Roots of Latino/black anger

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Roots of Latino/black anger</font size>
<font size="4">Longtime prejudices, not economic rivalry, fuel tensions.</font size></center>

Los Angeles Times
By Tanya K. Hernandez, Tanya K. Hernandez is a professor of law at Rutgers University Law School.
January 7, 2007


THE ACRIMONIOUS relationship between Latinos and African Americans in Los Angeles is growing hard to ignore. Although last weekend's black-versus-Latino race riot at Chino state prison is unfortunately not an aberration, the Dec. 15 murder in the Harbor Gateway neighborhood of Cheryl Green, a 14-year-old African American, allegedly by members of a Latino gang, was shocking.

Ethnic Cleansing
Yet there was nothing really new about it. Rather, the murder was a manifestation of an increasingly common trend: Latino ethnic cleansing of African Americans from multiracial neighborhoods. Just last August, federal prosecutors convicted four Latino gang members of engaging in a six-year conspiracy to assault and murder African Americans in Highland Park. During the trial, prosecutors demonstrated that African American residents (with no gang ties at all) were being terrorized in an effort to force them out of a neighborhood now perceived as Latino.

For example, one African American resident was murdered by Latino gang members as he looked for a parking space near his Highland Park home. In another case, a woman was knocked off her bicycle and her husband was threatened with a box cutter by one of the defendants, who said, "You ******s have been here long enough."

At first blush, it may be mystifying why such animosity exists between two ethnic groups that share so many of the same socioeconomic deprivations. Over the years, the hostility has been explained as a natural reaction to competition for blue-collar jobs in a tight labor market, or as the result of turf battles and cultural disputes in changing neighborhoods. Others have suggested that perhaps Latinos have simply been adept at learning the U.S. lesson of anti-black racism, or that perhaps black Americans are resentful at having the benefits of the civil rights movement extended to Latinos.

Although there may be a degree of truth to some or all of these explanations, they are insufficient to explain the extremity of the ethnic violence.

Tendency to Blame African Americans
Over the years, there's also been a tendency on the part of observers to blame the conflict more on African Americans (who are often portrayed as the aggressors) than on Latinos. But although it's certainly true that there's plenty of blame to go around, it's important not to ignore the effect of Latino culture and history in fueling the rift.

Anti-black Racism
The fact is that racism — and anti-black racism in particular — is a pervasive and historically entrenched reality of life in Latin America and the Caribbean. More than 90% of the approximately 10 million enslaved Africans brought to the Americas were taken to Latin America and the Caribbean (by the French, Spanish and British, primarily), whereas only 4.6% were brought to the United States. By 1793, colonial Mexico had a population of 370,000 Africans (and descendants of Africans) — the largest concentration in all of Spanish America.

The legacy of the slave period in Latin America and the Caribbean is similar to that in the United States: Having lighter skin and European features increases the chances of socioeconomic opportunity, while having darker skin and African features severely limits social mobility.

White supremacy is deeply ingrained in Latin America and continues into the present. In Mexico, for instance, citizens of African descent (who are estimated to make up 1% of the population) report that they regularly experience racial harassment at the hands of local and state police, according to recent studies by Antonieta Gimeno, then of Mount Holyoke College, and Sagrario Cruz-Carretero of the University of Veracruz.

Mexican public discourse reflects the hostility toward blackness; consider such common phrases as "getting black" to denote getting angry, and "a supper of blacks" to describe a riotous gathering of people. Similarly, the word "black" is often used to mean "ugly." It is not surprising that Mexicans who have been surveyed indicate a disinclination to marry darker-skinned partners, as reported in a 2001 study by Bobby Vaughn, an anthropology professor at Notre Dame de Namur University.

Anti-black sentiment also manifests itself in Mexican politics. During the 2001 elections, for instance, Lazaro Cardenas, a candidate for governor of the state of Michoacan, is believed to have lost substantial support among voters for having an Afro Cuban wife. Even though Cardenas had great name recognition (as the grandson of Mexico's most popular president), he only won by 5 percentage points — largely because of the anti-black platform of his opponent, Alfredo Anaya, who said that "there is a great feeling that we want to be governed by our own race, by our own people."

Given this, it should not be surprising that migrants from Mexico and other areas of Latin America and the Caribbean arrive in the U.S. carrying the baggage of racism. Nor that this facet of Latino culture is in turn transmitted, to some degree, to younger generations along with all other manifestations of the culture.

The sociological concept of "social distance" measures the unease one ethnic or racial group has for interacting with another. Social science studies of Latino racial attitudes often indicate a preference for maintaining social distance from African Americans. And although the social distance level is largest for recent immigrants, more established communities of Latinos in the United States also show a marked social distance from African Americans.

For instance, in University of Houston sociologist Tatcho Mindiola's 2002 survey of 600 Latinos in Houston (two-thirds of whom were Mexican, the remainder Salvadoran and Colombian) and 600 African Americans, the African Americans had substantially more positive views of Latinos than Latinos had of African Americans. Although a slim majority of the U.S.-born Latinos used positive identifiers when describing African Americans, only a minority of the foreign-born Latinos did so. One typical foreign-born Latino respondent stated: "I just don't trust them…. The men, especially, all use drugs, and they all carry guns."

This same study found that 46% of Latino immigrants who lived in residential neighborhoods with African Americans reported almost no interaction with them.

The social distance of Latinos from African Americans is consistently reflected in Latino responses to survey questions. In a 2000 study of residential segregation, Camille Zubrinsky Charles, a sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, found that Latinos were more likely to reject African Americans as neighbors than they were to reject members of other racial groups. In addition, in the 1999-2000 Lilly Survey of American Attitudes and Friendships, Latinos identified African Americans as their least desirable marriage partners, whereas African Americans proved to be more accepting of intermarriage with Latinos.

Ironically, African Americans, who are often depicted as being averse to coalition-building with Latinos, have repeatedly demonstrated in their survey responses that they feel less hostility toward Latinos than Latinos feel toward them.

<font size="3">Although some commentators have attributed the Latino hostility to African Americans to the stress of competition in the job market, a 1996 sociological study of racial group competition suggests otherwise. In a study of 477 Latinos from the 1992 Los Angeles County Social Survey, professors Lawrence Bobo, then of Harvard, and Vincent Hutchings of the University of Michigan found that underlying prejudices and existing animosities contribute to the perception that African Americans pose an economic threat — not the other way around. </font size>​

It is certainly true that the acrimony between African Americans and Latinos cannot be resolved until both sides address their own unconscious biases about one another. But it would be a mistake to ignore the Latino side of the equation as some observers have done — particularly now, when the recent violence in Los Angeles has involved Latinos targeting peaceful African American citizens.

This conflict cannot be sloughed off as simply another generation of ethnic group competition in the United States (like the familiar rivalries between Irish, Italians and Jews in the early part of the last century). Rather, as the violence grows, the "diasporic" origins of the anti-black sentiment — the entrenched anti-black prejudice among Latinos that exists not just in the United States but across the Americas — will need to be directly confronted.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-hernandez7jan07,0,2489.story?coll=la-opinion-center
 
Over the years, there's also been a tendency on the part of observers to blame the conflict more on African Americans (who are often portrayed as the aggressors) than on Latinos.

I can't thinking there's a lot of truth to that observation.
 
Over the years, there's also been a tendency on the part of observers to blame the conflict more on African Americans (who are often portrayed as the aggressors) than on Latinos.

I can't help thinking there's a lot of truth to that observation.
 
Do y'all think this is a just a Black/Mexican thing; or would you roll other groups, like Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, into it?
 
Its also true that some Black Americans help contribute the fighting between the Latino's and Black's.

Buit fighting against each other is not going to prevent illegal Mexican-Central American Immigrants from migrating into this country.

Either accept that the fact that they are here or pack your bags and leave because fighting is sure not going to prevent them from migrating here in high numbers as long as politics are involved. :smh:
 
Contradictions

<font size="5"><center>Hispanic Groups Disappointed
by High Court Schools Decision </font size></center>


HispanicBusiness
June 29, 2007
By Leanndra Martinez and Hildy Medina

Saying segregation is still very much alive in public education, Hispanic commentators saw Thursday's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court as a serious setback that is likely to do nothing to decrease racial and ethnic isolation.

After considering public school plans in Seattle and Louisville, Ky., that attempted to manage the racial diversity in their schools, the Supreme Court rejected the voluntary diversity plans of the two districts. "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

The 5-4 ruling, which was met with varied reactions, applies to K-12 public education and will affect schools across the nation that are attempting to create a racial balance.

Writing a dissenting opinion in which he said the nation would someday "regret" this latest decision, Justice Stephen G. Breyer rejected the majority's thesis that mandated integration was a form of racial discrimination. "The lesson of history is not that efforts to continue racial segregation are constitutionally indistinguishable from efforts to achieve racial integration. Indeed, it is a cruel distortion of history to compare Topeka, Kansas in the 1950s to Louisville and Seattle in the modern day," he wrote.

Michael Olivas, University of Houston Law Center professor, said that Thursday's ruling will make it difficult for schools acting in good faith to reduce racial isolation.

Racial isolation, Mr. Olivas says, is a feature in public schooling "that particularly affects Latino children, given the segregation in housing patterns so evident."

With residential segregation on the rise, says Marta Tienda, a Princeton University professor, "options for fulfilling the spirit of (Brown v. Board of Education) and reaping the benefits of our diversity will be diminished by this decision."

The use of "socioeconomic criteria is far less efficient in achieving integration than narrowly tailored consideration of race and other factors," Ms. Tienda said.

The court found that Seattle and Louisville's plans that used race when assigning students to schools "failed to show that they considered methods other than explicit racial classification to achieve their stated goals," Justice Roberts wrote.

"Classifying and assigning schoolchildren according to a binary conception of race is an extreme approach in light of this court's precedents and the nation's history of using race in public schools, and requires more than such an amorphous end to justify it."

Parents challenged the school districts' plans as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

After being declared unitary in 2001 as a result of a formal desegregation plan, Jefferson County (which includes Louisville) implemented a "managed choice" plan that uses race as a factor in assigning students to schools. The new plan attempted to maintain black student enrollment at no less than 15 percent and no more than 50 percent at the district's schools. In 2000, when a white child was not admitted to his neighborhood school because the school needed more black students to meet its required minimum, a parent challenged the "managed choice" plan.

Seattle's school district, which is composed of 10 high schools, implemented a "tiebreaker" system in 2000 that considered race as one of various factors in student admissions to the district's high schools when there are more applicants than spaces. In response, several white and black families challenged the district's policy after students were denied admission to neighborhood schools based on race.

While the plaintiffs and the conservative majority were satisfied with the Court's decision, it was also met with opposition because of its implications.

"Our nation's public schools are more segregated than they were before the court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education," Peter Zamora, Washington D.C. regional counsel and co-chair of the Hispanic Education Coalition, said in a MALDEF press release. "MALDEF will work with local school districts to reverse this disturbing trend and ensure that schools create school integration plans that reflect our national commitment to desegregation while complying with the strict constitutional limits set forth in these cases."

Some commentators saw the most influential aspect of Thursday's decision as coming from the center – Justice Anthony Kennedy's separate opinion. While he voted with the majority, he set out a different rationale from that espoused by Justice Roberts.

Neil Siegel, a professor of law and political science at Duke University in North Carolina, called Justice Kennedy's separate opinion "a resounding endorsement of racial integration in public education while simultaneously a restriction on the ability of school districts to classify individual students on the basis of race."

"Justice Kennedy rejected Chief Justice Roberts' remarkable attempt to use Brown v. Board of Education to defeat the cause of racial integration, even while agreeing with the chief justice and (Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) that the two plans before the Court were unconstitutional because of their use of individual racial classifications. He insisted that there is a compelling interest in avoiding racial isolation and that a district may consider it a compelling interest to achieve a 'diverse student population,' including one that is racially diverse."

The last time the high court ruled on affirmative action in the classroom a majority upheld the plan used at the University of Michigan Law School. In 2003, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has since retired, provided the fifth and deciding vote that said colleges could consider race as one factor in deciding who is admitted. But the Supreme Court did rule that a University of Michigan policy that assigned points to Hispanics, African Americans and Native Americans on an undergraduate admissions scale was unconstitutional because it was too much like a quota system.

Mr. Olivas believes that higher education will eventually be affected by Thursday's decision.

"(The court) says its holding is limited to K-12 and will not affect higher education," Mr. Olivas said. "That holding will be eroded, just as Brown has been."

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/newsbyid.asp?id=69351&cat=Headlines&more=/news/more-news.asp
 
Re: Contradictions

<font size="4">
Odd, who's disappointed.

Who led the movement against discrimination in this country?
Who paid with their lives for equal treatment in this country?
Who battles on a daily basis for equality in this country?
Who is now reaping the benefit from the Civil Rights struggle? -
and at odds with Black America?

Odd, who's disappointed.

QueEx
 
The Restructuring After Katrina Has Begun

Katrina brought a wave of Hispanics

By JOHN MORENO GONZALES,
Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago

For proof that Hurricane Katrina is transforming the ethnic flavor of New Orleans — and creating altogether new tensions — look no further than the taco trucks.

Lunch trucks serving Latin American fare are appearing around New Orleans, catering to the immigrant laborers who streamed into the city in search of work after Katrina turned much of the place into a construction zone.

The trucks are a common sight in barrios from Los Angeles to New York, but controversial in a city still adapting to a threefold increase in Hispanics since Katrina.

Officials in suburban Jefferson Parish recently banned the trucks as eyesores and health hazards. New Orleans officials said they welcome the new business, but promised to make sure the number of vehicles does not exceed the municipal limit.

The mobile luncheonettes are operated mostly by Mexican and Central American families.

"I'm looking for an opportunity. That's why I left my country, and that's what led me here," said Maria Fuentes, 55, who came to the United States from Mexico a decade ago and settled in New Orleans after the storm. "This is the first time I've owned my own business and my dream is to have traditional restaurants, not trucks, all over this town."

The six-wheel vans have Spanish names emblazoned on their sides like "La Texanita" and "Taqueria Buen Gusto," and, like street vendors in Latin America, serve such dishes as carne asada, or grilled steak, pork and chicken, garnished with sliced radishes and diced cilantro.

Beverages include tamarind- and guava-flavored drinks, often in the old-time bottles that require an opener, just as in Latin America.

The trucks usually park on street corners in areas with heavy construction activity, attracting laborers and native New Orleanians alike.

"It's better than Taco Bell. I can tell you that," said Michael Gould, 53, who lined up at Fuentes' truck during a recent lunch hour.

Still, the Jefferson Parish councilman who restricted the trucks characterized them as unwanted residue from the hurricane.

"We've been trying to handle blighted housing, FEMA trailers, abandoned housing," said Louis Congemi, whose zoning ordinance takes effect this weekend and is expected to clear the parish of taco trucks. "This is just one more thing we're trying to get under control to make sure we bring our parish back to normalcy."

Congemi added: "You have to be concerned about the cleanliness of these vehicles."

Louisiana state records show licenses for about 40 taco trucks in Jefferson and Orleans parishes. They are inspected annually, like all street vendors.

"They're up to speed with their licensing," department spokesman Bob Johannessen said. "We haven't received any sort of complaint about food quality, anything that would indicate a public health concern."

New Orleans officials said that because of the Jefferson Parish ban, they will watch the number of trucks that move to their city and will enforce rules limiting the number of food vehicles to 100 on non-festival days.

Nevertheless, "I'm more than sure it is welcome in the city," said David Robinson-Morris, a spokesman for Mayor Ray Nagin. "It is providing a service, and it is a part of our sales tax revenue."

New Orleans has seen its Hispanic population rise from 15,000 before the storm to an estimated 50,000 now, according to the city. The city's overall population has dropped from about 450,000 before the storm to about 250,000 now.

In the months after Katrina, the mayor created a furor when he was quoted as saying: "Businesses are concerned with making sure we are not overrun by Mexican workers." In his subsequent re-election campaign, however, he praised Hispanics for their work ethic.

Fuentes operates her truck with daughters Karina, 31, Carolina, 20, and business partner Pedro Reyes, 57. They said they rise every morning at 4 a.m. for prep work, then set up shop at the corner of Canal and Robert E. Lee boulevards by 8 a.m.

Their workday ends at 6 p.m., after they have cleaned up the mobile kitchen for the next day.

It took $52,000 in savings to start the business, including $25,000 for the used van. Fuentes said the start-up costs have recently been paid off, and now the family is saving for their first restaurant without wheels.

"That's what they call the American Dream, isn't it?" she said. "I really like the people here in New Orleans and we want to live here and have our business here."

-VG
 
The Sotomayor Pick: Bridging the Black-Latino Divide

By TIM PADGETT Tim Padgett
Wed May 27, 9:55 pm ET

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court is a historic milestone for Latinos, but it resonates well beyond Hispanic pride. It is perhaps the most potent symbol yet of a 21st century rapprochement between the U.S.'s two largest minorities, Latino Americans and African Americans, who in the 20th century could be as violently distrustful of each other as blacks and whites were.


After Latinos helped make Barack Obama the U.S.'s first black President by giving him a remarkable 67% of their vote and Obama seemingly returned the favor by selecting (pending her Senate confirmation) the first Latino Supreme Court Justice, decades of friction between the two groups seem to be melting like asphalt on a hot summer day in Sotomayor's native Bronx. "The symbolism can't be overstated," says former New Orleans mayor Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, one of the country's largest African-American organizations. "There is a much greater sense of solidarity now between the two groups." Says Fernand Amandi, executive vice president of the Bendixen & Associates public-opinion-research firm in Miami: "Ethnic tensions won't be ended by one Supreme Court nomination, but the picture of an African-American President standing with a Latina Supreme Court nominee shows the groups coming together at the highest positions in the country. That can't help but improve relations." (View pictures of Sonia Sotomayor: "The Making of a Judge.")


And it's bad news for an already beleaguered Republican Party. Just five years ago, the GOP thought it had begun a conquest of the Hispanic vote, but it saw its share of that electorate plunge 13 points in last year's presidential election, when Obama persuaded Hispanics that they could trust a liberal black candidate to champion their interests after all.


As Amandi notes, one election and one high-court pick won't have blacks and Hispanics sharing rap and salsa around a campfire. Immigration, for example, isn't a priority issue for African Americans - most Latinos feel Obama needs to ratchet up his commitment to it - and Latinos aren't as passionate about affirmative action. But it is indeed hard to overstate what a sea change their apparent alliance represents. As the U.S. Latino population began to mushroom in the 1980s and minority competition for employment and resources became more acute, the black-brown divide turned into a chasm. Many blacks viewed Latinos as interlopers getting a free ride on the civil-rights trail African-Americans had blazed; Latinos resented the notion that they were merely junior partners in minority politics, that their own demands for good jobs, schools and neighborhoods were somehow considered gate-crashing.


By the '90s, the frustrations turned violent. In 1991 blacks rioted for days in Cuban-dominated Miami after the conviction of a Hispanic police officer for killing two African Americans was overturned. That same year, Hispanics in black-controlled Washington, D.C., did the same after a Latino was wounded by a black cop.


Through it all, blacks tended to retain their political leverage because Hispanic voter turnout was abysmal by comparison. That began to change at the turn of this century, when Latinos not only overtook African Americans as the largest U.S. minority (now about 15% of the U.S. population) but also started building ballot-box muscle. By 2004 they seemed to be splitting with the Democratic Party as well, giving George W. Bush a surprising 44% of their vote in that year's presidential election.


But the GOP, owing to its rabid anti-immigration current and the failing economy, alienated those Latino voters almost as quickly as it had gained them. That allowed Obama's 2008 campaign to build common ground with Hispanics on issues like health care; in the end, he even took the Latino vote in Florida, a once reliable Republican bloc.


Race-relations experts, meanwhile, did double takes. As recently as 2007, a poll conducted by Bendixen and the California-based New America Media organization had found that a majority of Hispanics and blacks preferred to do business with whites than with each other. But in a Gallup survey last year, about two-thirds of each group suddenly said they thought their relations were good. "From a Hispanic perspective, Obama's election didn't just mean that a black man could be President, but that any minority person could," says Freddy Balsera, a Miami-based consultant who headed the Obama campaign's Hispanic- communications effort and is now a chair of the Democratic Party's National Hispanic Leadership Council. "As a result, on Election Day you could feel a new appreciation on both sides for each community's struggles."


Much of the change is generational - an acknowledgment by younger blacks and Hispanics that their parents' adversarial relationship makes less sense in the more genuinely multiracial society the U.S. has become. "You look at President Obama and Judge Sotomayor, and you don't just see a black and a Hispanic but also Columbia and Harvard and Princeton and Yale," says Morial, who attended Tuesday's White House ceremony announcing Sotomayor's selection, referring to the universities Obama and Sotomayor attended. "You see two beneficiaries of civil rights representing a new generation that no longer sees their two communities as competing with each other. The mindset that existed before is dying out."


For one thing, Morial says, the two sides have begun to learn much more about each other, thanks in part to joint political lobbying work in recent years between groups like the Urban League and La Raza, a major Latino advocacy organization in Washington. Black leaders now realize that they can't expect a group like Latinos, with such diverse national origins, to be as politically monolithic as blacks have historically been. Latino leaders, in turn, are less prone to underestimate (as leaders in South American and Caribbean countries too often do) the social disadvantages of being black in America.


At the White House, Sotomayor remarked that she has "stood on the shoulders of countless people." The truth is that some of those shoulders belonged to African Americans who marched and died during the civil-rights era so minorities could someday become Supreme Court Justices. But if it's fitting that more Latinos today recognize the debt they owe the past, it's just as appropriate that blacks are more seriously acknowledging "how important Latinos are to the future of the country," says Amandi. Or, as Obama may well have been saying when he nominated Sotomayor this week, how important they already are to its present.


Time.com
 
Re: The Sotomayor Pick: Bridging the Black-Latino Divide

BUMP.

This is an interesting topic; maybe comment will chime in after sending it to the top, again.

  • Is a bridging of the gap really occuring: or

  • Is this just wishful thinking ???

QueEx
 
Re: Obama & Latinos - The Next Stage of the Race

As an American of Afro-Latino decent I know Latinos very well keep thinking they are going to lookout for you African-Americans once they get more political power than you in America you have keep thinking that. Mexicans are your friends they steal Americas jobs drive down wages and than come here illegals and have more right than you :smh:.
 
Back
Top