Readers are invited to address letters to
The Editors, Report on the Americas,
475 Riverside Drive, Suite 454, New
York, NY 10115. Letters may be edited
for length and clarity.
Immigration
I am writing to congratulate you on
your generally excellent July Report,
“Coming North: Latino & Caribbean
Immigration” [Vol. XXVI, No. 1]. For
those of us who work in the inner cities,
racism, discrimination andEnglish-only
activities are among our major con-
cerns. The bigger picture presented by
this issue will prove helpful.
I have, however, a major criticism of
the issue: nothing was said about either
emigration from Brazil or Brazilian
immigration to this country. I suspect
that with the exception of Mexico, more
people have immigrated to the United
States (with or without documentation)
from Brazil in the last 10 years than
from any other country in Central or
South America. In greater Boston, Bra-
zilians represent the largest newcomer
group. Here in Somerville, they out-
number both Haitians and Central
Americans.
I often find that people talking and
writing about Latin America are in fact
talking about Hispanic America. This is
unfortunate since Brazil represents half
the area and half the population of South
America. I don’t think NACLA falls
into this trap-yourissue on “The B lack
Americas” [Vol. XXV, No. 4], for ex-
ample, had excellent material on Brazil.
I hope, however, that you raise this
concern with your writers from time to
time.
Jack Hamilton
Somerville, MA
Latino Politics
Earl Shorris’ article, “Latinos: The
Complexity of Identity” in your Sep-
tember Report [Vol. XXVI, No. 2], and
the book from which the article was
excerpted, Latinos: A Biography of a
People, are a unique trip into a labyrinth
of contradictions and mixed feelings.
As Iread, Ithought: you’reright, Shorris,
no way, Jos6, who told you that?, bril-
liant, off-target, poetic, that’s bull…,
can’t you, Earl, understand ourpeople?,
not bad for a non-Latino, basta!, Latinos
of the world, unite, bravo, Earl, you did
it!
After I moved to the United States
from Mexico in 1977, it took me-the
radical, the open-minded one, the inter-
nationalist-more than five years to
recognize and accept that I was a
“Latino” in this country.
Son of peasant parents, I have had
the fortune to study for free the most
pretentious theories at the most elitist
institutions: the Jesuits’ seminary and
El Colegio de Mexico. From a conser-
vative Catholic, I became a well-orga-
nized anarchist, moving later on to more
accepted sanctuaries of the political Left:
socialism and liberation theology with
a touch of Zapata and Cardenismo.
I came to the United States to get
married and to receive a Ph.D. from the
University of Chicago (which I didn’t
get), and in the meantime, to fight Milton
Friedman’s “Chicago Boys” (which I
did almost on a full-time basis). I in-
tended only to learn a few secrets about
“The Monster,” and then to return to
Mexico to fight the good war against
the PRI, the Mexican bourgeoisie and
U.S. imperialism.
Sure, from my Mexican trench I
would support the struggle of Latinos
and Latinas for self-determination, but
it was their fight, not mine. Remember,
I thought of myself as a Mexican, a
proud Mexican from Mexico, always in
the process of buying a one-way ticket
to my querida patria.
After 15 years in Gringolandia, when
nobody, except my mama, hopes I’ll
return to Mexico, what is my identity?
Very simple: I am a radical, open-
minded, internationalist muchacho.
What else could I be, being a Latino?
Ask Shorris. His article and book
are an authentic portrayal of my new
life, of my revealing Latino existence as
poor Salvadoran refugee, wealthy Cu-
ban in exile, black painter and Chicano
organizer, Protestant Asian and Catho-
lic Lebanese, the Jew with some poems,
the Puerto Rican with a couple of
dreams, the ever-resisting Indian, the
out-of-place Spaniard, thePachuco from
L.A. and the Young Lord from you-
know-where, the community advocate,
the mulatto trade unionist, the mestizo
comecuras, me the merengue king, the
undocumented immigrant murdered by
la Migra, the homeless person beaten
by the skinheads, me the Sandinista,
and the registered unregistered.
Earl Shorris corroborated a univer-
sal suspicion: we are La Raza Cosmica,
we are Latinos! Therefore, Shorris
shouldn’t be concerned about Latinos
becoming the largest insignificant mi-
nority in U.S. history. In fact, the prob-
lem is that we don’t want to be seen and
treated as a minority, no matter how
large or significant. A minority condi-
tion and a minority mentality is oppres-
sion. We need to disappear as a minor-
ity A.S.A.P.
Let’s look in the mirror with our
own eyes to re-discover that we carry in
our skin the colors of the rainbow, and
in our history, everybody’s cultures,
struggles and aspirations.
Enough of the Establishment’s self-
serving We Will Be the Largest Minor-
ity by the End of This Minute. In this
socially balkanized country, let’s have
the privilege of showing to ourselves
and everyone else our true identity: we
are working women and men from ev-
erywhere, we are human beings, in-
deed. What else can we be, being Latinos
and Latinas?
Primitivo Rodriguez
Director
Mexico-U.S. Border Program
American Friends Service Committee
My gut reaction to Earl Shorris’
essay, “The Complexity of Identity,”
was anger at its infantile matrix. My
second reaction was sadness.
As a third-generation Chicana born
and raised in El Paso, Texas, I take
offense at the notion that 1) Mexicans
are docile, 2) they live by inference,
divination and luck, 3) they are enam-
ored of education, and 4) their political
power depends upon a homogenous
identity or assimilation, with no other
alternative on their horizon.
Perhaps the issue is not so much that
Latinos do not fit a precise political
mold, but that Shorris’ mold is shallow
and traditionally racist. Shallow because
it reduces the process of building politi –
cal power to the simplistic and singu-
larly North American formula of poten-
tial voting blocs. Racist because it ana-
lyzes a complex historical and political
reality through the prism of white cul-
ture, and develops broad generaliza-
tions and judgments from verbal snap-
shots of individuals and organizations.
Regardless of his personal upbring-
ing and background, Shorris remains a
typical gringo. All he can see and smell
is the jalapefio, and all he can think
about is how to package it for the North
American market.
l am saddened by the fact that almost
20 years have passed since the begin-
ning of my political activism and that a
publication such as yours still believes
it is appropriate to print such an article.
I am saddened as well that the political
and social panorama still does not allow
Latino intellectuals and academics to
speak for their own people.
I can’t imagine what Report on the
Americas hoped to accomplish by pub-
lishing this piece. Perhaps this was the
result of a search for a succinct analysis
of “Latinos” a la United States Census.
Perhaps it’s not Shorris’ problem that
he failed, but that your magazine really
expected to find such an article.
Cecilia Rodriguez
New York, NY
Earl Shorris responds:
I would like to take the occasion to
respond here, in a magazine of good and
serious intentions, to Cecilia Rodri-
guez’ version of the tragic misunder-
standing of human diversity.
The response will be in four parts,
beginning with three brief comments
on her letter and concluding with
some thoughts on the more serious
question.
1) The article in Report on theAmeri-
cas was a digest of a book of more than
500 pages. While the editors did a re-
markable job of choosing paragraphs
from various parts of the book and weav-
ing them into a coherent piece, the com-
pression necessarily asks a lot of the
reader. Much of what reviewers have
described as a “celebration” of Latinos
had to be left out.
2) Of the four notions that “offend”
Cecilia Rodriguez, two are quotations
from leading Latino intellectuals, one is
simply a truism of immigration, and she
has misread the other. Dr. Raymond del
Portillo spoke of the “steadfastness and
loyalty” he had observed and then said
“their docility is sometimes disappoint-
ing.” ProfessorLeobardo Estrada spoke
of the “reverence for education” he
found among Mexican Americans.
Those are the opinions of del Portillo
and Estrada, as reported by me.
Rodriguez is welcome to complain to
them. Why the love of education is
offensive to her is impossible to under- stand, but the Mexican-American com-
munity is surely not in need of political
activists who are offended by such love.
Neither the book nor the article sug-
gests a “homogeneous” identity for
Latinos. That is, in fact, the exact oppo-
site of the central thesis of my work. People in power imply. People who
do not possess power are left to infer, to
divine the often secret or unspoken wishes of those in power, and ultimately
to trust to luck that they will be able to
survive in a difficult, even hostile envi-
ronment. If Ms. Rodriguez does not
believe that is the situation in which minorities, particularly new immigrants,
in the United States find themselves, what is the impetus for her “political activism”?
3) Had Cecilia Rodriguez looked at
the book, Latinos, from which the ar-
ticle was digested, she would have found
that, in the late 1960s, I asked my friend
Rub6n Salazar to write a series of ar-
ticles, ultimately a book, about Latinos
in the United States. Rub6n was shot to
death by aLos Angeles County Sheriff s
Deputy before he could do the work. I
waited for nearly 20 years, expecting
every year that someone would produce such a book. Finally, I thought I’d better
do it. When we were reporters together
on The El Paso Herald-Post, Rub6n
had saved my life. If he couldn’t write the book, at least I could do it and
dedicate it to him.
On the other hand, Rodriguez is cor- rect. Had Rub6n written the book, it
would have been better.
I share her concern for the poor reception given by the mainstream press
to Latino writers. She may have read
my essay in The New York Times Book
Review on the subject. It was helpful, I
think, to novelists and poets, but I erred
in not talking about writers of non-
fiction.
Changes are coming, however.
Working together as writers and intel- lectuals, not as gabachos and chicanos,
we are now more able to find literary
agents and mainstream publishers for
Puerto Rican, Cuban-American and
Mexican-American writers of non-fic- tion as well as fiction and poetry. A
complete literature, not merely a litera- ture of curiosities-gangsters and drug
addicts, etc.-is developing.
4) The thrust of Ms. Rodriguez’ let-
ter, which is that an Anglo is ipsofacto
a racist and therefore incapable of writ-
ing about Latinos, is a danger to civi-
lized society. Her view embraces the
very essence of racism. Consider the practical consequences
of the adoption of Rodriguez’ thesis by
the general society. If Anglos cannot write about Latinos, then surely Latinos
cannot write about Anglos. And if
Latinos cannot even write about Anglos,
there is no possibility that Latinos can
govern them. If Henry Cisneros and
Federico Pefia were to accept the conse-
quences of her thesis, they would have
to resign from the Clinton cabinet. Un-
der the Cecilia Rodriguez rule of the
ethnic wall, only Anglos could govern
Anglos; the United States would have
to return to the brutal majority that
existed prior to the Civil Rights Move-
ment and the Voting Rights Act.
Newspapers and television stations
could limit their employment of Latino
writers and editors to those needed to
cover the Latino community. Under the
Rodriguez rule, they could argue that
Latinos are incapable of writing about Anglos or blacks. There would be no
exceptions. Rodriguez is clear on the
point: “Regardless of his personal up-
bringing and background, Shorris re-
mains a typical gringo.”
Still in the realm of practicality, the
Rodriguez Rule is anachronistic. As
Andrew Hernindez of the Southwest
Voter Registration and Education Pro-
gram said, “Latinos must now learn
how to govern.” He is correct. The old
separatist views are not useful for people
whose numbers and voter participation
have begun to bring them political
power. The Rodriguez Rule is the last
vestige of docility; William (Willie) Velasquez founded SVREP to partici-
pate, to take power, to hide no longer in
the ghetto of separatism. Velasquez was
not docile; he was equal to, part of, as
good as, different from and yet alike; in
the great human, democratic tradition
he advised his young followers to read
Aristotle. And vote.
The theory of the ethnic wall is very
old. In the beginning, it was xenopho-
bia, and it was then, as now, useful to
the xenophobes. In ancient Greece and
all through the Middle East xenophobia
allowed those in power to hold slaves
and make war. It still has the same
effect. One has only to look at Germany today, where strangers are being killed
by the ethnic purists, or Germany yes-
terday, where Jews, gypsies, homosexu-
als, all those who were different were
killed. In Ireland, the Protestants and
the Catholics make war. In Europe, the
Serbs are killing the Bosnians. In So-
malia, where people are of the same race and speak the same language, the
members of one clan are killing and
starving the members of another clan.
To breach the wall, to be success- fully human, one must first concede the
existence of others and then perform the
glorious act of mind, which is to imag-
ine them, to imagine how it is to be
them. That is pluralism. It is the hope of
each of us and all of us. Neither justice
nor mercy has any other beginning in a
complex world.
So I would ask Cecilia Rodriguez to
rescind her iron rule, to tear down the
ethnic wall, to imagine me as I imagine
her; then together, wearing our differ-
ent faces, we can be political activists, citizens, tough-minded singers of the
human chorale.
Cuban Photo
The photograph of a nineteenth-cen-
tury Cuban dwelling which appeared in
the February 1992 Report, “The Black
Americas” [Vol. XXV, No. 4], should
be further identified. Most Cuban homes
of that period were not made of cement nor equipped with gun ports, as the
home in the photo was.
The photo shows a fortification lo-
cated on the Spanish precursor of the
Maginot Line, built in a futile attempt to
contain pro-independence forces on the
eastern end of the island.
Philip Russell
Director Mexico Resource Center Austin, TX
