Borderlands Presentation 4/28

The Presentation last night was extremely successful. Here was a high turn out, presentations went extremely well, and everyone was incredibly engaged in the experience. The presentation began with a description of the borderlands class. Each subject was mentioned and explained to the audience, who learned about the many different aspects that go into the Border issues, some facets include: economic, historical, sociological issues as well as women’s studies and overall cultural issues. With a background in what was important in regard to the United States/Mexico Border, the scene was set for the No More Deaths Presentation. Corinne and Kate each explained the issues as well as how the project itself began. Then, groups of students explained some significant experiences they encountered while on the trip. Sam, Connor, and Christina explained their experience of excitement when they finally encountered Mexicans trying to cross the border, however they were frustrated when they did not have much to offer the people who were desperate, sick, and hungry. Another student then described his very emotional experience of finding a migrant near-death, which he still thinks about everyday. The presenter also encouraged the audience to understand that the problems are not only on the border, but also in inner cities. It is important to not only aid those trying to enter the country, but also aiding those who are already in the country and having a difficult time adjusting. The end of the evening included presentations from the other experiential components, including Stephanie’s project of her experiences in Argentina. She helped raise awareness of a dire situation that many in the class had never even heard out. She brought to light the injustice that many in the country faced. Overall, the night was successful is raising overall awareness of a very pertinent social issue of our time. I know I was please with the outcome of the presentation, and I’m sure the rest of the class was as well.

Professor Rabinowitz 4/1

Today, our second class this week with Professor Rabinowitz, we began by discussing the proposed plan for our combined Borderlands/No More Deaths presentation, which is slated to take place in late April. Kate passed around a sheet listing the different aspects of the presentation so that people could sign up for whichever part they felt they could contribute to most effectively. We also spent a good deal of time discussing how the presentations should be set up, how long it should run, etc.

Professor Rabinowitz then facilitated a continuation of our discussion of Gloria Anzaldua’s Borderlands/La Frontera. Drawing on issues that had been raised the previous class, we focused first on what particular “audience” Anzaldua was writing for. Some people again raised the issue that Anzaldua’s harsh treatment of Anglo culture, organized religion, and men in general could potentially alienate readers. We discussed whether this was Anzaldua’s purpose, or whether she was simply attempting to shed light on negative aspects of society and culture that she feels are unjust. Many people felt that Anzaldua was speaking up for the rights of various groups (Chicanos, homosexuals, women) who have historically been oppressed and forced to conform their behaviors to what is “normal” or “accepted”. These groups, having been deprived of the ability to express themselves freely, have had their identity stolen from them; Anzaldua attempts to reclaim and recast this identity. In order to do so, she feels that current ideological structures must be broken down. On page 102, she writes: “The future depends on the breaking down of paradigms, it depends on the straddling of two or more cultures.” In class, we questioned whether or not this future is possible. We asked whether it is possible, in constructing a new identity, to do so without defining certain groups and ideas as the “other” and whether the straddling of two cultures can be realized in a societal structure that promotes strict categorization and the creation of dividing lines that goes along with it.

I would like to add a brief sidenote regarding my personal experience with Borderlands/La Frontera. I cannot deny that, throughout my first reading of the book, I felt attacked while reading passages such as the one on page 106, which states: “I’ve encountered a few scattered and isolated gentle straight men…but they are confused, and entangled with sexist behaviors that they have not been able to eradicate.” As a non-Spanish speaker, the bilingual nature of the text left me feeling estranged from whatever message Anzaldua was trying to communicate. It seemed as though there was nothing for me to draw from the book. Following Thursday’s class however, I decided to give Borderlands a second try, and to do so with as open a mind as possible. Having read more closely, I realize now that Anzaldua is not out to attack me. Rather, I believe that I jumped to that conclusion on the basis of my initial frustration with reading things that, although I know them to be true, are difficult to accept. This frustration was a barrier that I would not have recognized had I not been exposed to the book. Although seeing one’s own limitations illuminated is never pleasant, I am glad to know that our readings and discussions are helping me to overcome these barriers.

Professor Orvis 4/13

For our first class with Professor Orvis, we discussed a reading called "The new debate on minority rights" by Will Kymlicka. First, Professor Orvis outlined the ideas of liberalism and individual autonomy. There is the question of how liberals deal with group rights and group interactions. In theory, a liberal state should remain neutral among individuals - so how can we distinguish among groups? Kymlicka recognizes that the idea of the state being neutral among groups has never really been true. In fact, there are some areas where it is virtually impossible not to favor one group. The three philosophical approaches to the inclusion of minorities as outlined by Kymlicka are: classic liberalism, communitarianism, and liberal culturalism.

Professor Orvis then asked, What are some of the group issues that arise in the United States in terms of immigration? Some things that were brought up were language, education (in terms of ethnic studies, the way in which history is taught, and equality within educational systems), economic rights (social services, health, income, wages, etc), affirmative action, and political representation.

We then looked further into some of these issues. One that we focused on was political representation, with an emphasis on districting. Is there a way to draw neutral boundaries? A classical liberal would argue for neutral boundaries, which may only be achieved through a computer program. A communitarian may argue for a consociationalist quota system, where each group chooses its own leaders within the group. A liberal culturalist may support race conscious districting or proportional representation.

We also touched on education and affirmative action. The conclusion was that we do include some groups and not others, but how much and on what principle? These are questions we will discuss further in class on Thursday regarding language.

Professor Martinez 3/11

On March 11, we continued our discussion with Professor Martinez, having just finished our discussion on the potential strain in family relationships due to border issues and different living scenarios caused by the migration of particular family members. Professor Martinez began the class with a brief review of some of the border history we had learned from Professor Lopez, to introduce the topic of militarization of the border and criminalization of migrants. Professor Martinez reminded us of the guarantees made by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to people who would be living in the US who were former Mexican citizens, and how these guarantees were violated in the years following. Professor Lopez also reminded us of the land confiscations and terrorizing that the new Americans were subjected to by the government, the Texas Rangers and other rogue citizens.
With these details, we discussed what these border atrocities did for American identity, and what modern border militarization continues to do for our self-image. Border militarization creates an impression of "national security", but security from what? Knowing that many measures taken to tighten the border only slow crossers down, we put on this show for our own purposes of identity. Race and class seem to play a larger part in the way we construct ourselves than we would like to admit.
While searching for our American identity, we often lose sight of the fact that the US has helped significantly in creating the desperate economic situation in Mexico, and our immigration ideology conflicts with the economic policy in NAFTA. These policies have caused the migration of many Southern Mexicans towards the north looking for work, but when they arrive are met with chaos and vigilantism against the crime of crossing the imaginary line we call our border. The militarization of the border contributes to the image of all migrants crossing it as drug smugglers and in the post 9/11 world terrorists. Militarization contributes to dehumanization of the migrant by treating him as inferior because he is necessarily a criminal. Historically violence and confiscation of land dehumanized the migrant by treating him as inferior on the basis of his race/nationality. American identity needs to construct and image of itself that is not contingent on the exclusion of specific peoples.

4/12 Michelle Garcia Lecture

Michelle Garcia gave a lecture and showed some video clips about her work on the U.S. Mexico Border in South Texas. She talked about how there is an idea about what the border should be like, and that the “wild west” is a big part of the American Identity, which started around the time of Fredrick Jackson Turner writing about the frontier. Michelle Garcia was interested in going to the border to learn about discovering who the presumed “we” is that is included in the American Identity of the West, and in contrast who the others are. She went to the border to look into her own family history and also into border wall activism. Through her research she concluded that the creation of the border wall is just the next step in an ongoing saga of the border.

Her work was focused on the differences between the border in Texas and other parts of the U.S. Unlike in Arizona and California, the Texas land on which the border was built is privately owned. The government confiscates the land from landowners, many of whose family's have owned the land for many generations. These landowners have no recourse. It seems unfair and perhaps not worth it, when it is shown that no one believes the wall actually stops illegal immigration, but rather slows it down, and hardly even does that. She discussed how the border wall, while it may not be effective at curbing illegal immigration, is necessary for economic and political reasons. It opens up jobs in border patrol and construction of the wall and also serves to obfuscate other political problems and focus attention to the border. She then showed us a video she shot of ranchers whose lands were confiscated by the government, and the history behind the land. The border wall goes through ranchers land, but stops at golf courses and gated communities. They built the wall in places where undocumented migrants might “blend” with the rest of the population, meaning essentially the wall was built through places where people are “brown”, not places where the people are rich and white. We then discussed the No More Deaths Trips to Arizona and the ways that the Arizona border differs from the border in Texas.

4/8 Guest Lecture by Dr. Hirsch

Yesterday, we had a guest lecturer, Dr. Jennifer S. Hirsch, Associate Professor of Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. She spoke about sex, love, and marriage in Mexican transnational families.

Dr. Hirsch has most recently been working in Western Mexican rural villages to study health issues (HIV in particular) among transnational families. When she first began exploring these issues, through conversations with migrants in Atlanta, it became clear that the notion of marriage and love has changed in the last few decades. One important change has been the idea that marriage is based on love and intimacy, rather than on obligation. This conflicts with migration patterns that force the men away from their families and thus put a strain on the intimacy component of a marriage.

Another important change that she realized quickly was that for Mexican women, the biggest risk of HIV comes from having sex with their husbands. Mexico currently has a very low prevalence of HIV – significantly lower than that of the U.S. Thus, male Mexican migrant workers have a much higher risk of contracting HIV in the U.S. than at home in Mexico.

Dr. Hirsch’s most recent book, The Secret: Love, Marriage, and HIV, focuses on the risks of HIV for married women. She explained three main points:

1. extra-marital opportunity structures – elements of society that shape choices; i.e. if I grew up with 2 parents who are doctors, I will likely make different choices than if I grew up with a single, unemployed parent. Such structures include:

- gendered patterns of mobility: for Mexican migrant workers, these are important because the male migrant is likely unable to return to Mexico regularly while his wife and family is unable to move to the U.S. with him

- male socialization: cantinas in Mexico and dollar dance halls in the U.S. form male groups that encourage extra-marital sexual relations

- family pattern: marriage in Mexico is nonoptional and actually create opportunities for extra-marital relations by creating extra leisure time for men

2. Sexual geographies – Mexicans see the U.S. as a place of moral decay, no reputational cost for pre-marital sex. Mexican entry into the U.S. comes with an assumption of lowered moral expectations

3. Social Risk – engaging in extra-marital relations provide an opportunity for social gain for men; i.e. validity from other men, feeling of financial worth, etc. This conflicts with the health risk of HIV and other infections, but the social gain generally wins out.

Dr. Hirsch then explained that through her findings, and through a conversation with Dr. Paul Farmer, she realized that the U.S. consumption patterns are actually a chief reason for increased HIV prevalence in Mexico. The U.S. consumer wants cheap products, so we require cheap labor, which Mexicans (often male) provide, which leads to split up Mexican families and the result is men who end up with HIV and return to Mexico and infect their wives. As Dr. Hirsch put it, we’re all ordering our “cheeseburgers with a side of HIV.”

The problem, according to Dr. Hirsch, is the labor system and the solution is labor and migration reform. With our current system, we offload health burdens onto the most vulnerable. The solution is not telling Mexicans to use condoms or be faithful, because we’ve learned that this probably will not be completely successful. If we’re going to change someone’s behavior, let’s change our own by being more responsible consumers and by demanding reform from our representatives.

Professor Merrill: Multicultural Literature in Contemporary Italy 4/6

On Tuesday, April 6th, Professor Merrill was our professor. We were assigned various stories from the compilation of stories in the book Multicultural Literature in Contemporary Italy to read for today's class. The stories all had to do with the migrant culture in modern day Italy. Though some were fictional, all realistically portrayed the immigrant struggle in one way or another. In addition to reading these stories, we were required to pose one discussion question as it related to any story or any issue we came across, and three key terms. Some chose terms as words from a foreign language that they did not know such as "éscamotage," while others chose terms that were relevant to the subject matter, such as "home."

During class, we used various people's discussion questions as starting points. From there, we discussed different things such as what it means to have a homeland. Additionally, we talked about assimilation into a culture that is not your "own." How much can you assimilate? Even if you appear to be assimilated -- can you ever truly be? When can you "cut the cord" that binds you to your "home?" We focused on homelands and home, and what these two things meant to various people. We talked about language barriers, race issues, "third culture children" -- whose parents are of different nationalities, and they themselves are born into a third nation. Where do these people fit in? Tuesday's class was discussion-filled, and really opened my eyes to different perspectives of what it means to be "home."

Professor Rabinowitz 3/30

Anzaldúa 3/30

“Nothing happens in the “real” world unless it first happens in the images in our heads” (Anzaldúa 109)

Professor Rabinowitz facilitated a conversation about Gloria Anzaldúa’s Borderlands/ La Frontera. Professor Rabinowitz framed the work in the context of the feminist movement of the 70s and 80s, which largely excluded feminists of color and lesbian feminists. Anzaldúa’s text, in addition to being a central Chicano text, was also a response to this exclusion.
We first addressed Anzaldúa’s assertion that borders do not only exist as the line between nation-states, but also conceptually in all different areas of the world (patriarchy, language, religion, etc). We questioned both the content of Anzaldúa’s argument and her means of arguing it. If she really wanted to resist borders, many students asked why does she exclude people by writing in Spanish? Also, we spent some time exploring why people felt confronted by various strong ‘attacking’ statements she makes; “the dominant white culture is killing us slowly with its ignorance” (108) or “Only gay men have had the courage to expose themselves to the woman inside them and to challenge the current masculinity” (106).
In this conversation, however, we need to remember that Anzaldúa desired this discomfort and sees it as an essential step towards change. In the first chapter Anzaldúa describes the border as “un herida abierta where the Third World grates against the first and bleeds. And before a scab can form it hemorrhages again, the lifeblood of two worlds merging to form a third country—a border culture” (25). For Anzaldúa the border is also a metaphor for how we understand knowledge. Every time we come up against challenging issues (and when we’re not confronting challenging issues we’re probably not learning) we are in some sort of borderlands (although we’re possibly on different ‘sides’ of the border). Being in this place is usually painful, but it is more painful (although necessary) to get out of it—she writes, “every increment of consciousness, every step forward is a travesía, a crossing. I am an alien in a new territory. And again, and again. But if I escape conscious awareness, escape “knowing,” I won’t be moving” (70).
This is why whenever we come to new consciousnesses we have to develop a “tolerance for ambiguity” we need to recognize as the mestiza women Anzaldúa describes knows; “she has discovered that she can’t hold concepts of ideas in rigid boundaries” (101) because this creates new borders. This is more challenging said than done because to some extent our current knowledge system depends on the assumption of boundaries and contradictions. But I agree with Anzaldúa, that “the future depends on the breaking down of paradigms, it depends on the straddling of two or more cultures” (102). It is the ‘how’ that we need to figure out.