In order to expand readers, my blog has moved to a new home. Continue enjoying my posts @ http://www.latinainsuburbia.blogspot.com/
You can also follow me on my new Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/LatinaInSuburbia
In order to expand readers, my blog has moved to a new home. Continue enjoying my posts @ http://www.latinainsuburbia.blogspot.com/
You can also follow me on my new Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/LatinaInSuburbia
Some kids I knew watched sitcoms or MTV after dinner.
My brother and I knew that once 6pm hit, no matter what we would be watching, we’d have to tune into the news. I could not quite understand why my father would make us watch or read about politics, especially before I reached my teenage years. If it was up to me, I would have been watching The Wayans Bros.
Part of the reason my parents put on the news had to do with their educational experience back in Ecuador. Like primary and secondary school students in many other Latin-American countries, they were required to take a civics class, meant to teach them about the workings of government and the role they could play toward progress and social betterment.
The message of those classes stuck with my parents, even if the Ecuadorian government didn’t always live up to classroom standards. My father felt that if we understood the political landscape, we would feel a sense of responsibility to do our part in making sure our country moves forward in a socially responsible manner.
However, current events aren’t the only things that shape my opinions and concerns. I also cared deeply about family and community. With politicians promoting anti-immigrant policies and xenophobia – opposed to actual reform – I feel an obligation to consider the greater Latino community, not just my own interests.
Like many children of Latino immigrants born in this country, I witnessed the social and economic struggles my parents went through on a daily basis. I was exposed to this reality at a young age, giving me a sense of familial responsibility, a cultural trait that I’ve seen many times over in other Latino and immigrant families, regardless of country of origin or economic status. Whether I was interpreting, filling out forms, or attending doctor’s appointments, I became aware of how government and its institutions work – or don’t work – to serve immigrant communities.
In this respect, our sense of advocacy transcends politics. To borrow a phrase from gender activists, I would say that within our Latino culture, the personal is political. Issues of immigration, healthcare, labor, and education aren’t just up for debate – they’re issues that affect our families directly.
We cannot solely blame government for ignoring Latinos. We should also hold ourselves accountable. While we are the largest ethnic minority in the United States and our voting population is 9.7 million, only 50 percent of eligible Latino voters actually vote! We live in a democratic country where we have a chance to make our voice heard at the polls, but the Latino voting population has not done its part. So how can we expect government to address our concerns when we don’t turn out for elections?
Once I turned 18, instead of voting before work, my father would wait for me in the evening and we would take a trip to the election polls as a family. Even now that I am married and living on Long Island, when election time comes around he will not forget to ask, “Ya votastes mija?” or “You already voted?”
I realize that it’s easier for me to remember to vote because I grew up with a civic-minded father. But as I think about the Latino voting population in the US, which continues to increase by about 500,000 every year, I hope that parents across the country are nagging their kids on election day, changing the channel to the news at 6pm, and teaching our next generation about the power of their vote.
(This post was first featured in Long Island Wins http://longislandwins.com/index.php/features/detail/latino_political_power_starts_at_the_dinner_table/)
This past week, the Labor and Industrial Relations Committee in the California State Senate voted in favor of a domestic workers bill of rights that would provide basic labor protections for those workers in California.
Now the legislation will move to the Fiscal Committee; if approved, the entire State Senate will then vote on it.
As California’s domestic workers struggle to attain basic labor rights, I recall my master’s fieldwork spent studying the work of the New York City-basedDomestic Workers United in February 2010.
The organization traveled to Albany once or twice a month to lobby for theDomestic Workers Bill of Rights in New York State. During one trip I was given the opportunity to serve as an interpreter for a group of women.
As I walked down the halls of the capital building with the group, I clearly recall one woman who was not able to catch up. I remember asking myself, “Why does she walk so slow? Is she scared? Does she not want to be here?”
I found the answer later that day as I interpreted her story about abuses she suffered as a domestic worker.
She was forced to clean on her knees for hours, and now she could barely walk due to the excruciating pain she felt both in her knees and her feet. She endured verbal abuse while braving seven-day workweeks, with each day’s work lasting more than eight hours. Not only was she underpaid at her job, she was eventually fired with no warning.
Her basic rights were being violated yet there was no legislation protecting her and the approximately 200,000 other domestic workers in New York. My voice shook in an attempt to hold back tears as I had to translate her story for our meeting with a group of state senators.
That’s when I realized the importance of the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, which was eventually signed into law in August 2010 by Governor Paterson.
The domestic work industry has become a robust foundation in today’s economy. As women have taken on an active role in what were once exclusively male workplaces, families have increasingly sought the services of domestic workers. And in the wake of the economic crisis, this industry has become highly susceptible to exploitation.
That’s why the bill of rights was so important. It grants basic rights to a historically excluded group of workers: The right to overtime pay, the right to at least one day of rest each week, the right to protection against any form of harassment under New York State law.
In the fight over domestic worker rights, we can see issues of ethnicity, gender, and immigration intertwine.
Many domestic workers – nannies, housekeepers, and caregivers for the elderly – are women of color. Many of them are immigrants. However, these women are often not viewed as regular workers. Due to the nature of the work, these jobs are perceived more as the duty of the woman, a holdover from a time when women were bound to the privacy of their homes.
Domestic work has been historically linked to particular socio-economic groups, such as indentured servants, slaves, or immigrants. In our current era of globalization, the work has often become a form of modern-day slavery, using immigrants, particularly Caribbean and Latina women, to provide the labor.
Considering this long history of mistreatment, I knew there would be opposition to the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights in New York. Prominent Republican leaders in the State Senate wouldn’t support the bill, including Long Island’s Owen Johnson (R-West Babylon) and John Flanagan (R-East Northport), saying they were reluctant to pass a piece of legislation protecting undocumented immigrants.
In their opposition, they failed to recognize the economic and social need for domestic workers on Long Island. They also ignored the motivations of the workers, many of whom are forced to migrate to the US because of free trade, privatization, and the extraction of agricultural and industrial labor in their countries of origin. Instead, these workers are label “illegal,” marginalized in our society, and thus susceptible to abuse and exploitation.
Who can forget Muttontown’s Mahender and Varsha Sabhani, a millionaire couple who enslaved two immigrant domestic workers for five years? The couple forced the victims to work long hours, starved them, and beat and tortured them.
Thanks to the passage of the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, horrific cases like that can now be brought to the courts or reported to our labor department. Regardless of immigration status, workers can report abusive employers who violate their rights.
New York has already taken a vital step toward recognizing domestic workers and the importance of their contributions within our labor market, regardless of race, gender or immigration status. Now let’s stand by California, and aspire to see such a bill passed in every state.
(This post was first featured in Long Island Wins http://www.longislandwins.com/index.php/features/detail/domestic_worker_protections_should_extend_beyond_new_york/)
Within the Latino community, especially back in our countries of descent, homosexuality can be handled as taboo—you know it exists, but you do not talk about it. In most Latin American countries, religion is quite important and shapes the values of many families, creating a sense of animosity towards the LGBT communities.
My parents are from Ecuador, and during a trip there nine years ago, I met individuals who kept their orientation a secret but would ask me how their lifestyle would be perceived in the US. Based on what I told them, they expressed their utmost desire to one day live in New York. This was their American Dream.
In a few weeks, LGBT couples in New York will be able to walk into City Hall and say, “I do,” thanks to the Marriage Equality Act, a law that was recently passed with the support of Governor Cuomo and a majority of New York State’s elected officials.
The mere thought fills me with excitement, even anxiety, at what awaits—New York State, a symbol of equality. It makes me feel good just to write that.
Unfortunately, this historic victory won’t change the way federal law regards LGBT couples, in New York or any other state, and it won’t help such couples enjoy the same rights afforded to their heterosexual counterparts.
Soon after marriage equality passed in New York, I started hearing about another piece of legislation: The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton, the act recognizes the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, denying LGBT couples the federal status given to heterosexual spouses.
Not only does the Defense of Marriage Act block marriage equality legislation on a federal level, it grants states the right to not recognize same-sex marriages conducted by other states.
But that’s not all. The law also keeps LGBT spouses from applying for citizenship in the way that a heterosexual spouse could.
It’s no accident that our immigration laws target LGBT couples. Just look at our immigration system’s history of discrimination over sexual-orientation:
The Immigration Act of 1917 placed openly homosexual immigrants under the classification of “mentally defective,” and the amended Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 linked homosexuality to “sexual deviation,” enacting a closed door policy to any openly gay immigrant.
The Immigration Act of 1990 eventually made legal immigration possible for openly homosexual immigrants, but that still doesn’t account for same-sex couples who want their spouses to join them in the US.
Since the Defense of Marriage Act does not recognize same-sex marriages, one same-sex spouse cannot file for permanent residency for his or her partner, perpetually ostracizing those couples based on their sexual orientation.
Anyone who studies social issues knows that policies and problems tend to be linked to one another. Immigration and LGBT rights are a perfect example.
Immigrants today, regardless of their sexual orientation, share the aspirations that newcomers throughout history have expressed – the desire for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
For me, it all comes back to the people who I met in Ecuador. One particular guy who I met was living in secret. When I asked him what came next, he said “nothing.” He planned to eventually marry a woman and have children. He would be stuck living in the shadows, only able to dream of a different life in the US.
As a country, we should be proud that members of LGBT communities abroad look upon us in such a positive light. Let’s try to live up to that reputation, and support changes to our immigration system that will give long overdue equal rights to LGBT couples.
(This post was first featured in Long Island Wins: http://www.longislandwins.com/index.php/features/detail/for_same-sex_couples_trapped_by_the_immigration_system_marriage/)
Well, should it even be an issue? I ask myself this question every time the topic comes up. My parents always told my brother and I, “You are no less and no more than anyone in this world; so never think you are more important or less important than anyone regardless of class, race or gender — you are equal” (in addition to more revolutionary words, in which I will cherish and keep to myself ) and we continue living with this philisophy. However, coming from a very Catholic and Latino home, homosexuality was perceived as an unnatural way of life in which should be lived in silence — living in an open partnership was unconventional, let alone marriage or children! Apparently, I was not alone in this upbringing…
I went to a High School predominantly consisting of Latinos and African-Americans. So one can imagine homophobia brewing within an environment filled with thousands of adolescents trying to “fit-in” all with a similar perception of what homosexuality is. Being labeled, “gay”, “lesbo”, “faggot” was feared by many hetero’s and even closetted individuals. It was after graduation where many explored sexuality and felt secure enough to embrace their orientation. Once again, education is key and it helped me understand many things beyond excerpts from a bible and the universality of love and attraction.
In a society where everything is deemed black and white, the attempt to view the gray area of everything takes a little more work and a little more work is a concept many people choose not to bother with. Within the realm of politics in our society many will label themselves democrats or republicans, conservatives or liberals. In the realm of color, for years there was either black or white and now that brown comes in the mix and more work is required to understand the diversity within a gray area of race — some choose to stereotype, persecute and promote xenophobic policies. The same goes for the topic of gender where only the role of man and woman co-exists with each other along with sexual orientation.
The formula to this narrow-minded concept is: A baby is a either a boy or girl and this boy or girl become a man + woman who will eventually at some point come together to make children and form a family.
However, gender and sexuality holds a gray area as well. Western culture recognizes only two sexes, however as many do not know there are three major subgroups of sexes in which humanity can fall under; a mixture of sexes or intersexes. These are hermaphrodites (herms), female pseudohermaphrodites (ferms) and male pseudohermaphrodites (merms). But even this information is limited as sex can be vast but it is unexplored as it can become complex for society…so thanks to science, it has simplified it down to boy or girl.
Once science determines the sex of the baby (boy/girl), the door to gender roles open. Blue/Pink, Dresses/Navy Outfits, Barbies/G.I. Joes all choices based on the sex of the baby. And these are never-ending choices in which a child must choose according to their sex; where if they don’t, it can be deemed a cause for concern. And as the choice for a life partner arises so does a typical and “natural” expectation occur, it must be the opposite sex. But sometimes it isn’t and thus society chooses to stigmatize and punish ignoring the gray area of it all. Society as progressive as it can claim to be, digresses back to religion and the question of morality/normality & the preservation of it all.
Today we live in a society that swears by the word progress and a culture in which state and church are said to be separate. Our society denounces any other nation-state in which church and government are intertwined, labeled “archaic/developing”; countries in need of OUR help to progress. But this is the pot calling the kettle black as church and state have not completely eliminated their ties with one another. Clear example: Gay Marriage. Considered sodomy and illegal in some states, homosexuality is looked down upon as a monstrous way of life to some. And now New York State is put to the test, should it legalize gay marriage?
In one of the most diverse states in the country, New York represents what the world is today… a melting pot. A melting pot of decisions, ways of life — cultures. The Assembly has passed the proposed bill and now on to the Senate. Consisting of a Republican majority, the bill is one vote shy away from it being passed and all it needs is a Republican vote. However, the Republican party has announced that any Republican Senator supporting this bill will lose support by the party itself if they vote to pass the bill. This following religious representatives such as the Catholic Archbishop denouncing homosexuality and the Republican party reinforcing their mission on, “preserving family values” — this coming from a party that freaks out when the government so much hints at involving itself with any economic issue (ie: Corporate America).
Gay marriage should not be an issue as it is more of a private and individual choice. Just like a Latina can be with a person of another race (well at least after the anti-miscegenation laws were eliminated in 1967 in the U.S.) no one should have the ability to deny a person to be with another simply because it is not deemed “normal” by our society. Who we choose as partners does not depend on our government nor can government deny individuals rights others already and automatically enjoy simply because they are different. By passing this law (in which if Senate passes it, Governor Cuomo has announced he’d sign it), New York will establish a sense of equality and example for other states in which should treat and permit the LGBTQ community to live their lives as everyone else. And not be set aside as a specific group simply because they choose to live their life differently to what society deems acceptable. Instead they choose to live in a gray area, in which many people need to learn about and respect.Follow @BellaCereja
Interracial relationships and marriages are a topic that people choose not to talk about, instead many just choose to quietly judge or gawk at it. As long as it does not hit close to home, it will be a subject untouched for most. Based on a Gallup research, 83% of Americans approve interracial relationships/marriages however only about 8% of marriages are interracial. If most people seem to “approve” of it then why such a scarce number? If racism is allegedly diminishing from our melting pot society why such an obvious hesitation to approach a racially blind relationship?…My answer to this, interracial relationships continue being a taboo within our society.
Before 1967, interracial marriages and relationships were a cultural abomination within the United States. Interracial marriages and relationships were considered illegal by law. These laws were initially introduced within the thirteen colonies and continually enforced in states such as Virginia (the Racial Integrity Act of 1924) and Alabama — all until 1967’s Loving v. Virginia case. A white man and an African & Native American woman were married in DC in 1958; they were Virginia natives and were both caught sleeping in bed by officers who were defending the Integrity Act . They were thus sentenced to prison for one year that in turn was suspended as long as they left the state. After the ACLU filed a motion on their behalf, the Supreme Court ruled against any law throughout the nation which enforced anti-miscegenation.
Today, many fear to be labeled racist and choose to quietly disapprove of such a relationship while expressing progressive views publicly. However, there are groups in which attempt to digress back towards the anti-miscegenation laws. Such is the case in Mississippi — A poll conducted by the Public Policy Polling announced that 49% of Mississippi residents desire to have interracial marriages/relationships banned. In Lousiana a Justice of the Peace, Keith Bardwell, refused to marry any interracial couple. The resistance to interracial marriages/relationships does not only come from one group. People of other backgrounds also perceive interracial marriages/relationships unseen for many reasons that may be similar to that of white groups. They might perceive it as a form of betrayal or selling out.
I am married to what many Latinos would call a, Blanquito/Gringo/Zuco/Colorado, in plain English – a white boy. However, when I met him, he was just another human being who soon became my partner. I am a Latina, very ethnic looking at that so walking down the streets of New York City we did get some looks of curiousity, some of disapproval from both sides. Walking down the streets of Babylon Village, there were the same looks however in a predominantly white community dissaproval was a bit more obvious and well, pissed me off. One day we were both curious with what each side was thinking. I tried so hard not to pre-judge many of the white people’s stares and he felt the same way about Latinos. As we exchanged our thoughts and what our cultures were quietly thinking we both came to the conclusion that some things have yet to change…
I told him some Latinas or Latinos look for white partners to move up socially and even economically within society, this is not a generalization just cases I have seen and heard personally. Therefore others within our community consider that a form of selling out which of course I would agree because searching for someone based upon race is racist in its own matter. Others would feel its a form of betrayal to our community; a lack of solidarity and embarrassment of where one comes from, their identity. I have also had friends who have asked me, “What? No good Latin men?” and my answer would be “I’m sure there are, but I don’t require a Racial ID”. From his side, he made me aware that ignorance continues to exist filled with stereotypes and some that coincide with some of my community’s misperceptions. He made me aware that while many looks might be curious looks, others were of disapproval. Individuals might think its a step down from the social ladder. A white man rescuing a latina from the ghetto. Therefore she must be somewhat un-educated, have an accent and maybe even not documented.
As we both confirmed the world has not caught up to present day, we both knew it would be a little harder since we both had to educate others down this path and continue doing so. I speak Spanish fluently and as many of you know my identity has a solid foundation. I don’t have an accent, I love the skin I’m in and am very proud, I hold a Master’s Degree and can hold a conversation with anyone. As for my husband, no he did not save me from any ghetto (I did not need any saving from anything; I love where I came from). He eats latin dishes, dances, speaks a little Spanish — ultimately respecting my identity as I respect his.
Interracial marriages/relationships are quite the taboo however, its a taboo because there is a small amount as it requires a little more work due to the societal pressures that exist. But what’s taboo is not necessarily wrong….