Charges of Racism
| By RaoulDelano - Mar 12th, 2006 at 5:18 pm EST |
Quite a brawl broke out on this site as a result of Lauren's rather provocative essay beseeching illegal immigrants to return to Mexico. Now I can't say I agree with Lauren; the logistical and ethical challenges of a massive deportation program would be so great they are hard to imagine. However, what I have to take to task was this reaction that Lauren's blog was somehow racist.
Facile charges of racism seem to be becoming more and more popular in our political discourse (and particularly on the left) as a means to quickly de-legitimize an opponent's argument and shut down the debate. Due to this country's collective guilt over our history of mistreatment to American blacks, there is nothing an educated white person is more afraid of than being labeled a racist. Liberals recognize this fact well; they have learned that charging someone with racism is the easiest and quickest way to put them on the defensive and cast doubt on their personal integrity and thus the validity of their argument. Conservatives have started to pick up on this too; we saw a bit of it from them in the early defense of the Dubai ports deal. It's a blunt but effective tactic of debate, and that's why I think we are seeing it more and more, despite the fact that our society has continued to become more diverse and is evidently more racially tolerant than any other society in the history of the world.
Calling all illegal aliens Mexican is not racist. Imprecise? Certainly. Politically incorrect? Definitely. Racist? No way. Racism is the application of a preconceived, unreasonable, and adverse judgment against all people of the same race or ethnicity. Referring to Honduran immigrants as Mexicans is not applying any prejudice to either group; it's simply an incorrect appellation. There is no malice or adverse judgment involved. Making a statement in favor of the earnest enforcement of our current laws - and the punishment of those who have violated them - is inherently not a racist position. The fact that such an action would impact one racial group much more than any another is just a simple result of geography and economics (specifically, the huge, open border we share with a substantially poorer country) - not racism.
So can we please try to restrain the urge to charge each other with racism? 99 times out of 100, it's just not true.
Facile charges of racism seem to be becoming more and more popular in our political discourse (and particularly on the left) as a means to quickly de-legitimize an opponent's argument and shut down the debate. Due to this country's collective guilt over our history of mistreatment to American blacks, there is nothing an educated white person is more afraid of than being labeled a racist. Liberals recognize this fact well; they have learned that charging someone with racism is the easiest and quickest way to put them on the defensive and cast doubt on their personal integrity and thus the validity of their argument. Conservatives have started to pick up on this too; we saw a bit of it from them in the early defense of the Dubai ports deal. It's a blunt but effective tactic of debate, and that's why I think we are seeing it more and more, despite the fact that our society has continued to become more diverse and is evidently more racially tolerant than any other society in the history of the world.
Calling all illegal aliens Mexican is not racist. Imprecise? Certainly. Politically incorrect? Definitely. Racist? No way. Racism is the application of a preconceived, unreasonable, and adverse judgment against all people of the same race or ethnicity. Referring to Honduran immigrants as Mexicans is not applying any prejudice to either group; it's simply an incorrect appellation. There is no malice or adverse judgment involved. Making a statement in favor of the earnest enforcement of our current laws - and the punishment of those who have violated them - is inherently not a racist position. The fact that such an action would impact one racial group much more than any another is just a simple result of geography and economics (specifically, the huge, open border we share with a substantially poorer country) - not racism.
So can we please try to restrain the urge to charge each other with racism? 99 times out of 100, it's just not true.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
I do, however, disagree with you. And I'd like to make my case as to why.
Defining racism is a tricky thing, as no two people seem to apply the same definition. Racism can occur through unintentional circumstances, institutionally or personally, with or without malicious intent. (If we want to wade further into definitional issues, the distinction between "racist" and "racialist" could be brought up, but I don't definitionally separate the two terms in my analyses, as I consider both to be rooted in the notion of racial difference.)
When the subject is illegal immigration (a phrase I despise, especially as the subject is really undocumented immigration--illegal immigration can be anything from jumping a border to staying beyond the length of a visa), the nationalities of immigrants is not a minor detail. It is, in fact, a central detail. While not all undocumented immigrants are Mexican, they do comprise slightly over half of this group. The motivations for entering the US are predominantly work-related and/or familial among Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal. Among other nationalities, it can vary from fleeing political repression (El Salvador, Ecuador, Guatemala, Cuba), to widespread poverty (Nicaragua, Honduras, Bolivia, El Salvador), to civil wars and post-conflict conditions (Haiti, Columbia, Nicaragua). These situations all contribute to a lack of documentation among populations.
To lump all Latino undocumented immigrants as Mexican accordingly ignores the multiplicity of causes behind their immigration, and the different cultural norms and political situations faced by members of each nationality. The only common links among all these nationalities are Latino ethnicity and Hispanic language (putting aside the differences in aboriginal communities throughout Latin America that result in a wide ethnic variety). To call all illegal immigrants "Mexican" is to assume that the common ethnicity among them makes them of one group. Even assuming that we were only referring to all Latino illegal immigrants as "Mexican" would still make race the underlying determinant of commonality. That's far from a benign association. For an interesting article making this point about ascribed homogeneity among Latin Americans in the US, check out this. Link
Now, assuming we're agreed there was an ascription of common race to all immigrants under consideration, we can discuss the points that were raised in the piece and subsequent conversation. I would like it to be noted, however, that the underlying premise of calling all illegal immigrants "Mexican" and failing to distinguish among the different nationalities that immigrate here was the source of my comment that the argument made was "borderline racist." Perhaps "racialist" would have been a better term in light of this hermeneutical discussion, but as I said, I don't distinguish the terms owing to their common underpinning of racial differentiation in both. My statement was clearly directed at the argument, not the author. I later made that distinction and the reason for my declaration even more explicit in a subsequent comment, saying "You made a racist argument (hell, your post title effectively calls all undocumented latino immigrants Mexicans-way to go!), and promoted xenophobic reasoning (illegal immigrants are on welfare?)." If anything, I was flippant in applying the word "xenophobic" to her reasoning. The lack of a factual basis for claiming that illegal immigrants receive welfare, however, still strikes me as indicative of prejudical reasoning.
Raoul, I do thank you for this moderate response to hot tempers. You made an eloquent and thoughtful case for civil discourse and civil temperment. I simply do not agree, however, that the argument made by Lauren against illegal immigrants is race-neutral. I believe Joe's subsequent statement that he does not distinguish between "Mexican" and "Latino" is similarly not race-neutral. I don't believe either case was a result of malicious intent on the part of the authors. But I call them like I see them, and I thank you for doing the same with this post.
If you don't believe that the vast majority of illegal immigration is coming from Mexico, hence Mexicans, you are kidding yourself.
This has nothing to do with ethnicity. If I was racist I wouldnt have dated someone who was Mexican for a year and 1/2 and I wouldnt have Mexican friends. They happen however to be here legally. Illegal immigration is what I take issue with and it is coincidental that the large proportion of illegal immigrants happen to come from Mexico.
I never argued for mass deportation, I told them to go home, which is exactly what they should do. I'm sorry you dont like my directness but this is what I think and this is what I feel and this is what needs to be done. Mass deportation is not possible even if I did advocate for it. 13 million people might be able to instill a great amount of trade in their own country.
I will answer this more later when I get home because now I have to go to work.
I said it was slightly over half. The estimates I've seen suggest the figure is around 57%--around 7.4 million. That would leave 43% from elsewhere--about 5.6 million.
Also, it's hard to keep up with the language. Does "Latinos" refer to all the countries of central and south America, or just to those from Mexico? Most people I would ask on the street probably wouldn't know - does that mean they're all racist? Is it only those from "Latin America", which would then preclude much of South America? And hasn't the phrase "Latin America" been replaced by the phrase "Central America" in recent years because many of the countries are not of Latin origin? So confusing.
Hispanic - is that those from Mexico, those from the island of Hispaniola, or both?
All of this requires a wealth of specialized knowledge and keeping up with which terms are "current".
Much easier is to simply use the terms Latino and Hispanic vaguely to mean "from Mexico".
From my personal experience: Due where I was born and the life I've led, I'm very good at telling apart between Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, Philipino, Chinese, and Japanese. Many people can't. Sometimes they may use the wrong word, and thus will be corrected or chided. Does this make them racists? I'd say not - simply uninformed about an area where few people have the time or inclination to inform themselves.
There are bigger things in life to worry about - such as real racists and real racism.
It's also incredibly inaccurate to use the terms to vaguely mean "from Mexico." Mexicans are a subset of the Latino/Hispanic communities--the terms are not interchangable by any stretch, unless you don't see a purpose in distinguishing among the various nationalities south of our border. And if you don't see a purpose in distinguishing among nationalities, please explain why, because I can't think of a reason.
This isn't specialized knowledge, and the distinctions aren't that hard to figure out. These terms have been in use for as long as any of us have been politically conscious--it's not really about "keeping current," so much as "not being ignorant of common terminology."
As I said above, the only common link that Mexico has with other Latin American countries is ethnicity, and lumping them all by ethnicity would be...inaccurate, to say the least.
There's a purpose, but there's also a cost - the cost to my time, and the time of other people with a million better things to do, in figuring it all out. If corrected in a specific instance, a reasonable person will generally use whichever word you'd like them to.
I could go through learning to differentiate everything, but that'd take a lot of time for not a whole lot of benefit. It wouldn't change the policy analysis in any way, and if it's an issue to someone (for instance, if I mistake someone who's Puerto Rican for being Mexican), they can correct me, I'd remember the difference, and be done with it.
What, exactly, are the limits of who's in the hispanic and latino communities? Are people from Spain in on it? Is Jose Maria Aznar a member? Are the two words interchangeable with one another?
These are interesting academic questions, but not terribly useful where I'm from, in Southern California; the vast majority of people you meet in either group will be Mexican.
As to the finer distinctions, to put it bluntly, I've known plenty of Hispanic people over the years, and none of them seemed to give a shit half as much as you do.
"Of a group consisting of a Brazilian, a Colombian, a Mexican, a Spaniard, and a Romanian; the Brazilian, Colombian, and Mexican would all be Latinos, but not the Spaniard or the Romanian, since neither Spain nor Romania are geographically situated in Latin America. Conversely, the Colombian, Mexican and Spaniard would all be Hispanics, but not the Brazilian or the Romanian, since Brazil was colonized by the Portuguese, and neither Portugal or Romania are extensions of Spain. The one exception for a Brazilian to be considered Hispanic is if his ancestry was Spanish. Finally, all of the above nationalities would all be Latin, including the Romanian."
Put another way, the term "Hispanic" unites a white Spaniard, a black Cuban and an American Indian from Mexico. The term "Latino" would only include the Cuban and American Indian if they considered themselves part of that heritage (in which case they would probably identify both as Latino and as black or native).
Link
"Often the term 'Hispanic' is used synonymously with the word 'Latino', and frequently with 'Latin' as well. Even though the terms may sometimes overlap in meaning, they are not completely synonymous. 'Latin' in this context refers to 'Latin America,' a term introduced by the French in the 1860s when they dreamed of building an empire based in Mexico. ... 'Hispanic', on the other hand, specifically refers to Spain, and to the Spanish-speaking nations of the Americas as cultural and demographic extensions of Spain. Meanwhile, Latinos are only those from the countries of Latin America, whether Spanish or Portuguese-speaking, though in the latter case, not so frequently and with some ambiguities."
Also, I think it's reasonable to call people what they want to be called. Hispanic, as I noted, was invented and is generally falling out of favor. Latino/a is a term broadly accepted by members of that community (not unlike the term queer), as opposed to Hipanic, which, when it is accepted, is usually only done so reluctantly by older Latino/as. It might be "hard to keep up" with what people want to be called, but it's a pretty minimal amount of respect to give a person. I don't think it's unreasonable.
"In the U.S. some people consider 'Hispanic' to be too general as a label, while others consider it offensive, often preferring to use the term 'Latino', which is viewed as a self-chosen label. The preference of 'Latino' over 'Hispanic' is partly because it more clearly indicates that those it is referring to are the people from Latin America, and not Spain." (It goes on to talk about the term Chicano.)
On a side subject of lesser importance, I don't understand your and others' preference for 'undocumented immigrants' to 'illegal immigrants'. The whole issue here is that they evaded the legal process to get into the country, not that they aren't on some list somewhere. They committed an illegal act. This has nothing to do with their race, background, home country, education, shoe size, etc. It has to do with their actions. And the severity of their actions doesn't matter either. The law is the law and illegal is illegal.
If you owned a large tract of land and I came on to your property to hunt deer without your permission, you wouldn't call me an 'undocumented hunter', you would call me a poacher or an illegal hunter. Calling illegals 'undocumented' just seems to me like a transparent attempt to get people to forget that these people have broken our laws.
I'm not making that argument, either. I'm simply saying that most people are not so fussy with language, and that their being incorrect in the usage and not worrying about such things like it's the end of the world does not make them racist.
As to using "Mexican" as a synonym for Hispanic or Latino, that was in response to Joe, who seems to think that there is no substantial distinction.
As to the secondary issue of my preferrence for "undocumented" to "illegal", "illegal immigration" is a less specific term for the subject at hand, since what we were actually discussing is the crossing of our borders by those without documentation, whereas illegal immigration in general can be conducted through a variety of avenues including avenues where the immigrants have documentation, such as not leaving when a visa expires (which is itself quite common).
Some people also find it distasteful to refer to a person as "illegal." Their entry was unlawful, but to say that makes the individual "illegal" as opposed to their action is seen by some as dehumanizing.
To answer your example, if you were hunting on a tract of land where hunting was permitted, but didn't have a hunting license, I would say you were hunting illegally or unlawfully, but you would be an undocumented hunter. Likewise, these immigrants in question have immigrated illegally, but that is due to them being undocumented.