Distancing in a Southern City: Latino Immigrants' Views of Black Americans

[Agnapostate]

Racial Distancing in a Southern City: Latino Immigrants' Views of Black Americans (http://www.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/socialchange/research/social-change/summer-workshops/documents/racialdistancing.pdf)


The United States is undergoing dramatic demographic change, primarily from immigration, and many of the new Latino immigrants are settling in the South. This paper examines hypotheses related to attitudes of Latino immigrants toward black Americans in a Southern city. The analyses are based on a survey of black, white, and Latino residents (n = 500). The results show, for the most part, Latino immigrants hold negative stereotypical views of blacks and feel that they have more in common with whites than with blacks. Yet, whites do not reciprocate in their feelings toward Latinos. Latinos’ negative attitudes toward blacks, however, are modulated by a sense of linked fate with other Latinos. This research is important because the South still contains the largest population of African Americans in the United States, and no section of the country has been more rigidly defined along a black-white racial divide. How these new Latino immigrants situate themselves vis-à-vis black Americans has profound implications for the social and political fabric of the South.

The authors suggest that, "Given that length of stay in the United States appears to be unrelated to the strength of negative stereotypes about blacks, this finding suggests that Latino immigrants might possibly bring views of the racial hierarchies in their own countries with them to the United States. Since the research on race and Latin America and Mexico identifies blacks as representing the bottom rungs of society and the presence of the process of 'whitening up,' we assume that they might bring prejudicial attitudes with them."

I would suggest this as an overall facet of Mexican immigrants and Latinos' incorporating racial and ethnic hierarchies that are incompatible with existing U.S. hierarchies, such as minimization of Indian admixture and culture (in sharp contrast to the U.S.).

We might also consider capitalists' interests in the division of workers to prevent victories in class conflict, obviously.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

You're saying Latin American minimization of Indian admixture and culture is incompatible with U.S. trends? How?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

It's a two way street. I've been called all sorts of slurs by black people for being chicana, but nobody seems to give a fuck about that. I find it offensive because up here in Milwaukee blacks get a little more respect and clout than us Mexicans since they just like gringos tell us to go back to Mexico.

Also keep in mind to take my words with a grain of salt. I'm in an interracial relationship and he is one of the very few people that I consider myself close to who is not Mexican. And I catch criticism a lot because my family objects to him. They are slowly tearing me apart from him.:crying:

[Agnapostate]

You're saying Latin American minimization of Indian admixture and culture is incompatible with U.S. trends? How?

Many white people love pretending that they're 1/16 Cherokee or something along those lines, generally because they believe that Indians themselves constitute a cigar store relic and full-blooded Indians don't even really exist anymore.


It's a two way street.

That isn't the case in this specific study: "The overwhelming impression conveyed in the data is that blacks view Latinos much more favorably than Latinos view blacks. Almost three-fourths (71.9%) of blacks feel most or almost all Latinos are hardworking, two-fifths (42.8%) believe most or almost all Latinos are easy to get along with, and only one-third (32.6%) indicate almost no or few Latinos could be trusted. On the other hand, only 9.2% of Latinos feel that most or almost all blacks are hard working, only 26.5% feel that most or almost all blacks are easy to get along with, and only 8% believe that most or almost all blacks can be trusted. It does not appear, therefore, that Latino prejudices are necessarily a result of hostility from Southern blacks."


I've been called all sorts of slurs by black people for being chicana, but nobody seems to give a fuck about that. I find it offensive because up here in Milwaukee blacks get a little more respect and clout than us Mexicans since they just like gringos tell us to go back to Mexico.

It's also my anecdotal perception that, around here, people who identify as Mexican tend to dislike African-Americans far more than vice-versa, but I'm not familiar with empirical research for my region or state.

The same researchers authored Black Americans and Latino Immigrants in a Southern City: Friendly Neighbors or Economic Competitors (http://home.uchicago.edu/%7Egrynav/dubose.pdf): "Dramatic demographic changes are occurring in the United States, and some of the most dramatic changes are occurring in the South from Latino immigration. Latinos, by and large, are an entirely new population in the region. How are Black southerners reacting to this new population? Using survey data gathered from a southern location, this article explores several questions related to whether Blacks see these new residents as friendly neighbors or economic competitors. Results suggest that Blacks and non-Blacks perceive a potential economic threat from continued Latino immigration, but Blacks are more concerned about the effects of Latino immigration than are Whites."


Also keep in mind to take my words with a grain of salt. I'm in an interracial relationship and he is one of the very few people that I consider myself close to who is not Mexican. And I catch criticism a lot because my family objects to him. They are slowly tearing me apart from him.:crying:

I'm sorry to hear that, Esperanza. May I ask what his ethnic background is? Maybe the ethnic group that he belongs to has made contributions to Mexico that would make your family see things differently.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Many white people love pretending that they're 1/16 Cherokee or something along those lines, generally because they believe that Indians themselves constitute a cigar store relic and full-blooded Indians don't even really exist anymore.

Aren't you minimizing their indigenous roots yourself here... "pretending that they're 1/16 Cherokee". Who's to say that they are lying? Historically, Native children were systematically kidnapped and put in boarding schools and/or adopted into white families for forced assimilation, so it's not unreasonable that a significant number of 'white' Americans have some indigenous admixture (which is minimized by classifying them as 'white'/encouraging them to identify with the 'white majority'). One recent example would be the Indian Adoption Project (http://pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/topics/IAP.html), running from 1958 to 1967, which had the goal in mind "to systematically place an entire child population across lines of nation, culture, and race."

In Latin countries, there's people of 100% indigenous ancestry who claim to be mestizo. One case to look at would be La Matanza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Salvadoran_peasant_uprising) (the massacre) in El Salvador, 1932, after which, "To avoid further violence, members of the Pipil indigenous group generally severed their ties to their culture and Pipil language, adopting Western dress and the Spanish language as well as intermarrying with members of non-indigenous groups."

Basically, everywhere in the Americas where there was European colonization, whether it was England or Spain or any other power, there is some form of white supremacist ideology, genocide and forced cultural/'racial' assimilation of native populations, and racialized slavery of black people. What that means is that there is minimization of Indian admixture and culture in all the countries of the Americas whose origins are in colonialism.

[Agnapostate]

Aren't you minimizing their indigenous roots yourself here... "pretending that they're 1/16 Cherokee". Who's to say that they are lying?

On average, U.S. whites do have a minor proportion of Amerindian admixture, though it's less significant than that of whites in most Latin American countries, as well as the proportion of European admixture that most U.S. Native Americans and African-Americans possess (approximately 30% and 20-25%, respectively).

Whites in Latin American countries certainly do not identify themselves as Indians; they generally constitute the majority of the ruling classes that oppress Indians. Native Americans and African-Americans do not identify as white despite the fact that their proportion of European admixture is generally greater than white wannabes' proportion of Indian admixture, because their phenotypes are generally not European, and they are generally not viewed by others or themselves as white.

However, the whites who claim this Cherokee or other Indian status often represent themselves as primarily Indian or as possessing a more significant balance of such admixture, and frequently participate in powwows and other cultural events dressed in regalia and selling memorabilia.

Yet Indians (meaning individuals with a sufficient amount of admixture to possess an Indian phenotype), are subject to negative discrimination based on their appearance that whites with minor Indian admixture are not, and the concept of being an Indian is diluted if these whites' claims to be just as Indian are regarded as legitimate.

To provide a comparable analogy, although U.S. whites generally also possess a small proportion of sub-Saharan African admixture, few would think much of them identifying as black. It's only because Indians are regarded as extinct or scarce that the concept of being ethnically Indian is thought to have such weak criteria.

[A Marxist Historian]

Racial Distancing in a Southern City: Latino Immigrants' Views of Black Americans (http://www.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/socialchange/research/social-change/summer-workshops/documents/racialdistancing.pdf)



The authors suggest that, "Given that length of stay in the United States appears to be unrelated to the strength of negative stereotypes about blacks, this finding suggests that Latino immigrants might possibly bring views of the racial hierarchies in their own countries with them to the United States. Since the research on race and Latin America and Mexico identifies blacks as representing the bottom rungs of society and the presence of the process of 'whitening up,' we assume that they might bring prejudicial attitudes with them."

I would suggest this as an overall facet of Mexican immigrants and Latinos' incorporating racial and ethnic hierarchies that are incompatible with existing U.S. hierarchies, such as minimization of Indian admixture and culture (in sharp contrast to the U.S.).

We might also consider capitalists' interests in the division of workers to prevent victories in class conflict, obviously.

This varies from one Latin American country to another of course, but one thing *nobody* does in Mexico is minimize Indian admixture to Mexican culture. Indeed many Mexicans identify more with Aztec etc. traditions than Spanish. Ancestrally, Mexicans are descendants of Spanish soldiers marrying Indian women. And all Mexicans know that is my impression.

Comments from Chicano posters on this would be welcome of course.

But you did have slavery in Mexico too, although it was abolished generations before it was abolished in America. So you have anti-black racism there too, though not nearly as strong in America. Especially since you never really had the barriers against interracial marriage that used to be so powerful in America, and haven't disappeared either.

"Divide and rule" is always a factor, but really white racism is more the heritage of US history. Latinos are seen by whites as inferior to them not because of slavery, as with black people, but because of US imperialism, which has lorded over Latin America for so long. So it's less intense.

-M.H.-

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't know what you're talking about: criollos and "whiter" mestizos are obviously socially and materially dominant in Mexico, and my madre and abuela would certainly be more openly upset if my sister married a black guy (regardless of education or affluence) than my (white American) father's relatives.

[A Marxist Historian]

Many white people love pretending that they're 1/16 Cherokee or something along those lines, generally because they believe that Indians themselves constitute a cigar store relic and full-blooded Indians don't even really exist anymore.



That isn't the case in this specific study: "The overwhelming impression conveyed in the data is that blacks view Latinos much more favorably than Latinos view blacks. Almost three-fourths (71.9%) of blacks feel most or almost all Latinos are hardworking, two-fifths (42.8%) believe most or almost all Latinos are easy to get along with, and only one-third (32.6%) indicate almost no or few Latinos could be trusted. On the other hand, only 9.2% of Latinos feel that most or almost all blacks are hard working, only 26.5% feel that most or almost all blacks are easy to get along with, and only 8% believe that most or almost all blacks can be trusted. It does not appear, therefore, that Latino prejudices are necessarily a result of hostility from Southern blacks."



It's also my anecdotal perception that, around here, people who identify as Mexican tend to dislike African-Americans far more than vice-versa, but I'm not familiar with empirical research for my region or state.

The same researchers authored Black Americans and Latino Immigrants in a Southern City: Friendly Neighbors or Economic Competitors (http://home.uchicago.edu/%7Egrynav/dubose.pdf): "Dramatic demographic changes are occurring in the United States, and some of the most dramatic changes are occurring in the South from Latino immigration. Latinos, by and large, are an entirely new population in the region. How are Black southerners reacting to this new population? Using survey data gathered from a southern location, this article explores several questions related to whether Blacks see these new residents as friendly neighbors or economic competitors. Results suggest that Blacks and non-Blacks perceive a potential economic threat from continued Latino immigration, but Blacks are more concerned about the effects of Latino immigration than are Whites."



I'm sorry to hear that, Esperanza. May I ask what his ethnic background is? Maybe the ethnic group that he belongs to has made contributions to Mexico that would make your family see things differently.

Certainly there is anti-immigrant feeling among black people. After all the first black people got here in the year 1619, way, way before most immigrants, whether Latin American, Asian or for that matter European.

So black people have a right to consider themselves as *more* American than anybody who didn't get here on the Mayflower, so it's not surprising if some share the anti-immigrant attitudes of so many white Americans these days.

And the media do sometimes try to whip up hostility between blacks and Latins. Especially with the high unemployment these days and the competition for jobs that results.

But, like the study shows, blacks tend to be less racist than anybody else in America, for natural reasons as they are the biggest victims of racism. Given the extreme of black oppression at the hands of whites in America, anti-white feelings are sometimes racist, but often maybe need a different word to describe them.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I don't know what you're talking about: criollos and "whiter" mestizos are obviously socially and materially dominant in Mexico, and my madre and abuela would certainly be more openly upset if my sister married a black guy (regardless of education or affluence) than my (white American) father's relatives.

Well, Mexico never had a Civil Rights movement of course.

Fifty years ago, interracial marriage wasn't something that pissed off your parents. It was something that would get you socially ostracised in the North and *killed* in the South.

Interracial marriage many places wasn't even *legal* until the 1960s!

The American taboo against interracial marriage was broken, in some weird way, by the O.J. Simpson affair in the '90s. It was still fairly strong even in the '80s.

Now America is getting more like Brazil. Not a good thing, as black people in Brazil, which had slavery longer, are to this day *more* oppressed than black people in America, even though interracial sex & marriage are considered downright cool there.

Now that Obama is President, the gap in net worth between black and white people in America has risen to 20 to 1, *twice* as bad as under Bush Jr. Of course the same thing has happened to Latins too, indeed statistically even more so.

-M.H.-

[tachosomoza]

Another thing to take into consideration is the fact that in jails and prisons, Black, White and Latino inmates are often pitched against one another. Both Blacks and Whites loathe Latino inmates, but La Eme (Mexican Mafia) has formed an alliance with the AB in California. A lot of white supremacist groups ostensibly aren't put off by Latinos because they may look physically closer to "white" than black . :rolleyes:

[Agnapostate]

This varies from one Latin American country to another of course, but one thing *nobody* does in Mexico is minimize Indian admixture to Mexican culture. Indeed many Mexicans identify more with Aztec etc. traditions than Spanish. Ancestrally, Mexicans are descendants of Spanish soldiers marrying Indian women. And all Mexicans know that is my impression.

Mexico can reasonably be defined as a majority-Indian country. The most heavily populated southern regions of the country are majority Indian and minority European in admixture, in line with the population of the historic cultural region of Mesoamerica. For Mexico to even be defined as a "mestizo" country with an equitable balance between Spanish/Castilian and Indian components is strange, however, since Spanish/Castilian components dominate in almost every regard. The large majority of the population speaks Castilian as a first language rather than any Indian language, and ethnic stratification associates higher status with greater European admixture.


Comments from Chicano posters on this would be welcome of course.

As an anecdotal aside, I've found that many "Chicanos" know comparably little about Mexico, which is a facet of the Mexican/Mexican-American conflict. Those specifically involved in Chicano identity politics (such as those on the board here, which I guess includes me, at least in part), may know more.


But you did have slavery in Mexico too, although it was abolished generations before it was abolished in America.

It was formally abolished, but forms of Indian enslavement such as the genizaro program of New Mexico were still practiced.


So you have anti-black racism there too, though not nearly as strong in America. Especially since you never really had the barriers against interracial marriage that used to be so powerful in America, and haven't disappeared either.

On average, Mexicans tend to have black admixture in larger proportions than Americans do, though this is a frequently ignored aspect of their history and ethnic ideology of mestizaje.


"Divide and rule" is always a factor, but really white racism is more the heritage of US history. Latinos are seen by whites as inferior to them not because of slavery, as with black people, but because of US imperialism, which has lorded over Latin America for so long. So it's less intense.

It would be more accurate to say Anglos than "whites," as numerous Latinos are whites, but the racism against Latino whites went with racism against Mediterranean European immigrants, I believe.


Another thing to take into consideration is the fact that in jails and prisons, Black, White and Latino inmates are often pitched against one another. Both Blacks and Whites loathe Latino inmates, but La Eme (Mexican Mafia) has formed an alliance with the AB in California. A lot of white supremacist groups ostensibly aren't put off by Latinos because they may look physically closer to "white" than black . :rolleyes:

The Latinos that "look white" are white, for all intents and purposes. Their whiteness is created by possessing European admixture that produces that phenotype. Aside from the Mexican Mafia and Aryan Brotherhood's alliance against Nuestra Familia and the Black Guerrilla Family, I also believe that the Nazi Low Riders accept some white or lighter-skinned Latinos.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't know much about the situation in the South, but I'm skeptical of the argument that any racial animosity is due to just imported prejudices. As with most groups in the US, more animosity and violence is within larger racial groups, not among them. There is distrust and bigotry between Chicanos and immigrant Latinos here in California and even then there are divisions between immigrants from rural and urban areas of Mexico or between indigenous (cultural or ethnic) immigrants and non-indigenous.

All that being said, it is common to hear people make bigoted remarks - in LA there was a lot of anti-Korean sentiment among blacks and lot of anti-black sentiments among Latinos and the other way around.

In other words, yeah, many workers have mixed consciousness. But anti-black sentiment among Latinos or anti-immigrant sentiments among blacks are far more likely due to the same constant propaganda and fear-mongering in US society than from the attitudes of people who come from different countries.

With anti-immigrant sentiment among blacks in the US, there has been a conscious effort by anti-immigrant formations to try and promote token black anti-immigrants (and latinos as well) in order to deflect criticisms of racism and there has also been an attempt to divide workers along certain lines. The same is true for anti-gay sentiment - the right-wing actively tried to drive a wedge between straight blacks and homosexuals. I recieved mailers here in Oakland that were anti-gay marriage and they made their case on a racial and religious basis claiming that it was a dishonor to the black civil rights movement for gay-rights activists to point to the example of black civil rights struggles. The mailer had quotes anti-gay marriage quotes from 3 black ministers and Obama even though they mailers were sent by organizations which are not largely black in membership or leadership... obviously they were pandering to Oakland's black community and trying to divide a wedge between people.

If divisive attitudes are going up, IMO, it has a lot to do with lack of struggle. If people think they have to make due fighting over crumbs then they are more likely to adopt these attitudes than in times when the working class is fighting and making gains. My anecdotal story about this is that when I went to the first large immigrant rights march in Oakland, two young black men whose car got stopped at an intersection as the march came through got out of their cars and for a minute I thought they were going to yell about how they were being kept from driving where they wanted to go (which happens during marches in the streets - I've seen drivers yell at protesters during anti-war and pro-gay rights marches in S.F.). Instead the two guys got on top of their car and began pumping their fists. A latino guy ran out from the march and hugged them and jumped onto the car too and shouted something about how that's what this march was about: "respect for all minorities".

If there was a black-led anti-police /prison struggle, or a sustained pro-immigrant struggle, or a labor movement, I think there would be a shift away from a lot of this divisiveness - even if it's for practical reasons at first rather than principled ones.

Still, I think a lot of this kind of bigotry or divisiveness is overstated in the US press. When I lived in LA, there were a lot of local news stories about racial animosity between different non-white groups and IMO it's sort of the same as how the mainstream always blames poor-whites for perpetuating anti-black or anti-Latino racism. Sure many workers of all races adopt these ideas and attitudes (even about their own ethnic groups - I'm sure that a higher percentage of black people think that black people are untrustworthy than white people who think white people are untrustworthy) but they are not the ones creating or organizing systematic oppression and racism in society -- they just buy into it to a certain extent.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

That isn't the case in this specific study: "The overwhelming impression conveyed in the data is that blacks view Latinos much more favorably than Latinos view blacks. Almost three-fourths (71.9%) of blacks feel most or almost all Latinos are hardworking, two-fifths (42.8%) believe most or almost all Latinos are easy to get along with, and only one-third (32.6%) indicate almost no or few Latinos could be trusted. On the other hand, only 9.2% of Latinos feel that most or almost all blacks are hard working, only 26.5% feel that most or almost all blacks are easy to get along with, and only 8% believe that most or almost all blacks can be trusted. It does not appear, therefore, that Latino prejudices are necessarily a result of hostility from Southern blacks." Compared to most Mexicans; blacks and whites aren't hard workers. Hence there are bigots claiming that Mexicans are "taking their jobs"




It's also my anecdotal perception that, around here, people who identify as Mexican tend to dislike African-Americans far more than vice-versa, but I'm not familiar with empirical research for my region or state. Yeah, we have a love/hate feeling towards gringos whether they are black or white. Meanwhile, it seems here in one of the most segregated cities in the US, everytime I pass though the overwhelmingly black northside I hear all sorts of anti-Mexican slurs and also things like "go back to Mexico"



The same researchers authored Black Americans and Latino Immigrants in a Southern City: Friendly Neighbors or Economic Competitors (http://home.uchicago.edu/%7Egrynav/dubose.pdf): "Dramatic demographic changes are occurring in the United States, and some of the most dramatic changes are occurring in the South from Latino immigration. Latinos, by and large, are an entirely new population in the region. How are Black southerners reacting to this new population? Using survey data gathered from a southern location, this article explores several questions related to whether Blacks see these new residents as friendly neighbors or economic competitors. Results suggest that Blacks and non-Blacks perceive a potential economic threat from continued Latino immigration, but Blacks are more concerned about the effects of Latino immigration than are Whites."
now tell me something I don't know. lol


I'm sorry to hear that, Esperanza. May I ask what his ethnic background is? Maybe the ethnic group that he belongs to has made contributions to Mexico that would make your family see things differently.White, Sicilian and black with not many details known. He was born and raised in motor city.

[Blackscare]

Another thing to take into consideration is the fact that in jails and prisons, Black, White and Latino inmates are often pitched against one another. Both Blacks and Whites loathe Latino inmates, but La Eme (Mexican Mafia) has formed an alliance with the AB in California. A lot of white supremacist groups ostensibly aren't put off by Latinos because they may look physically closer to "white" than black . :rolleyes:
The part in bold isn't necessarily true. From what I've been told by friends and family who've been in prison fairly recently, the majority of inmates (who are white, at least) align towards Latino groups in prison. I don't know why this is, but I know plenty of people who've talked about this (a few times together in the same conversation) and they've all agreed that the first thing they did (and would do, if in the position again) was get in close with the Latino groups. There was some pretty straight-forward reason that I forget now.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I don't know what you're talking about: criollos and "whiter" mestizos are obviously socially and materially dominant in Mexico, and my madre and abuela would certainly be more openly upset if my sister married a black guy (regardless of education or affluence) than my (white American) father's relatives.
If I got married outside of the catholic church mi abuelita would be unhappy with that

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

On average, U.S. whites do have a minor proportion of Amerindian admixture, though it's less significant than that of whites in most Latin American countries, as well as the proportion of European admixture that most U.S. Native Americans and African-Americans possess (approximately 30% and 20-25%, respectively).

Whites in Latin American countries certainly do not identify themselves as Indians; they generally constitute the majority of the ruling classes that oppress Indians. Native Americans and African-Americans do not identify as white despite the fact that their proportion of European admixture is generally greater than white wannabes' proportion of Indian admixture, because their phenotypes are generally not European, and they are generally not viewed by others or themselves as white.

However, the whites who claim this Cherokee or other Indian status often represent themselves as primarily Indian or as possessing a more significant balance of such admixture, and frequently participate in powwows and other cultural events dressed in regalia and selling memorabilia.

Yet Indians (meaning individuals with a sufficient amount of admixture to possess an Indian phenotype), are subject to negative discrimination based on their appearance that whites with minor Indian admixture are not, and the concept of being an Indian is diluted if these whites' claims to be just as Indian are regarded as legitimate.

To provide a comparable analogy, although U.S. whites generally also possess a small proportion of sub-Saharan African admixture, few would think much of them identifying as black. It's only because Indians are regarded as extinct or scarce that the concept of being ethnically Indian is thought to have such weak criteria.

I know someone who looks basically 'white' (to me) and whose first language is Ojibwe. Are they a 'wannabe Indian'? If someone is '1/16 indigenous', says that that is an important part of their identity, what gives anyone the right to deny them? Isn't it better that they identify with an oppressed group than with some 'white nationalism' or something? In any case, many of the 'white' people I've come across claiming some native ancestry, did not seem to be making any effort to reclaim or preserve indigenous culture, going to powwows, or anything like that. Where the claim that they are 'just as Indian' is important is for the fact that, we're talking about culture here. Anyone who is part of and identifies with an indigenous culture is 'just as Indian' as any other Indian. Being an Indian is more than just having a certain phenotype. To reduce it to that is essentialist and alienating.

There have been a number of U.S. 'whites' with sub-Saharan African admixture who choose to identify as black. Historically, the 'one-drop rule' was the criteria for being black, so it is not so surprising. Walter Francis White led the NAACP for 24 years and he looked like this:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAnaacpbook.jpg
He wrote in his autobiography, [I]A Man Called White (p. 3): "I am a Negro. My skin is white, my eyes are blue, my hair is blond. The traits of my race are nowhere visible upon me."

Was he a 'white wannabe Negro'?

[Agnapostate]

In other words, yeah, many workers have mixed consciousness. But anti-black sentiment among Latinos or anti-immigrant sentiments among blacks are far more likely due to the same constant propaganda and fear-mongering in US society than from the attitudes of people who come from different countries.

There are other sources in the literature that support this theory advocated; one, though not peer-reviewed, is Historical trauma: The impact of colonial racism on contemporary relations between African Americans and Mexican immigrants (http://gradworks.umi.com/14/92/1492454.html)


The purpose of this project is to examine tensions in present day United States between African Americans and Mexican immigrants. Hyper-violent incidents of interracial gang violence between these two communities are presented by mainstream media as signifiers of the existence of the tension. Latinos, as a whole, and African Americans, whether in gangs or civilians, are often portrayed to be in competition due to three conventional explanations. While scholars and media sources have validity in pointing out the significance of socioeconomic competition, struggles for political power and the problems that the language barrier create, these explanations are not complete. El sistema de castas or the caste system, a racial hierarchy created by the Spaniards in Latin America during their colonial efforts, established how people of African descent, both free and slave, were treated in New Spain. The caste system's continued influence can be seen with the denial of African heritage and the marginalized position of Afro-Mexicans in present day Mexico. Furthermore, these prejudices remain intact when Mexican immigrants enter the U.S. It is understood that Mexico's national identity is mestizaje, a racially mixed nation; however, racism existed and is also present today in Mexico. By combining a historical perspective with the three primary reasons, mentioned above, it is hoped that the complete picture will help resolve tensions. This thesis argues that colonization, influenced heavily by a racial hierarchy, has caused Mexican immigrants to carry with them prejudices towards African Americans that were learned in Mexico, showing that the issue is deeper than competition over resources in present times. In response to an influx of Latino immigrants, African American responses show parallels with historical nativist responses to immigrants. By combining the impacts of historical racism with conventional explanations for the existence of the tension it is hoped an understanding may develop that will help reduce conflict.

There are other sources in the literature that emphasize multiple factors, however, such as New Immigrant Destinations and the American Color Line (http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~raphael/IGERT/Workshop/Marrow_NewDestsColorLine.pdf)


What factors lie behind these patterns of ‘nonblack’ identification? Undoubtedly, they are based at least partially on the way race is organized in Latin America, where distancing from blackness is frequently encouraged. In contrast to how the legacy of the ‘one-drop rule’ encourages many Americans to identify as ‘blacker’ than their phenotypes or ancestry might suggest, a legacy of white superiority encourages many Latin Americans to identify as ‘whiter’. Upon migrating to the United States, many Latin Americans find that they are viewed as ‘darker’ here, yet continue to maintain their previous identifications (see Rodríguez 2000, pp. 106-25).

My data also show that anti-black stereotypes play a role (Kim 2004; McClain et al. 2006; Mindiola, Niemann, and Rodríguez 2003). While it is unclear whether these stereotypes originated abroad or after migration or both, many (though certainly not all) Hispanic respondents express them toward blacks in eastern North Carolina. Antonia, a medium-skinned, college educated legal permanent resident from Veracruz, Mexico, and Nadia, a poor, dark-skinned undocumented immigrant from Mexico City, illustrate stereotypical views of blacks as loud, violent, lazy, uneducated, dependent, or lacking in family values:

Antonia: In my work I have seen that the blacks are louder, feistier. Whites are like, quieter. I think it’s a question of education, or culture.

Nadia: The blacks are sometimes pretty dirty. They don’t do things right, or they don’t want to work. They don’t want to be responsible or work. They don’t do what people tell them to. They drink a lot. Their worst traits are that they are very rude. They say ugly words.

As Nina, a dark-skinned, lower-middle-class naturalized citizen from Cali, Colombia shows, many Hispanics, including those likely to become ‘collective blacks’, learn to devalue blackness and make efforts to dissociate from it, since whiteness is privileged over blackness in both their home countries and here (see Dzidzienyo and Oboler 2005):

Nina: Some Hispanics come here to this country and they want nothing to do with blacks. Even in our own countries we learn this. We learn we don’t want to be a part of their community.

Yet Hispanic respondents’ patterns of ‘nonblack’ identification are also based on their social interactions with whites and blacks, through which they develop a sense of how they are viewed and of where the strongest boundaries between groups lie. Within the complex range of intergroup relations that I document between members of all three groups, intriguing patterns emerge. Overall Hispanic respondents perceive better interpersonal relations with whites than blacks; they perceive that whites treat Hispanics better than whites treat blacks, and many also perceive that Hispanics are ‘discriminated’ against more by blacks than whites. Together these patterns show that through their social interactions many Hispanic newcomers have come to perceive that the boundaries separating themselves from whites, although existent, are somewhat more permeable than those separating either whites from themselves or whites from blacks.

It's an issue that needs further research to resolve. My own anecdotal experience was that my grandparents probably had prejudices that were exacerbated by residence in an urban African-American community, namely Compton (of NWA fame). A conversation I had with my grandmother about her Barbie collection went like this:

"Por que no tienes munecas negras?"

"Porque no gusto mayates."


Compared to most Mexicans; blacks and whites aren't hard workers.

I don't know if that can be empirically validated.


White, Sicilian and black with not many details known. He was born and raised in motor city.

A mixed-race person, as they're called? Mexicans have 5 to 10% of African admixture on average; maybe mentioning that and the fact that they are simply mixed-race with different proportions will make your family see things differently.


I know someone who looks basically 'white' (to me) and whose first language is Ojibwe. Are they a 'wannabe Indian'? If someone is '1/16 indigenous', says that that is an important part of their identity, what gives anyone the right to deny them? Isn't it better that they identify with an oppressed group than with some 'white nationalism' or something? In any case, many of the 'white' people I've come across claiming some native ancestry, did not seem to be making any effort to reclaim or preserve indigenous culture, going to powwows, or anything like that. Where the claim that they are 'just as Indian' is important is for the fact that, we're talking about culture here. Anyone who is part of and identifies with an indigenous culture is 'just as Indian' as any other Indian. Being an Indian is more than just having a certain phenotype. To reduce it to that is essentialist and alienating.

The basis for Indian ethnic advocacy and empowerment movements ought to be resistance to phenotype-based negative discrimination, as the African-American civil rights movement was and is. Association with indigenous cultural phenomena should be secondary, because it is not tangibly relevant to phenotype-based negative discrimination, as African-Americans' large-scale disassociation from their own cultural West African roots through being compelled to adopt European names and language is not relevant to their own phenotype-based negative discrimination.

As you stated, full-blooded Indians "pretend to be mestizo," undergoing the process of cultural disassociation, but this does not alter the fact that the negative discrimination in the U.S. is primarily racial/ethnic rather than cultural, and does not exempt them from it. There is a wide range of empirical research that evidences this:

1. Phenotype and Life Chances among Chicanos (http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ366561&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ366561): "Data from a national Chicano survey with nearly 1,000 respondents were examined to test the hypothesis that, because of internal (intragroup) and external (intergroup) discrimination, both past and present, Mexican Americans with a European physical appearance will have higher socioeconomic status than Mexican Americans with an indigenous Native American physical appearance. (JHZ)"

2. Phenotype and Schooling among Mexican Americans (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2112715): "The study presented here examined the effect of phenotype (both skin color and physical features) on schooling attainment among Mexican Americans with data from the 1979 National Chicano Survey. It found that the lightest skin-toned and most European-looking quarter of the Mexican American population had about 1.5 more years of schooling than the darker and more Indian-looking majority."

3. Annual Income, Hourly Wages, and Identity Among Mexican Americans and other Latinos (http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=patrick_l_mas on): "Two processes that influence Hispanic heterogeneity include acculturation and labor market discrimination because of skin shade/phenotype...Americans of Mexican and Cuban descent but less so Puerto Ricans, are able to increase annual income and hourly wages by acculturating into a Non-Hispanic white racial identity. However, neither the abandonment of Spanish nor the abandonment of a specifically Hispanic racial self-identity is sufficient to overcome the penalties associated with having a dark complexion and Non-European phenotype."

4. Latino Phenotypic Discrimination Revisited: The Impact of Skin Color on Occupational Status (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6237.00104/abstract) "Our findings indicate that darker-skinned Mexicans and Cubans face significantly lower occupational prestige scores than their lighter-skinned counterparts even when controlling for factors that influence performance in the labor market. However, we find no conclusive evidence that skin-color differences impact occupational prestige scores for Puerto Ricans. Conclusions. Using earlier data, some scholars found evidence for difference in labor market performance among Mexican Americans as a function of phenotypic variations among Mexican Americans. Today, dark-skinned Mexican Americans and Cuban Americans continue to face higher levels of discrimination in the labor market, whereas dark-skinned Puerto Ricans do not, which may indicate regional differences across the three groups that need to be controlled for."

5. Social class, admixture, and skin color variation in Mexican-Americans and Anglo-Americans living in San Antonio, Texas (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330610110/abstract): "Social class may act in different ways as a barrier to gene flow in urban populations, depending on ethnicity. We test the hypothesis that biological variation is affected by social class subdivision using skin reflectance data collected for 393 Anglo-American and 930 Mexican-American adults in the major urban population of San Antonio, Texas. Two socioeconomic groups were sampled for the Anglo-American population: a middle-income transitional group and a high-income suburban group. In addition, we sampled a third socioeconomic group for Mexican-Americans: a low income barrio. Sex and age effects on skin color are minimal. Social class has no effect on skin color variation for Anglo-Americans, whereas there is a highly significant effect on social class subdivision for Mexican-Americans. Admixture estimates were derived from skin reflectance data and show that the proportion of native American ancestry decreases as social class increases."


There have been a number of U.S. 'whites' with sub-Saharan African admixture who choose to identify as black. Historically, the 'one-drop rule' was the criteria for being black, so it is not so surprising. Walter Francis White led the NAACP for 24 years and he looked like this:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAnaacpbook.jpg
He wrote in his autobiography, [I]A Man Called White (p. 3): "I am a Negro. My skin is white, my eyes are blue, my hair is blond. The traits of my race are nowhere visible upon me."

Was he a 'white wannabe Negro'?

He was a man who would likely not be subject to phenotype-based negative discrimination and in fact was not, a phenomenon called passing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_%28racial_identity%29).

Not only are African-Americans subject to negative phenotypic discrimination as a group, there is intra-group discrimination based on colorism and preferences for lighter skin pigmentation.

[tachosomoza]

He was a man who would likely not be subject to phenotype-based negative discrimination and in fact was not, a phenomenon called passing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_%28racial_identity%29).

Not only are African-Americans subject to negative phenotypic discrimination as a group, there is intra-group discrimination based on colorism and preferences for lighter skin pigmentation.

Actually, in close knit southern communities, it was a pastime of both whites and blacks to analyze and speculate as to who was "colored" and who was not. People devoted insane amounts of time to figuring out who was what.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I don't know if that can be empirically validated.What does "empirically" mean?



A mixed-race person, as they're called? Mexicans have 5 to 10% of African admixture on average; maybe mentioning that and the fact that they are simply mixed-race with different proportions will make your family see things differently.
But he is not catholic and there is a personality clash between him and my dad since they both tend to be very alpha male.


He was a man who would likely not be subject to phenotype-based negative discrimination and in fact was not, a phenomenon called passing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_%28racial_identity%29).

Not only are African-Americans subject to negative phenotypic discrimination as a group, there is intra-group discrimination based on colorism and preferences for lighter skin pigmentation.
I pass well...
... oops wrong context of the word. lol. :rolleyes::laugh::laugh: As far as I go I'm happy with my physical ethnic traits. My skintone is very between (hence I was too dark too be white and too light to be anything else and was viewed as another racial group as a kid) as if I am Meditaranian. My facial structure is Mexica/Azteca/indigenous. My hair looks almost Moorish.

Side note: people who look fully one ethnicity/race or the another have it easier than those of us who are so mixed that we are an outsider to everyone. At least they don't end up being nothing to both ends.

[Tim Finnegan]

White, Sicilian and black with not many details known. He was born and raised in motor city.
Out of interest, do you list "white" and "Sicilian" separately because people of that sort of complexion would not be regarded as "white" where you live, or just to indicate that he has both Sicilian and unidentified European ancestry? I've actually met some people here that do not consider darker-complexioned Italians, Greeks, etc. to be "white", but I'm not sure how widespread that is.

[tachosomoza]

Earlier in America's history, Sicilians, Greeks, Spaniards, Portuguese and other Southern/Eastern Europeans with darker skin weren't considered fully "white" by the establishment or by the public at large, and were often isolated in their own segments of town.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Out of interest, do you list "white" and "Sicilian" separately because people of that sort of complexion would not be regarded as "white" where you live, or just to indicate that he has both Sicilian and unidentified European ancestry? I've actually met some people here that do not consider darker-complexioned Italians, Greeks, etc. to be "white", but I'm not sure how widespread that is.
That kind of darker complexion in men is particularly attractive to me.:tt1: That isn't a conscious bias it's just one trait that turns me on instinctively.

[ifeelyou]

What's weird about this thread is that the person who made it doesn't ever state her/his intentions. Like, what is the purpose of this thread? Should readers, based on this partly decontextualized thread that offers partial data, determine that Mexican immigrants are simply racist against Black folks-- end of story? Does this threadmaker have a political agenda to paint Mexican immigrants as "racist" or is s/he uninformed of the Black-on-Mexican-immigrant crimes on the East Coast and in other parts of the country that have recently been reported in the media? Would s/he like to downplay the fact that the US is an extremely anti-Black nation that undoubtedly to different degrees shapes the opinions of everyone - both white people and people of color - so that s/he can affirm Mexican immigrants bring racism from Mexico and that the racist US has little to do with anything? Not to mention, nothing is said of the seriously xenophobic climate of the nation right now, which is horribly affecting both Latina/os and recent immigrants from Latin America. And of course there is also the long history of the nation's racist treatment of Mexican Americans that currently shapes the experiences of newer Mexican immigrants that shouldn't be overlooked but is.

This threadmaker also doesn't at all mention the hugely important social/political alliances between people of Mexican descent and Black folks that have been formed throughout the years. I'm thinking of books that highlight these coalitions and alliances like This Bridge Called my Back... edited by Gloria Anzaldua and Cherie Moraga (which played a significant role in establishing Third World Feminism that linked the experiences of people like Black women and Latinas), Black, Brown, Yellow, & Left... by Laura Pulido (which documents historical social alliances between different racial/ethnic groups in Los Angeles), Homegrown by bell hooks and Amalia Mesa-Bains (which deals with the sensationalized media representation of Black-Brown racial tensions), etc. Of course there's tons of other research on related matters that the threadmaker is either unaware of or intentionally doesn't bring up.

[Agnapostate]

What does "empirically" mean?

Supported by evidence.


What's weird about this thread is that the person who made it doesn't ever state her/his intentions. Like, what is the purpose of this thread?

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the empirical research posted and analyze its conclusions.


Should readers, based on this partly decontextualized thread that offers partial data, determine that Mexican immigrants are simply racist against Black folks-- end of story?

The readers of the thread should conclude that there is evidence that "Latino immigrants hold negative stereotypical views of blacks and feel that they have more in common with [Anglo] whites than with blacks." Why do you refer to the study as utilizing "partial data"? Do you claim that the sample size was insufficiently large?


Does this threadmaker have a political agenda to paint Mexican immigrants as "racist" or is s/he uninformed of the Black-on-Mexican-immigrant crimes on the East Coast and in other parts of the country that have recently been reported in the media?

As you indicated with your criticism of partial data, anecdotes are not a sufficient basis to form generalized conclusions.


Would s/he like to downplay the fact that the US is an extremely anti-Black nation that undoubtedly to different degrees shapes the opinions of everyone - both white people and people of color - so that s/he can affirm Mexican immigrants bring racism from Mexico and that the racist US has little to do with anything?

Mexico has significant ethnic stratification that may rival or surpass that of the U.S., as evidenced by Stratification by Skin Color in Contemporary Mexico (http://asr.sagepub.com/content/75/5/652.abstract): "In this study, I use data from a nationally-representative panel survey of Mexican adults to examine the extent of skin-color-based social stratification in contemporary Mexico. Despite extreme ambiguity in skin color classification, I find considerable agreement among survey interviewers about who belongs to three skin color categories. The results also provide evidence of profound social stratification by skin color. Individuals with darker skin tone have significantly lower levels of educational attainment and occupational status, and they are more likely to live in poverty and less likely to be affluent, even after controlling for other individual characteristics."


Not to mention, nothing is said of the seriously xenophobic climate of the nation right now, which is horribly affecting both Latina/os and recent immigrants from Latin America.

It is likely that recent Mesoamerican immigrants are more adversely affected, as a result of their higher levels of Indian admixture.


And of course there is also the long history of the nation's racist treatment of Mexican Americans that currently shapes the experiences of newer Mexican immigrants that shouldn't be overlooked but is.

This threadmaker also doesn't at all mention the hugely important social/political alliances between people of Mexican descent and Black folks that have been formed throughout the years...Of course there's tons of other research on related matters that the threadmaker is either unaware of or intentionally doesn't bring up.

These subjects are not the topic of the thread, and should be discussed in their own threads.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

The readers of the thread should conclude that there is evidence that "Latino immigrants hold negative stereotypical views of blacks and feel that they have more in common with [Anglo] whites than with blacks." Why do you refer to the study as utilizing "partial data"? Do you claim that the sample size was insufficiently large?I don't feel I have much in common with white or black people culturally.


And btw, my life is empirical enough evidence.

[Agnapostate]

I don't feel I have much in common with white or black people culturally.

And btw, my life is empirical enough evidence.

Individual anecdotes do not constitute empirical evidence; large data sets are needed. Since my mother is from Guatemala, I'm also considered "Latino," and obviously me contradicting you would just be two opposing anecdotes, not empirical evidence.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Individual anecdotes do not constitute empirical evidence; large data sets are needed. Since my mother is from Guatemala, I'm also considered "Latino," and obviously me contradicting you would just be two opposing anecdotes, not empirical evidence.
Well here is the difference: Here in Milwaukee, blacks outnumber latinos. You're from Cali where it is the other way around. Latinos have less clout up here.

[ifeelyou]

Supported by evidence.



The purpose of this thread is to discuss the empirical research posted and analyze its conclusions.



The readers of the thread should conclude that there is evidence that "Latino immigrants hold negative stereotypical views of blacks and feel that they have more in common with [Anglo] whites than with blacks." Why do you refer to the study as utilizing "partial data"? Do you claim that the sample size was insufficiently large?



As you indicated with your criticism of partial data, anecdotes are not a sufficient basis to form generalized conclusions.



Mexico has significant ethnic stratification that may rival or surpass that of the U.S., as evidenced by Stratification by Skin Color in Contemporary Mexico (http://asr.sagepub.com/content/75/5/652.abstract): "In this study, I use data from a nationally-representative panel survey of Mexican adults to examine the extent of skin-color-based social stratification in contemporary Mexico. Despite extreme ambiguity in skin color classification, I find considerable agreement among survey interviewers about who belongs to three skin color categories. The results also provide evidence of profound social stratification by skin color. Individuals with darker skin tone have significantly lower levels of educational attainment and occupational status, and they are more likely to live in poverty and less likely to be affluent, even after controlling for other individual characteristics."



It is likely that recent Mesoamerican immigrants are more adversely affected, as a result of their higher levels of Indian admixture.



These subjects are not the topic of the thread, and should be discussed in their own threads.

The issue with this thread and your weak approach to analyzing the study you cite is that you're seemingly less concerned with a critical analysis of such and perhaps even complicating its conclusions. Instead its seems like you simply want to accept its findings as a basic, inarguable Truth. You have decontextualized the study in a way that distances the data from being contingent on US race relations and racism, while instead choosing to almost solely focus on Mexico's race relations as being the problem.

Let us not forget about accounts such as the racist beating of Alejandro Galindo (http://www.silive.com/northshore/index.ssf/2010/06/nypd_calls_latest_port_richmon.html) in Port Richmond.

You clearly want readers to wholeheartedly conclude that "Latino immigrants hold negative stereotypical views of blacks and feel that they have more in common with [Anglo] whites than with blacks" when in reality things are much more complicated than that.

Your thread doesn't do anything to get people critically engaged and to analyze race relations between Mexican immigrants and Black folks in the US in a productive manner. Your thread and opinions reek of racial scapegoating. And the reason why I mentioned those books that highlight coalitions and alliances between people of Mexican descent and Black folks is because threads like yours give lopsided accounts of this particular race relation, which is actually detrimental to all the work that Mexicans and Black people have done to build productive and loving relations between each other.

[Agnapostate]

Well here is the difference: Here in Milwaukee, blacks outnumber latinos. You're from Cali where it is the other way around. Latinos have less clout up here.

I haven't relied on my anecdotal perceptions to form these conclusions.


The issue with this thread and your weak approach to analyzing the study you cite is that you're seemingly less concerned with a critical analysis of such and perhaps even complicating its conclusions. Instead its seems like you simply want to accept its findings as a basic, inarguable Truth. You have decontextualized the study in a way that distances the data from being contingent on US race relations and racism, while instead choosing to almost solely focus on Mexico's race relations as being the problem.

Do you have more recent or superior peer-reviewed empirical research that invalidates its main conclusions?


Let us not forget about accounts such as the racist beating of Alejandro Galindo (http://www.silive.com/northshore/index.ssf/2010/06/nypd_calls_latest_port_richmon.html) in Port Richmond.

This is an anecdote that is not comparable to empirical analysis of large data sets.


You clearly want readers to wholeheartedly conclude that "Latino immigrants hold negative stereotypical views of blacks and feel that they have more in common with [Anglo] whites than with blacks" when things are much more complicated than that.

This is you trying to determine my motives for me, which isn't productive.


Your thread doesn't do anything to get people critically engaged and to analyze race relations between Mexican immigrants and Black folks in the US in a productive manner.

Whether or not you personally deem it productive is of little interest to me; however, it is specifically based on analyzing the reasons for the attitudes discussed in the OP. I offered my proposed explanation; you disagree with it, but have not provided much detail as to why.


Your thread and opinions reek of racial scapegoating. And the reason why I mentioned those books that highlight coalitions and alliances between people of Mexican descent and Black folks is because threads like yours give lopsided accounts of this particular race relation, which is actually detrimental to all the work that Mexicans and Black people have done to build productive and loving relations between each other.

I would never use such a paradigm. Mexicans and black people aren't mutually exclusive categories, since Mexicans are a national group and blacks an ethnic or "racial" group, and there is a sizable black minority in Mexico, particularly in the southeastern coastal area, as well as sub-Saharan African admixture in the majority of Mexicans.

[Tomhet]

Compared to most Mexicans; blacks and whites aren't hard workers.

That's a pretty dumb thing to say.

[ifeelyou]

I haven't relied on my anecdotal perceptions to form these conclusions.



Do you have more recent or superior peer-reviewed empirical research that invalidates its main conclusions?



This is an anecdote that is not comparable to empirical analysis of large data sets.



This is you trying to determine my motives for me, which isn't productive.



Whether or not you personally deem it productive is of little interest to me; however, it is specifically based on analyzing the reasons for the attitudes discussed in the OP. I offered my proposed explanation; you disagree with it, but have not provided much detail as to why.



I would never use such a paradigm. Mexicans and black people aren't mutually exclusive categories, since Mexicans are a national group and blacks an ethnic or "racial" group, and there is a sizable black minority in Mexico, particularly in the southeastern coastal area, as well as sub-Saharan African admixture in the majority of Mexicans.

Unbelievable. I've already explained my problems with your thread, opinions, and partial account of the social relation at hand. As far as I'm concerned, you seem to have ulterior motives for this thread.

Yes, of course there are Afro-Mexicans and Black Mexican-Americans. And absolutely there is African admixture in the majority of Mexicans. In fact, researchers like Martha Menchaca have played active roles in writing about this and building bridges between Black people and people of Mexican descent. What is your point? Actually, to be honest, you don't have to answer that. I really don't care.

Also, for you to try to minimize the stories of people like Alejandro Galindo to simply "anecdote" so that you can seemingly discount them as not being part of larger race relations in the US and "large data sets," obviously with the intention to make them "not count," is insidious of you. You should be ashamed of yourself.

At any rate, have fun with your thread. I'm done.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

That's a pretty dumb thing to say.
You are right, but what group carries the biggest part of the US economy on their shoulders? Oh yeah, Mexican immigrants. So it may have been over generalized, but it is statistically truth based sort of. I feel too baked to worry about it though.

[Queercommie Girl]

The basis for Indian ethnic advocacy and empowerment movements ought to be resistance to phenotype-based negative discrimination, as the African-American civil rights movement was and is. Association with indigenous cultural phenomena should be secondary, because it is not tangibly relevant to phenotype-based negative discrimination, as African-Americans' large-scale disassociation from their own cultural West African roots through being compelled to adopt European names and language is not relevant to their own phenotype-based negative discrimination.


What I would say though is that cultural discrimination shouldn't be considered to be "more acceptable" than physical racial discrimination. The fact that European colonists often forced black people to abandon their own African cultural heritage and adopt European cultural ways like Christianity and European names was clearly a manifestation of imperialist domination and colonial oppression.

This wasn't something that was solely associated with European colonialism either. There is nothing in European culture intrinsically that makes white European people more prone to cultural hegemony. It isn't even an exclusive product of capitalism. Similar forced cultural assimilation also occurred within the context of Arab and Han Chinese feudal imperialism. It was an universal feature of class society. Historically, much of what is now Southern China wasn't really "Chinese" at all, but populated by Austro-Asiatic speaking peoples, who were gradually assimilated, sometimes by force, into the dominant Han Chinese cultural framework. A similar kind of process also occurred in Taiwan in more recent centuries as Han migrants and settlers moved onto the island. Europeans weren't the only people to have enslaved Black Africans either. The Arab Muslim empires also used Black slaves, even though in much smaller quantities.

I do think though that you have a point in the sense that often the white Indian wannabes present a caricatured form of "native American culture", and therefore aren't really progressive. In other words, there is nothing wrong with real Indian cultural advocacy, but often white "Indian wannabes" aren't real advocates in any serious progressive sense.

A parallel can be drawn with the phenomenon of Orientalism in the West, though in the case of native American culture it is qualitatively worse. The Orient - the Middle East, South Asia and East Asia, never suffered European imperialism and colonialism to the same extent as native Americans and Blacks did. Sometimes anti-Orientalist critique can certainly go overboard. There are many Sinophiles who are genuinely pro-China, for instance, and there isn't really any difference between them and Northern Europeans who love ancient Greek culture, but in the native American case (especially in North America, since the pre-colonial natives were considerably less advanced) it's quite different.

[Queercommie Girl]

More on Orientalism:

http://english.emory.edu/Bahri/Orientalism.html

Edward Said's evaluation and critique of the set of beliefs known as Orientalism forms an important background for postcolonial studies. His work highlights the inaccuracies of a wide variety of assumptions as it questions various paradigms of thought which are accepted on individual, academic, and political levels.

The Terms

The Orient signifies a system of representations framed by political forces that brought the Orient into Western learning, Western consciousness, and Western empire. The Orient exists for the West, and is constructed by and in relation to the West. It is a mirror image of what is inferior and alien ("Other") to the West.

Orientalism is "a manner of regularized (or Orientalized) writing, vision, and study, dominated by imperatives, perspectives, and ideological biases ostensibly suited to the Orient." It is the image of the 'Orient' expressed as an entire system of thought and scholarship.

The Oriental is the person represented by such thinking. The man is depicted as feminine, weak, yet strangely dangerous because poses a threat to white, Western women. The woman is both eager to be dominated and strikingly exotic.

The Oriental is a single image, a sweeping generalization, a stereotype that crosses countless cultural and national boundaries.

Latent Orientalism is the unconscious, untouchable certainty about what the Orient is. Its basic content is static and unanimous. The Orient is seen as separate, eccentric, backward, silently different, sensual, and passive. It has a tendency towards despotism and away from progress. It displays feminine penetrability and supine malleability. Its progress and value are judged in terms of, and in comparison to, the West, so it is always the Other, the conquerable, and the inferior.

Manifest Orientalism is what is spoken and acted upon. It includes information and changes in knowledge about the Orient as well as policy decisions founded in Orientalist thinking. It is the expression in words and actions of Latent Orientalism.

I would argue the way in which white people view native American cultures bears some resemblance to Orientalist attitudes Europeans have towards the East, but there are a lot of differences too. In the Native American case it's much worse. Europeans have almost always seen the Chinese as a civilised people, (or at the worst - during the 19th century when China was at its weakest point in all of its history, as "semi-barbarians") albeit often a civilised people that is weird, strange, alien and either weak (as in the case of the Han Chinese of the 19th century, being labelled as the "sick man of Asia") or strong but also brutal (as in the case of the Mongols, labelled as "yellow peril"), but just not "normal". (Even Hitler was not as discriminatory towards East Asia as he was towards many other non-white peoples) Native Americans and Black Africans on the other hand, were literally seen as not only savages, but sub-human.