Obama and his fellow Democrats appear to lack the political bravery to take strong leadership on immigration reform. This suggests they have lost whatever courage they may have possessed early on. It increasingly indicates that the President is listening to his top political advisors who have convinced him like Rove did to President Bush that CIR is ‘lose lose’ proposition. They read the polls and know how to count. California for instance has 42 percent white population, but this group represents 70 percent of voter registration within the state. Then combine this reality with the deep divisions among the Hispanic community plus general Latino voter apathy. Further exacerbating this situation are the potential high negative feelings toward immigrants held by some in the Black and Asian communities. All this may be telling Mr. Obama to turn tail on CIR or anything related to immigration reform that could result in positive action for illegal aliens. Moreover, the current Administration is militarizing the US-Mexico border while faintly apologizing over the recent shooting of a Mexican teen by the Border Patrol. In sum, there is no penalty for not doing anything to resolve or achieve some progress on the current immigration tangle. Enforcement or clamping down on the presence and flow of the undocumented into the country seems to be the preferred way forward. However, a severe penalty lies electorally should any constructive attempt be made to help alleviate the current impasse to do the right thing.

On top of it all, the Latino national leadership is AWOL as usual. One big problem appears to be that our narrative lacks passion. With passion, one moves mountains and captures the imagination of the majority. It seems the Latino narrative plainly may not evoke deep feelings like slavery did or the drama of the Cubans fleeing communism or the high seas trek of many immigrants over the last two centuries. Jumping fences, digging tunnels under the border, hiding under the car’s floorboards, and fording river puddles are not captivating. Chases across the desert are equally uninspiring as opposed to the high drama of immigrants arriving at Ellis Island, NY. Add this to the unjust perception that Latino immigrants are a motley lot seeking hand outs. When the vast majority of immigrants came to America before mid 20th century, the US had not established a social safety net to provide those in need. An exception was made for Cuban exiles because their narrative coincided with the height of the Cold War. Hence, their flight from Communism was readily embraced. Now with a social safety net (medicaid, food stamps, etc.) available the dominant white majority in this recent economic downturn has grown mean-spirited and appears to fear these immigrant ‘hordes of mendicants’ who will feast on their largess. Hence, the Latino narrative becomes even more unappealing. Latinos are viewed like the Native Americans who were colonized and occupied by Anglo-Americans simply putting a stake in the land and proclaiming it was no longer Native American property. Likewise the Alamo and Gold Rush served to conquer the Spanish-speaking people of the Southwest. This may explain why Latino narrative does not fit into the traditional American immigrant saga. Distressingly, high hopes for a practical, timely and humane resolution seem to evaporate as time passes. Then again, the Washington approach may be to get out from under the problem (encontrar una salida) and not to resolve it.

The bill that Brewer signed today “prohibits classes that advocate ethnic solidarity, that are designed primarily for students of a particular race or that promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group.”

The Tuscon School district offers a Mexican-American studies program, in addition to courses in Native-American and African-American studies. The  focus is on ethnic history, literature, and information about the influences of these particular groups. However, law makers who promoted the bill believe that these courses teach students that they are oppressed by whites.

I’m a product of public schools that did not have ethnic studies, but I remember as a young high school student that I was always eager to read books by Hispanic authors such as Rudolfo Anaya, Ana Castillo, or even the great Colombian author Gabriel Garcia Marquez and was ready to immerse myself in the studies about my culture. I sought it out on my own, and fortunately, my parents encouraged it. But many students don’t have those resources or parents who encourage discovery and learning about their culture in addition to exploring other ethnic groups and traditions.

Regardless of what one thinks about ethnic studies and whether it is a valuable discipline or not, completely shutting these courses down may do more harm than good. I was able to speak with Cindy Mosqueda, a Ph.D. student in higher education and blogger at Loteria Chicana. Mosqueda was a Chicano studies student at UCLA as an undergraduate, and she indicated that in her experience ethnic studies was not about teaching ethnic superiority nor was it a continual lesson in being oppressed.

Mosqueda expressed, “In fact in fact, we were encouraged to take classes outside the department, and I got to know students of other ethnicities better that way.”

While I have never formally immersed myself in ethnic studies from an academic perspective, I can appreciate the teaching of different ethnic traditions and the notion that there should be multiple points of view taught in the public schools. We have never been a ‘one curriculum fits all nation’, and completely shutting down these ethnic studies courses might turn off students who are marginal students — the ones who might benefit from learning about their history and reading the works of authors from their ethnic group. The generic public school curriculum is boring enough as it is. The history books already censor and omit so much that shutting down ethnic studies is a small minded solution for Arizona’s public school children. With the signing of this bill, Governor Jan Brewer ratcheted up the level of scrutiny her state will face from all who care about diversity and equitable policy.

Blog by David Molina, currently serving on the Oregon Commission of Hispanic Affairs:

Latinos have never shied away from a fight either against the United States (think U.S-Mexico War) or for the U.S. (Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, and now in Iraq and Afghanistan). While SB 1070, signed into law last week by Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, gives law enforcement officials the “green light” to enforce federal immigration policy, as a parallel to 287(g), many speculate the decrease in calling law enforcement to crime scenes particularly with undocumented communities. At the same time, speculation that Latinos will be rounded up after weddings and quinceañeras and at our daily favorite restaurants, we must remember that this new law takes effect in less than 90 days. Latinos have seen this before. Despite massive protests on the streets and letter writing campaigns campaigns, in 1994 California passed Proposition 187 which eliminated public services to undocumented residents and led to major discrimination and hate-crimes against Latinos. In 2007, Pennsylvania made it a crime to rent to undocumented Pennsylvanians leading to a downward economic spiral and an exodus of residents impacting entire cities and county budgets. In 2008, Oregon passed a measure eliminating the issuance and certification of a drivers license to undocumented residents. Obviously, cities and counties are laboratories for the states; the states are laboratories for the federal government. Will SB 1070 language begin seeding in other communities or will it be a wake up call to the serious immigration reform talks that need to happen?

Latinos are the last front in the U.S. By 2040 the U.S. Hispanic population is expected to reach or exceed 100 million when one in four persons will be Hispanic making our group the largest and fastest-growing ethnic/racial minority population group in America. Our purchasing power surpassed $1 trillion dollars in 2006 and is growing at an average rate of four billion dollars per month and 50 billion dollars per year. Some pundits have speculated that SB 1070 is aimed at suppressing Latino voters in the November election. The myth on the street and the cable channels is that Latinos are politically apathetic, while far from it, Latinos are registered to vote at a rate six times greater than the general population and turning out to vote at a rate five times greater than the general population. Giving Arizona law enforcement officials authority to ask for individuals proof of residency may curtail the out-of-control violence on the Mexican side of the border by the drug cartels, but slamming innocent hardworking families in the crossfire, and potentially leading to racial profiling.

If history is any indicator, Latinos are not going away. Piolin Por La Mañana asks his Latino callers every time when they call, why they came to the U.S. and the response is always the same: “a triumfar” or “to triumph, to succeed.” It’s a simple reminder that Latinos aim to be part, contribute and build this country stronger just like African-Americans, the Japanese, the Irish and Italians before. America was founded by hardworking immigrants. As a son of immigrants, from my experience, our family has a love for the United States. I don’t believe we can continue to sacrifice and build this country from the ground up and then tell immigrants that they are welcomed, then compromise that contract as SB 1070 just did.

So where is the America that could be?

1. Boycott Arizona. Avoid traveling there and engaging with business headquartered in the Grand Canyon state.

2. Make sure that you and all of your friends and family are registered to vote and are informed about the upcoming midterm elections — and then get out and vote. Conventional wisdom is that we (Latinos and other Americans) don’t turn out in as large of numbers for midterm elections, but our participation is as crucial as ever.

3. Contact your Congressional Representatives and Senators and ask that comprehensive immigration reform be pursued.

Cesar Chavez was an American iconic figure, who could mingle with Hollywood celebrities, the Kennedys, and the working class people he represented. He could get away with wearing whatever he wanted, but the current leadership of the UFW doesn’t have his gravitas.

I was a bit surprised last week when the White House sent out this photo of the current UFW leadership along with Dolores Huerta and members of Cesar Chavez’s family for a signing of a proclamation on what would have been Chavez’s 83rd birthday. Most notably I was taken aback by what current UFW President Arturo Rodriguez decided to wear to the Oval Office for this meeting with President Obama. If you notice, he is wearing a tan colored guayabera. Is this an attempt to alter men’s formal fashions and remind Pat Buchanan that the Reconquista is at hand? Or is this fashion choice Rodriguez’s way of saying “Yo soy muy macho! I’m too sexy for a suit!”? Or is he saying, “Quien es mas macho? Ricardo Montalban o Arturo Rodriguez?”

If Rodriguez is thinking that he’s going to hold court at the Governor’s mansion (especially if Meg Whitman ends up living there) with that getup, he better rethink his fashion choices. We don’t see President Obama wearing dashikis, and I certainly don’t see the leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus or the NAACP wearing traditional African garb to the Oval Office, so what’s with the guayabera?

Finally, the other leaders of the big unions such as Andy Stern and Richard Trumka wear more formal men’s attire. Even Dolores Huerta was wearing a suit in the White House photo showing some style and understanding of public perception. Rodriguez is a public union official seeking political status amongst the elite in the nation’s capitol — he should dress the part.

Fear in public discourse is as ancient as political competition. While man was in the caves, he became fearful of fire, the shadows it created, lightening, thunder, the wind or snow storms, the swollen sea, the flooding streams, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, the sun, the moon, an eclipse, shooting stars, the movement of clouds, the howling of wild animals in the night and many other phenomenon. One ancient protagonist among our ancestors who became most important was not the leader of the pack but the ‘medicine man’ or better known as the ‘warlock’, the ‘sorcerer’, the ‘brujo‘ or simply the person who practiced the ‘black’ or supernatural arts and purported to be a healer as well. This manipulator of the human spirit in most races, tribes, clans and extended family became often associated with the idea of a ‘priest’, ‘rabbi’, or a ‘holy man’ and gradually a significant political influence. The politics enter when this brujo is able to not only use the natural fears of man but also to become the chief counselor or advisor to the pack or clan leader, king, prince, nobleman, or simple chieftain. His use of fear over the pack or clan helped him control the extended family or clan for the ‘leader’. This clever or artful individual becomes key to the organization especially as Plato described the tribe leaving the cave and out into the foreboding world. This demonstrated man’s urge to discover the world and confront the perilous challenges of an untamed one. A world of superstition (evil eye, spells, curses, disease, death…) made for a terrifying world existence. This struck at man’s most primal instinct: survival. The threats and fears have been a staple throughout human history.

In modern day public discourse, the politicians and the men or the persons of the cloth invariably use some sort of fear. The smite and wrath of God is one of the most ancient invocations of fear. The politicians, who became the managers of the city or nation-state, invariably invoked the power of the prince or head of state or nation to control the masses. Civil law seems to have codified the nobility’s claim to wealth especially land. Penal law as it developed was to control the peasantry, the lumpen, or the simply the lower orders. The penalties in violating penal law were obvious (in ancient times usually considered a threat to the governing class’ position in society). In autocratic societies or dictatorships, these legal ukases or decrees are enough to put most people on notice. The fear of the prince or king seeking retribution is enough on how to scare the populus into submission. Stalin did this most effectively in the 1930s with his wholesale slaughter of about 30 million Russian peasants (Kulaks) and millions of others. Hitler was another feared character. His totalitarian state created fear of the Jews and then sowed the hatred and monstrous destruction of the European Jewish population. But in democracy the use of fear is implicitly suppose to recede. Why? Because man has learned how to speak for himself, cheerfully groups up with like-minded people and seeks the best leadership. Man in the current democratic process has become more subtle in the manipulation of a more modern social being. Yet, the shameless use of ‘fear-mongering’ has risen to surging and commanding heights in recent decades in the Western World, especially the United States.

Fear-mongering in wars is quite common. We must not forget Winston Churchill’s cynical but true comment when asked how he could justify the lies and distortions Britain carried out against the Third Reich: he retorted with typical wit and bemusement: “…the truth is so precious that it must be safeguarded with a bodyguard of lies…” In today’s modern world of political discussion, we should be so lucky to have Churchillian wit or dazzle! Instead we have mostly mortifying demonstration of vituperative, lacerating, wicked inferences, slander and fear-mongering at its most evil. Talk show radio has become the medium of choice in the fear-mongering attempts. The political right with its nationalistic, ethnocentric penchants is in the forefront. Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Glen Beck, Anne Coulter, and some would include Lou Dobbs. The thundering sound of these prophets of doom and gloom certainly captivate a large segment of the American body politic. They readily resort to using ‘wedge’ issues like abortion, gun control, anti-gay sentiment to garner support for the Republican Party. Just like the Iranians call their political party, Hezbollah (Party of God), some wags call the GOP the ‘Party of God’ since it thrives in its core attraction to the religious fundamentalists. The right appears to have a much more defined array of issues that they invoke in fear-mongering: raising taxes, budget deficits, soft on commies or enemies of American people, gun control , pro-life (anti-abortion), use of busing for school integration, welfare, health care system, environmental issues, feminist rights, affirmative action and host of other themes. The liberal left lamely creates fear by pointing out that the right is excessive and dangerous and will eventually seek a higher cost. The left is often inclined to target capitalism as being ‘savage capitalism’: “the rich get richer and the poor get kids.”

Among the Latino community, fear-mongering has been constant. The Latinos before World War II were fearful of being arrested, lynched, detained or merely question by white authorities. The fear inherently was one of being targeted as a non-white or alien and therefore no basic rights could save you. The courageous work of the LULACS and other pioneering groups helped stem the fear. Fear was used by white political bosses to get the Latino vote. Staying on your side of town was a time honored approach to keep the Mexicans in their place. Sometime after the Civil Rights of 1964 with public accommodations fully attempting to integrate American society, the northern part or non-segregated portion of the US began to react to busing of school children in particular. The North, which earlier had been seen as tolerant of integration, now felt threatened. Concurrently, the Hispanics for the first time began to distance themselves from the Black American community, which previously had been a faithful partner in fighting discrimination. Cubans and Puerto Ricans came from island nations with a long history and presence of Afro-Caribe people. Hence, they showed no threat in general with working or living with non-white or non-Hispanics, though, a discernible patronizing feeling was commonly detected. Yet, Latino communities, especially Mexican-Americans who had rarely lived alongside African Americans, were targeted for fear-mongering by racists, intolerant individuals, hate-purveyors etc. The black communities were also whipped up to fear the ‘hordes’ of newly arrived Latino immigrants, who would displace them and take their jobs. Plainly, fear was the instrument of use in most cases.

The present day challenge for Latinos lies in the current immigration discussion. It is riven with fear of the newly arrived immigrants will bring down wages, take their jobs, create more negative image of Latinos, ruin neighborhoods, cause more discrimination against Latinos with a backlash from both the white and the African American communities. Fear has accompanied man since he left the caves and will continue to be used by the powerful or would be powerful to control groups, especially the poor, dispossessed, the undocumented, people of color, the less educated and the insecure middle class or working classes. Fear is the preferred instrument of control especially in politics and social interchange. The Latino leadership must be vigilant that they do not follow the already present example often demonstrated in contemporary US society. As FDR eloquently said ‘…there is nothing to fear but fear itself…’

Yesterday President Obama gave a great speech memorializing the victims of the Fort Hood shooting. I think that it is appropriate to listen to it today because it highlights the lives of those lost last week and reminds us that no faith justifies murderous acts.

Different Mexican Administrations since President Echeverria in the 1970s have openly sought to court the ‘Mexicans Abroad’ and the longer established US residents and citizens of Mexican heritage in the US. Plainly, the driving motive has been to create a pro-Mexico constituency in the US.

This idea is certainly not alien to the US political landscape. Ethnic lobbies have abounded in the US since before the Civil War. Besides the English and the Scott–Irish, the Germans in the Delaware Valley of Pennsylvania were the only other European population living in the original colonies that made up the US, along with thousands of slaves and Native American tribes. So, it was in the 1840s that the great European migration to the US began with the Irish and several of other nationalities. Many came from Middle Europe including Poles, Austrians, Czech, Slovaks and Hungarians. Scandinavians and southern Europeans also began to arrive. Southern Europeans, such as Italians and Greeks, continued to migrate to the US throughout the rest of the 1800s and into the 1900s. Several of these groups formed ethnic societies and organizations reflecting their country of origin; most were initially formed around their churches and religious affiliation. Some developed into political organizations representing the ethnic group’s domestic political agenda within the US political process. These groups often sided with their country of origin’s squabbles or conflicts in Europe. Financial aid and political support were usually forthcoming from the expatriate populations living in the US. Ireland, which did not achieve independence from Britain until 1921, had scores of Irish American groups openly supporting the independence struggle against the English occupation and repression. Financial assistance to the insurgent groups back home was one example of the expatriate’s support. As soon as the Irish Americans were politically enfranchised to vote in the US they began to ‘lobby’ the US government and public for support for Ireland’s cause. This political effort lasted late into the 1900s with the support for the IRA in Northern Ireland. In the late 1800s, the Italian-Americans clamored for political support of Italian unification and recognition of Italy. Later the Italian American groups became more domestic focused and ceased to seek political support for the political process or government of Italy. With time, these movements became mostly cultural affinity groups centered on the Catholic Churches in the old Italian urban areas of the US. 

By the latter half of the 1900s, the most significant ethnic lobbies included:  the Jewish groups helping Holocaust survivors and other humanitarian needs. The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) emerged during this period as part of the pro-Israel Lobby to galvanize support in the US for the survival of the State of Israel. The motivation here is that Israel has continuously been under ‘siege’ by its Middle East neighbors. AIPAC is generally agreed to be the best financed and most influential ethnic lobbying effort in the US. The China Lobby existed prominently in the 1950s composed by a mix of prominent Chinese exiles from Communist China and influential Americans seeking to restore the old guard of Chang Kai Chek who had been displaced in 1949 by the Communist victory led by Mao Tse Tung. The fall of China to Communism was a rallying call for this lobby. These lobbying efforts also engendered an odious internal political witch hunt in the US known as McCarthyism. However, when Nixon went to China in 1972, the remnants of this lobby had ceased to exist. The Armenian-Americans’ lobbying group appears to advocate primarily support against anything that benefits Turkey. The Turks’ slaughter of millions of Armenians in the early 1900s is the driving force behind this lobby. The Greek lobby, one of the best funded groups, seeks also to deny Turkey any positive political benefit from the US. On the Cyprus division between Turks and Greeks, this lobby readily obtains effective support for the Greek Cypriots. The remarkable aspect of this lobby is the rather small number of Greek Americans (less than one million). Still another lobby, the Tibet, is primarily focused on the restoration of the Dalai Lama to his religious supremacy in Tibet, as well as liberating Tibet from Communist China. This lobby is made up of a few Tibetans but many American followers of the Dalai Lama.

The only Latin American group to have established an effective lobby in the US has been the Cuban Americans. Yet, their numbers are quite small in comparison to Mexican Americans. There are about 1.3 million Cubans in the US as opposed to 28 million Mexican Americans (out of 45 million Latinos). The reasons for the Cuban Americans’ success in organizing are varied. They fled a Communist take over of Cuba during the height of the Cold War. Hence, they were readily embraced by the US, especially among the politically conservative movement. The Cuban Americans have behaved politically like an ‘exile’ or ‘irredentist’ group, not as a traditional immigrant group. The driving force for the Cuban émigrés has been liberating Cuba from the Communist Castro regime. The Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) became the most effective vehicle for keeping the heat on Castro’s Cuba. The late Jorge Mas Canosa, founder of the Foundation was readily recognized by many pundits, political groups, senior government employees, and members of Congress as the most effective and successful Latino power broker in the 80’s and 90’s. No other Latino group has produced such a leader. When he visited Washington the white establishment of both parties eagerly sought him out. It was humorously described in Miami that CANF was the inverse of the AIPAC: it bought Republicans and rented Democrats. Mas Canosa reportedly noted that he wanted his Foundation to be as effective as the Israeli lobby. He reportedly admitted that he had hired two lawyers who helped the AIPAC to set up the CANF. Though their numbers were small overall, The Foundation delivered bloc votes in a key Presidential swing state, Florida, and raised significant amounts of money for politicians of both parties. The hard-fought 2000 election contest between Gore and W. Bush was the most critical. The Cuban Americans laid claim to the victory. The Cuban Americans have traditionally voted in-block for the GOP, but enough voted for Clinton and Obama to help swing a Florida victory for each of them. Hence, the strength of the Cuban American lobby has been to deliver a vital swing state in hotly contested Presidential elections. When both Clinton and Obama won the Presidency, the Cuban American Foundation in an almost bi-partisan way appears to have tilted to the winner. In 1992, it tacked to Clinton’s side and even more egregious in 1994 from a GOP point of view it backed the Democratic incumbent Governor of Florida Lawton Chiles’ successful re-election campaign against Jeb Bush, President George W. Bush’s brother. By 1998 when Governor Jeb Bush came to power, Mas Canosa had disappeared as leader because of an untimely death in 1997. The Foundation fractured and weakened with Jeb’s and GOP Congressman Cuban American Lincoln Diaz Balart’s influence. Since then, the political strength of the Cuban Americans in both domestic and foreign policy is beginning to wane.

Mexico’s attempts to help foster a Mexican American interest group or lobby in the US have met with disappointment by and large. First, any attempt to emulate the Cuban or Israeli lobby is not doable because Mexico is neither under ‘siege’ like Israel nor a ‘captive’ nation like Cuba. Yet Mexico’s current plight with organized crime and its enormous threat to the stability and well-being of the country is perhaps a good reason to explore the possibility of engaging the Mexican Americans. However, to galvanize Mexican Americans around a Mexico cause would be a monumental task.

The variety of US citizens and residents of Mexican descent makes this goal particularly onerous. The oldest established Mexican Americans are divided into those whose ancestors were here before the gringo conquest of 1848 (Tejanos, Californios and Hispanos from New Mexico and Colorado) along with those whose grand or great-grandparents came during the Mexican Revolution (1910-20). A second group came primarily in the 1940s during WWII up through the 1960s. The third group began arriving in massive numbers from the 1970s to the present. The members of the first group have largely assimilated into US society and speak English primarily. Those that belong to the second group are considered to be in transition but fairly assimilated. Whereas the more recent arrivals are less integrated and do not fully participate in the US political process. Clearly, the bounds keeping the Mexican American population’s identity together are tangled in history, language, ethnicity, religion, folklore, cuisine, music and the arts as well as being able to trace national origin to Mexico.

The descendants of many in the first group and some from the second spawned the social-civil–political activism of the 1960s and 70s called the “Chicano” movement. These Chicanos, self-identified as such, after concluding that they neither belonged to the dominant gringo culture nor to the prevailing culture of Mexico. They felt alienated by the Anglo-American ethno-centric society and the inability to relate to the country of origin of their ancestors. However, recently arrived Mexicans do not regard themselves as Chicanos but refer to the older established ones as Chicanos. Increasingly, these newer arrivals are becoming the majority.

The first two groups are the ones that are overwhelmingly US citizens and have potential political power at the ballot box. Recent studies suggest that well over twenty million Hispanics are eligible to vote, but only about 12 to 13 million are registered and well under ten million vote. These figures include all Latinos not just Mexicans. Latinos of Mexican descent comprise about 28 million of the 45 million Latinos in the US. Mexico’s political leadership in recent years has sought to reach out to the ‘brothers’ living in the north. Echeverria’s presidency openly courted the Chicano or La Raza Unida insurgent types of the 1970s. Up to this time only established Mexican American politicians like Henry B Gonzalez, Ed Roybal and Kika de La Garza had been recognized and invited to Mexico to be honored. Later, Raul Yzaguirre of the National Council of La Raza was honored as was Henry Cisneros and numerous other ‘prominent sons of Mexico’ living in the US.

Organizing a lobby-force Mexican American group that can influence the US public and the US Congress and other movers and shakers to favor or be sympathetic to Mexico’s agenda has been illusive. This would yield a more sympathetic Congressional Hispanic Caucus and more of Mexico’s agenda in the Latino advocacy groups’ efforts The recent contentious issue of immigration along with the vast numbers of undocumented Mexican citizens residing in the US has revived Mexico’s interest in helping foster pro-Mexico groups or entities in the US. Nonetheless, Mexico must be extra careful not to antagonize the American public at large by seeming to recruit Mexican Americans in a disloyal way. This will avoid a US backlash and minimize the sentiment against the lawlessness of illegal entry into the US from becoming an anti-Latino or anti Mexican expression. Moreover, the lack of passion among the targeted groups of Mexican descent derives from the fact that the Mexican political and judicial systems are largely held in contempt or disdain by these recent Mexican immigrants, as well as among the older established groups.  Mexico is largely viewed as ‘corrupt’ or ‘inept’ or ‘insensitive to its poor masses’. Moreover, many of the US Mexican descent groups feel ‘dismissed’ or ‘disdained’ by an elitist attitude detected among many in Mexico. The use of the pejorative ‘Pocho’ describes a Mexican who has abandoned the patria (the Homeland) for el Norte and no longer holds any loyalty to Mexico. This is an example of the divisiveness that exists between those who remain in Mexico and those of Mexican descent who now reside in the US. Furthermore, Mexican Americans feel that Mexico’s elite manifests gratuitous contempt in class and racial terms. In Mexico, the derogatory word “Naco” is used to describe a fellow Mexican (usually with apparent mixed white and Indian ancestry) as socially inferior. The connotation is that he or she is attempting to behave more ‘cultured’ (white) but invariably betrays his origins. Too often this word is used to describe Mexican Americans. This further undermines the less than successful attempts by Mexico to garner support in the US among its émigré population.

Yet, in many parts of the US, especially in the Chicago area, Mexico has enjoyed success in promoting links between the Mexicans abroad and their former local municipalities or states in Mexico by having people-to-people exchanges, promoting investment in the Mexican municipalities or states’ development opportunities. Many Mexican Americans were exceptionally proud to see Mexico respond with direct assistance to the Americans affected by Hurricane Katrina. Sports exchanges and Spanish language television have also helped preserve cultural links with Mexico. Mariachi music, norteño music contests, salsa replacing ketchup, art exhibits, Mexican cuisine and Corona beer have all helped improve the cultural cohesiveness in the Mexican descent community abroad.

Mexico‘s efforts to reach out to the ‘Mexicans abroad’ and those of Mexican ancestry must be approached primarily through cultural endeavors like art, music, literature, folklore studies, language, historical writings, tourism  and perhaps best of all through Mexican cuisine. Any attempt to promote political interest or support of the Mexican government will be Sisyphean. The Italian American experience should be studied as an effective example. The influential National Italian American Foundation promotes and extols the history, music, cuisine, language and general culture of Italy. It annually celebrates Cristofo Colombo day in October with a large gala event honoring all successful Italian Americans in film, music, sports, business, journalism, academia, medicine, law, politics, government and the military. The US President, his Cabinet members and scores of Congressional members, usually attend. The Italian government is always present and additionally helps to promote Italian culture and language through its Casa Dante cultural centers found in large metropolitan areas.

Mexico, as the most populous Spanish speaking country in the world, comprises the largest portion of the Hispanic population in the US. Moreover, its close proximity to the US and its NAFTA partnership nurtures an ever-growing relationship with the US. Yet, Mexico must carefully formulate a plan or strategy to reach the Mexican Americans in a more effective manner. The treatment of the immigration conundrum in the US and the building of ‘the fence’ along the border will become key issues that could engender as note above, either friction or closeness between the two countries. Mexico has ample opportunity to appeal to the Mexican Americans by approaching them as an equals and convincing these ‘Mexicans Abroad’ to help ameliorate the potential conflicts that arise between the two countries. But it must be a truly Mexican effort without the unrealistic expectation to become either an Israeli American lobby or even a Cuban American Foundation. Mexico stands to gain influence in the US political discourse, but it must first attract the cooperation and understanding of the large Mexican American community. Some of the more positive outcomes will be a more internationally aware Congressional Hispanic Caucus and more educated Latino advocacy groups.

Recent commentary in the aftermath of the recent Obama victory and the 2006 Democratic Congressional win suggests that the country once again has moved noticeably to the Democrats. This stems from the Iraq War and the Katrina debacle coupled with the economic crisis which appear to have firmly routed George W. Bush’s party, the Grand Old Party of Lincoln. The undeclared and unwinnable war in Iraq took its toll, as it became a war of political attrition as most ‘undeclared’ wars have; like Korea and Vietnam. The leadership disaster during Hurricane Katrina was plainly lethal to Bush 43′s second term.

In 2004, it was reported that Bush won up to 44% of the Latino vote…some challenged these figures but it does seem that at least 40% of the nation’s Hispanic vote went to the GOP in that election. Not even the more popular Ronald Reagan was ever able to garner this percentage among Latinos. With George Bush, the GOP achieved the highest percentage or portion of the Latino vote that it had ever won in any national election. Making it more significant was the tightness of the election in several key states like Ohio. Yet, even as the GOP appeared to be confronting it nadir in the 2008 elections, it is safe to say that just over 30% of the voting Latinos stayed with the GOP. This is a remarkable figure given the circumstances. Hence, this political behavior certainly requires deeper examination.

First, it should be noted that historically (beginning with FDR) the Hispanic vote, which was mostly Mexican-American, tended to go massively with the Democrats. The slow political empowerment of Latinos began as FDR and Truman lifted them out of the Great Depression. These defining moments were not as dramatic as Lincoln beating the Slavocracy of the South and emancipating the African-American from the shackles of slavery. As this feat made all Black-Americans overwhelmingly Republican, there was a prevailing GOP ascendancy for the next seven decades. Yet, FDR’s leadership role in the Great Depression and his wife, Eleanor’s continuous efforts to bring social justice to the African-Americans began a slow movement to attract voting Blacks to the Democratic Party, especially in urban areas.

But it must be recalled that before the Civil War to the 1960′s, the Democratic Party was solidly based in the Jim Crow segregated Southern States; these Bourbon or Moss Back Democrats were in coalition with big city party machines in the North; like Tammany Hall. If one looks back at the record we find that, Pres. Woodrow Wilson was an avowed racist. FDR, though he fully backed his wife’s commitment, was not particularly concerned with the plight of the American ethnic minorities. Yet, President Truman did integrate the Armed Forces after WWII. The record also reflects that during the post war Hispanics, as they became more politically active, tilted toward the Democrats. It should be noted that Eisenhower did draw many Latino votes, but not in significant numbers.

It was the 1960 election of JFK that became the baptism of fire politically for Latino voters nationally. For the first time, the largely Roman Catholic identification of the Latinos with the Democratic candidate was a driving force. Latino elected officials were minimal during the period leading up to the Kennedy-Johnson period. Only New Mexico had elected Hispanics to federal office (US Senator Chavez and Congressman Montoya both Democrats) prior to this. Henry Gonzalez of Texas and Ed Roybal of California were elected in the wake of the JFK-LBJ victory. Subsequently, the assassination of Kennedy, the ascendancy of Lyndon Johnson and his successful accomplishments in civil and voting rights, Martin Luther King’s unspeakable murder and Bobby Kennedy’s assassination solidified both Latinos and Blacks within the Democratic Party.

The first Republican national candidates who truly sought to reach out to Latinos were Nixon and Rockefeller in 1968. The former who came from southern California (and recognized the closeness of his loss to JFK in 1960) acknowledged the potential of the growing Latino vote. Rockefeller, as Governor of New York, had a sizable Puerto Rican constituency which he had courted in his race for governor. He had made several minor appointments within the Puerto Rican community while in state office. Nixon’s awareness of the Latino vote, during his second attempt to become President in 1968, motivated him to make modest efforts to court Latinos in order to avoid all of them going for the Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey. Once elected, Nixon began immediately to prepare for his 1972 presidential re-election bid. He made certain that there were Latino groups advocating his re-election. He made high profile appointments and formally created a political position in the White House (although Johnson had done so but not as formally) to have an outreach to the Spanish-speaking groups (as we were referred to before Hispanic became fashionable). Nixon, in his Southern strategy, was focused in winning-over the formerly Democratic South. When President Johnson’s 1965 Civil Rights Public Accommodations Bill was passed into law, he is quoted as saying: “…there goes the South…”  He was referring to the reaction of the southern white Democrats to the empowerment of Blacks and protection of their voting rights. LBJ correctly predicted that the whites in the South would abandon wholesale the Democratic Party. Nixon strategically laid out the plans to permanently capture the South, which had previously hated the GOP for beating the South in the Civil War and imposing Re-Construction.

To be continued…

I was glad that the documentary pointed out how land that was owned by Mexicans and descendants of Spanish explorers was taken, which expedited their slide into a lower status. Their way of life changed within a few generations and with the implementation of Jim Crow style segregation. Even today when visiting where my family comes from in the Southwest, I notice that the cemeteries are segregated by looking at the names in burial plots.

In viewing the film, I also reflected on how much more progress we still need to make as a community. Here we had this legal team, who was willing to put their livelihoods and personal lives on the line, yet as Seneca has pointed out, we are still rather reluctant to engage in litigation to advance our rights. And this legal team was truly grassroots, funded by the local LULAC chapters and community. I did not notice any corporate sponsors funding their fight, which you see a lot of today with our civil rights organizations.

Please share your thoughts in this blog post.

American Experience executive producer Mark Samuels is cited: “The Hernandez v. Texas story is a powerful reminder of one of many unknown yet hard-fought moments in the civil rights movement. It is easy to forget how far the country has come in just fifty years, reshaping our democracy to include all Americans.” The story is not widely known or appreciated among Latinos most probably because first of all this powerful civil rights case derives from a murder case (Hernandez slayed his boss after a heated argument in a grotty cantina in Edna, Texas) and second: the tragic demise of the lead protagonist Gus Garcia.

As one of two lead lawyers in the case Gus Garcia, a native Texan, easily fits into the pantheon of Latino and American unsung heroes. Garcia, a brilliant lawyer, with almost unmatched legal reasoning along with his equally talented partner, Carlos Cadena, constituted a truly impressive legal team. Both faced the nine justices of the US Supreme Court in January 1954. Cadena opened the argument. One Justice then asked: “Can Mexican Americans speak English?” followed by “are they citizens?” This lack of knowledge stunned Gus Garcia who stood up and brilliantly delivered the argument of his life. Chief Justice Earl Warren allowed him to continue a full sixteen minutes past the allotted time, a concession a witness noted had not been afforded to any other civil rights lawyer before Garcia, including the renowned NAACP attorney Thurgood Marshall, who went on to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Clearly, Garcia’s oratory skills and brilliant legal reasoning impressed the high court.

Unfortunately, the significance of the case is lost in our Latino collective memory. Perhaps as mentioned before the fact that this uniquely Latino civil rights case was the only one to reach the high court and win a favorable ruling for Mexican Americans (but Latinos writ large), yet it is ‘stained’ because it stems from a murder case (Hernandez was ultimately found guilty of murder). And perhaps more disconcerting is the fact that Gus Garcia, a gifted lawyer and a truly Latino asset in our history, winds up becoming a chronic alcoholic who apparently suffered from deep depression, which was further exacerbated by emotional challenges in his personal life. He died prematurely in 1964. By this time, he had become a troubled figure who was disbarred (legal license to practice suspended) and generally considered to have died in a sad and tragic condition.

In sum, a murder case spawned this renowned high court drama, which yield a landmark decision for Latinos.  Yet the defendant was ultimately found guilty and the Garcia tragedy together served to not glorify or single out the high court ruling as a proud moment in our history of  struggle for equality. It should be pointed out that Carlos Cadena did go on in the 1970′s to be elected to the Texas Supreme Court. Gus Garcia became a legend among the Latino leadership in Texas in the late forties and the fifties. He was tall, handsome (with the looks of a Raymond Chandler character in a murder mystery in Los Angeles of the 1930′s and 1940′s), resourceful, charming, articulate and truly the best his generation had to offer. Had he not taken to drinking and self-destructive behavior, which suggest psychological or mental stability issues brought on by depressive bouts of drinking. Politically, he had been elected as the first Latino to the San Antonio School Board in the late forties. He was truly a natural born and most promising leader. Henry B. Gonzalez became his political heir apparent in terms of popularity and stature as the first Mexican-American in Texas elected in 1956 state senator. Henry B led in 1957 the famous several days long filibuster against Jim Crow type legislation in the Texas legislature. He was about the same time denied entry along with his six children and wife to a Texas State Park for being ‘Mexican.’

Basically, the civil rights struggles in Texas of the fifties, which include Garcia, Cadena and Gonzalez as leading protagonists are largely forgotten. Forgotten also is the awareness and willingness in our Latino community to tackle the residual restrictions or manifestation of excluding Latinos from total legal protection under the law. In Washington, too often outsiders are heard to comment: the affirmative action and civil liberties legal efforts rarely if ever involve Latinos. One Deputy Secretary of a leading Cabinet Agency is infamously cited when asked if blacks and women successfully brought suits to promote their cause, then where were the court rulings on redressing Latino employment practices in hiring and promotion, he readily replied: “…you guys do not sue!” Hence, the PBS documentary should reawaken or at least make us reflect in the Latino community how far we have come and how far we still have to go to get equity in the system. The courts plainly remain an option, but our Latino political leadership, especially at the federal level, should be more responsive and sensitive to the existing deficiencies in the systems. With the increasing backlash against immigrants (with a latent anti-Latino/anti-Hispanic sentiment) witnessed in recent years the Latino community faces ever-increasing challenges in the job place, the university admissions, the promotions to military general officer or senior civil servants as well as in the upper echelons of corporate America, as well as available credit, decent housing, health care and primary and secondary school hurdles. Certainly, we must not feel we have to shake the system ‘down,’ but we should shake it ‘up.’

Do watch the PBS Feb 23 program “A Class Apart;” note that it is not the 1940′s Cary Grant WASP film with the same title. This PBS documentary is a timely reminder of what the Latino agenda should include. This includes citing or noting historic events like ‘Hernandez v. Texas’ in children’s and college text books to avoid the loss of essential milestones in the Latino journey.