by liberal japonicus
This Guardian article touches on a point that I think is interesting, why so many Latinos are involved on the enforcement side of ICE. The final graf is
The lesson is that we should stop treating Latino support for anti-immigration politics as a paradox. To the contrary, this is a part of a long history, a much longer story. Understanding that history does not require exclusion. But it does require acknowledging it.
There are a couple of points that are missed, I think. First of all, what is defined as Latina remains vague. When you start to think about the various countries and groups within those countries that are encompassed by the term Latina, it is a little less surprising. I suppose that the shared language imagines a unity that isn’t really there.
On the other hand, Asians do not figure prominently, though there are exceptions. Tou Thao, a Hmong American, prevented bystanders from intervening when Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd. The Peter Liang case in 2014 is another one.
The second point is that numbers matter. 1/5 of the US population is Latina, so it is surprising only because people as a general rule, don’t process stats very well. Furthermore, multiracial Latinos are estimated to be almost half of that.
This isn’t because Asians are less prejudiced. I hate to say this, but the insularity of Asian communities often has them/us imbibe the worst stereotypes. And perhaps it is just a question of demographics, not having as many Asian Americans means fewer incidents.
Anyway, a quasi open thread to talk about stuff.
This has been sitting in the folder with the aim of making more points, but giving up on writing more.
I have a friend of 20-some years (pre grad school) who is Cuban-American and was born in Florida. He was a conservative when we met in Colorado, and probably would have supported ICE enforcement. I moved to California and he moved to Austin, Texas.
A couple decades of being treated like a Mexican by his fellow Texans have turned him into a liberal. Yes, I’m sure that it being Austin had some influence there as well, but it was mostly the sudden change in how he was treated that made him reconsider his former attitudes. He went from being a bedrock part of the local conservative community to being a suspect ethnicity, and that difference in how he was perceived made him rethink a lot of things.
A question about usage: the OP seems to use Latina and Latino interchangeably – is this normal in US English? For me, both are gender-marked – Latino can optionally be used for either gender but I would usually prefer Latin.
On the general subject: I suggest most racism today is not directly about ethnicity, it’s about othering, with perceived ethnicity being a clue to membership of the alien group. Republicans have no problem with African-Americans who have bought into feeding the rich: it’s the ones who want to help the poor they dislike.
Oh, Pro Bono, you’ve missed a stage in the discourse of a recent time period, which shall not be named, during which the prevailing orthodoxy seemed to be (if i remember correctly) that Latinx was the only acceptable usage. Some years ago I posted something in which Carville criticised that kind of thing for alienating the normies (otherwise called voters), and received some serious pushback here about Carville’s lack of standing to have a view about electoral viability. As you can tell, it was a memorable experience. I too was interested in the usage in the OP, but wasn’t going to go there ….
I would have (I think) caught that if I had taken a little more time, though I wonder if I was thinking of Latino as singular and Latina as some sort of plural. Incorrect, but that’s what I may have been thinking. Not sure if I could use Latin, it seems too much of an adjective to use as a mass noun.
I also neglected to add Stephen Cheung, James Yoo and James Ho, who would stand as examples of Asian-Americans who demonstrate little or no moral standards.
Evidence that writers and readers both have an influence on what a text means… my first sense of the purpose that “latina” was serving there was as a bit of culture jamming similar to what White Wolf Game Studios did in the 90s when they adopted “she” as their gender-agnostic pronoun for in-house publishing, or what Anne Leckie did in Ancillary Justice sf novel when her Radtch Empire did the same (to the deep consternation of a particular group of old male sf readers).
As far as the callback to the Carville grouse, I remember it, but mostly remember being annoyed at Carville’s insistence that it was being forced on Spanish-speaking communities from without by woke academics, when that was not how it happened.
Whatever the case, I went to Wiki to read his bio there and make sure that I was not misremembering his particular history and approach to politics. I have to say, having his history as a campaign consultant gathered in one place really does a lot to show his consistent role as a hippie punching attack dog who uses the fears of socially conservative groups as a cudgel to keep social liberals out of the spotlight. It’s an amazingly consistent portfolio of pushing his centrist Democrat clients to the right at the expense of more marginalized Democratic constituencies. He’s the Democratic Karl Rove in that respect.
The one thing that most struck me in his bio, though, was how after Howard Dean took over the DNC and started pushing his 50-states approach (delivering a blue wave), Carville attacked Dean in the press and claimed that had the Dems gone with the more targeted approach that Carville favored, he would have delivered them an additional 20 seats.
Imagine how different the US could be today had the Democrats not abandoned campaigning in red strongholds on this jerkwad’s advice. The sense of abandonment that he helped foster feeds the grievance narrative that has kept the GOP competitive despite their demographic weakness.
James Carville – unintentional concern troll
My perception — quite possibly wrong — is that the root problem is (a) the desire of the US media to have a single catch-all term for Latin-Americans (as defined at Wikipedia) the way Black is a catch-all, but (b) too many people interpret Latin-American to mean just the Caribbean and Central America. So they settled on Latino.
Then gendered nouns got in the way. I have been told that in actual Spanish usage, a group of men is Latino, a group of women is Latina, a mixed-sex group is also Latino, and the last is well understood. Latinx is Anglos being stupid and failing to understand all the rules about gendered use.
Anecdotally, when the LA Times decided that adopting Latinx was a serious mistake, they polled their subscribers about their preference. 80% chose Mexican-American, which says something about Southern California’s demographics. I assume that if the Miami Herald had done a similar poll, they would have gotten a large share in favor of Cuban-American.
Not as I understand it. My understanding is that it first started being used online by the Latino LGBTQ+ community as an act of resistance, inspired by the Chicana Movements adoption of Chican@ in their more radical publications, and attempting to sidestep the problem of how one pronounces Chican@ in speech (or the need to constantly say “Latino or Latina” in speech when working in mixed activist groups in an attempt to be inclusive). It was rooted in feminism as adopted by gay rights activists who agreed with the underlying sentiment that gendered nouns reinforce patriarchy and gender binaries.
I remember it mostly being used by Latinx students – usually activists – and professors who had come up from their ranks in the early aughts.
It was adopted by well-meaning anglos shortly thereafter as a show of support, and the backlash started shortly after it started to mainstream.
I can’t imagine any way in which a term that originated from ignorant anglos would be embraced, and insisted upon, by Latinx activists. That would have been seen as an attempt to colonize and co-opt, and would have been denounced, rather than embraced.
About gender marking, I have a similar hiccup with pinoy/pinay. Pinoy as a mass noun or an adjective seems to be overtly leave out women, but it is tough using pinay in that context. That is further complicated by the fact that Pilipino is the native Tagalog spelling (cause the language lacks the letter), though the standard english spelling is Filipino.
The issue with collective nouns is hardly unique to Spanish.
If you think about it (which most people do rarely if ever), “man” can either mean a male (vs “woman”), or it can mean a group of human beings (cf “mankind”).** I have observed feminists getting seriously worked up about this. But seen nothing like a consensus recommendation for a new/different collective noun. Which is pretty much a prerequisite for successfully pushing for a change.
The reality is, languages do change but only slowly. If you want a big change (rather than a tweak to something that isn’t used much), there’s no chance that it will happen quickly. Or without pushback. Not to mention all the folks who simply won’t bother to change the way they grew up speaking the language. This may be regretable, but it’s also reality.
** When I was in college, there was an (unofficial) sign posted in the Anthro Dept.: “Anthropology is the study of man. Embracing woman” With the predictable sketch.
If folks aren’t familiar with it, Hofstader’s essay dealing with this is an interesting read
https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html
I think I’ll intentionally lean away from the opportunity for pedantry here. Suffice to say, I spend a lot of time talking with students about these sorts of choices when I conference with them to discuss their drafts. It’s mostly me asking them questions about what they intend to convey, and trying to make them aware of the potential effects of their word choice. I want them to be aware of who they are including, excluding, allying with or offending with any particular choice, and be aware of how that choice will affect their own ethos and purpose. We both need to understand when and why they might choose to transgress or offend, and choose with intention.
You learn an awful lot about everyone involved in these sorts of conversations and the revision choices made after them.
It’s curious that in English the female gender-marking suffix -ess is now seldom seen. One change which strikes me is the modern use of ‘actor’ regardless of gender. Whereas in French previously notionally ungendered titles like professeur are increasingly used in a female-marked form – professeure (professeuse is possible, but rare).
The French have adopted an inclusif written usage professeur.e, avoiding the use of parentheses which might make the female form seem like an afterthought. One even sees tou.te.s (all) as a portmanteau of tous and toutes.
As I remember it in French professeur is usually combined with either Monsieur le or Madame la (or in short just with gendered definite article le/la).
In a veiled insult the French called Catherine II. of Russia Catherine le Grand instead of la Grande. There is historic precedent though. In some cultures ruling women officially had to choose the male title and were considered male while holding the position.
I was surprised to learn that in English masseuse includes males despite the female form (one would expect masseur).
Though for professeur in French, you had Madame le professeur if you were in a formal context. 2019 was when the Académie française said it was ok to use, though that was after it was accepted for government documents
https://elon.io/grammar/french/nouns/feminine-male-titles
Lower-level grammar can teach you that boulanger becomes boulangère or that acteur becomes actrice. The hard part — the part that requires C1-level cultural awareness — is knowing which feminization to use in which context, when an older form is still preferred, and how to read the political signals that lurk in someone’s choice between la maire and madame le maire. A French speaker hearing Madame la mairesse will form an immediate impression of you (probably: “older, formal, possibly Belgian or Canadian”). A French speaker hearing l’autrice will form a different impression (“progressive, probably under forty, possibly an academic”). Mastery of titles is mastery of register and politics simultaneously.
I hasten to point out that this isn’t to suggest that my French has ever been anywhere near that level.
My own feeling about all of this is that, in referring to a group of people, it’s best and most polite to refer to them using the language they prefer.
I appreciate the motivation behind a coinage like Latinx, but I don’t think most of the folks described by that prefer it. You could use it to make a non-gendered language point, but I don’t think it will win any hearts and minds.
Language matters, but nobody likes being told what to do, especially when it concerns matters of their own heritage and identity.
As far as why so many Hispanic people work for CBP and ICE, I think a lot of it is that it’s a good job, often located in or near their own communities. And a lot of them have been US citizens for generations, and have the same concerns about uncontrolled immigration that non-Hispanics do. There may also be a concern that illegal immigrants make them look bad, although I’m just guessing there.
People, and communities of people, are complicated, and often hard to generalize about.
“As far as why so many Hispanic people work for CBP and ICE, I think a lot of it is that it’s a good job, often located in or near their own communities.”
See also the tradition of Irish cops in American cities with large Irish immigrant populations, ca. late 19th C through much of the 20th.
It’s a path to the middle class and a marker of legitimacy.
I remember Chief O’Hara from the Batman TV show. He was super Irish!
I was surprised to learn that in English masseuse includes males…
It doesn’t in England.
I encountered it in sources written by US authors, got confused and looked it up. The first time was in Atlanta Nights*, so I at first assumed that it was deliberately wrong but later I found it in other places too and in a thesaurus/dictionary.
*which I translated/adapted into German
Can be tricky in practice, especially when dealing with mixed groups. I have to thread this needle all the time in the college classroom. About a third of my typical class identifies as Hispanic or Latino. Some small number of them may be annoyed by “Latinx” as a term, but most are just surprised to see themselves represented or to have space made for their experience in the discussion and assignments. Two or three of the total, meanwhile, always use “Latinx” in their own work, and want to see that usage spread.
So in class I usually use “Latino,” but pause to add “Latinx” and try to make eye contact with the two or three when I do so. I avoid “Hispanic” most of the time so as not to exclude any Portuguese and Brazilian students. If I am speaking individually with students in conferences, I try to mirror their own usage unless I am specifically addressing material that uses “Latinx,” in which case I try to stay faithful to the source material and the discourse community from which it arises.
This is all compromise, but the intentions of these compromises are pretty transparent for anyone paying attention, and I’ve never had anyone complain (yet) in any of my course evaluations.
Someone knock on wood…
It doesn’t in England.
Cosign.
I worked exclusively with the Spanish-speaking population in LA for two years and I have a son-in-law that is from Mexico. While I think Russell’s point and the pay is probably the bigger driver, there is a certain percentage IMO of those that immigrated legally that have a real problem with illegal immigration (understandably so if you waited in what is a rather long line). My son-in-law describes another potential driver. He describes a class system where the parents and kids of those that came her legally see those that did not as a different class. He was in that “lower” class (his parents overstayed when he was really young) and it was hard for me to see the pain of what he described. I didn’t see that as much from my own work (most of it was with recent immigrants), so seeing it from the eyes of a “kid” was telling. His own brother ran into it head-on when he married a woman from the other class (she didn’t have that sentiment, but her parents did; they apparently really thought she was marrying down).
My son-in-law is a citizen now. I saw a lot of those emotions released at his naturalization ceremony.
We have interesting discussions, him and I, over immigration policy and over ICE (we don’t share political views, but we enjoy hearing the other’s opinions). No way he’d join ICE. And if I asked him if he would if he really needed a job, he’d probably say that his class experience more than his politics would prevent him from joining.
bc, that is very interesting. You are fortunate to have such a close insight into the views and experience of a very different part of the population and culture.
Now, as they used to say on Monty Python, for something completely different. As an old hippie, I would very much like to initiate a discussion about the expression “hippie-punching”, if anybody else is game. “Hippie” seems now to be used, here and elsewhere, to describe anybody who is liberal, but opposes progressivism. Have I understood that correctly? What about people who are liberal/lefty, do not oppose all tenets of progressivism, and simultaneously believe that no political party can achieve change without being elected? From which it follows that such a political party must appeal to a majority (or enough of a majority) of the electorate. From which it follows that, at least in the first place, that party is wise to avoid policies which a majority of the electorate oppose. A party succeeding in doing that, presumably, can still work to gradually make unpopular policies more acceptable. Obviously to all regulars at ObWi, I am describing myself, and people like me.
In my view by far the most important issue for the coming midterms and the 2028 election is the complete delegitimisation of the MAGA movement, and the dismantling of the system by which the GOP has so corrupted, damaged and come close to destroying American democracy. To me, this aim is so vital that it overwhelms every other consideration. All other desired changes in America seem obviously secondary to this first one. Now, it also seems clear to me that, under current circumstances, trying to convince a majority of the electorate that the most important issue is as I have underlined above is probably not possible. However, unless this aim is achieved, SCOTUS cannot be reformed, executive and other institutional corruption cannot be stopped, electoral fairness cannot be ensured, previously accepted norms cannot be reinstated and formalised, lawlessness at ICE and other agencies cannot be tackled, women’s rights to abortion cannot be codified, re-organisation of the tax regime cannot be done so that the advantage switches to working people as opposed to the 1%, and re-establishing as soon as possible America’s status abroad as a reliable and responsible ally cannot start. No doubt there are many more items on the wish list of most people on ObWi.
So my question is, are people who hold this view hippie-punchers? If they think that at the moment issues such as the underlined above take precedence over all other priorities, does that automatically make them unworthy of being accorded the assumption, at least in the short term, of being allies in the great fight? And if so, why?
in my experience, “hippie punching” describes mainstream Dems heaping abuse on lefty idealists in order to prove to everyone else that they, and Dems in general, aren’t crazy like those wacky hippies are.
Sorry, editing foul up! This was supposed to be underlined:
by far the most important issue for the coming midterms and the 2028 election is the complete delegitimisation of the MAGA movement, and the dismantling of the system by which the GOP has so corrupted, damaged and come close to destroying American democracy.
One thing that you have to take into account when trying to understand ‘hippie punching’ is the utter horror that US politics has been able to create around any manifestation of Communism. As an example, the only way an US academic would refer to themselves as a Marxist would be more for the shock value. It is difficult to imagine someone like Eric Hobsbawm, who self identified as a Marxist historian, following a similar career path in the US. Politicians keep going to that well (Trump accused Biden and Harris of being communists and more recently Mamdani or any progressive that has been in the news lately), so it still has some juice, which is probably why hippie punching still is a thing.
Also, there’s the fact US left and right did not map onto more general ideas of left and right, though it seems that the US notion of ‘right’ and ‘conservative’ has slowly infected the rest of the world’s politics. More on that later.
According to Wiki, Carville’s CV is full of hippie punching.
In 1986 he ran ads in which he literally accused the Republican candidate for Governor of having been a hippie and done drugs in the ’60s.
In 1990 he started his successful string of “soft on crime” hippie punching, amplifying Zell Miller’s promise to send convicted first time drug users to shock boot camp, and accusing the black mayor of Atlanta for the “explosion of crime” in his city.
Of course he followed that approach again with Bill Clinton, who constantly portrayed himself as “tough on crime” unlike those other idealistic Democrats.
I understand why pragmatic mainstream Dems want to avoid controversy and emphasize the precarious state of US democracy, but Harris tried that particular approach and it did not cut through.
The problem with this sort of hippie punching is that if you are running as “tough on crime,” the R will always be able to say that they are going to be tougher, and the cops will usually endorse the R. Meanwhile, you have just amplified the idea that crime is out of control and that a strong hand is needed – amygdala hijack. Again, this plays into the hands of the right. You’ve also discredited the pragmatism of legitimate liberal policies that have worked in other countries, and failed to shift the public narrative back towards the center.
The Democrats could do a helluva lot right now with a host of issues that benefit working people, but they need to stop constantly trying to lean into “fiscal responsibility” and “tough on crime” and “reform education” and start running on eliminating graft and corruption, reigning in the broligarchs, and restoring fairness and opportunity to the US economy.
Trickle down is dead. Stake it and bury it in salt.
But for goodness sake, get a positive message that you can run on that puts the Rs on the defensive and makes them tack left for a change. The DSA have found several such that resonate. Use them, and punch an Aristocrat for a change.
My personal reaction, when I see “hippy punching”, starts with my perception of “hippies”. That’s based on being a college student in the San Francisco area in the late 1960s. When there were real live hippies around.
Hippies then were regarded by conservatives as extreme liberals. But if you actually talked to one of them, libertarian would have been far closer to the truth. Libertarians with “help each other” folded in, but libertarian nonetheless.
Now, I am aware, the term has about as much relationship to actual hippies as “communist” (whether the speaker is for or against it) has to anything Karl Marx would recognize. Which is to say, damn little.