Democracy InAction

You know, there are few things that warm my heart more than the futile squabbling of would-be allied groups over the scraps from The Massa’s table. The sweetest examples, however, are those times where they so effectively focus on each other that they torpedo their own efforts in the process.

The front page of this morning’s New York Times has an article entitled “Growing Unease for Some Blacks on Immigration.” It is (obviously) about black “professionals, academics, and blue-collar workers” who “feel increasingly uneasy as they watch Hispanics flex their political muscle while assuming the mantle of a seminal black struggle for justice.” Specifically, the immigrant community has started invoking the Civil Rights movement: in protests across the country they have quoted Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and sung “We Shall Overcome.” And this pissed off a lot of black people.

Why, you might ask? The Times cites two reasons. First, some point out that blacks have endured social injustice (and don’t let the name fool you; this includes everything from unequal education rights to imprisonment without trial, rape, beatings, lynchings, etc., etc.) for hundreds of years in this country without recourse, and even then (e.g., emancipation, desegregation, affirmative action) it has proven less than effective in balancing the equality-meter in America. This leads to the second point. Things still aren’t equal for blacks: they comprise the vast majority of high-school drop-outs, the unemployed, the under-employed, those who work for (practically) starving wages, etc. Thus, some are pissed that their struggle—which is far from over—is being co-opted by a group of people who aren’t even citizens, for fear that this recent fad will divert attention from their own cause. But to add insult to injury, illegals are the primary folks who take the jobs that black people tend to work. That’s what they think according to polls, anyway; whether it is true is up for debate.

According to everything I have seen or heard in the last several months, Hispanics have now surpassed blacks as the largest minority in America. Their numbers together comprise at least 26% of the population of the US. This, of course, does not include the large amount of illegals in the country (many of whom, depending on Congress’ choice of legislation, may become citizens and thus increase the percentage).

Aside from the issue of citizenship, these two groups are fighting for the same basic rights. In thumbnail sketch, these amount to the following: to receive fair wages, to receive equal education, to not be discriminated against on the basis of their color or background, to not be treated like criminals. Yet since the one group has not received such from the US they apparently fear that the other group will. This implies (1) that there is a limited amount of tolerance to go around for marginalized groups, (2) that if one minority is treated equally it will make it even harder for other minorities to acquire similar status.

Now, to my knowledge no one on this list is a demographer or a political science major. Therefore, hopefully you will permit me some non-expert speculation. As always, please respond if you think I am in error.

Given the large percentage of the populace comprised by the combination of these groups, and given the remarkable show of political organization and activism on the part of Hispanics (remember: the protests set off around the country apparently have exceeded anything seen since prior to Vietnam, and NOT ONE instance of violence or arrest has yet been reported), does it make more sense for those blacks concerned about their station to alienate themselves from or even protest against Hispanics, or does it make more sense for them to join forces? In other words, right now blacks in America make up roughly 13% of the population, and their demographic has become notoriously politically impotent (in their own words; this is constitutive to their being pissed at Hispanics right now, i.e., t their apparent effectiveness at capturing and holding the political spotlight). Their concerns are far from appeased, and they now fear becoming even more marginalized by being drowned out. Yet they and Hispanics are all fighting for the same basic concerns. Does it strike anyone as a sound strategy to denounce Hispanics for their quoting King at rallies and their attempt to find solidarity with a historic moment in American history when people actually cared about civil rights and things actually changed? Indeed, does it hurt the black community that a group that is recently larger, apparently more organized and currently more oppressed is not just fighting for their own concerns, but is reminding Americans of a movement that should never be forgotten until it is actually, fully achieved? In other words, why in the name of everything holy do these groups not join forces, and thereby take this issue away from those who would try to isolate the grievances as that of a single group?

Now some might call me politically naïve. (I imagine this is something of a given at this point: I seem to be utterly incapable of understanding politics because logic strikes me as relatively simple.) Nevertheless, the Times article does not appear to describe sound thinking on the part of those in the black community who wish to keep the Civil Rights movement THEIR movement. Rather, it looks like the successful implementation of one of the primary pages in the playbook of those who would oppress any and all marginalized groups. I can’t even understand the reasoning involved here: if the black community’s concerns have been ignored for over 30 years, and the Hispanic community simultaneously faces greater political opposition, greater public awareness and greater organization than ever, then who would ever think it smart to keep them apart—save those who fear their combined political clout?

But this appears to be a moot point. I have never understood this type of thinking, whether it involves some in the black community choking when they hear that gays call their struggle an extension of the Civil Rights movement, or when some in the Jewish community (here and abroad) have fiercely lobbied against labeling any other conflict (e.g., Rwanda, Darfur) a “genocide” for fear that it might take away from the memory of their own horrors. I have always viewed these types of responses to current struggles and atrocities as, at best, politically and logically embarrassing and, at worst, as self-important solipsistic hypocrisy. How could anyone ever take the concerns of an oppressed group seriously if that same group decries a similar group’s similar concerns in the same breath that they demand their own concerns be addressed? If someone said to me, “You must remember the Holocaust as an immeasurably terrible genocide, yet you can’t consider the grinding into dust of any other people as comparable,” if someone said to me, “It is shameful the way that blacks have historically been denied equal opportunity in this country, yet the equality concerns of Hispanics and gays are separate and should not be associated with ours,” why would I believe anything that person said? Why would I not instead consider that person (1) politically self-destructive, (2) as discriminatory as those who she claims were keeping her down, and thus (3) galactically self-centered?

(Of course, this is merely scratching the surface. Everyone knows that women still haven’t achieved equality in the workplace or anywhere else. I can’t even fathom what would happen if they followed the example of those illegals and firmly yet peacefully demanded to receive the roughly 22 cents docked on every dollar they get from their employers—22 cents less than every dollar given to a man in the same position. I can’t even fathom if an oppressed group comprising 50% of the population decided to protest. Just imagine: “A Day Without Women.”)

But what do I know? I’m just a white Anglo-Saxon protestant Southern male. My job automatically means I’m an out-of-touch fanatic effete upper class liberal. It’s an interesting place to be: caring about the situation of groups who don’t always want my help, and being an unwilling member of the groups who are responsible for the status quo.

I wonder if I would have more authority if I started wearing a dress. After all, my legs look great in pumps.

-W