Lost in Translation or Just Plain Rude? Head of DNC's Hispanic Caucus Resigns

[ysolde]

The long-time head of the DNC's Hispanic Caucus, Alvaro Cifuentes, has resigned after repeatedly using a racial slur during a confrontation with an aide to Howard Dean. The aide, Matthew Nugent, is African-American. Cifuentes has apologized, and stated that it was a problem of translation: having lived in Puerto Rico most of his life, he was using the word "boy" as he would have used the term "muchachito" in Spanish, a term which is meant to be dismissive, but not denigrating, and which has no racial connotations:

Alvaro Cifuentes, chair of the Democratic National Committee's Hispanic Caucus since 2001, resigned over the weekend over allegations that he used what is considered a racial slur in the African American community during a confrontation with an aide to DNC chair Howard Dean at the DNC's annual winter meeting in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Cifuentes got into a heated argument with the aide, Matt Nugent, calling him "boy" several times.

In an e-mail obtained by the island daily El Nuevo Día, Mr. Cifuentes apologized to the aide and the DNC, saying that having grown up in Puerto Rico, he was not aware that the word "boy" when speaking to an African American man would be considered racially insensitive. "Boy" in the Spanish-language would translate to "muchachito," and is commonly used in Spanish to be dismissive of a person's opinion. Its female counterpart, "muchachita," is used for the same purpose.

More at link:


http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/newsbyid.asp?id=54899&cat=Today's+Most+Popular+Stories&more=/news/newspopular.asp

Somehow, I am just not buying this guy's story. But that's just me.

[phoenics]

Even if he wasn't being 'racial' with it, how is it appropriate for him to call him 'boy' over and over again ANYWAY?!?!

That's not respectful conduct.

Can you tell I'm taking my respectful conduct training at work? LOL.

[laura]

I love how his argument is "I wasn't being a racist, I was just dismissing his opinion as useless!" Oh, so much better! It does seem like a fishy story. OTOH, I would like to think if he was going to lie, he could come up with a better one than that.

[kedzieb]

So he was trying to be diminishing, but not racist? I smell macaca all over this.

Although my husband never knew that 'boy' was a racial slur. He'd honestly thought it was a crappy thing to call any full-grown man but didn't know the racial implications.

[Delta]

I smell macaca all over this. Ahahahaha. That was funny.

[heather 8^)]

Oh come on... In 9 out of 10 instances, the word "boy" is just a noun, not a racial slur. I obviously wasn't there for the conversation, but knowing what I do about Hispanic culture and Alvaro Cifuentes, I absolutely believe he was being condescending but not racist. C'mon, this is politics: people get worked up and diss each other frequently (I just read a long Newsweek article about John McCain apparently being really really bad in this respect). Is it mature? No, obviously not, but neither is being physically intimidating (which apparently he was). If he wanted to use a racial slur, he certainly would have chosen something more biting than "boy."

Now, if you guys come back and tell me that Matt Nugent is 56 years old and more experienced than Cifuentes, I'll have to change my mind. :) But given that Cifuentes has built his political career in PR and heavily in Spanish (where you can say "that Jew" or "that black guy" and be totally PC), I think this was blown way out of proportion. But I don't necessarily disagree with him stepping down.

[phoenics]

Oh come on... In 9 out of 10 instances, the word "boy" is just a noun, not a racial slur.

Not if in 9 out of those 10 instances the term 'boy' is directed at a black man. It may be that you don't know that it's a racial slur, but in this country, if a white man says 'boy' to a black man - well, dem's fightin' words.

When you consider the strife between the latino and black communities, it makes it less likely that Cifuentes didn't know what he was doing. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he didn't realize the racial undertones of calling a black man 'boy'. It's still not okay to call him 'boy' anyway.


I obviously wasn't there for the conversation, but knowing what I do about Hispanic culture and Alvaro Cifuentes, I absolutely believe he was being condescending but not racist.

I guess I just think being condescending is just as bad - you're trying to denigrate another human being. Whether you use racist language or just disrespectful language seems immaterial. Disrespect is disrespect. And again, given the strife that I've seen between the black and latino communities (especially in the LA area) - Cifuentes really messed up.


C'mon, this is politics: people get worked up and diss each other frequently (I just read a long Newsweek article about John McCain apparently being really really bad in this respect). Is it mature? No, obviously not, but neither is being physically intimidating (which apparently he was). If he wanted to use a racial slur, he certainly would have chosen something more biting than "boy."

The reason why someone might use the term "boy" over another more obvious term is just that - "boy" isn't as obvious. So you can sidestep out of any blame of being a racist because the person you've offended can't prove your intent as easily as he could prove it if you'd used the n-word. It's what makes even mentioning the possible racial undertone hard - people try to make you feel like you're just overreacting or looking for offenses. The worst discrimination these days imo, is the kind that's like a fog. You know it's there, but you can't quite get your hands around it or specifically name it.

It's the kind where someone calls you "boy" and people sit around debating over whether or not you're overreacting. If the n-word had been used, this would be simple. But racism is usually subtle - and that's the hardest kind to fight.


Now, if you guys come back and tell me that Matt Nugent is 56 years old and more experienced than Cifuentes, I'll have to change my mind. :) But given that Cifuentes has built his political career in PR and heavily in Spanish (where you can say "that Jew" or "that black guy" and be totally PC), I think this was blown way out of proportion. But I don't necessarily disagree with him stepping down.

Okay.

[ellidew]

Until i read this thread i had no idea "boy" was a racial slur when directed towards a black man.

[heather 8^)]

I dunno, say I'm stressed out about how to make sure the dems win the next election and tell my female coworker, "Ok, honey, you can go ahead and consolidate in DC!"

Mature? No! Condescending? Yes! Disrespectful? Yes! But is it sexist? Did I intentionally say "honey" because she's a woman and therefore worth dismissing or just because I'm mad and that's what I say at home to my siblings, acquaintances, etc.? Keep in mind that "muchachito" can also be a term of endearment, and remember that there are plenty of black Hispanics in Puerto Rico as well as other Spanish-speaking countries who would view this word choice as belittling but not racist.

I'm not defending the guy because in addition to his word choice obviously his tone and his mannerisms were enough to make people *physically restrain* him. Clearly this is inappropriate behavior, in a professional setting or otherwise. But racist? I'm not convinced.

I guess that I'm just willing to give folks the benefit of the doubt when it comes to language issues like this because heaven knows I've made embarassing mistakes before!

[phoenics]

I think the problem is that you're coming from a place where you genuinely made a mistake. This guy admitted to calling him 'boy' in an attempt to minimize and dismiss his opinion. That was mistake #1 and that to me was enough for this man to step down.

His second mistake was in the elaborate explanation given to try to absolve himself of any knowledge of the racial slur side of things.

Your 'honey' example just wasn't close to 'boy' - I'm sorry. The term 'boy' was typically used to belittle slaves - usually it was accompanied by a beating. Later it was accompanied by beating and humiliating the person and then lynching them.

I'm not convinced it wasn't racial - but it's more likely that it was the fact that folks had to physically restrain him from hitting this person and his admittance that he was trying to dismiss this guy that forced the resignation. The 'race' issue was just something that the press probably jumped onto as a lynchpin argument. Not necessary in my opinion. The 'boy' comment and the violence on its own was enough.

So this guy gets to pshaw the 'race' connotation, and while he's doing that, everyone kinda ignores the physically violent and dismissive part. That part was enough to have him fired or force a resignation.

But given his long elaborate explanation, I just don't buy that he didn't know. He knew. If the Mexican President can make the comment that 'Mexican Immigrants do the jobs that even your black people won't do' (you KNOW he knew he was wrong for that), then this guy knew 'boy' could be taken as a racial insult. He just didn't care because in his circles (more than likely) it's probably 'okay' or not a big deal to demean black people.

[jnettie]

and remember that there are plenty of black Hispanics in Puerto Rico as well as other Spanish-speaking countries who would view this word choice as belittling but not racist.

But remember that there is a huge divide between Afro-Caribbeans and Spanish Caribbeans. Especially because he's Puerto Rican, I think he knew exactly what he was saying.

[msnicolea]

I could maybe buy that he didn't understand that term is racially loaded--but he behaved like a giant ass, regardless, and needs to go away.

[heather 8^)]

I guess we'll just never really know what was going through his head. In this thread people have mentioned that they didn't know "boy" could be taken that way, and to be honest, that's not one that pops into my mind immediately, either. Now I'm all paranoid that maybe I shouldn't be calling up my friend (who is black) and saying, "Hey girl! What's up?" :p So I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that maybe he didn't know either.

But seriously, race in Hispanic culture and in PR in particular is different than it is here. Maybe I'm giving the guy too much credit, thinking he was just trying to be a jerk and not trying to be a racist jerk. I admit that I don't know THAT much about his political career in the US, so it's quite possible that he has been active in the contiguous 48 long enough to know better.

As for Fox's comment, that's an interesting one also. When I lived in Mexico, the comment I heard most often was that white Americans "make" poor minorities take the jobs that they won't do themselves, particularly the physically-demanding and dangerous jobs. So in a way he's saying that the job totem pole has white Americans on top, minority citizens in the middle, and immigrants on the bottom.

Ack! How did I end up defending these guys?! That's totally not my point! I think they're both idiots for what they said, but I guess I want people to realize that race in Hispanic culture is totally different than in American culture. With the rapidly growing US Hispanic population, I feel like there are going to be a LOT of misunderstandings as cultures merge more. Honestly, if the word "boy" is so bad, I shudder to think at how many other words we will unwittingly use and accidentally offend. For the record, "madre" is a bad word in Mexico, so does that mean we shouldn't say "mother" anymore?

[JustVita]

Heather 8^, I just wanted to touch on the fact that maybe people don't know that the use of the word "boy" when addressing a black man is seen as derogatory, but in my opinion, once someone tells you (general you) that it is then you learn from it, not defend it. Our history is so muddled in this country with regards to race relations that it's possible there are many things we may not be aware of, but if someone takes the time to tell you something is offensive and additionally offers a bit of history and why it is, learn from it. The word "boy" has been and was used to emasculate and demean black men. I know you only used you girlfriend as an example, but say "hey girl, what's up" is no need for concern. Not only that, but I would imagine that any black, male friend who knew you wouldn't be insulted by you using the word "boy", but would take the time to explain why it is offensive.

I was in London once shopping and had been chatting it up with the guys in the shop there. When I got ready to leave I threw up the "peace" sign, only with my palm facing me, not them. Who knew that was deemed offensive? I certainly didn't and my husband is a Londoner. They see that as saying screw or f*** you. Sounds crazy to me and I don't see the big deal necessarily, but you can be I won't be throwing up a backwards peace sign to anyone in or from England, heck for that matter Europe. It certainly doesn't carry the history of "boy", but it's seen as offensive by some none the less. I learned from that.

***Disclaimer Use of the word "you" indicates general you.

[phoenics]

I guess we'll just never really know what was going through his head. In this thread people have mentioned that they didn't know "boy" could be taken that way, and to be honest, that's not one that pops into my mind immediately, either. Now I'm all paranoid that maybe I shouldn't be calling up my friend (who is black) and saying, "Hey girl! What's up?" :p So I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that maybe he didn't know either.

If she's your friend and you say something that she finds offensive, she'll probably tell you gently and lovingly. I don't think you have to worry about it. It's not when someone makes one comment (unless it's the n-word) - it's the combination. It's also whether they disrespect you in general.

The point is not whether someone mistakenly says something racist, it's whether they are intentionally disrespecting you. Saying that you were being demeaning and dismissive isn't any better than being racially demeaning and dismissive. I think he's splitting hairs and I think he's basically obscurring the point by letting people think this is all over whether "boy" is a racially charged term or not. He was wrong to even be so dismissive and violent.


But seriously, race in Hispanic culture and in PR in particular is different than it is here. Maybe I'm giving the guy too much credit, thinking he was just trying to be a jerk and not trying to be a racist jerk.

I guess I just don't see the difference. In one instance, you're being a jerk and in another you're using race to compound your jerkiness. In the end, you're still a jerk, lol.


As for Fox's comment, that's an interesting one also. When I lived in Mexico, the comment I heard most often was that white Americans "make" poor minorities take the jobs that they won't do themselves, particularly the physically-demanding and dangerous jobs.

It would be nice if that's what he meant, but he didn't. He was saying the statement that "we'll do the jobs that even your black people won't do"
in an effort to get the US to open its borders more so that more immigrants could come in from Mexico (sending money that they make here back to Mexico, thereby boosting Mexico's economy). He was basically saying to 'massa' that Mexicans would be more than happy to do the jobs that the now "uppity" blacks no longer want to do.

The thing that pissed me off was the assumption that "your black people" weren't really full-fledged Americans - we were still possessions of Americans and meant to do the menial jobs at the bottom.

Aside from the fact that it isn't true that some blacks still want the jobs at the bottom, it's just an offensive comment to make. But then again, I bristle at the thought he put forth that the ONLY worth Mexican immigrants could have to the US is to just do menial jobs. What a demeaning comment in general.

I think this nails what bothered me so much about the implications of his comment:
So in a way he's saying that the job totem pole has white Americans on top, minority citizens in the middle, and immigrants on the bottom.

It sounds to me like he's perfectly fine with that status quo - and willing to cater to what he perceives to be the 'top' in order to get what he wants.


Ack! How did I end up defending these guys?! That's totally not my point! I think they're both idiots for what they said, but I guess I want people to realize that race in Hispanic culture is totally different than in American culture.

Of course it is. America had slavery and black people have been in slavery longer than they've been out. That is a HUGE difference. I know there was slavery in other parts of the world, but it wasn't like it was here.

This is something I often have to remind other immigrants of who like to come to the US and wax poetic about how all minority groups are equally disadvantaged here. No, that one-way cruise across the Atlantic made a huge difference. My beef with some who come here with certain attitudes is that they get their opinions from television and don't ever really take the time to actually understand race relations here. As an AA, I have to learn about so-called white culture in order to survive in it - people who come here from other cultures should probably try to learn as well. I'm tired of trying to explain the difference to other minorities here who don't even want to get the point.

For the record, I am a huge advocate in getting underrepresented groups in jobs at my job. To me, that means blacks and latinos because those are the groups I see the least of in my line of work.

I see many from India and many from Asia of or Asian descent. And the expectations and reactions that people in those groups get from top brass is so different than what they generally expect from those in underrepresented groups. If I'm told one more time how "articulate" I am, I'm gonna go rambo, lol.



With the rapidly growing US Hispanic population, I feel like there are going to be a LOT of misunderstandings as cultures merge more.

The problem is that many cultures who migrate to the US have no desire to "merge" or to re-evaluate what they think they know about black people or American people once they get here.


Honestly, if the word "boy" is so bad, I shudder to think at how many other words we will unwittingly use and accidentally offend. For the record, "madre" is a bad word in Mexico, so does that mean we shouldn't say "mother" anymore?

You're barking up the wrong tree. Again, it's not that he used the word "boy" it's HOW he used it and WHY he used it. Even if he didn't mean to be racial with his nastiness, he was still nasty. IF he was intentionally being racial (and trying to be cute in how he did it knowing no one could really prove it), that's just bad icing on the cake of nasty disrespect he'd already baked and tossed in that guy's face.

Accidental offenses aren't the issue - it's deliberate obtuseness and an attempt to make someone feel like they are seeing things that piss me off.

BUT I do get the point I think you're trying to make, which is that we could all stand to be less 'offended' and more understanding of people in other cultures and the cultural faux pas and gaffs that people are bound to make.

But I think this guy was just out of line... racial or not.

[phoenics]

I could maybe buy that he didn't understand that term is racially loaded--but he behaved like a giant ass, regardless, and needs to go away.

I don't know why, but when I read your post, I read 'ass' as 'ant' and got this mental picture of a giant ant in my head.

Made me laugh.

:p

[msnicolea]

Giant ants are funny :-)

[heather 8^)]

Heather 8^, I just wanted to touch on the fact that maybe people don't know that the use of the word "boy" when addressing a black man is seen as derogatory, but in my opinion, once someone tells you (general you) that it is then you learn from it, not defend it. Our history is so muddled in this country with regards to race relations that it's possible there are many things we may not be aware of, but if someone takes the time to tell you something is offensive and additionally offers a bit of history and why it is, learn from it.

Agreed 100%. And honestly, I don't know why he even bothered to come up with an excuse. Even if he didn't mean it in that respect, he was 1) still a jerk, 2) still a physically intimidating, out-of-bounds jerk, and 3) still a newly unemployed jerk. To couch his apology in an excuse is just ridiculous, let alone under these circumstances.

Saying that you were being demeaning and dismissive isn't any better than being racially demeaning and dismissive.

I definitely hear what you're saying and agree that both are wrong. But to be honest, to me, one seems immature and stupid, and the other seems mean-spirited and cruel. I just think back to the time I was fighting with my (then-boyfriend) DH on the phone and got annoyed and hung up on him. I *knew* that wasn't a nice thing to do, but I figured we'd both cool off and then talk like normal people a little later. Well, it turns out that he views that as THE worst sign of disrespect that anyone could ever do to another person on this planet. If I had known he felt that way, I would never have hung up on him, though I may have called him a turkeybutt, lol! But if I knew how he felt about that and hung up on him anyway, well, I can pretty much guarantee you we wouldn't be married today! At any rate, that was nearly 10 years ago and I learned my lesson... hopefully Cifuentes will, too!

More importantly, I think your comments on cultural perceptions and where they come from are very engaging. It certainly can be a huge challenge for people to reconsider the preconceptions and stereotypes that they grew up with, either learning from tv or the people around them. On the one hand, it is much easier to complain about minority disadvantage rather than actually learning about what it is and how it developed; on the other hand, sometimes I wonder if anyone can ever REALLY understand how someone else feels without growing up in that environment and with that experience, though the could certainly at least try.

Oh, and giant ants freak me out! Even the plastic ones at museums... *shudder*

[phoenics]

I definitely hear what you're saying and agree that both are wrong. But to be honest, to me, one seems immature and stupid, and the other seems mean-spirited and cruel. I just think back to the time I was fighting with my (then-boyfriend) DH on the phone and got annoyed and hung up on him. I *knew* that wasn't a nice thing to do, but I figured we'd both cool off and then talk like normal people a little later. Well, it turns out that he views that as THE worst sign of disrespect that anyone could ever do to another person on this planet. If I had known he felt that way, I would never have hung up on him, though I may have called him a turkeybutt, lol! But if I knew how he felt about that and hung up on him anyway, well, I can pretty much guarantee you we wouldn't be married today! At any rate, that was nearly 10 years ago and I learned my lesson... hopefully Cifuentes will, too!

More importantly, I think your comments on cultural perceptions and where they come from are very engaging. It certainly can be a huge challenge for people to reconsider the preconceptions and stereotypes that they grew up with, either learning from tv or the people around them. On the one hand, it is much easier to complain about minority disadvantage rather than actually learning about what it is and how it developed; on the other hand, sometimes I wonder if anyone can ever REALLY understand how someone else feels without growing up in that environment and with that experience, though the could certainly at least try.

I agree - and I do hear what you're saying. Sometimes I know I get on a high horse about racial issues - I'm trying to be more calm about them lately. Call me inspired by Obama, lol.


Oh, and giant ants freak me out! Even the plastic ones at museums... *shudder*

In my mind, not so bad - in real life if I came upon a giant plastic ant (or any bug), I'd run screaming.

[miel]

I really do think it is possible to not know the context of what 'boy' means, use 'boy' in a way to talk down to someone younger than you in an argument and not be racist.

I think it is especially possible if English is not your first language. People do say 'muchachito.' There's deragatory and there's racially deragatory and those things are different. Basically, I think if you are a complete ass to someone because they are pissing you off in a disagreement and they are black...is that racist? No, not necessarily.

In politics people argue and are bastards to each other. 'Boy' IS a terrible word to use if you know the context. But it is also a word to talk down to someone. You can talk down to someone because you are trying to dominate them and think they are an idiot and not being trying to racially dominate them.

So I'd say it is one of those indeterminate cases. I suspect he was being a snarky bastard not being a racist snarky bastard just because he wouldn't necessarily know the context of the term and muchachito is a word you use to talk down to someone. Plus, even if he was of another cultural group, it might even make sense to talk to someone younger than you that way if they were pissing you off.

Talking down to someone is not grounds to resign. Knowing what 'boy' means requires a particular knowledge of American history and language. But now he knows, I guess.

In other words, I agree with Heather! I guess I didn't need to say all the above. Heather said it for me. It really might be better to educate someone and not publicly humiliate them. But I also think that the aide completely was sure he was being racially insulted. It is a case of cultural misunderstanding.

The whole issue of 'tension between Blacks and Latinos' is a big old bummer. Seriously, people, go after THE WHITE FOLKS. Just kidding! ;)

[imagirliegirl]

I don't think it's unfathomable that he didn't realize it was a form of "racial disrespect". However, I do not think calling a man "boy" is not appropriate or professional...at all. If he suffers from such a "language barrier" that he doesn't realize it's not proper, then the caucus should probably find a new leader who "understands" the language a little better.

[miel]

Yes, he was probably being high handed and rude. But this happens in politics. It seems like a lot to resign over: "I yelled at an aide. I resign." Doesn't that seem a bit extreme?

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Yes, he was probably being high handed and rude. But this happens in politics. It seems like a lot to resign over: "I yelled at an aide. I resign." Doesn't that seem a bit extreme?
I don't think so. Politics should be about representing people- making sure that you act in your constituents' best interest. I don't think it's too much to expect that in doing so, you behave like an adult with a little self-control.

[heather 8^)]

But he was sorta representing the best interests of the party by disagreeing that concentrating in DC was the right move (eta: at least, he thought he was. I have no clue if Dean's move was the right one or not... No poli. sci major here!). Have any of you read the recent Newsweek cover story on McCain? Holy shamoly, some of the stuff he has said and done goes way, way, WAY beyond yelling at an aide or using a single racial slur, and he's the front-runner for the Republican nomination!

Is it wrong to expect respect and maturity 100% of the time in professional settings? No, but it sure is exceedingly optimistic, especially in election-year politics.

That said, resigning was the right move if his presence was going to be a distracting/dividing issue in the party.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

But he was sorta representing the best interests of the party by disagreeing that concentrating in DC was the right move (eta: at least, he thought he was. I have no clue if Dean's move was the right one or not... No poli. sci major here!). Have any of you read the recent Newsweek cover story on McCain? Holy shamoly, some of the stuff he has said and done goes way, way, WAY beyond yelling at an aide or using a single racial slur, and he's the front-runner for the Republican nomination!
What does that have to do with him representing the best interests of the party? Couldn't he just as easily have said, "I think this is completely wrong"? The name-calling has nothing to do with performing his duties- when it comes right down to it, that's something he did for his own benefit.

[heather 8^)]

Ok, you're right: Cifuentes obviously made this comment for his own benefit because he didn't want that darn DNC job anyway!

Politicians never get passionate about important issues and never say/do anything offensive or idiotic. Oh man, if that were true, then the politics and gossip boards would be SO BORING! :D

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Ok, you're right: Cifuentes obviously made this comment for his own benefit because he didn't want that darn DNC job anyway!
Clearly that's not what I meant. He was arguing his point for the benefit of others- however, he was argued his point in a rude and offensive manner because he gave in to his own baser instincts. That was what I meant by "his own benefit." He did it for the short-term pleasure of the cheap shot.
Politicians never get passionate about important issues and never say/do anything offensive or idiotic. Oh man, if that were true, then the politics and gossip boards would be SO BORING! :D
Well, of course they can say offensive and idiotic stuff. But do you really think they should be rewarded for that?

[heather 8^)]

Yeah, he took a cheap shot, and I have never defended him for it (though I have questioned any racial motivation behind it). Then he lost his job and made quite a lousy impression on people who had previously never even heard his name, thereby essentially toasting his career, so I fail to see how he was rewarded.

In fact, I would wager that most politicians who say or do idiotic and offensive things lose out: they lose supporters, lose financing, lose staff, etc. No rewards there.

But I thought the point of the thread wasn't whether or not politicians can be dingbats but rather the relative level of "dingbatness" this particular politician exhibited in his comment and whether or not cultural/linguistic differences play a role in this situation.

(OT but I love your sig, btw!)

[jnettie]

Of course it is. America had slavery and black people have been in slavery longer than they've been out. That is a HUGE difference. I know there was slavery in other parts of the world, but it wasn't like it was here.

Ah, but I'd say that in the Caribbean it was worse in some cases. That was the first stop in the Triangle Trade from Africa. There were the sugar plantations. They pressed slaves into military service. Plus, in the 17th and 18th centuries, there were really no laws, so it wasn't like anyone was going to stop the landowners from being brutal.

And the divide is still way worse IME. I've seen the shanty town in St. John's, Antigua (not a Hispanic island, but in the region), and you see nothing but black faces. The white people live in the nice house on the hill. The divide is so obvious, it smacks you in the face. The history is very very brutal, we just don't hear about it here.

A bit on slavery in Antigua and life after slavery (http://www.antiguamuseums.org/peoples.htm)

[phoenics]

Jnette,

You either misunderstood or took my comments out of context.

What Heather8 said that I was referring to was about racial relations between blacks and hispanics - not blacks and other blacks. Or, that's not what I thought I was responding to.

I still believe that slavery in America was different than slavery in other parts of the world - not saying it's better or worse but in terms of one's livelihood IN AMERICA it does make a difference.



Ack! How did I end up defending these guys?! That's totally not my point! I think they're both idiots for what they said, but I guess I want people to realize that race in Hispanic culture is totally different than in American culture.
Of course it is. America had slavery and black people have been in slavery longer than they've been out. That is a HUGE difference. I know there was slavery in other parts of the world, but it wasn't like it was here.[/quote]

Again, I was drawing a parallel between the way other minorities (not talking about black minorities because they suffered what American blacks did - slavery) come here and characterize many black Americans. I've heard on countless occasions that something was wrong with American blacks because they haven't 'overcome' yet other groups [Indians, Asians, or other immigrants] have. Or a small number of blacks from parts of Africa or other countries that endured slavery come here and talk down about blacks as a whole here, calling us lazy or whatnot because they can point to a certain segment of the black population here and say that 'they' (the black immigrants from other countries) come here and do so much better than blacks here, even though they are only looking at a small part of the population. I then have to explain how the remnants of slavery still impact us today and that cruise across the Atlantic made a difference. Just because you set a people 'free' doesn't free them in their minds. Just look at South Africa.

That's what I meant when I said this:


This is something I often have to remind other immigrants of who like to come to the US and wax poetic about how all minority groups are equally disadvantaged here. No, that one-way cruise across the Atlantic made a huge difference. My beef with some who come here with certain attitudes is that they get their opinions from television and don't ever really take the time to actually understand race relations here. As an AA, I have to learn about so-called white culture in order to survive in it - people who come here from other cultures should probably try to learn as well. I'm tired of trying to explain the difference to other minorities here who don't even want to get the point.

For the record, I am a huge advocate in getting underrepresented groups in jobs at my job. To me, that means blacks and latinos because those are the groups I see the least of in my line of work.

So, to answer this:

Ah, but I'd say that in the Caribbean it was worse in some cases. That was the first stop in the Triangle Trade from Africa. There were the sugar plantations. They pressed slaves into military service. Plus, in the 17th and 18th centuries, there were really no laws, so it wasn't like anyone was going to stop the landowners from being brutal.

There were sugar plantations here too. And blacks were pressed into the front lines and asked to serve even though they didn't have the right to vote... the draft didn't care whether they could vote or not. And landowners were brutal here too.

I definitely think slavery was horrible wherever it happened - that wasn't really my point. My point was more so that when you live in a country after you've been set 'free', people in that country and others outside of that country often expect that you'll be fine now that the physical barriers and obstacles are supposedly gone. But that doesn't address the psychological damage that got passed down from the ways our families were broken apart, the self-hatred (black=evil, etc..) that we were taught on the regular (and that continued after we were 'freed') and other issues of institutionalized racism that we dealt with and still do.

I guess I was trying to say that you don't know what slavery did to blacks in America unless you live it for a while and even then I don't think you really get it.


And the divide is still way worse IME. I've seen the shanty town in St. John's, Antigua (not a Hispanic island, but in the region), and you see nothing but black faces. The white people live in the nice house on the hill. The divide is so obvious, it smacks you in the face. The history is very very brutal, we just don't hear about it here.

A bit on slavery in Antigua and life after slavery (http://www.antiguamuseums.org/peoples.htm)

Of course it's bad there. I never said or meant to imply that it wasn't. I was mostly talking about non-black immigrants and I think I addressed what I meant when I talked about the black immigrants above. I think my 'I know there was slavery in other parts of the world, but it's different here' comment probably threw off the jist of what I was really saying, as I never meant to downplay the negative impact of slavery on countries impacted by it. Haiti actually won their freedom by snatching it back and look at them - France and other parts of the world blacklisted them and would not trade with them and the country is imploding on itself. Other countries that eventually were left to the black people who were living there have not recovered. Only countries like India and China have recovered - because the world at large allowed them to.

However there are still differences. My friends from Jamaica don't wince the same way if they hear about some non-black person calling a black person the n-word. In fact, one of my Jamaican friends gave his white friend permission to use the word and I had to explain to him that he didn't have that right - as his ancestors didn't have a history with the word. He was immediately contrite and took it back. So, when there is racism (the subtle kind that typically references historical racism toward American blacks), he doesn't pick up on it the same way that I do - even if he picks up on it at all. I've noticed the same with blacks from other parts of the world. So in that sense, it's easier for them. They just don't see it - thus they don't have to deal with the psychological fallout that we're still dealing with.

Sorry this was so long. I took your post the wrong way initially because I couldn't understand how I'd been so misunderstood and I really didn't feel like getting into a 'slavery was worse for this group' kind of discussion when all I was trying to say was that racism in America affects black americans differently than other minorities - even black immigrants.

[miel]

They just don't see it - thus they don't have to deal with the psychological fallout that we're still dealing with.


For sure you are right about this. African immigrants have a very different experience. It's a totally different thing to be an immigrant from Jamaica or Africa than to be an AFrican American. It can be a hard expereince but it is so interesting because it goes both way--they aren't saddled with everything that African-Americans are saddled with. However, they have experienced some horrible police brutality. Like the Diallo and Louima cases (Louima was Haitian). Still, I think even white Americans treat immigrants differently than they do African Americans--even if they are still subject to racism. And definitely those are different communities with different histories.

There's some seriously virulent racism towards immigrants in parts of this country. But it's just a different history. I think there are degrees of injustice and it's a different degree of injustice African Americans face. Just to say that doesn't at all take away from the fact that all injustice is a bad thing.

[jnettie]

phoenics, nope, I understood perfectly your point, I just disagree. :) Granted this is from a white person's point of view, but my personal experience with friends and students in this country who are from the Caribbean and are of African decent and from knowing people who live in the Caribbean of African decent is that they have the same struggles there than here. And that is a Spanish vs. African and white vs. African divide. I'm saying that a Puerto Rican of Spanish-European heritage knows the animosity in his own country between him and a Puerto Rican of African heritage. Look at Cuba: the revolution (though lead by Spanish leaders, and still now) was largely a divide between the Spanish Cubans and the Afro-Cubans. It's the Spanish Cubans that fled, the Afro-Cubans stayed because the power was held by the Spanish/European Cubans.

I do think, though, that people who are Afro-Caribbean immigrants to America have a different perspective on America once they are here. They come to this country out of choice, with is not what African-Americans did. But, back in their island, that's not the case, and you can see very clearly the racial divide.

Which finally brings me around to my point that the DNC guy knew exactly what he was saying and that things aren't all sunshine and lollipops between the Spanish and African peoples of Puerto Rico.

[miel]

the DNC guy knew exactly what he was saying and that things aren't all sunshine and lollipops between the Spanish and African peoples of Puerto Rico.

I guess it depends on whether it is a racial slur there or not. Is it? I'm not Puerto Rican so I don't know.

I thought Phoenics' point was that here in the U.S., African Americans have a history of stigma that is unfathomably deep. And if you come from another country with a history of racial stigma, then you are not experiencing what African Americans experience here in the U.S--even if in your own country you might have a history of racial stigma. I think--if this is her point--she is right. When a person comes from the DR, they are coming from a place where the whiter you are, the more like you are to be an elite. There's definitely racism in the DR but it's their own history, not the same as here. Then, you come here. And you aren't in that context anymore. And when you are a person from the DR who is of African descent it seems like you are not subject to all the same stereotypes, etc., etc. as someone who is African American. In the U.S. But I don't think she is denying there will be racism against you here or that things might be bad in your own country--just that the deep violent history of hatred, contempt, enforced inferiority, etc. isn't applying to you in the same way.

Or maybe I got her point wrong?

It's pretty hard to compare injustices. Or what people suffer. But I think you can talk about cultural and social burdens. I just think the cultural and social burden of African Americans is the worst one we've got here in the U.S. Besides what Native Americans experience maybe. Immigrants don't have to share that burden even when the of African descent.

The only reason to even point that out is the thing that Phoenics said--that people are always trying to blame those communities for their problems but then forgetting what they are up against.

I have views about some segments of the Latino community getting stuck because of race and class. Not because the history is as bad as the Jim Crow, though. So when people get stuck it isn't always just their history but where they are now.

[yby1]

phoenics, nope, I understood perfectly your point, I just disagree. :) Granted this is from a white person's point of view, but my personal experience with friends and students in this country who are from the Caribbean and are of African decent and from knowing people who live in the Caribbean of African decent is that they have the same struggles there than here. And that is a Spanish vs. African and white vs. African divide. I'm saying that a Puerto Rican of Spanish-European heritage knows the animosity in his own country between him and a Puerto Rican of African heritage. Look at Cuba: the revolution (though lead by Spanish leaders, and still now) was largely a divide between the Spanish Cubans and the Afro-Cubans. It's the Spanish Cubans that fled, the Afro-Cubans stayed because the power was held by the Spanish/European Cubans.

I do think, though, that people who are Afro-Caribbean immigrants to America have a different perspective on America once they are here. They come to this country out of choice, with is not what African-Americans did. But, back in their island, that's not the case, and you can see very clearly the racial divide.

Which finally brings me around to my point that the DNC guy knew exactly what he was saying and that things aren't all sunshine and lollipops between the Spanish and African peoples of Puerto Rico.

I think the Cifuentes was being condescending, but not racist. "Muchachito" is not a racist thing to say in PR.

Racism does exist in the Caribbean, but it is not the same as it is here - the history is different, especially in regards to the civil rights movement. There are certain parallels that exist, but sensitivities are a bit different.

[miel]

Actually, I think I am wrong. I think immigrants do share some of the burden of racial history in the U.S. because of their treatment. But not all of it. And they don't have the internalized history from the U.S., only from their own country. So this might make it easier for them to succeed in the U.S.?

(This is where you don't get to be an expert from personal experience because even though I am a child of an immigrant, who am I to say that his experience is common? His experience seems kind of exceptional, actually.)

[yby1]

Actually, I think I am wrong. I think immigrants do share some of the burden of racial history in the U.S. because of their treatment. But not all of it. And they don't have the internalized history from the U.S., only from their own country. So this might make it easier for them to succeed in the U.S.?



It depends on individual experience, but generally, I know that many African Puerto Ricans have had a TOUGH struggle living on the mainland. The have the racial barrier and the language barrier to overcome and that I have great admiration for anyone that can cross those paths and achieve success.

[miel]

I know that many African Puerto Ricans have had a TOUGH struggle

Yeah. And they aren't the only ones. Mexican-Americans and Salvadoran-Americans and Guatemalan-Americans are very economically stuck. Also, there are terrible mental health statistics for those groups. Of course it's racism. But class too. I think when people get in a hole in this country it can be very hard to get out. I know there is the story of immigrants and how they make it but it just doesn't happen for so many people and then successive generations have trouble getting out after that. I think if immigrants are going to make it, it has to happen by the first generation.

There was an article in the NY Times about two Cuban immigrants who were best friends back in Havana and then when they came to the U.S. they gradually drifted apart because one was black and the other one was white and the white guy just had such an easier time and was embraced with open arms by the Cuban-American community whereas the black guy was discriminated against and really struggled. They had very similar backgrounds but started to lead very different lives mostly because of the color difference.

[phoenics]

For sure you are right about this. African immigrants have a very different experience. It's a totally different thing to be an immigrant from Jamaica or Africa than to be an AFrican American. It can be a hard expereince but it is so interesting because it goes both way--they aren't saddled with everything that African-Americans are saddled with. However, they have experienced some horrible police brutality. Like the Diallo and Louima cases (Louima was Haitian). Still, I think even white Americans treat immigrants differently than they do African Americans--even if they are still subject to racism. And definitely those are different communities with different histories.

There's some seriously virulent racism towards immigrants in parts of this country. But it's just a different history. I think there are degrees of injustice and it's a different degree of injustice African Americans face. Just to say that doesn't at all take away from the fact that all injustice is a bad thing.

Totally and completely true. My sister spent the summer in Botswana and South Africa and had completely different experiences in both places - but the one thing that was common throughout was simply how *little* they have now and how *much* we (all americans) have here.

She brought home (for me) this amazing carved cane with details I can't even describe and when I asked her how much it cost, she said the guy only wanted a pair of jeans or something like that. My sister said she gave away nearly all of her clothes - not just for trade like with the cane - but just to give someone else something they'd cherish.

[phoenics]

phoenics, nope, I understood perfectly your point, I just disagree. :)

I don't think you did. See below.


Granted this is from a white person's point of view, but my personal experience with friends and students in this country who are from the Caribbean and are of African decent and from knowing people who live in the Caribbean of African decent is that they have the same struggles there than here.

Yes, like I said - you really missed the point of what I was trying to say. You're preaching to the choir on this... I don't disagree with THIS point of yours. My contention is that nothing of what you're saying has anything to do with the point I was making.

If I were to go to the Carribbean and someone there did something racist against me - but it carried subtle undertones that harkened back to a African-Caribbean (I have a hard time saying 'afro' - since it's become so synonymous with hair, lol) history - then I would likely miss the racial implications. Thus, I might trivialize something that is actually a pretty big deal to someone from say, Jamaica, because I reason that I don't see it and since we're the same color, and share a history of slavery, if *I* don't see it, it must not exist. Do I have to explain how damaging that can be to an oppressed person? Yet that often happens here when immigrants of African descent come here and cast aspersions on African Americans.

That was my main point - I really must not have made that clear at all. Sometimes I assume people will just 'get it', lol.

That's sort of what happened with my friend from Jamaica. His people didn't have the same issue with the 'n-word' because it wasn't used on them as it was here - so while he may be familiar with it in one sense, he wasn't in the other.

Case in point: My friend called me Friday night to tell me that she'd just been called a ni**er by some guys in a truck when she was going to her car. It was completely random and weird. As she told me, I imagined all of the ways I would have retorted (with such wit and aplomb) - and then she told me the guys were very big. Suddenly my mouth went dry and then it filled with a metallic taste and my heartrate sped up.

I was actually SCARED!

If someone had the nerve to say something like this so boldly and loudly - what else might they be bold enough to do? Hurt me? Lynch me? It sounds totally irrational - but that's where my thoughts went. Crazy.

First off - this happened in San Jose, CA - in downtown. California - the supposedly (yeah right) liberal and diverse state that's so above racism like this. But yet, this isn't the first time some garbage like this has gone down. Anyway, I was shocked that I was scared. I mean - it's 2008, right? Why would I be scared? I wasn't even there. My friend was scared - so scared she said nothing as the men tore away from her while she scrambled to get her keys in the ignition. She then sat in her car for 30 minutes trying to calm down.

My thought was that I always thought I'd just be angry if something like that ever happened to me. To feel fear was a totally different story. My friend from Jamaica might have been angry - but I don't think he would have felt the kind of fear that my friend felt. Maybe if someone had driven up and used a racial slur that carried the same weight as the n-word did on AAs here, he might have.



And that is a Spanish vs. African and white vs. African divide. I'm saying that a Puerto Rican of Spanish-European heritage knows the animosity in his own country between him and a Puerto Rican of African heritage. Look at Cuba: the revolution (though lead by Spanish leaders, and still now) was largely a divide between the Spanish Cubans and the Afro-Cubans. It's the Spanish Cubans that fled, the Afro-Cubans stayed because the power was held by the Spanish/European Cubans.

Again - this has NOTHING to do with what I was talking about. I never said that other people of African descent don't have to face racism - in fact many of my friends talk about this on the regular. In fact, much of the tension between many AAs and people of African descent who immigrate here is based on the feeling of AAs that people of African descent who immigrate here come here fronting as though they are somehow better than AAs (because they did A, B, or C - ignoring that their experiences here are often experienced differently) - as though AAs don't know exactly the spot on the totem pole that immigrants of African descent fall on in their native lands (if they are the minority or not in power) due to the racism there.

So - while your post does explain that Cifuentes likely knew exactly what he was doing - it's not addressing the point I was making.



I do think, though, that people who are Afro-Caribbean immigrants to America have a different perspective on America once they are here. They come to this country out of choice, with is not what African-Americans did. But, back in their island, that's not the case, and you can see very clearly the racial divide.

I agree with this too. That 'choice' seems to bring with it a level of 'disdain' toward African Americans (by some African-descent immigrants - not all) here... until they actually live here and begin experiencing (and then possibly understanding) that they are looked at just as AAs are in America. Though some never do get it - especially many of the ones mired in self-hate masquerading as 'progress' (the kind that forms an aversion to anyone who looks like them).

I spoke with a woman who immigrated from Ghana and we talked about racism and other issues. I asked out of curiosity if she'd ever experienced racism here that she knew of. She did say that she had seen some - but she didn't really understand it. Other AAs were able to pinpoint it more directly to her, but she said that while she understood it on an intellectual level, it didn't hold the same kind of power over her. She said on the one hand she envied us (AAs) because we could sort of sense an obstacle approaching and try to head it off at the pass, while she could possibly be blindsided by it. But then I said that in a way I envied her because she could just blow off those instances as 'he's having a bad day or he's a jerk' and the racial stuff wouldn't get into her head and mess up her thinking or positivity.

This is what I was hoping to get at in my post.

But that's not to say that everything you're saying is wrong - you're absolutely right - it's just a completely different point than the one I'm making. Racism doesn't always look the same in one country than it does in another. So, while I do think Cifuentes knew what he was doing, I'm not necessarily convinced he got that from his country. I think he got that from living here or simply from the media (you'd be surprised at how many immigrants form their opinions of AAs and other Americans from movies and tv). There are probably other racial things he got from his country, but I'm not sure they are the same here. "Boy" is a racial slur specific to the US. There is probably another in other countries that many of us don't know about.


Which finally brings me around to my point that the DNC guy knew exactly what he was saying and that things aren't all sunshine and lollipops between the Spanish and African peoples of Puerto Rico.

So true. I'm curious - what made you think I disagreed with that point? I did try to explain what I meant, but I still don't think you understood where I was coming from - or even the original point that I was making - because you're arguing something else entirely. Good points, but honestly it didn't have anything to do with what I was talking about.

[phoenics]

I guess it depends on whether it is a racial slur there or not. Is it? I'm not Puerto Rican so I don't know.

I thought Phoenics' point was that here in the U.S., African Americans have a history of stigma that is unfathomably deep. And if you come from another country with a history of racial stigma, then you are not experiencing what African Americans experience here in the U.S--even if in your own country you might have a history of racial stigma. I think--if this is her point--she is right. When a person comes from the DR, they are coming from a place where the whiter you are, the more like you are to be an elite. There's definitely racism in the DR but it's their own history, not the same as here. Then, you come here. And you aren't in that context anymore. And when you are a person from the DR who is of African descent it seems like you are not subject to all the same stereotypes, etc., etc. as someone who is African American. In the U.S. But I don't think she is denying there will be racism against you here or that things might be bad in your own country--just that the deep violent history of hatred, contempt, enforced inferiority, etc. isn't applying to you in the same way.

Or maybe I got her point wrong?

It's pretty hard to compare injustices. Or what people suffer. But I think you can talk about cultural and social burdens. I just think the cultural and social burden of African Americans is the worst one we've got here in the U.S. Besides what Native Americans experience maybe. Immigrants don't have to share that burden even when the of African descent.

The only reason to even point that out is the thing that Phoenics said--that people are always trying to blame those communities for their problems but then forgetting what they are up against.

Yes! I should have read this post before I responded and gave myself a headache. This is what I was trying to get at. Wow you said it so much better than I did. Boy, I don't post well under emotional pressure, lol!


I have views about some segments of the Latino community getting stuck because of race and class. Not because the history is as bad as the Jim Crow, though. So when people get stuck it isn't always just their history but where they are now.

I completely agree with this.

Especially about people getting stuck - not only due to their history but simply because of where they are now. That's what makes racial discussion in the US so difficult. You have the racial history that's there like a huge elephant in the room - but then you have the idea of trying to figure out how to both acknowledge the crap of the past and the fact that the crap is STILL affecting how people behave today - while attempting to get unstuck.

I see so many AAs who are stuck. And it's hard because it's true that they face racism in so many blatant and subtle ways. And then it gets worse because that's all they see - other people getting knocked down. It becomes a really ugly cycle that is hard to break. I think Bill Cosby tried to shock people out of complacency and 'shock by blame' is always a tough road to take, lol.

I often sit and think about why it is that the most underrepresented groups in the US are blacks, latinos and native americans. I think the main reason is that the status quo has become institutionalized. In the same way that I believe AA communities need shining beacons to show them that they can achieve, I think the latino and native american communities need something similar. But I probably haven't even scratched the surface of all of the underlying issues there... fear of assimilation, loss of culture, etc..

[phoenics]

It depends on individual experience, but generally, I know that many African Puerto Ricans have had a TOUGH struggle living on the mainland. The have the racial barrier and the language barrier to overcome and that I have great admiration for anyone that can cross those paths and achieve success.

So do I and thank you so much for putting it this way, because it illustrates something very nicely.

I think that often, those in power in this country (typically white people) tend to martyrize the immigrants of African descent who do come here and do well - while looking at many AAs with the attitude of 'if they can do it, why can't you?' all the while ignoring how differently AAs have been affected by American slavery and American institutionalized racism. This is important because we're using 'success in America' as the measuring stick.

Institutionalized racism has more than just one component. A major component is the psychological impact of subtle racism and how that can affect a person's performance in certain areas of their lives - we're talking about self-hatred, self-defeating behavior, etc..

I do want to point out that I'm not making excuses at all (definitely not for myself, I have a phd and I am probably considered upper-middle class - so I don't and did not face the same struggles as an AA from a lower economic bracket) - I just want to get at the very subtle 'if they can do it, why can't you?' kind of attitude that I have seen time and time again from some in this country (and those outside of this country) directed toward African Americans.

[miel]

I think the main reason is that the status quo has become institutionalized.

In the end, we might have to shift to talking about class and not just race. As some people pull away, people are going to forget about all the rest of the people who are suffering. They are going to focus on the exceptional people and say racism doesn't exist and ignore how bad it is for millions of Latinos and blacks (and also white people who are stuck in a cycle of poverty). I don't have any idea how to fix things but equalizing the quality of public education and greatly improving it would probably make a dent. Also, making higher ed free for people who are poor. At least, you'd get more mobility. Some people would still stay stuck. That won't make racism go away, unfortunately. Everyone focuses on changing the culture and eliminating racist attitudes but economics has to be part of the solution. If you look at the most desperate pockets of urban poverty like Newark or Detroit or New Haven and go back 40 years in time there was always a rising middle class using the industrial base to go up. People had more jobs and more hope. When the jobs left in the seventies this is when you see the communities collapse. (I oversimplify, I know...but anyway, this is how it looks to me.)

[phoenics]

Miel,

I completely agree. It's definitely a class problem - one that seems to disadvantage blacks and latinos more so than whites, but there are poor whites stuck in a cycle of poverty as well. Economics has to play a part - and education. Not just 'intellectual' education, but the kind of education that mingles with motivation and a sense of doing the right thing on principle. I think it's especially hard because people see others doing wrong and benefitting and it's really hard to come in and tell them to do it the hard way - getting an education, studying, achieving... when in the end you can't guarantee that they'll be mega rich. And maybe that's the issue too - they're seeing some people in the community getting out of the community through rap music or sports and they see all of the money that comes from that. Meanwhile the people doing it the normal way aren't seen as much and even if they are, they aren't making the kind of moolah that Johnny from around the block makes as an nba star - so it's really hard to get through to people that the nba-star phenomenon is honestly not the norm.

And I oversimplify myself, so I feel ya.

I think that it's a 2-way street. People have to be willing to work hard (and smart) and the economy has to support them when they do so - and even when they fall down a little bit (everyone needs a break here and there).

[Sarah]

Wait- you are all agreeing. I am waiting for pigs to fly or for 4 horseman to ride by.

:D

[phoenics]

*gasp* It's the Obama effect! LOL.