the Spaniards had enough and decided to bet the farm on stealing and robbing from folks who didn't have guns. That worked out fine for a few centuries, but they've since been relegated to the back burner of global power. Latin Americans still closely identify with that Spanish heritage. Every single nation state (with the exception, recently of Venezuela - in limited capacities) celebrates that Spanish post-Inquisition history as if it were their own. The African element is always last in that unholy trinity. It is worth noting, however, that as much as Mexicans identify with their Spanish roots, it could be argued that a much stronger affinity is held to the Aztec cultural base - and the evolution of a Mexican identity which bridges the past between Aztec and Spain.
It is not surprising that people who identify strongly with the notion of conquest (as Aztecs and as Spaniards - after all Mexico was Spain's #1 colony for years) would harbor such views of Black folk. Widespread antipathy to Blacks is an indicator, in some respect, of cultural fidelity. Those cultural nationalists who've rejected the assumptions and predispositions of white supremacy are limited in number...they are as outnumbered as the cultural nationalists in Black America.