On "Hispanic" Republicans (was Re: [Marxism] re:Buying off the German people [carlos], and Greens [david])

["Carlos A. Rivera" <cerejota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Now, I like hard data and quotes, so I am speaking on my empirical
observation as a Puerto Rican.

----- Original Message -----
From: "M. Junaid Alam" <mjunaidalam@xxxxxxxxxx>



> The Hispanic question is an interesting and vital one to raise. I am a bit
> surprised at the rapid rate of assimilation, Protestantization, and
> conservatism
> of around 50% of the Hispanic population that voted Republican.

Funny you mention Protestantization. This is actually a problematic thing to
use as a litmus or as a causal thing. While it is true that
protestantization has been a method of colonial domination and assimilation,
this method hasn't been particulary sucessful. Aside from the evangelical
wave, which is recent, the protestant churches have followed the catholic
church in political terms in Latin America. That is, just as you find your
liberation theologists, you find your reactionaries.

My guess, until the contrary is proven, is that there is no direct
relationship beyond the anecdotical.

Nor is there any major measure of assimilation going on.

If you look at the 50% figure, you would see that it is mostly located in
the Southwest, in particular in Texas. Latin@s in the east coast or Midwest
or California voted blue all the way.

Now, all those areas were formerly Mexico. Anglos and non-Anglos outside of
the region have trouble understanding that a sizeable proportion of the
"hispanic" population in those areas are not immigrants, but actually people
who have lived there since it was Mexico. They didn't simply pack and leave.
Some notorious Texas Hispanic Republicans, those close to Bush, actually
fougth against Mexico in the war for "independence" and are considered
full-blooded Texians even by the most unrepentant racists in the State.
People from Texas know all about this, and it is taught in school, in
borderline racist terms: the Good Hispanic-American, and the bad wetback
indian chicano.

And just as Texas and the southwest were at one point strongholds of the
Democrats and are now fast becoming Republican areas, the "hispanic" vote
has made the switch. That is the simple answer.

> I don't
> know much on this issue, though.

I do know a little more than you do, but not that much either. Not much
serious thougth has gone into it.

> Is there a major polarization in the community?

There is. As matter of fact, I put "Hispanic" in quotes because I prefer
"latino/a". "Hispanic" is usually the domain of the hypenated american
assimilationist crowd, while "latino/a" is used more commonly by
progressives.  Usually "Hispanic" is the equivalent of "Irish" a vague
identification with genealogical ancestry, but little more.

Certainly it doesn't refer to relatively recent immigration.

> Is there a factor of  "whiteness" of many Hispanics that leads them to
> identify
> more with Anglos?

Certainly white skin privilege plays a role, but this role is in the
acceptance on the part of Anglos, not in self-identification.

By and large skin issues play less of a role than class issues in Latin
American society. Skin is usualy seen with some weariness, and with some
prejudice, but even the whitest white reactionary would follow a mestizo
reactionary dictator. As a matter of fact, dark skinned/mestizo/criollo
reactionaries are a rule and not an exception (Trujillo, Batista, Somoza on
and on).

The identification of with the Republican Party comes from a political
identification with the program of the Republican Party, in which race is
but a footnote, and sometimes a point of contention (Bush's equivocal
position on immigration is a nod to his wide and rich "Hispanic" base).
Since there isn't much of a black population in the areas were "Hispanics"
roam, and most have some sort of white skin privilege, race isn't an issue.

sks


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism