Read Read Read

Arizona lawmakers banned the Ethnic Studies program in Tucson high schools.   The program helps the large population of Mexican-American students to relate to what they learn. It has worked — the students' graduation rates soared. And now they are fighting against their government to get the program back in their schools. You see a great video from PBS that explains it all.

All of this got me thinking about the amount of Latino and Latin writers I've encountered in my high school career. I can't name a single one. That all changed in college, but it's still not enough. Because in the plethora of white male writers that I've collected on my bookshelves, I can't say that I have had a similar racial experience, for obvious reasons. That's important, right?

I'm pretty mixed about all of this. I understand that we live in the United States — white male writers are gonna happen. But we're establishing our own presence in this country, so shouldn't Latinos also be read in the classroom? The same goes for Asian, Native American, and all types of racial and ethnic groups.

I can't blame it all on the school systems, though. I have to take some responsibility and read Latin and Latino writers on my own. The video I made (up above) shows a small sampling of all my book, most of which are written by white male writers. And unfortunately the only Latin and Latino writers I have on my bookshelves are Isabel Allende and Gabriel Garcia Marquez. And then there's a Jim Morrison poetry book that's in Spanish. I have to start reading more Spanish books, too.  

The school systems will come around. They have to. But in the mean time, I think we should all take it upon ourselves to read more about our cultures from people in our cultures. And in our own languages, too! Any words that can get you thinking should always be welcome — no matter what language they are in.

Things Latinas are Tired of Hearing

I recently stumbled upon this page from Cosmopolitan, and I have to say that I have heard all of these things before. Whether they were said to me, or to someone else, these things can be really racist and sexist. And of course, these are all seemingly innocent remarks, but the truth is that they happen a lot.

I think these remarks are most encountered in a social, flirting scenario which very easily takes it from an innocent remark to a bit of cat calling, only it doesn't just happen on the street, it happens in an up close and personal conversation.

Then there is this page I found, that focuses more on Afro-Latinas. This is not as innocent as the last page Cosmopolitan has. 

All of these unwanted remarks toward Afro-Latinas are racist and even more damaging and disrespectful to one's culture. And the worst part about it is that some of us in the Latino community actually think some of these things are true. 

Darker skin and tighter curls does not make these women, and men, less Latino. They just have  more African roots to them, as other Latinos have more Spanish roots to them. It also astonishes people in our community when a darker-skinned person starts speaking in Spanish. We really have to let go of this notion that darker-skinned Latinos don't speak Spanish.

Here's some proof!

This is Zoe Saldana, Dominican and Puerto Rican, speaking Spanish on Despierta America:

Some of these remarks on the first page are funny, and some are true —like having a big family— but it's still not entirely appropriate to assume these things about a Latina.The page about Afro-Latinas — no! We need to get away from these stereotypical and racists thoughts. Everyone has a different story, so please don't group us together and think we are all the same, or that darker features exclude you from the community. We all have different experiences with our culture, and assumptions are not the way to get to know about it. 

I Hope They Don't Call This a Race Film

Edward James Olmos. That's usually the first name that most people think of when considering all of the major Latino actors in the film industry. Even though there have always been a number of Latinos on the big screen (Anthony Quinn for example) the roles and representation of Latinos and their history isn't always present.

That's why I was glad to see the trailer for the new Cesar Chavez biopic, directed by the Mexican actor Diego Luna. We'll see how the movie is when it comes out next year, but for now I think we can focus on the fact that this Latino film is happening. Of course there are a number of great films from across Latin America, from Memories of Underdevelopment to City of God and Amorres Perros. However, there are very few films, I think, that depict Latinos — the ones living in United States. "Chavez" not only depicts a group of Latinos, but it depicts a history that doesn't always get covered in mainstream America. Whether the film is actually any good is another thing, but here's what Luna said about the film in an interview:

“Well what happens is that, well, they are Americans but it’s a very complicated relation[ship]. It’s      such a long, long, long frontier between the Third World and the First World, and that separates them with their story, with so many things I believe are necessary to become someone, to know where you come from...For a long time people in the States were saying ‘you’re telling a story about Mexicans’ and I said ‘no, no, no this is a story about Americans in fact’ and that we Mexicans have a lot to learn from. It talks about this double moral issue that you find a lot in the States, where there are all these people feeding the country, building the country but at the same time [it] is a country that doesn’t want to recognize that, but doesn’t want to get rid of them either, that just wants to keep them in the shadows. And that’s probably why there’s not a film about Cesar Chavez today.”

I like that he said it is a story about Americans because it speaks to the location of many Latinos — "America", or the U.S. I hope this film gets people thinking about the future of Latinos and their value to the American society that is to this day trying to push them out. 

Latinas in the Media

Google for images of "Latinas" and that is what you get. A myriad of sexualized women. And one "We Can Do It!" shot. Unfortunately, this is how the world sees Latinas, a role that is very limiting and degrading.

I've struggled with some women in my culture and their way of dressing. Some may say that it is empowering to be proud of and comfortable with the bodies "God" has given us. But this oversezualized representation of Latina women is just injusto. We are more than a piece of meat to savor over.

It's no better that one of our own perpetuates this image, along with another common image of Latinas. Hollywood star Eva Longoria's show "Devious Maids" cast Latina women as maids working in a rich white person's mansion, with all sorts of scandals happening behind the scenes. I get that the show is somewhat of an homage to the telenovelas that are shown all over Latin America, but a majority of those shows are even worse. Not only do they over sexualize women, but they always seem to depict the good and beautiful lighter-skinned woman as the protagonist and the darker-skinned woman as the evil backstabber.

nbclatino.com

Longoria defended her show in an interview with the New York Times, but editor-in-chief of Cosmo for Latinas Michelle Herrera Mulligan criticized her for her comments in an open letter. 

Mulligan makes a great point about the other image of Latinas that Longoria's show perpetuates -- the maid.

Latinas, and Latinos in general, are depicted as the "help" in most cases. While there certainly is a large number of Latinas who make their living as maids, they are not the like the women in "Devious Maids".
I have actually meet a couple of strong, hard working women through my volunteering with UNITE HERE Local 1, the hospitality union.
The women I've talked to work long hard hours cleaning hotel rooms and do so for their children. Of course there are a lot of differences between the real-life maids I've met and the maids depicted in "Devious Maids", but the show perpetuates the maid as a role that only Latina women can fill. The show exacerbates this by sexualizing their actions.
The real women who just happen to be maids are not represented, and are certainly not freed of any oppressive forces just because there is a show about maids on Lifetime.
"Devious Maids" does not breakdown any barriers, it only makes them worse for the average person.

UNITE HERE Local 1

The State of Latinas

citedatthecrossroads.net

Whenever I'm on the bus or the train, I see younger Latina girls and wonder where they are headed in their lives.

It's no secret that a large majority of Latinos are on the lower end of the economic scale. Education is always thought of as the answer to economic mobility, but many Latinos do not always get far in their education.

As a Latina woman, I think education is definitely important, especially for women. I only hope that those girls I see on  my way to school everyday have plans to go to college. Although it is not a guarantee, education can help these girls attain a well-paying career. That alone would vastly improve the situation of many Latino families to come.

I bring this up because I came across some facts about Latinas and their status in the United States.

While this is not the complete facts sheet, I'd like to share some of the more interesting and important facts:

Health

• Latina teens experienced historic lows for teen pregnancy in 2012, at 39 percent.
• Seventeen percent of Latina women receive Medicaid, compared to 9 percent for white women.
• Latina women represent 17 percent of new AIDS diagnoses among women.
• Latina women experience unintended pregnancy at twice the rate experienced by white women.

Educational attainment

• College graduation rates for Latinas have increased faster than any other group of women.
• Graduation rates for Latinas were at 31.3 percent in 2008, still significantly lower than graduation rates for white women, at 45.8 percent.
• Only 3 percent of Latina women are represented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM, fields, while women in total make up 24 percent of the STEM workforce.

Entrepreneurship

• As of 2013, Latinas owned about 1 out of every 10 women-owned businesses.
• In 2012, data showed that the receipts of Latina-owned businesses totaled $65.7 billion; this is an increase of 180 percent from 1997 to 2013.
• In 2011, 788,000 Latinas ran their own businesses—a 46 percent increase over five years. In comparison, female business owners as a whole only experienced a 20 percent increase over the same period.
• The increase in revenue has been even greater, with Latina-owned businesses earning 57 percent more from 2002 to 2007, when compared with a mere 5 percent increase among all women’s businesses over the same period. Revenue for Latina-owned businesses grows at about 9.5 percent per year.
• Latina women own 36 percent of all companies owned by minority women in America.

Economic security

• Latina women make 88 percent of their male counterparts’ annual full-time earnings.
• Latina women earn $549 per week, compared with white women’s median earnings of $718.
• According to a 2010 study, the median household wealth of single Latina women is $120, compared with single white women’s median household wealth of $41,500. Latina women with children have zero median wealth.
• From 2007 to 2012, the share of Latina women earning at or below minimum wage more than tripled.
• Poverty rates for Latina women, at 27.9 percent, are close to triple those of white women, at 10.8 percent.
• In 2012, the poverty rate for Latina women overall was 27.9 percent, compared with the rate for non-Hispanic white women at 10.8 percent.
• In Latina households, about 4 in 10 working wives were the primary breadwinners for their families, according to a 2010 CAP report. This doubles the rate from 1975.
• Latina women are 69 percent more likely to be incarcerated than white women, according to a 2007 report. In 2011, the American Civil Liberties Union asserted that incarceration particularly affects Latinas and black women as they are often the primary caregivers for their children and are also disproportionately victimized.
• Latinas saw a 14 percent increase in labor-force participation from 1970 to 2007, a notable rise.

Political leadership

• Today, only 9 of the 98 women in Congress are Latina; all serve in the House of Representatives. Five of those nine women represent California.
• Only one Latina has ever served as mayor of one of the nation’s 100 largest cities.
• From 1996 to 2010, the number of Latina elected officials increased by 105 percent.
• In 2010, there were 1,858 Latina elected officials.
• Latinas comprised 32.9 percent of all Latino state senators in 2010; women as a whole only represented 22 percent of state senate seats.
• Of 1,789 female state legislators, 62 are Latina. Latinas in this position represent 22 states.
• Of the 73 women serving in statewide elective executive offices, six are Latina. Five of those six represent New Mexico.

As you can see, there are definitely some advances that Latinas are making, especially in education and political leadership. However, the teen pregnancy facts are still not that great — we can do better! Any amount of progress is good, but it's vital that we keep that progress in motion. One day we can have those numbers in economic security be on our side so that future generations of Latinos can have all the opportunities they can without economic struggles holding them back. 

Día de los Muertos

photo:trekearth

Día de los Muertos takes place today and continues on in to tomorrow. 

I provided a link to some information because to be honest, I have never taken part in the celebration of death or even know that much about it. The only thing I've experienced is the decorated bread — called pan de muerto — that my family and I share on either of the days in the celebration. 

photo:thehungrytxn

It is mainly a Mexican event, but according to the link it is celebrated in other countries other Latin American countries, and even in Europe.  The link also says that it is a growing tradition in the U.S. as well since there are large numbers of Mexican immigrants living here. 

However, I wonder if the majority those celebrations take place in California, where the Mexican population and culture is vastly present. Other than California, I can't see Día de los Muertos taking place anywhere else in the way that would in Mexico. And the reason for that may be something that Raul Dorantes, the Chicago writer, spoke to my class about a couple of weeks ago. 

Dorantes said that one of the reasons we may not celebrate Día de los Muertos in the U.S. is because we don't bury our dead here. He spoke about this specifically about Mexican immigrants, but I think it rings true to most Mexican families. Whenever someone dies, we send the body back to the homeland to rest in eternity. There are no graves to visit here, which is a part of the celebration. 

photo: diariodn

So celebrating Día de los Muertos in the U.S. I guess doesn't do much as it would in Mexico. I think it's just one of those things we leave behind because there isn't much room for it here. From what I've read and from what my family has told me, the celebration is a community-based event. Nearly all of Mexico City takes part in it, according to my family. Clearly, with the U.S. being a different country with loads of other cultures present, Día de los Muertos cannot be the same as it is in Mexico.

Here is a link to some great photos and information about Día de los Muertos.

Latino Rebels' Open Letter to Fusion

photo: latinorebels.com

Two days after Univision and ABC's Fusion made its debut, the people over at Latino Rebels posted an open letter  to the new channel.

The letter also comes two days after the Morning Show Mash-Up with Good Morning America and Despierta America,

The popular Latino-based website offered their best wishes as well as some advice to Fusion. Latino Rebels also hinted towards their stance on Fusion's decision to market itself to all millennials, instead of solely Latino millennials as the channel originally intended to do.

The opening of the letter reads:

"We are rooting for you guys, ever since you you had said a long time ago that you were going to be a new channel for young Latino millenials. That was cool. Somewhere, that message went from Latino millenials to millenials in general, and even though we scratch our heads about that one, we still wish you tons of luck with the new channel. Having you guys succeed would send a message to the rest of the media landscape that this new multicultural world matters. We admire you for that."

While I agree with Rebels when they say that "that this new multicultural world matters", I also agree with one of the comments on their post that says:

"Fusion is fucking confused....they won't last too long...they suffer from the same exact thing Mun2 and Sitv suffered from. They have NO IDEA who they are or who they are trying to service."

As I said on my last post, it's great that Fusion is bringing Latino interests to a more English-speaking audience, but it may encounter some problems in standing out from other entertainment-news content on television. If it's not sure about who its main audience is, how will they know what content to provide?

It's millennial Latino focus is what made the channel interesting, but if they change their aim then surely other things are bound to change as well. And this is where they may fall back on the Latino interests and audience. I think young Latinos in particular need a news source that appeals specifically to them as English-speaking Latinos, and if Fusion gears away from that, they may not last very long.

 

Fusion: The Future of Television?

photo: fusion

A new Univision-ABC channel called Fusion premiers tonight. Unfortunately, I can't check it out for myself, but I have read a couple of articles that talk about the "Latino-aimed" news and entertainment channel.

Fusion claims that its target audience is not just Latinos or Hispanics, but really anyone in the millennial generation that might not find other news channels as appealing. The only obvious aspect of Fusion that is geared towards Latinos is news anchor Jorge Ramos. Other than that, the content on their website seems pretty inclusive to many racial and ethnic groups.

The channel also has more entertainment-based material with things such as: "an animated satire show, comedians taking on sports, a puppet talk show, and an evening program on sex and politics." So if the news doesn't get people in, the entertainment will.

For Latinos, the only local news channels available are Telemundo and Univision, both in Spanish. In comparison with what Fusion has to offer, the two news channels do seem more geared towards an older, more traditional audience.

But does this new channel actually offer millennial Latinos, and millennials of other groups, something worthy of news? Will there be a good balance? Or is this just another MTV-like channel that makes entertainment its main attraction, with the news in the background?

From their website, it looks as if Fusion is off to an okay start. They have a piece on Obama and the NSA scandal, and an interview with Joe Arpaio about his Tent City prison. They also have sections that focus on immigration, women's rights, and justice.

Regardless of how this new channel will keep its audience—mainly through entertainment or news— I think it's interesting that the channel sort of marks where we are as a people in the United States. Inclusion. To have a channel in English that tries to capture the Latino audience is like the start of a beautiful friendship, even if one of the main objectives is money. Isn't is always?

I hope this new fused channel is a sign that Latinos, and other ethnic and racial groups, will be included more in the English-speaking media.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/27/3715419/just-a-dash-of-latino-flavor-accents.html#storylink=cpy

No More Old School

photo: samantha g.

Ted Cruz recently made some comments about the Affordable Care Act requiring employers to cover birth control. Cruz called them "abortifacients". His comments got me thinking about how Latinos feel about contraceptives in general.

Here is a student project from students of the University of Michigan that does a pretty good job of covering the basics of Latinos' beliefs about sex and contraceptives. Although the project focuses on teen pregnancy— a pretty big issue in the Latin community —it touches on what many in the community call an "old school" way of thinking.

"Old school" ways of thinking include beliefs such as: a woman can only leave her family when she gets married, women should wait to have sex until marriage, and so on. I think a lot of these beliefs stem from a mix of religious and social beliefs that have influenced generations of Latinos.

While I may not be an expert of Catholicism, I do know enough to comfortably say that it has definitely had a huge role in the lack of contraceptive use among Latinos.

I think it's bullshit for Latinos to blame Catholicism on unplanned pregnancies. Contraceptives are the only realistic way to avoid getting pregnant, and maybe to avoid abortions all together.  That last part is just a thought, though.

Those old, outdated beliefs have resulted in a lack of communication about sexual and reproductive health between older and younger generations.

This is perhaps why teen pregnancies are so common in the Latino community. Of course, there are always other factors to this, not just one.

It doesn't look that bleak for the future, however. As the student project points out, there is some hope. As younger generations become more assimilated into American culture, their knowledge of sexual and reproductive health improves. The more we are educated, the safer we will be and the stronger our communities will be.

We are living in a time of change. Those outdated beliefs are more sexist than they are helpful, and I hope that all Latinos—women especially—take the time to learn about how to protect themselves, not only from pregnancy but from STDs.

I hope my thoughts aren't too rash, but I honestly think that birth control is important. I'd hate to think that our community and our people are stuck on an old way of thinking that does not help us move forward as a people.

Check out the Latinos for Planned Parenthood Facebook Page for more information!

Multiple Identities

photo: ivn.u

The Chicago writer Raul Dorantes gave a great guest lecture for my ACP class last week. He read from one of his many essays, and unfortunately I cannot recall the name of it. What he spoke about touched a lot on the complications of identity. His lecture reminded me so much of my own experiences, and the experiences the Dreamers' experiences. Coming from one country to another isn't just a physical movement, it is a mental and emotional one.

Dorantes spoke mainly about the Mexican immigrant experience, but he related it to any other immigrant of any country. He argued that what the immigrant wants the most is to one day return to his homeland, the land that saw his creation. However, the return to the homeland gets complicated when you consider the fact that for years and years "home" has been the U.S. So returning to the homeland after so long actually creates a lost feeling for the immigrant. 


This is where the identity part comes in that interested me so much.


He says that knowing where you belong, who you are, are things that the immigrant questions. These questions often get complicated and can go unanswered for many immigrants. They can't still be Mexican if they live in the U.S., yet even when in Mexico they feel they are not Mexican but American.


It's such a complicated thing to think about that I even question "What's the point?"


The point is that even though this identity is based on a nationality, it is nonetheless an identity that is very real. A fellow student in my class gave a great example that I think exemplifies what the purpose of these national and cultural identities is.



The student was born in Russian and is Jewish, and in his community, is one of few immigrants his age. He explained that depending on who he is around, his identity changes. When he is with a group of other Russians he is Russian. But this gets broken down when you consider what kinds of Russians he is around. 

When he is with a group of younger Russians that are not immigrants he is a foreigner, a "real" Russian. When he is in a group of older Russian immigrants, he is seen as a young assimilated American. And when he is among other Russians, his Jewish faith also sets him apart. He claims that all of these identities are a part of him because he plays a role in all of them, even if he doesn't want to. 

And I think that's what most Latino immigrants do. Within their cultural community, they are Mexican, they are Colombian, they and Venezuelan. But outside of those communities, they are American. They have to be in order to function in the society. 

So I guess his lecture really got me to think of identity as something more than just what a person is, but what a person can do, or what they are allowed to do.


Unfortunately, these identities can get many Latinos labeled as "others" and can hinder their advancement in any area of their lives. Any drop of non-American can have great consequences. Promotions can be withheld, intelligence can be challenged, deportations can occur. 


Is a multitude of identities such a bad thing? 

*Midterm Exam*

Douglas Rushkoff makes a lot of arguments in his Program or Be Programed: Ten Commands for the Digital Age. His main argument is that digital technologies as they exist today have a lot of biases. He argues that we need to be aware of these biases so that we can use technology as it was intended to—to have it serve us—instead of letting technology use us. To go along with this, Rushkoff has his ten commands to serve as sub-arguments. They are:

1.     Time- He argues that we should not be “always on”; we should learn to set the technology down a bit.

2.     Place: He argues that digital media is biased toward dislocation and that we should not let this affect our real in-person interactions.

3.     Choice: he argues that technologies only give us a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ choice and that it is possible for us to chose none of the above.

4.     Complexity: He argues that the Internet takes away the complexity of the actual learning since people can “cherry-pick” what they want to know; it is biased toward the reduction in complexity.

5.     Scale: He argues that digital technologies create abstractions of real entities that exist in the world, which can lead to s disconnection between the “here and now”.

6.     Identity: He argues that the anonymity of the online world leads to a disconnection between our real-life and online actions and consequences.

7.     Social: He argues that people should not sell their friends, that we should keep with the internet’s bias toward contact and not let it become into a popularity contest.

8.     Fact: He argues that the internet is biased towards truth, and that it is the truth that is the easiest way to accomplish things.

9.     Openness: He argues that people should be shared and not stolen for personal or monetary gain.

And finally…

10.  Purpose: He argues that people should learn how to program the code that creates these technologies.

The evidence he offers isn’t very “factual” most of the time; it doesn’t point to a specific date or time. His evidence is, however, pretty logical in some ways. For example, when arguing for Time, he talks about digital technologies biased toward asynchronicity. He talks about online conversations and activities and how one can choose when to get out of it, and when to pick it back up. Although there aren’t any real numerical facts in his evidence it is logical to think of the internet as a come and go type of thing that, as he argues, does make people be “on” more than they really need to.

Other evidence Rushkoff provides can be seen as a bit more factual. For example, when he talks about Choice, he talks about a digital CD and a record. He says that the “analog recording is a physical impression, while the digital recoding is a series of choices”. For any music junkies, this evidence can make perfect sense. The record’s quality is in a sense authentic while the CD is represented in numbers, making choices about “when those seconds are changing from one to the next”.  In other words, the record just is while the CD makes choices, much how most digital technologies make choices for us by limiting what we can choose. I think this supports his argument and when applied to the choices we make on our daily internet usage it rings even more true. Most of the time we are are given a choice of black or white, yes or no, right or wrong. But the real world doesn't work that way.

One of his arguments and the evidence for it do not really make a whole lot of sense. He sort of sums up the whole book in his last command when he says that people should learn how to program the programs in order to take control of the technologies’ biases whether they are for or against something. Rushkoff says that by becoming programmers, “we can shape the world any way we see fit”. This is not the most logical argument. There are plenty of non-programmer people that use technologies in a way that do not fall victim to the biases he speaks of. You can use digital technologies for a purpose without having to know all the codes. I think what we are doing in class with our blogs is a good example of this. I don’t think there are many people in our class that can call themselves programmers, yet we have all managed to create something. And although there are many templates and codes that were used to create the look of our blogs, the content is from our minds—purely our choice—and not that of a computer.

I wouldn’t say all of Rushkoff’s arguments are valid, but they are persuasive. He touches on a lot of what I would call real world examples to get his readers to understand his arguments. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don’t. However, what bothers me about some of his arguments are the presumptions they make about where technology and people are going. He seems to say that unless we control the programs, we are doomed to be programmed by all the digital technologies around us. We will hardly interact in real life, we will never be able to read a book in its entirety, and so on. While I do agree that technology causes a lot of problems, I don’t think we need to control if and know how to make it in order to use it properly. I think we just have to remember one of the commands that Rushkoff has—that we all have the choice to choose nothing. We are all capable of making the right choices when it comes to using digital technologies.