By Seneca

According to the most recent census, the US Latino population totals 50.5 million. Understanding the diversity of its Ibero-American heritage can be challenging. These differences among the Latino population vary according to national origins rooted in the Western Hemisphere. This heritage stems from the region’s eighteen Spanish-speaking countries and one Portuguese-speaking country. For purposes of this discussion these do not include French-Creole speaking Haiti nor the Anglophone countries such as the US and Canada with thirteen other English-speaking Caribbean nations plus Dutch-speaking Surinam. Also not addressed are the dozen European possessions or overseas affiliates in the Hemisphere like the Cayman Islands, Aruba, Curacao, Martinique, St. Bart’s and the British Virgin Islands.

Each of these Ibero-American national background can denote different ethnic composition with specific linguistic characteristics and social-cultural customs as well as a culinary variety and a range of musical-artistic development. For purposes of better understanding this Latino diversity, one might consider a more practical approach described here. This discussion attempts to examine three basic historic-cultural transnational patterns: the first a ‘coastal-island’ one; the second is a ‘plains-grassland’; and the third is a ‘highland-mountain’ one. This last one is perhaps a more dominant cultural pattern in Latin America. It is often more commonly ascribed to US Latinos with roots in Mexico, Central America and a large part of South America.  Hence, why explaining it involves more details.

The coastal-island culture is basically tropical. The area or regions include the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Panama and the Caribbean-Atlantic coasts of Central America, Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil as well as Mexico’s coastal region of Vera Cruz and Yucatan. On the Pacific coast, the Mexican state of Guerrero, the Colombia and Ecuador coasts and the sugar-growing coastal area of Peru can be included in this cultural pattern. The inhabitants of these lowland coastal or island areas share many characteristics beyond beach or island dwelling. These include: a diet of seafood, pork, tropical fruits (coconut, bananas, mangoes), manioc (yuca), plantains, and yams; an Afro-European-Native American ethnic fusion with an extroverted light-hearted disposition; linguistic characteristics such as a softening of the language and its cadence; Afro-Latin musical rhythms which include cumbia, mambo, rumba, merengue, cha-cha-cha, samba and other similar drum dominated sounds. Hammocks and rum production are common to these tropical regions as is tobacco growing. In these Afro-Latino coastal/island areas, many spiritual practices like voodoo, condomble and macumba are common infused with Catholicism, and in some of these places like Cuba, santeria is practiced combining the worship of Catholic saints with the traditions of the Yoruba faith. In the US, Puerto Ricans, Cuban-Americans and Dominicans are leading examples of this coastal-island cultural affinity.

The second Latino cultural pattern can be defined as plains/grassland (llanuras, mesetas and pampas). These areas or regions of Latin America are less extensive than the tropical one mentioned above. Its elements are unique and readily identifiable: cattle-raising region with cowboys (vaqueros, gauchos and charros). These horse countries include Argentina, Uruguay, southern Brazil and northern Mexican states of Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León, Aguas Calientes and Zacatecas. Ethnically it is a Euro-Native American region but predominantly more European. Pockets can be found in Chile, Colombia and Paraguay. The agriculture and diet also tends to be more European: wheat, grains, beef, goat, dairy products, refined sugars, and a preference for grilling (parillada) and barbecue. Beer and wine are common. Vineyards often dot the country-side of these regions. Other cultural characteristics include the guitar, the violin (fiddle) and the accordion in the playing of the local musical fare: tangos, two-step corridos (ballads), and polkas. The urban areas of these plains tend to be stylish with modern high-rises. Linguistically this cultural region varies from an Italianated Porteño (Buenos Aires) accent to a related Uruguayan provincial sound. Whereas, the throaty dragged-out Mexican norteño accent is associated with cattle/horse-country folksy sounds. The rodeos (round-ups), charreadas and ferias are commonplace in the plains/grassland areas. This ‘plains/grassland’ cultural pattern is more familiar to North Americans in the western US and Canada (Alberta) where rodeos and stampedes abound. Buenos Aires, Cordoba, Montevideo, Monterrey, Porto Alegre, and Sao Paulo as well as the vast plains with traditional horse-cattle and intensive agricultural activities represent this particular cultural heritage.

The third and perhaps major cultural pattern in Latin America may also be the most pervasive; may be more commonly ascribed to US Latinos. This is the highland/mountain heritage. It is descriptive of the conventional images of much of Latin America. Before the European arrival and the conquista, these mountain regions were mostly populated by highly developed indigenous peoples like the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas. These non-nomadic people were intricately organized. They possessed written languages (hieroglyphics), calendars, rich use of dyes in textiles, mathematical concepts, sophisticated architecture, water irrigation systems, developed agricultural practices which included many native varieties of corn, tomatoes, potatoes, squash, nuts, avocados, beans, peppers, and cacao (chocolate). The highland cuisine is based on these hemispheric indigenous products plus wild game. Mexico and Peru are considered to have the most elaborate and creative cooking of the Americas. The highland ethnicity is generally mestizo, a mix of European and Native American, but indigenous physical traits generally dominate the current population. This highland/mountain area stretches from central Mexico through the middle of Central America into highland Colombia and Venezuela, down the Andean ridge which goes through Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Chile. Worth noting, in the highland mountain regions, the nominally Roman Catholic faith is truly a fusion of indigenous spiritual animism and other native cults which are commonly refered to as brujeria (sorcery).  Like other highland or mountain people of regions such as Appalachia, the Alps and the Caucasus, these folk are frequently characterized as being formal, insular, tribal (strong family ties), suspicious, and often described mistakenly as perhaps passive-aggressive yet formal, loyal, polite, trustworthy and diligent.

While the Latino groups in the US are diverse, the influence of the Iberian peninsula in language, Catholicism and the Spanish and Portuguese colonial experience still create ties that bind to various degrees. But when one considers the different geographic regions and ethnic groups, it becomes apparent that Latinos are not monolithic.

“Move over, margaritas: Healthy family fun is the focus at this Saturday’s seventh annual San Francisco Cinco de Mayo festival, an alcohol-free fiesta featuring everything from a Kids Zone with face-painting and balloon art to performances by local dance and music ensembles.

It’s a way to reclaim Cinco de Mayo, says Katia Fuentes of the Mission Neighborhood Centers, which organized the celebration. Fuentes says wryly that the holiday has come to be associated more with partying than empowerment.

“We’re trying to change that image,” says Fuentes, noting that the emphasis will be on making it a family-friendly day with access to health services from San Francisco Healthy Kids, AARP/Walgreens and the Red Cross.”

Some years ago, I worked on a similar 5 de Mayo project in Los Angeles County, but at that time, our goal was simply to make sure that the beer garden was not next to the children’s play area. Sometimes in the name of seeking corporate sponsorship to fund our community’s events, common sense gets thrown out the window.

In keeping with that theme of really remembering what the holiday is about, I wanted to share three pieces that I think are important reminders as people head into the evening happy hours today.

“Cinco de Mayo, Primero de Mayo and the Birth of the United States of América” by Roberto Lovato

and

“The Power of Cinco de Mayo” by Gilda Claudine Karasik

and finally

“Cinco de Mayo: a linguistic perspective” by Holly Cashman.

What are the odds of walking into a bar, ordering a drink and then a tear gas missile hitting the journalist instead of a barfly or drunk? And what are the odds of dying from a tear gas missile? This incident still smells fishy.

I encourage you to read the LA Times piece, and tell us what you think about this new report and Sheriff Lee Baca’s reluctance to release documents about this case.

As I peruse the Latino landscape in this country, I can’t help but come to back the same thought: Soledad O’Brien let me down. As many of you will recall, last year Soledad filmed Latino in America, the Latino version of Black in America. Refusing to miss the program, I got my popcorn ready Terrell Owens-style and prepared for what I thought was going to be an insightful view on Latino contributions to the US. Not only was I disappointed by what I watched, I was angry. Stereotypes prevailed the entire program, and our lone example of Latino entrepreneurial success was a chef no one outside of the Univision faithful have heard of. While this all needs to be mentioned, it leaves a great deal to be desired. My anger ultimately subsided, but that doesn’t mean this piece should go unwritten.

Where Latino in America failed is in what I so badly wanted: inspiration. Soledad had the opportunity to do what so few of us can: use her credibility and popularity to both document and highlight the plight of the Latino. This means addressing the negative and the positive. While she found a variety of meritorious topics to touch on, she struck out looking when it came to uplifting this community and advancing an image of Latinos that does not involve pregnant teens, loss of culture, and illegal immigration. None of our accomplishments in business and politics were highlighted, and the program failed in its ability to inspire. Instead, the program did a great job of reminding everyone which immigrants are hated, who holds the highest high school dropout rate, and who isn’t measuring up.

Sure, Soledad trotted out the usual suspects of Edward James Olmos, Eva Longoria, and George Lopez to remind us that celebrity status is right around the corner with hard work and sacrifice. But after that, it was back to the barrage of negativity that essentially illustrated the following: a demographic that just doesn’t measure up.  I didn’t allocate my time to that program to hear that broken record of failing students, subtraction of culture, and anti-immigrant (i.e. anti-Latino) communities. What I wanted to know were the stories we don’t hear but need to hear about what we’re doing right. The stories about how far we’ve come and what wonderful accomplishments are on the horizon. OK, so I didn’t get what I wanted. There are greater ills in the world. But here’s how it’s actually relevant.

For non-Latinos who watched for an inside look of our community, their perception of Latinos right now is probably pregnant teens, loss of culture, and limited success. Taking it a step further is how Latinos felt after watching the program. In general, all we’re fed are the negatives. A down economy, a failing education system, inadequate healthcare, two wars, global warming, anti-immigrant sentiments, and you get the picture by now. It’s a very negative landscape, and one that seldom offers inspiration. Underscoring all of this is a political system that reeks of a pissing contest between politicians who are more interested in blaming their opposing parties than legitimate bi-partisan collaboration. And within all of that is an image of Latinos that these days is not positive, which Latino in America did little to dispel.

Never mind that we have a Latina Supreme Court justice, Latino elected officials, prominent athletes, and a growing presence in every sector of American society. The negatives had to prevail. While knowing how popular the name Garcia is makes for an interesting conversation piece, I’m not particularly interested in triviality. Instead, I’m interested in inspiration, particularly in light of the continual deterioration of society taking place in Arizona. As such, since Soledad got to give her opinion on Latinos in America, here is mine.

To be Latino in America in the 21^st century is to be the backbone of this nation. Certain sectors of the economy would crash tomorrow if Latinos stopped working, and our military would be severely depleted without Latino soldiers. We peacefully assemble in the face of bigots who would rather see the entire community deported, and in so doing carry ourselves with a grace we often are not afforded. Beyond that, our culture is rich and our societal contributions will only continue, making our presence in this country significant. Simply stated, we are America. But none of that was highlighted by Latino in America. Thus, I write this piece to call on our community to not fall into the trap that Soledad did. I urge you to find and highlight what we do correctly, find our inspiration, and flaunt it.

Matthew Stieglitz received his BA in Communication from the University of Delaware. He is currently a 2011 Master of Public Administration candidate at Cornell University concentrating in Government, Politics, & Policy Studies. After receiving his MPA, Matthew will attend law school in order to merge his public affairs background with a legal education to most effectively advocate for Latinos.

It’s “undocumented” immigrant, not “illegal.” As a classmate of mine justly said recently, people can’t be illegal. So I would greatly appreciate it if from now on, we used the term undocumented immigrant when discussing immigration.

I understand that you are frustrated that undocumented immigrants are “taking your jobs,” but the reality is that they are doing the jobs that you will not. I take personal offense to your ignorant and generalizing comments when you say things like this. Although most of my family was able to come to the United States many years ago with visas, today immigration policies make it much more difficult to do so. I have some family members who are undocumented and have already lifted more fingers than you probably ever will. As the ACLU purports, the fact is that immigrants actually have a positive effect on the American economy.

And you think that immigrants should not even bother to be here if they are not making the effort to learn English? First of all, language has nothing to do with the amount that these individuals give back to this country. In actuality, immigrants do believe they need to learn English so that they can make it in the United States, yet sometimes it is not that simple. Latino immigrants specifically assert that they know they need to learn English, and even realize that they may be discriminated against if they don’t. Also, even though many immigrants do want to learn English, as a friend of mine logically pointed out, sometimes these resources are not necessarily available, such as workshops and classes funded by say the government. Let’s not forget one of the many positive attributes of speaking a different language in this diverse country, because were it not for my own Latin heritage, I would have never learned Spanish and been able to assist in bridging the gap between different communities in the U.S.

Weren’t your ancestors immigrants themselves once? And did they not come over with a primary language of their own? Did their simple motivation of having a better life threaten to take jobs away from others? Perhaps, but it seems to me that you are not acknowledging the similarities between immigrants today and immigrants from just a century prior.

It’s not that I’m blind to the validity of some of your points, however far-fetched they may be, but in order to embark on this discussion over immigration, you need to stop making sweeping generalizations. In addition, you need to start looking at outside forces that come into play, such as why these immigrants are coming into the U.S. in the first place. As to what is true versus misconceptions surrounding immigration, the list goes on and on.  I urge you to peruse this link in which the ACLU discusses Immigration Myths and Facts.

Thank you.

Melissa Beatriz Skolnick is currently a graduate student attaining her Master’s in Social Work in Philadelphia. She strives to merge social work and journalism together in order to bring more awareness to various underrepresented communities, as well as to bring light to societal inconsistencies. In addition, she hopes to one day impact society through endeavors such as policy-making, writing through a widespread medium, and speaking to those who are willing to listen.

This piece was inspired by a comment on my last blog post about abolishing Chicano Studies departments because “they doom aspiring minorities to a lifetime of poverty.” It reminded of the time-honored American tradition of emphasizing the necessity and superiority of certain fields over others. You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn’t slam the sciences or business while the line frowning upon ethnic studies goes down the street and around the corner. This often times is exemplified by employers who see a resume come across their desk with Women’s Studies or Latino Studies at the top, causing the following Q&A: “What exactly did this person learn? What did they do? I bet they learned to hate men (Women’s Studies) or white people (ethnic studies).”

These questions come up because a good number of people don’t know the content of these fields and subsequently disregard them. But those answers couldn’t be farther from the truth. When it comes to practical applicability, ignoring certain fields should only be acceptable when applying for a job that requires a particular specialization (such as nursing, engineering, a Master’s degree, etc). Otherwise, you can acquire the same skills in Chicano Studies that you can in almost any other field. The key is what you do out of the classroom through internships, research, and extracurricular pursuits, not one’s major. Thus, the importance of fields such as Chicano Studies lies in challenging how we think, not in being a gateway to employment.

Now, we can all agree that “minority issues,” throughout time, have been relegated to the doldrums of academia. American students get one version of history, and it’s not the one that includes the contributions of Latinos dating back to the Revolutionary War. For example, readings for a class I took this semester touched on the Bracero Program, shockingly revealing that my colleagues didn’t know about it, or its economic significance to American agriculture during and immediately after World War 2. And they certainly didn’t know its effect on US-Mexico policy to this day. Most of my colleagues taking the class were not Latino, meaning they were (on the surface) immersing themselves in a curriculum that was not personally relevant. The class shed light on issues relating to race, immigration law, labor relations, foreign policy, and employment discrimination. Broad topics, in a broad field, that got everyone to reflect on the legal and political mechanisms that promulgate Latino disempowerment.

Enter my definition of an effective field of study: one that causes people to spend time in thought, to question what they read, and ultimately be independent thinkers. In my experience, fields such as Latino Studies are among the best at creating such ability.  At their core, these departments offer exposure to areas such as law, history, policy, race relations, and politics. They’re fully capable of fostering independent analysis and are highly effective at challenging the preconceived notions of students. As our country increasingly grows fixated with taking information at face value, they’re needed now more than ever.

Let us use the death of investigative reporting to illustrate this point. The news has become stories on polls, causing a race to the bottom for some in political awareness, and necessitating the need for critical thought. This past election we saw campaign ads in New Orleans with a fence of illegal aliens crossing the border cause people to actually think New Orleans has such a fence, and subsequently feel it’s acceptable to ignore constitutional civil liberties, stop minorities in the street, and ask for identification. People don’t know how to interpret the news, specifically how to differentiate between current events, opinion, and garbage. When someone can’t take a principled stance on an issue, question different ideologies, and challenge their own belief systems, it’s a crisis. If people could do that, then they wouldn’t be surprised to learn Lou Dobbs, like countless other Americans, slammed illegal immigration while depending on it. I’m not saying ethnic studies departments solve any of this, they simply aid in fostering the ability to think critically, which this country desperately needs.

In closing, I would be remiss if I didn’t include a conversation I had with my Father before attending college. It went something like this: “Matt, you can study anything you want. As long as it leads to gainful employment.” My response was choosing a field I felt could segue into multiple professions: Communication. And as I near completion of my Master’s degree in Public Administration from Cornell, I am in a cohort with students whose undergraduate backgrounds include everything from Political Science to Women’s Studies to Philosophy. Our common link is the undergraduate research we conducted, fellowships we held, and leadership roles we took that enriched our academic experience. They highlight what a college degree really is: a piece of paper on the wall. As long as one pursues courses that teach them how to think critically while pursuing opportunities that maximize professional growth, they won’t be doomed to a life of poverty. That makes Chicano Studies OK in my book.

Matthew Stieglitz received his BA in Communication from the University of Delaware. He is currently a 2011 Master of Public Administration candidate at Cornell University concentrating in Government, Politics, & Policy Studies. After receiving his MPA, Matthew will attend law school in order to merge his public affairs background with a legal education to most effectively advocate for Latinos.

As 2011 approaches, let us take a moment to review 2000-2010 through a lens of Latino disempowerment. During this decade, our community has weathered firestorms ranging from anti-immigrant rhetoric, to financial extortion, to exclusion from the American educational system. Make no mistake, when politicians refuse to provide access to higher education for our community’s children, refuse to prevent mortgage lender usury, and refuse to fix a broken immigration system, they are disempowering Latinos. Through these instances, we have seen some leaders and politicians stand up on our behalf to advocate for reform. But as this Pew Hispanic Center study states we can’t even name them. This begs the questions: Who is our Cesar Chavez? Who is our Dolores Huerta?

At the height of the civil rights movement, Dolores Huerta and Cesar Chavez banded together to do the unthinkable. Protesting on behalf of migrant workers who contended with workplace conditions we cannot begin to fathom, they caused a national boycott of grapes and threatened the entire California agricultural industry. Risking their lives and abilities to provide for their families, they made sacrifices that caused actual change. These civil rights icons embraced the role of David and crushed Goliath in a way our community has not seen since. And as we move forward, they are the type of leaders we desperately need but do not have.

Simply stated, our community lacks national figureheads to spearhead reform efforts. While we rely on leaders such as NCLR’s Janet Murguía to beat the drums of change, she is restricted by the 501(c)(3) status of the National Council of La Raza. Murguía has been fighting for Latino rights for years and has done remarkable work. But she can only do so much when only bipartisan or even nonpartisan stances are requirements of her job description. Thus, all she and the NCLR can do is offer their resources and talents to policy discussions and court cases, and hope to empower their affiliates to create a grassroots level change like that of Chavez and Huerta.

Now, this is not to say the Latino community has no activists, because we do. One need look no further than LULAC, NCLR, and NALEO conferences to see leaders from across the country come together each year to speak on the issues we face and how we’re fighting them. But we need more than conference workshops and networking events. While noble, they are just not enough. We need a Dolores Huerta and a Cesar Chavez because they would have protested and called for wide-scale economic boycotts of Arizona that a) actually would have worked and b) forced the repeal of the racist legislation the Arizona legislature continues to promulgate. They would have challenged Goliath, and they would have won.

Unfortunately, we live in reality. And the reality is Gov. Jan Brewer was reelected. The reality is the DREAM Act remains a dream. The reality is immigration reform has not happened. And the reality is the Latino electorate, comprising the nation’s largest and fastest growing minority demographic, remains a sleeping giant. The status quo does not need to exist, but it lives on because we lack national advocates who are not afraid to, for lack of a better term, “throw down”. If this were the African-American community, leaders such as the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would inundate the airwaves with an onslaught of calls for reform that would force people to listen. Leaders in academia such as Dr. Cornell West and Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry would join in the debate, calling for change and garnering attention to their cause. While they join us in our struggle, we cannot ask them to fight this fight for us. We need our Cesar Chavez and our Dolores Huerta, and we need them now.

Matthew Stieglitz received his BA in Communication from the University of Delaware. He is currently a 2011 Master of Public Administration candidate at Cornell University concentrating in Government, Politics, & Policy Studies. After receiving his MPA Matthew will attend law school in order to merge his public affairs background with a legal education to most effectively advocate for Latinos.

Photo Credit: Cesar Chavez at the Delano UFW rally, June 1974 by Joel Levine.

Barack Obama is trying my patience. Don’t get me wrong, I still believe he inherited a mess from George Bush and is doing the best he can to turn the ship of state around.  However allowing his Attorney General Eric Holder to come out against California’s Prop 19 is not only “not change”, it is an endorsement of the racist enforcement of our nation’s drug laws.

RACIAL INJUSTICE IN THE DRUG WAR

While roughly 12% Anglos and 11% of Blacks and Hispanics are consumers of illicit drugs, criminal justice statistics dramatically demonstrate an over-representation of Blacks and Hispanics arrested for the use of illicit drugs and in those who go to trial and who are ultimately sentenced to jail. It is no accident that Prop 19 is endorsed by the NAACP and California’s LULAC.  They are joined by LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), SEIU ( Service Employees International Union), DPA (Drug Policy Alliance), NORML (National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws) who all say YES on Proposition 19.

CURRENT DRUG POLICY AN ABYSMAL FAILURE

In the almost 40 years since President Nixon declared a war on drugs, tens of millions of Americans have been arrested and hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent. Yet drugs are just as available now as they were then. And the impact has been felt most strongly amongst Hispanics, Blacks, and the poor.

There are many good reasons to support proposition 19.  The most obvious is because we have a failed drug policy. Cannabis has been illegal since 1911. Not only is cannabis still widely used and available, but our present failed drug policy is racist.  It’s costly.  It is undermining the Constitution.  It decreases respect for the police.  It fuels gangs and gang violence and U.S. drug policy is responsible for 8,000-20,000 deaths per year in Mexico.

MARIJUANA LAWS DEMONIZE AND TARGET MINORITIES

The NAACP and the LULAC of California both recognize how U.S. drug laws are used to marginalize discriminated against minorities. The adverse affects are detailed in Michelle Alexander’s new book, The New Jim Crow. In it, she points out that a drug conviction automatically makes a person a second-class citizen who can be legally discriminated against in housing and employment, denied school loans, and barred for life from serving on juries, accessing public benefits and even voting.

While African Americans make up only about 13 percent of the U.S. population and about 15 percent of drug users, they make up about 38 percent of those arrested for drug law violations and a mind-boggling 59 percent of those convicted for drug law violations. With Hispanics, the numbers are not quite as dramatic but are still appalling. We now have 7,000,000 Americans, one out of every thirty two American adults, incarcerated, on probation or on parole, and they are disproportionately young Hispanic and Black males.

The League of United Latin American Citizens of California (LULAC) endorsed Prop. 19.  State director Argentina Dávila-Luévano said, “The current prohibition laws are not working for Latinos, nor for society as a whole. Far too many of our brothers and sisters are getting caught in the cross-fire of gang wars here in California and the cartel wars south of our border,” she says. “It’s time to end prohibition, put violent, organized criminals out of business and bring marijuana under the control of the law.”

Historically, Mexican-Americans have been demonized by associating the Hispanic population with marijuana use. This effort becomes more intense in economic hard times. This trend started shortly after the Mexican Revolution in the early 20th century when large numbers of Mexican workers came across the border.

As the economy deteriorated, local prosecutors and editors publicly decried the “loco weed.” One critic associated marijuana (called “marihuana” at the time) — not only with Mexicans but “Negroes, prostitutes, pimps, and a criminal class of whites.” States began outlawing the drug, one Texas senator asserting “All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff is what makes them crazy.”

Mexican-Americans were used as a whipping boy to generate anti-marijuana hysteria. In the 1930s Harry Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, led the propaganda campaign to make marijuana possession a federal crime. He was an avowed racist as evidenced by this quote about marijuana (which at the time was commonly known as  cannabis), “its effect on the degenerate races.” He was referring to “Mexicans, Negroes, Puerto Ricans, jazz musicians and other social undesirables,” as he described those he said used marijuana.

Anslinger quoted Floyd Baskett, the publisher of the Alamosa, Colorado newspaper (Alamosa is 18 miles from my wife’s hometown by the way), who wrote “I wish I could show you what a small marijuana cigarette can do to one of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents. That’s why our problem is so great; the greatest percentage of our population is composed of Spanish-speaking persons, most of who are low mentality, because of social and racial conditions.”

A decade earlier earlier in 1927, a Montana state legislator was quoted in the Butte Montana Standard, “When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff…he thinks he’ has just been elected President of Mexico, so he starts to execute all his political enemies.”

The anti-Mexican, anti-Hispanic rhetoric continues to this day.  Voting YES on Proposition 19 will be another big step to defeating this kind of racism. Right now among California’s likely voters, 63% of Latinos are likely supporters of Prop 19. The recent support of the California LULAC and a brief refresher on the odious history of marijuana prohibition should  be enough to continue that momentum toward cannabis decriminalization.

CURRENT DRUG LAWS ARE GOOD FOR CRIMINALS AND BAD FOR LAW ABIDING PEOPLE

Just as alcohol prohibition did, marijuana prohibition is enriching organized crime. Instead of regulating marijuana to control who can access it, policymakers have ceded control of the $400-billion-a-year global drug market to crime syndicates and thugs.

In Mexico, parts of the country are like Chicago on steroids under Al Capone. 28,000 people have died from drug war violence since President Calderon launched a war three years ago against well-armed, well-funded drug trafficking organizations. The U.S. government doesn’t report its prohibition-related deaths, but law enforcement officers, drug offenders and civilians die every day in our country’s war on drugs too.

OUR LEADERS USE MARIJUANA WITHOUT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

Use of marijuana or other illegal drugs is rampant amongst our elected officials, yet few suffer any adverse legal or social consequences. President Obama used drugs. Former President George W. Bush was an admitted alcoholic and credible rumors say he regularly used cocaine.  Then there’s Bill Clinton, who famously said he smoked pot but didn’t inhale. Al Gore, Newt Gingrich, New York’s Mayor Bloomberg, former and current governors Jesse Ventura (I-MN),Gary Johnson (R-NM), Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), and Sarah Palin (R-AK) all admit that they consumed cannabis.

CURRENT DRUG LAW CAUSES LOTS OF PROBLEMS

The war on drugs hasn’t just failed; it’s created problems of its own. The drug war is a good way to waste money. It has cost billions. In the last 30 years in California, we’ve built 22 new prisons and 4 new colleges.   20-30% of third strikes are for minor drug violations and taxpayers spend $40,000/year to incarcerate these folks.  Laws restricting the availability of sterile syringes have increased the spread of AIDS and hepatitis C.  The war on drugs, or more accurately the people who use drugs we’ve demonized, has weakened the 1^st, 4^th, 5^th, 9^th and 10^th Amendments of the Constitution.

WATCH OUT FOR THE BOOGEYMAN

The opposition is grasping at straws.  A recent article in L.A. Times was about a presumed marijuana addict, whatever that is. She spent $5,000/year on cannabis. At current rate of roughly $400/ounce, that is slightly more than an ounce/month, or one .9 gm joint per day.  This is just 10% of the amount of marijuana that the federal government provides to a person on the federal IND program. Most likely this person was self-medicating for her anxiety.

Another boogeyman of the Prohibitionists is that legalizing marijuana will increase use amongst teens. Most likely, the passage of Prop 19 will decrease the number of teens using it. Compare Holland 13% to the U.S. 19%. The Dutch Minister of Health stated “We have succeeded in making pot boring.” When Prop 215 was on the ballot, the prohibitionists said pot use would go up. It hasn’t. It has gone down.

BENEFITS OF YES ON 19

Legalization would be beneficial in key aspects of the war on terror. Afghanistan is the world leader in opium production, and this trade is highly lucrative because U.S.-led prohibition drives the market underground. The Taliban then earns substantial income by protecting opium farmers and traffickers from law enforcement in exchange for a share of the profits.  U.S. eradication of opium fields also drives the hearts and minds of Afghan farmers away from the U.S. and toward the Taliban.

Legalization could also aid the war on terror by freeing immigration and other border control resources to target terrorists and WMDs rather than the illegal drug trade. Under prohibition, moreover, terrorists piggyback on the smuggling networks established by drug lords and more easily hide in a sea of underground, cross-border trafficking.

We’ve heard cannabis is dangerous. Yet experts say it’s less harmful than coffee.  Henningfield & Benowitz compared 6 commonly used recreational drugs – alcohol, tobacco, heroin, cocaine, coffee and cannabis. Which one was the least harmful? Cannabis. Even so there are some who do develop a dependency on marijuana. Legalizing cannabis would aid in treatment. Jail is not treatment. Prop 19 encourages those also might need help to get it legally.

We have heard that passage of Prop 19 will increase the number of users.  This seems unlikely because of the  current ease in acquiring marijuana.  Illicit sales are encouraged because of the money to be made on the black market. The alcohol model of tax regulate would make cannabis harder to obtain.  The late conservative pundit William F. Buckley, founder of the National Review and for 33 years moderator of public television’s Firing Line, said it was easier for an eighth grader to get marijuana than alcohol. Why? Because alcohol is taxed and regulated and marijuana is not. The liquor store owner has an investment to protect, the illicit seller of marijuana does not.

We have examples in Portugal and Holland of what happens when you legalize drugs. Not much except there is less crime, less fear of the police, less money wasted and a reordering of police priorities. As the attorney who fought the case that legalized marijuana in Alaska in 1982 said after a 5-2 vote of the Alaskan Supreme Court ruling that the Alaska Constitution protected the private use of marijuana: “Do you know what happened the next morning?  The sun came up and life went on.”

It is time for life to go on in California. Vote YES on PROPOSITION 19!

David Bearman, M.D. is the Vice President of the American Academy of Cannabinoid Medicine and author of Demons, Discrimination and Dollars: A Brief History Of The Origins of American Drug Policy.

Webmaster’s note: There seems to be a rift between the Washington, D.C. LULAC and the California LULAC mentioned in this blog post. Please read this for more clarification.

The new age of political correctness has created the insidious nature of this new racism: the great and grand struggle to protect America from getting too foreign (read: dark and alien) looking. After all, Latinos are not traditionally viewed as acceptable immigrants but instead like Native Americans: conquered and vanquished people but without reservations. They are people who traditionally were confined to certain sides of town. They were the ones with the ability to seasonally service rural parts of the country but who were expected to return to their places of origin.

If one ‘passed’ or assimilated in unnoticed numbers, then one could be accepted, especially with the increasing need for cheap labor, as the US rapidly became less competitive in the global market, as cost of labor skyrocketed. This occurred as traditional white and black Americans insisted in the American dream of high (living) wages. The massive migratory movements from Latin America began concurrently. Previously, the only significant flow had been during the Mexican Revolution. The Castro Revolution of 1960 ignited the first migratory movement covered by the mass media. The anti communist factor helped generally in accepting the first waves of mainly the Cuban white enclave fleeing a majority non-white country. Subsequently, the truly large numbers of immigrants coincided with the US need for cheap labor and the economic and political upheavals in all of Latin America. Hence, the rise of both legal and illegal immigrant movements into the US occurred.

At the same time, the increasing rise of remittances (dollars) sent back to the countries of origin ”hooked’ many Latin American governments to actively support or encourage this massive migration to the US and other developed countries suffering a labor shortage. With the US economy soaring from the late 80s through the 90s, the flow continued. It was the tragic incident on 9/11 that brought a noticeable halt to this readiness to accept this immigrant flow. As the deepest economic recession since the 1930s reared its head in the aftermath of 2001, the exacerbation of economic conditions especially unemployment together with the foreign anti-terrorist awareness or phobia heightened the rejection of ‘outsiders’.

During the Depression years of the 1930s, a backlash against Mexicans arose, significant round-ups of anyone suspected of being Mexican nationals took place and all were deported. Many US citizens were taken to Mexico forcibly. It is common to see, during these uncertain times, the ever-present nativist crowd spring into action as guardians of sovereignty and sentinels of the American tradition. The recognition that the “Latino” population is over 45 million is daunting. The battle cry of “border security” is now the operative term against illegal immigrants and increasingly anti-Latino. The feared white backlash is perhaps and unfortunately the gathering storm in civil relations in the US. Much lies ahead and the impending 2010 electoral cycle will serve to polarize the discourse. The “Latino” leadership must take note and rise to the occasion.