Shenandoah
October 22, 2009
Filed under children, family, immigration, intercultural, language, motherhood
Tags: race, latino, hispanic, Mexican, immigration, immigrant, hate killings, Shenandoah killing, Latin-American experience
Why does it amaze me that things like this still happen? We’re supposed to be so enlightened, ushered in to a new age of racial friendship by President McNobelPrize, the deeply-rooted problems of this country solved miraculously over a Bud.
And yet. And yet.
I have a son. He’s mixed. He’s not remotely Mexican (and even if he were, should that matter?), but he could be walking home one day with his white girlfriend and be beaten senseless by “good kids”. Track stars. 4.0 GPAs.
And it terrifies me.
I hear statements from my students so many times, running the gamut of misinformed to shockingly prejudiced. But these are students from other countries, some having herded camels as recently as last week, from societies rife with tribal warfare and barbarically- enforced religious law.
This is not that place. These are not those people (yes, I know, and even if they were….).
I hear so many people say with such conviction that we’re all blank slates- born with nothing but goodness, sweetness, and an evolutionary predisposition to do good and save the earth. Babies are born good, right? Full of potential, only lacking a little “pruning”, straight little shoots going right up toward the sun.
So explain this. What do you do when kids with such stable backgrounds, such middle-America ethos, such blond-crew-cut upbringings- with everything in the world going for them, beat a man into the ground?
And how, as parents, do we prepare our kids for this? How did the parents of these kids prepare them?
And how do I prepare myself?
Should I stay or should I go?
April 13, 2009
Filed under children, family, immigration, intercultural, politics
Tags: deportation, Easter, hispanic, illegal immigrants, immigration, immigration reform, intercultural, latino
Ahhhh….Easter. Chocolate hangovers, sugar letdowns, and people carrying crosses.
I hope you got a little glimpse of at least one penitent staggering down the street in dramatic Christological support of their issue-du-jour. In the Phillippines, they really get into it, actually nailing themselves and scourging their flesh. Mother Church turns a blind eye.
Hey, whatever. I’ll take a basket of Peeps and some chianti.
Interesting, though, is this CNN story about a girl in Japan whose parents are being deported. Her parents entered Japan illegally from the Phillippines, and she’s been asked to choose between her parents and her homeland. I’m not sure why it’s garnered the attention of CNN except for its applicability to US immigration law, protested this weekend by many immigrants with crosses.
Then there’s this story from the NY Times about something similar, where a girl’s father is deported and she’s left to live with her citizen granny (in this case, the estranged girl interestingly quips “I think I love him…”). In this case, the judge famously noted that the welfare of the children must be taken into account when deporting illegal immigrants. Which could be huge- have a kid, stay in the US. Can you say anchor babies?
I’m wondering where to stand on this one. I saw a soundbite from a lady on Univision (blegh), marching against deportation, whose son is a citizen. “He wants to come back to his country!” she wails. But isn’t it…her fault that he’s not with his countrymen? And, as immigration reform writers often ask, what does it say that illegals’ first action in this country is to break the law?
But the kids.
I know, the kids.
Thoughts?
Goooooooooooooool
February 12, 2009
Filed under family, immigration, intercultural, language, mixed marriage
Tags: gringos, hispanic, immigrants, immigration, La Raza, Latina, latino, Mexico, soccer, Univision
Last night the US soccer team won a 2-0 victory over Mexico, continuing their tradition of beating Mexicans into the ground on US soil.
Read into that last sentence what you will.
Now, I love sweaty, muscled men as much as the next girl, especially when they’ve got fancy ball skills. But I watched very little of the game, preferring instead the self-inflicted torture of sixteen essays about the ”challenges facing college students today”.
And yet the interesting dynamic played out for us on a windy Wednesday night was irresistible, for a number of reasons. There’s this general idea that hispanics play soccer better than gringos, which is understandable given our national interest in the other kind of football. And certainly home-court advantage is a plus.
But what really interested me was the coverage by Univision…ostensibly an “American” company, broadcasting for “American” audiences.
Go ahead- guess. Whose side were they on?
Oh yeah. La Raza. The pregame reporting interviewed legions of crazed Mexican fans, talking about how they were “of course” going to root for Mexico, even as they stood in their Cantina here on US soil. About how they were going to “take out” the gringos. The reporter, chilly in her J. Crew parka and Hermes scarf, gave a rundown of the Mexican team’s roster but was unable to list any of the US players when asked, except, of course, for the golden boy goal-maker.
It made me think about this idea that hispanics are assimilating. That everyone eventually “becomes” an “American”- whatever that may mean. I’ve always maintained that it’s NOT, at least not as much as wishful-thinking, liberal, open-borders-policy-supporting people would like. And the coverage on the largest Spanish-language TV station in the US was a confirmation. What is “American”, anyway?
And in the chilly night, banners waving, as I wondered what it will mean for this divided country, the US made another goal.
Reading
February 9, 2009
Filed under Catholic, children, christianity, ecumenism, faith, family, immigration, intercultural, interfaith, language, mixed marriage
Tags: books, Catholic, Christian, family, Hans Kung, Hector Tobar, immigration, Karen Armstrong, Katie Hickman, life, reading
This weekend was gorgeous in my neck of the woods, so we spent an enormous percentage of it outside, to the great delight of my children and to the dismay of many a member of the species ant, which found itself being discovered and summarily squashed (in my daughter’s case) or eaten (in my son’s).
Insect-related gustatory antics notwithstanding, I got to READ. Balm to the soul, relief for the weary heart, and all that. Thought I’d share what’s been on my literary menu, and get some suggestions from vous. In no particular order, then…
A History of God: the 4,000-year quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam by Karen Armstrong.Who is brilliant. I know, that’s not even a complete sentence. And that’s how Ms. Armstrong makes me feel- she’s traced the history of the development of “God” and drawn really interesting connections between many world religions. To her very great credit, she’s impartial, though the book is leaving me wondering if she’s atheist as a result, of if she ascribes to any of the beliefs she studies.
Translation Nation: Defining a new American identity in the Spanish-speaking United States by Pulitzer-prize winning Hector Tobar. This has been entertaining, and the stories Tobar tells about the cross-border experience in the US give a glimpse into the (mostly illegal) immigrant mind. Since I’ve been thinking about the immigration debate, it’s helped to get a better idea of the other side of the story- the people who would do anything to make $6 an hour slicing chicken necks.
Courtesans: Money, sex, and fame in the nineteenth century by Katie Hickman. I don’t read many biographies, nor do I routinely delve into the history of the sex trade, but this one was recommended by a friend. Interesting stuff- it seems people were living like Madonna long before she writhed in white tulle onstage for money.
The Catholic Church: A short history by Hans Kung. And by short he does mean short- it’s the shortest of the four at around 200 pages. Though I understand Kung is considered the redheaded stepchild of Catholic theologians, he’s refreshingly honest (probably the source of his redheaded status). For this pseudo-Catholic, it’s good reading.
So, dish. What’s on your bedside table (or picnic basket)? And is it worth taking a gander?
Sprechen ze American, Part Deux
January 13, 2009
Filed under immigration, intercultural, interfaith, language
Tags: English, English Only, immigration, intercultural, language, linguistics, Nashville, prejudice, racism
Here’s the for. What follows is the against, that is, against this measure by the Nashville city government:
“English is the official language of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County,Tennessee. Official actions which bind or commit the government shall be taken only in the English language, and all official government communications and publications shall be in English. No person shall have a right to government services in any other language. All meetings of the Metro Council, Boards and Commissions of the Metropolitan Government shall be conducted in English. The Metro Council may make specific exceptions to protect public health and safety. Nothing in this measure shall be interpreted to conflict with federal or state law.”
It should, perhaps, be noted that English is already the official language of Tennessee. Just sayin’.
So the basic argument against English-only measures relates to hospitality and respect for the foreign-born. An English-only proposition would send a message to the world that we’re not really interested in making people feel at home in our country. That we don’t respect difference or sensitivity to other cultures. It tells people that we’re concerned with people assimilating, and not interested in broadening our horizons. In terms of many different faiths (Christian, Muslim, Jewish) who have injunctions to treat the foreigner in a respectful way, it doesn’t exactly send a message of welcome.
English Only also tells the world that we’re not interested in their business. Tourism and enterprise will just have to talk American, y’all. Recruiting foreign investors? Only in Americanese, thank you very much.
Another side is financial. While you might argue that it would actually save taxpayer dollars by not requiring multiple tedious foreign-language versions of government documents, there would still be a considerable expense dealing with the many court battles that would inevitably ensue. Court battles in English, mind you.
Are we really wanting to send such a prejudiced, racist message to the rest of the world? How can we say “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”? Give us them, just make sure they don’t breathe too free…
The special election is on the 22nd.
Thoughts?
(NB: I’m still on the fence about this one. What about you?)
