Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court is a historic milestone for Latinos, but it resonates well beyond Hispanic pride. It is perhaps the most potent symbol yet of a 21st century rapprochement between the U.S.'s two largest minorities, Latino Americans and African Americans, who in the 20th century could be as violently distrustful of each other as blacks and whites were.One must be clear about what constituted "violent" distrust "between" blacks and whites in the 20th century. It meant thousands of whites, in Atlanta, in 1906, assembling on the streets to randomly murder black people. In Springfield, Illinois, in 1908, it meant whites pillaging a Jewish businesses for arms, and then proceeding to the black side of town, attacking black business and black homes, and thousands of black people fleeing for their lives. It meant whites--across the nation--in 1910 assembling in mobs and murdering random black people (On the 4th of July!). The cause? Jack Johnson had the temerity to win the championship. It meant whites in East St. Louis, in 1918, perpetrating a pogrom against the city's black population, and killing over 100 black people because, "southern niggers need a lynching."
I have not known Latinos in the 20th Century to perpetrate a Red Summer. I have not known blacks to lynch Latino veterans, returning from war, in their uniforms. The fact is that there was no violent distrust between blacks and whites in the 20th century. Rather there was a one-sided war waged against black people by white terrorists, which government, in the best cases, failed to prevent, in many cases, stood idly by, and in the worst cases actually aided and abetted. I'm sorry but comparing that to whatever's happening between blacks and Latinos, is a slander against both those groups, and an amazingly naive take on the history of white America in regards to race.
The great problem with this whole Latino/Black divide story, is the undergirding idea that "the divide" even comes close to approaching the cluster-bomb of racist terrorism, government-sponsored wealth destruction, systemic discrimination which was visited on blacks in the 20th century. For nearly half that century, blacks in the South--on pain of death--were essentially forbidden from voting. Its amazingly self-serving to suggest that that evil even approaches anything that's happened between blacks and Latinos in this country. It also conveniently allays American discomfort, with an ugly, shameful past that we'd love to see go away.
Leaving aside the differences between how blacks relate to Puerto-Ricans in the Bronx, versus how they relate to Cuban-Americans in Florida, it is borderline delusional to pretend that some beef between some folks in L.A is the equivalent of Martin Luther King. Or even Rodney King. It isn't. And the fact that we can't tell the difference is still haunting us.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Amen.
Yet again another very wise post & a display of why we thank you for your perspective.
As a 50something white male, as a historian, it is clear to me that the history of violence between Hispanics and Blacks in America has not been historically consequential. I'm no expert on this matter but it seems to me that such violence has largely been kathartic -- two powerless, oppressed groups taking out their anger on each other rather than on the oppressor. Sad but historically sporadic.
Violence against blacks by whites has been systemic. Until we all face the mirror and understand that point, we're still on a long road.
As a Nuyorican I would add that it's important to specify by what you mean by "Latino." I was watching a PBS special on "In The Heights" last night and I was truck by how much this "Latino" musical owed to African-American music. (Aside from the obvious fact that, as Carlos Santana once put it, "most Latin music is African music.") For every salsa beat, there was a lot more hip-hop and R&B. (All that was missing was boogaloo. Ah, good times.)
What's more, several of the cast members were Black and others were Afro-Latino. In this context, talk of "violently distrustful" relationships is, at best, overblown and, more likely, absurd. Did the Puerto Ricans, Dominicans and Black folk of my neighborhood have a kumbaya relationship? Of course not! Did we fight? Yes. Did we insult each other's ancestry? Sure. Did we also play stickball, eat ice cream, open hydrants and hang out together? Yes.
Sidenote: I kind of (really) want to hear whatever recollections Sotomayor may have of the Latin music scene uptown in her youth in the 60's and 70's. She probably won't be conducting those types of interviews for years to come, though, assuming she gets confirmed.
She is my age, so I suspect that in a patitas con garbanzos eating kind of household like hers, some of her musical memories might be the same as mine.
Of course, according to The Hill, that kind of eating renders you suspect.
I'm African American and I live in the Heights right now. We're so tight that I don't even bat an eyelash when the Dominican teens call each other the "N" word. Besides, we're all united against the gentrifying liberal arts kids. Dear Gringos, Bachata > Grizzly Bear. P.S. Shave!
And by the way, you limited your examples to the 20th century. During the Draft Riots in NY in 1863, dozens if not hundreds of random Black citizens were killed by white draft rioters. After Reconstruction ends, of course, there are uncounted hundreds, perhaps thousands, of examples of organized violence against Black citizens.
I do not remember such violence against blacks by Hispanics during the Mexican-American War of 1846 or the Spanish-American War of 1898.
Equivalency is one of the worst rhetorical sins of the late 20th and the 21st century. That is where Padgett & so many others go wrong. Rarely are evils equivalent.
Only because he used the "20th Century" in his quote. I see your point, but the fair thing to do is to take him at his word.
Excellent. More fair than I would have been.
Going off the rail, as I did, to earlier violence permits the debate to move to a tangential consideration of "what is fair?" Good example of your purpose - intelligent discussion - versus this reader's - not so intelligent lashing out at overused rhetorical device.
That violence during the Draft Riots in NY was also directed at some white people -- local Republicans, who had their houses torched.
This is so true. Especially that last part about equivalency.
T, I see, and agree with your general point, but this could quickly fall into another unhelpful debate about what/whose suffering is worse and what kind of calculus could be used to weigh say political acts of tyranny against say the everday oppression of gang related violence instead of calling for an end to all kinds of violence, so to get back to your earlier calls for unity/cooperation among minorities how can we use Obama-Sotomayor as an example of how when one minority gains power it is not necessarily a loss for another but could be a gain and therefore a benefit for the democracy at large?
This isn't about whose suffering is worse:
The great problem with this whole Latino/Black divide story, is the undergirding idea that "the divide" even comes close to approaching the cluster-bomb of racist terrorism, government-sponsored wealth destruction, systemic discrimination which was visited on blacks in the 20th century.
In fact, he's saying the opposite-- that it'd be almost impossible for relations to be as poor between blacks and Latinos as they are between blacks and whites, because the Latinos were not the ones with the nooses and shotguns.
Agreed, Persia. There are people posting here with claims that there is Hispanic vs Black violence in LA. Yes there is. Or Irish vs Italian violence in Boston in the 1960s. Yes.
But I didn't notice any stories of Italians or Hispanics burned while hanging from a tree after having their genitals severed. When that story hits HuffPost a few hundred times, that's a hint of the equivalent violence inflicted by whites upon Black citizens in the 20th century.
And we don't really get to equivalency until we add on a couple hundred years in chains. Folks, this isn't an argument. It's called history.
TNC I agree with everything except the last sentence. I think most of us can tell the difference even if the wider (read white) society pretends otherwise.
Great rundown on the history. I'm sure you've come across the Without Sanctuary http://www.withoutsanctuary.org/ photographs.
Well he can't very well come out and say that he hopes that minorities with the wealth of their experience would be able to write a better post about race relations than a white man who never had that experience can he? Jeebus what are you trying to do, get Coates labeled a socialist reverse undercover stealth racist or something?!
/snark
I believe he's called undercover brother in some circles?!
Padgett's comment just plays out the ol' divide and conquer routine. The whole "model minority" myth for Asian Americans is just the most egregious example.
Yeah, there are frictions between groups, but the real problem is an oppressive system that allows too little upward mobility and often times takes care to oppress the people that can least resist it.
Maybe Padgett thinks that the Jets are black?
Superb.
And of course it's been discussed many times before, but one wonders how much more stereotypical damage could musicals do? Good blonde Austrians are singing happily in the hills and Hispanics hum and dance their lives away when they're not shivving people. Right?
Now, now -- the good blonde Austrians were only singing in those hills because they were running away from the equally blonde Nazis, and if they were happy it's only because they managed to get away.
Got me. You're right. The musical truth set them free.
I've spent too much time with my friend Randy from Syracuse. He did his dissertation on Asian stereotypes in musicals (don't get him started on South Pacific).
COATES supposed article/jibe/blurb bears about as much pith/merit/sentient thought as a bunch of BLACKS in the BRONX or BEDFORD-STUY fighting over a bucket of the 'COLONELS. CHICKEN' to get to the vegetarian piece at the bottom or SOTOMAYOR's ridiculous rulings against WHITEY in the 2nd DISTRICT or her frequent malapropisms extolling the SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST NORMAN THOMAS!!!
Uhm. Your banned. But not deleted. We like to laugh at the crazies who love TO USE CAPS LOCK!!!111
I had to laugh. Norman Thomas died in 1968. 40 years later & we still have righty oogedy-boogedy red scare references.
Let me guess - you had a sign in your yard that said "Impeach Supreme Court Justice Warren"?
Was Mr. DeMartino from Daria racist?
thanks for the daria reference. that's all.
Rush! Aren't you supposed to be on the air right now?
I'm so disappointed. I hope you fail.
Coates,
this was absolutely beautiful. I'm not one of those that subscribe to the 'black and brown coalition' delusion, but you are on the money.
You forgot the burning to the ground of Black Wall Street in Tulsa, OK as another example of racial terrorism.
I must say, you are so on the money with this one, it takes my breath away.
"Black Wall Street" brings to mind the probably good-intentioned violence of urban renewal of the 1950s and 1960s. Being from upstate NY, I can attest that the middle class Black culture of both Utica and Syracuse were largely destroyed by urban renewal.
Repeat throughout the nation. The homes and businesses destroyed in the midst of cities were mostly Black homes and businesses. That violently ripped out an exemplary core. Can we really think that would have happened in white suburbs?
Way to say it plain.
Nice. In other words sibling rivalry is not a gang war.
I see now why you hate generalizations.
If he had compared the relationship between blacks and Hispanics to the relationship between Irish and Italians, he may have had a point. IIRC, they got played off each other in labor disputes and there was some resentment from that, but never widespread violence.
No violence between the Italians and the Irish -- really? Maybe where you come from but not in Boston, when I was growing up there in the 60's.
Violence that is equivalent to the systematic violence perpetrated on blacks by whites? Me thinks you are deliberately misunderstanding Ace's point here.
Agreeing with lebecka. In the 60s, I didn't notice any stories about Italians lynched by Irish mobs in the North End. Was there violence? Yes. Historically significant violence? No.
Not just a difference of degree. Difference of intent. White on black violence puts "them" in their place. Can't be said for Irish - Italian violence, or for that matter, Hispanic-Black violence.
I figure Ace will be back in a bit to respond himself, but I don't think russd deliberately misunderstood the post. It seems pretty clear to me that Ace was saying that the contemporary black-Hispanic relationship may be more comparable to the historical Irish-Italian relationship than it is to the historical black-white relationship.
Reading it that way, while there was most certainly violence between the Irish and the Italians -- as russd notes -- it was not "widespread" on the same level as TNC cites for the systemic violence perpetrated against blacks by whites.
The other posters basically have it. There was some violence and a few riots, but nothing systematic like white on black violnce, which has no equal in U.S. history except maybe the treatment of Native Americans.
One thing that i find interesting is the fact that the media thinks that all hispanics are the same.
a Salvadorian living in Baltimore probably has a different outlook on life than a Mexican living in LA. I'm white, and live in Baltimore.And I probaly have a diferent outlook on life than a white guy from LA .
Not only do hispanics come from many diferent countries ,but they have come over in many different time periods.Some of the hispanics in Texas have been there before Texas became part of America.
While I did not think much of MR Padgett's article.I think that it simply is a result of the fact that the media is finally realising that all minorities are not alike.For a long time the media pretty much acted as if blacks and hispanics were pretty much the same group.
Now the media is going to go to the other extreme and focus on the differences between blacks and hispanics.The media do not seem to know how to be subtle.
I myself look forward to the day when a hispanic is chosen for the Supreme Court ,and evry article is NOT about how she is hispanic.It would be nice to read about her beliefs.Unfortunatly the media as always, is obsessed about race.They seem to be able to write about the superficial aspect of the issue, but not do indepth stories about race in America.
There are notable exceptions of course.But as a rule the media seem to be clueless.I think that it is due to the fact that reporters nowdays tend to live a secluded upper middle class lifestyle.They report on ordinary life in America. But rarely participate in it.
"I myself look forward to the day when a hispanic is chosen for the Supreme Court ,and evry article is NOT about how she is hispanic.It would be nice to read about her beliefs.Unfortunatly the media as always, is obsessed about race.They seem to be able to write about the superficial aspect of the issue, but not do indepth stories about race in America."
yeah man, this is what i'm talking about. making the primary part of every article be about her race and statements on race is pretty harmful to us all. I mean, if confirmed, this lady is going to be on the Supreme Court for like thirty years. (More if she cuts down on the pork, ha-ha.) Can we primarily focus on her judicial philosophy as reflected in her writings and rulings? On her qualifications and intellect? Her background is a factor and will be more of one in cases which involve racial or cultural type issues, but it still wouldn't be the number one thing to consider. The media framing it that way only leads ordinary people to lose focus on the important stuff, and be tempted to buy into the affirmative-action-pick idea.
Pete,
I gotta call you on your bullshit here, with "the media thinks" this and "the media is realizing" that. When you say that "the media" overgeneralize, and that the media lump all minorities into the same box, you're overgeneralizing the media and lumping all of its practitioners into the same box.
Plenty of people in "the media" know that Mexicans are different from Puerto Ricans. Heck, I (a reporter) was disappointed when I found out that the Latina Supreme Court nominee was Puerto Rican instead of Mexican. I'm a native Texan, so I was hoping for someone from a more familiar culture. Plus, I don't like to hear Puerto Rican Spanish because they eat their final consonants.
That's what Sotomayor should have said. She should have said she enjoys pigs feet and final consonants.
Holden
I actually agree with you that i was hypoctritical by lumping all of the media together.I should have said "many in the media".
I do stand by my original point though.
And I am sincere when i say that I am glad you called me out on this.None of us learn if we don't learn from our mistakes.In the future ,I will defintly go out of my way not to overgeneralize .
Best regards to you HOLDEN
Dropping all those final 's's from words is a great benefit to those of us who conjugate poorly.
Not sure what violence he's talking about exactly, there are some issues between black and latino gangs here in L.A., sure, but that sentence is such a muddled generalization as to be actually meaningless. I literally don't know what he's talking about.
Of course, the history of Latinos/Hispanics (I use Chicana for myself, or Mexican-American it depends on my mood. Seriously) is rich and deeply varied here in the United States. So much differnce and variation that the terms Hispanic or Latino is almost meaningless (but not entirely, i got way too much into my "common thread" argument on another thread here). I agree that it would be wonderful to have a cultre where seeing people like Sotomayor in the upper echelons of government, was such a normalized occurence, that ethncity or race isn't even worth mentioning.
We are not at that point yet, so, from my own personal, individual experience as a Latina, it feels refreshing to see her recognized as who she is, a Latina too. To feel marginalized, or as the "other" is to feel invisible, that's how I have experience my "otherness" at times at least. It's nice, and dare I say? uplifting to see her culture as being visible, not hidden away. I hope that makes sense.
Makes sense to me, I'm Boricua/Nuyorican (NYT spelled it Newyorkican or some such nonsense, how I laughed!). We're too often pushed into either invisibility or inferiority, until we get angry, then we're just dangerous "hostiles".
But the key word people use a lot to categorize the Latino/Black hostilities is "gangs", yet so few trace why these gangs turn on each other so much more violently than prior gangs from similar (eg Italian-Irish=European) backgrounds. I think it's prisons. I've little doubt that's also what escalated the violence between Italians and the Irish, but incarceration has reached epidemic proportions now. Paired with the covert gun dealing, also at historic levels, and we've got a bloodbath.
Never before have so many Americans, esp Black and Latino Americans, disproportionate numbers of Native Americans and of course poor whites, been incarcerated in such numbers (2 million incarcerated now, 5 million altogether in jail or prison or probation or parole). Prisons as a policy segregate prisoners, probably since Attica, where prisoners of all ethnicities/races united to take prison guards as hostages, 10 of the guards were killed and 29 prisoners. Ever since, it's the ultimate Divide and Conquer, and it's working only too well.
No other environment in modern developed countries is as vile and violent and dehumanizing as prisons'. The neverending revolving door of incarceration promotes the historical divisions of slavery and colonization and genocide, and of course classism. Every groups' prejudices and competitions is hyped to intolerable and seemingly insurmountable levels of animosity.
In the "pen"itentiaries, men especially are treated like deadly but subjugated animals. They're provoked into a more brutal and deadly competition than even in ghettos, where primarily white landlords establish an order of preferred renters that also foments hostilities. Gangs that simply marked and respected turfs have no such choice in prisons, where hostilities often result in rapes and murders, and a cycle of revenge for such brutalities is periodically dumped back into the ghettos, then dragged back into the pen, and back again.
Until we put a stop to our American gulags, and the new Jim Crow that manifests as legalized political and financial disenfranchisement, we'll see an escalation in hostilities between the ethnic groups and poor whites that bloodies our neighborhoods daily. Until we reign in the weapons manufacturers and dealers, there will be more casualties, often innocent bystanders, and a deadlier ever-widening circle of attack/counterattack.
Ta-Nehisi,
You seem to have an encyclopedic knowledge of murderous attacks by whites against blacks that happened in the early years of the 20th century. Are you as familiar with murderous attacks by Latinos against blacks that have happened more recently? If not, I wonder if this is due to your East Coast perspective. For a different perspective, see, for example, this op/ed by Tanya Hernandez from in the Los Angeles Times from 2007, "Roots of Latino/black Anger". Excerpt:
The writer goes on to note that Mexican immigrants tend to bring this racial baggage with them to the U.S.
yeah I was gonna mention that Highland Park stuff, I live here in L.A. and yes, things like that happen here.
But I think what TNC was saying, is that the scale or proporation of that type of violence, is not somehting that even compares to the history of lynching suffered by black people in the 20th century.
But look, that article is primarily about one neighborhood in Los Angeles. Additionally, remember all those arguemtns about Latinos not voting for a black man because of the history of racism in Latin America against blacks? yeah, that didn't pan out.
I can say for certain there is not widespeard "ethnic cleansing" here in Los Angeles. Gangwarfare is not necessarily something that should be seen as the "litmus test" between all black/brown relations in Los Angeles. Some argue that tensions between Black and Latinos groups are occcuring now, because of the huge demogrphic changes taking place in historically black neighborhoods in Los Angeles i.e. Watts, Compton and even Inglewood. Those neighborhoods have seen huge influxes of Latinos immmigration in recent years, Mexican immigration sure, but also large number of Central American influxes too. All of this change, has brought a lot of tension, this happens when different cultures, languges and ethncities meet in a common neightborhood, which has been happening since this nation was founded.
As a side note, the Los Angeles Times in my experience,feels like a newspaper written for an eastcoast transplatn, for an eastcoast transplat. I read that paper sometimes, and wonder if the writers are even from here, the perspective is so odd and removed. The Daiily News out of the valley is so much better for homegrown news.
"for an eastcoast transplant, by an eastcost transplant." is what I meant. Terrible types, I know. I apologize.
No worries, I got your meaning. I don't know, though, that Hernandez is a transplant. We do get a handful of Californians who come to Rutgers for school.
Don't know much about Hernandez, at all. I don't believe Steve Lopez is from L.A. though, I haven't gathered that from reading his columns in the paper (not entirely sure though). I was talking about the general feel of that paper at times, reading those articles at times, suggests a very non-L.A perspective at times. One example comes to mind: reading an article about neighborhoods in the SGV which are primarily both Latino and Asian, written in a tone that was sort of suprised by this "discovery." As if this was shocking news, that's been going on for decades. Boyle Heights and East L.A. had a sizable Japanese population for a long time.
"But I think what TNC was saying, is that the scale or proporation of that type of violence, is not somehting that even compares to the history of lynching suffered by black people in the 20th century."
To compare scale we need numbers. Ta-Nehisi gave some horrific examples of white-on-black violence from the early 20th century, not an comprehensive accounting of them. I don't know how the scale compares to the recent Latino-on-black violence.
"But look, that article is primarily about one neighborhood in Los Angeles."
Perhaps, but there have been examples of this from other parts of the country. For example, there was the execution-style murders of a few African American teens by a Latino immigrant in Newark New Jersey a year or two ago.
"Additionally, remember all those arguemtns about Latinos not voting for a black man because of the history of racism in Latin America against blacks? yeah, that didn't pan out."
Why is that a surprise? As I've noted here before, people tend to vote their economic interests. A majority of blacks were voting for Democrats when the Democrats were still the party of the KKK, because Democrats were offering more public assistance to the poor than Republicans were.
"Gangwarfare is not necessarily something that should be seen as the "litmus test" between all black/brown relations in Los Angeles."
As the writer notes, though, this can't be dismissed as "gang warfare" because the black victims often aren't part of any gang. They were targeted for their race, pure and simple.
I don't doubt that these victims were targest for the skin color, by primarily gangmembers.
This: "Why is that a surprise? As I've noted here before, people tend to vote their economic interests. A majority of blacks were voting for Democrats when the Democrats were still the party of the KKK, because Democrats were offering more public assistance to the poor than Republicans were."
Exactly, it isn't a surprise. What many Latinos voting for Obama in SoCal (since that's all I really know, and I'm gonna stick with that) means to me that the relationss between "black/brown" and cultural attitudes, are far more complex that that article suggests. yes, there are racist attitudes towards blacks in Latin America, not gonna deny that. how much that translate into violence here in the States is another question (or how much that translates into violence here in L.A. is another story. It depends on so much, which part of Latina American are people from, how is the coutnry of origina affecting racial attitudes? It's different in Mexico and Cuba for instance. Which generation are you from? I can say as a third generation L.A. Chicana my racial views and experiences are quite different from my granfather who was born in Guanajuato.
The violence you have pointed to here is real, of course, it needs to be recognized and not to be dismissed. I get that. All I'm saying is that the truth here on the ground, between "black and brown" in L.A. as lived, is far more complex, nuanced and nowhere near as violent as that article may suggest to some people. This violence needs to be seen in context. The answer to this?
I don't doubt of any of this, which I why I emphasize being clear what we mean by "Latino." Puerto Rico is, like Brazil, a multi-racial and multi-ethnic society where the term "Puerto Rican" is both a nationality and an ethnicity, in the sense of a shared culture. A significant part of that culture has its origins in West Africa, so while some of my relatives in PR are racists towards African-Americans, their children date and even marry Boricuas of mixed racial and, in the case of my aunt, black backgrounds. (People say my family pictures are a mind f***)
This is a long-winded way of saying that things are somewhat different in NYC than, say, in LA. They're not irenic just complicated. What do you call Gina Torres? Or Rosario Dawson, or my fave, Carmelo Anthony? (Look it up.)
I'm quite familiar with them. There's even a smattering of commentary about them on this blog. But you can click through the links I provide and add up the casualties. It doesn't measure up. Moreover, Padgett was talking about the 20th Century. As I've said, there simply is no Latino/Black corollary for the Red Summer of 1919, in which 36 blacks were lynched and 8 were burned at the stake. Not in one city or neighborhood--but in riots across the country.
Mexican public discourse reflects the hostility toward blackness; consider such common phrases as "getting black" to denote getting angry, and "a supper of blacks" to describe a riotous gathering of people. Similarly, the word "black" is often used to mean "ugly." It is not surprising that Mexicans who have been surveyed indicate a disinclination to marry darker-skinned partners"
I'm not sure that is entirely true. Small point here, since racism is racism, and it's ugly no matter what, but this analysis conclusion is not entirely true I think. To be called "indio" or "india" is considered bad as well, if you are very dark and indigenous looking, it can be looked down upon. Not sure if that whole disinclination towards "darker skin" is necessarily about black people, but really about the strange shame going on in Mexican culture about a largely mestizo past & present (Indigenou and European).
In my experience, me and my mother (who a lot of people thought was Eastern European) are considered light skinned and thus, given much flak for it. My father who looked like a full-blooded Zapotec indian, was given much flak for not speaking Spanish, but his skin color was much more acceptable in general because he didn't look "white" Don't know what that's all about, they both grew up in 1950s L.A.
I would like to applaud you for attempting to explain the many chasm's that exist whithin Mexican-American cultures. It's amazing how different the experience of growin up Mexican-American in L.A. are to my own experience of growing up Mexican-American in Dallas, Tx. Its funny when you talked about your mother, my grandmother was the same complexion as your mother. Her mother was spanish/mexican, and father was full blooded comanche Indian yet her and our origins can be traced back to the Dallas and San Antonio region pretty much back to the ice age. She talked of having it rough, because of skin color and friends didn't come easy. But if your family is anything like mine, the greatness of a large family is it makes friends that much less improtant. This is a longwinded way of saying I feel ya.
As for this particular post, again I'm not entrenched to the L.A.scene although have family that lives in Echo Park, I don't buy the "ethnic cleansing" angle, and I think your dead on in regards to regions playing a roll. I recall tensions in Dallas being raised, and ugly incidents in Schools across the D/FW area, but my recollection was that that had more to do with gangs and not some deep seeded resentment to slaves being brought to Latin American. I can say, that it seems like Mexican, Central American prejudice towards anyone not Mexican or Central American is rampant and seems i my experience generational. El Savadorian and Mexican-American gangs are in constant war with each other, I believe MS-13 is derived from the need to beef with traditional Mexican-American gangs(especially in jail), in L.A. And my own personal experience, working summers for my Dad and Grandad who hired Mexican and El Salvadorian workers was that there was always a tension. That seemed to be more about competition for work. I think as a whole, we are a very territorial people and that causes untrust and resentment towards other cultures. That being said, I have never understood this in pertaining to the tensions towards African-Americans. I think in most cases it's overstated, but don't deny there is some there there. Forgive the rambling, my thoughts on this topic have yet to fully mature...
Hmm. The relationship between Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos varies according to whether they are both minorities in a majority white country, or if they are in Central, South America or the Caribbean.
In those countries outside the US, white- or 'perceiving themselves as white' Hispanic/Latino people do the whole oppression thing.
I don't think that black people in, say Brazil, Dominican Republic or Mexico would feel their experiences were more benign than black people in the US.
What is ironic, is that putting the tag 'Latino' on people who are Spanish speaking-but not from Spain- includes a lot of black people from the countries in question.They are often overlooked by the people who assign these categories. And then, there is the fact that one Latino family can include people,blood relatives, who look African and who look European, (e.g Ruben Blades and his Dad)which I'm informed caused problems when arrving in the US and experiencing the 'divide and rule' approach on race and ethnicity...
Is it just me, or does anyone else find that sentence TNC cites to be terribly confusing? The words "could be" imply forward looking, but then he refers to the 20th century in the same phrase. TNC seems to interpret the meaning as, "in the 20th century could have been..." And maybe that is what he means. I read the article and don't understand what else he might mean. Hard to believe he'd make such a ridiculous claim.
It's just a confusing sentence.
"The fact is that there was no violent distrust between blacks and whites in the 20th century. Rather there was a one-sided war waged against black people by white terrorists, which government, in the best cases, failed to prevent, in many cases, stood idly by, and in the worst cases actually aided and abetted. I'm sorry but comparing that to whatever's happening between blacks and Latinos, is a slander against both those groups, and an amazingly naive take on the history of white America in regards to race."
This is an absolutely brilliant passage, TNC. Hit the nail on the head.
This whole black vs. brown thing is about as credible as when Rev. Sharpton speaks for "us".
No substitute for studying lots of history and counting it as part of your own current life. This mess goes with the folks who think Al Qaeda's as dangerous as Stalin: only possible if you never spent an hour reading and thinking about just what Joe tried and what he got done.
Noticing one of my own gaps: Is there a good short history of white violence against Latinos out there? Long would also be good, except that I've also got customers who expect me to finish some work before June 1....
These links of course, aren't ofference a short comprehensive view of white violence against Latinos. This is just a smidegeon of L.A. historical perspective here, just a start...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Salazar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoot_Suit_Riots
Violence is bad no matter who commits it.But I think the thing to realise is that the violence commited against some white people by some black people nowdays, is about individuals attacking other individuals.
This does not excuse it by any means.But much of the violence committed against blacks in the 19th and early 20th century was institutionalised violence that was sanctioned and tolerated by government officials.
Marion Barry had his faults but he never organized lynch mobs against white people.
I am white and live in Baltimore City in the racially mixed neighborhood of Highlandtown .But i do not fear the leaders of my city who are black.And as for the young hooligans who are black,they will mug a black person just as quickly as they will mug me.I do not feel that it is a case of white against black.It is a case of law abiding people against cowardly thugs.
I have a lot more in common with my law abiding black neighbors than I did with the white heroin addict who terrorised our block until he was kicked out.
Thugs are thugs.And most of these thugs nowdays are an embarrassment to the HUMAN race.The white thugs do not represent me.And the black or hispanic thugs do not represent their communities as far as I am concerned . Pretending that they do , is to give them credit that they do not deserve.
I agree. Sometimes I cut other writers slack for trying to find a story where there maybe isn't one, but writing for TIME adds another layer of journalistic responsibility. And more often than not, inflaming differences between blacks and Latinos is a manipulative attempt to divide and conquer, not unlike this global war waging between Muslims and the West I've been hearing so much about.
There are likely more differences within the black race than there are between blacks and Latinos, particularly those growing up in the same inner-city neighborhoods, or those organizing on the same college campuses where various "ethnic" communities roll deep.
And when you get right down to it, I think we all understand that, whether black or brown, none of us can get a cab.
Thanks for the article, TNC.
Speaking of us white folks: Occasionally people tell me that I've got too much white guilt.
Uh, no I don't.
"We" subjugated, enslaved, and murdered. It was (and is) pervasive and institutionalized. And now it's white people who no longer see much tangible evidence of racism in their immediate sphere who (usually b/c they live surrounded by other white people in an insulated burb of some sort) falsely infer that racism's just not that big of a deal anymore and secretly in their heart of hearts convince themselves that those blacks must just be whining--They're the ones whose dream world is interrupted by an Obama or Sotomayor or Ice-T or Reverend Wright, and they rely on the Rush Limbaughs to hit the snooze button for them.
Having been raised in pasty-white Montana and NW Iowa, these are my ilk, so yes, I'm a guilty white guy.
What has been a tense racial conflict in the southwestern US could spill out onto other areas as this is predominantly between Mexican Americans and Blacks, and in the case of immigration, perhaps some whites are lining up alongside Blacks. This is my take on how it went down in Los Angeles because my kids have seen this in lunchtime fights at their schools. (It hasn't happened just in public schools, either. Some Catholic schools have had the same problem.)
Black folks have carried the ball and chain of racism ever since being kidnapped and taken to America as slaves. Only now, that ball is smaller, the chain far lighter and portable--but it's still there, of course.
Enter illegals. Not people who gained citizenship here, but those who jumped the fences and rode in packed vans, then went to work for rich people in Malibu as domestics, or in the service industry. Yes, some
work 3 jobs. Their kids are in public schools--schools that blacks fought for 100 years to gain entry into and finally needed a lot of outside help to get it. They apply to work in schools hospitals and social service agencies and are told they need to be bilingual. Teachers here in the public schools are being told they need an English language learner's certificate after decades in the profession. You can see the resentment building on this side.
Mexican-Americans, for their part--the illegals, specifically--have no knowledge of Black History or any understanding of the significance embedded within those years of blood and sweat.
Then, too, this generation isn't too crazy about history. They have a tough time connecting the dots. In Baron Davis' tremendous production of the documentary "Bloods and Crips,"clearly we see how the racist police chief William Parker pushed Black families into one tiny section of South L.A.forbidding migration into white neighborhoods.
Who is living there now? Hispanics, alongside the blacks who are too economically challenged or too embedded in the neighborhood culturally to leave. They are free to also live wherever they want, thanks to The Civil Rights Bill of 1965, that was never fought for by Mexican Americans. The only other groups who stepped in to take a billy club or bullet were Catholic nuns and Priests--usually Jesuits--and young Jewish college students.
So, in 2009, there is a resentment and contempt, as much as both groups try to live peacefully. Because there is still ignorance, there is an underlying uneasiness that could blow up at any time. Right now, the economy here is so devastating--colleges and public schools are being forced to shut down, (my sons' college classes were cancelled and they are both still unemployed), while the state is on the verge of bankruptcy--there could be bloodshed this summer as everyone will be affected in domino-like fashion. Pray for us, East Coast.
Dumb.
There's a difference between tribalism and American racism.
One is an -- admittedly sometimes violent -- distrust of the other, the other is a system that crystallized around the institution of slavery in an effort to defend the indefensible.
To be sure, Latinos and white ethnics in the north were coopted into the U.S.'s racial ideology to some extent. And tribalism can be a gateway drug. But it's all too convenient for the racists themselves to be able to spread the blame and obscure the basic contours of the system.