4/27: Social Movements - Professor Irons

On Tuesday, we discussed social movements and the various ways that one can become involved with their community or other similar group to be an “activist.” We discussed what being an “activist” means and how working for social justice can often place you in difficult positions. Our class then tied in the readings, the first of which being The Costs and Risks of Social Activism: A Study of the Sanctuary Movement Activism by Gregory L. Wiltfang and Doug McAdam. In this piece, two issues were addressed: why social movements emerge, and why do certain individuals become involved with these movements? The answer in the study cited authors such as Rude, who examined the French Revolution, and the relation between “class and ideological allegiance” (Wiltfang, 988).

This area of study led us into our second piece of the day, The Ethnography of Transnational Social Activism: Understanding the Global as Local Practice, by Hilary Cunningham. Cunningham’s research in this study focused around the ideas of evolution and globalization and how they related to a global civil society and a transnational network. She then built upon these ideas to address and further develop research on social activism across borders, which tightly tied into the work that our class did with No More Deaths and our other experiential components.

A large portion of the class was spent discussing the many issues and topics that our class faced over the semester, and how we have learned more about the idea of “borderlands” as our class has proceeded forwards throughout the semester. Students were able to share their different experiences and how they related to the class, and furthermore, how they were able to connect their real-world experiences with what they learned in the classroom. However, the most significant portion of our class session was when we discussed where the ideas we had learned in the class would take us, whether this would be to continue The Borderlands class in the fall semester, lead additional No More Deaths trips (which several students have already volunteered to do) or continue the simple role of spreading the word. Regardless of where the class will head in the future, one point was painfully clear: the knowledge that we have learned in the borderlands class has caused us, as an entire class, to be more informed about the current issue of immigration along the U.S. / Mexican border at present, and more prepared to do something about this growing challenge.

-Peter M.

**Sorry this is so late!! Technical difficulties!!

**Thanks to Kate for lending me her login information so I can post this!!

Class of 4/20

Sorry this is so late! This is the Blog for the class of 20 April. For this class we read two pieces by Cherrie Moraga, a play entitled Hungry Woman and a short essay named La Guera. Not knowing much about Greek mythology, I did not realize that Hungry Women was partly based off the story of Medea. I found it interesting that Moraga was able to incorporate the stories of a Greek tale, the Mexicano legend of La Lloronoa, and the Aztec tale of Coyolxauhqui.

As part of the class, we were assigned to bring three questions about Moraga’s works with us. As a result, we spent most of the class answers questions people raised. Was the Medea in Moraga’s work a Lesbian or Mexican representation of the original? What time period was this set in? What does the ending of the play not only mean, but also mean to us?

We also discussed Moraga’s other work Lu Guera, which dealt heavily with Moraga coming to terms with her many identities, and how they worked together to make the person she was. I really enjoyed reading and talking about this piece because I find the concept of identity very interesting. Should we present ourselves as one, dominant identity (gender, race) or allow ourselves to express all of our many identities. I believe that the second option is what we should all strive for.

I’ve really enjoyed taking this class, and I want to thank all the professors, Corinne, Kate, and all the rest of you guys for making this class awesome! :)

Cultural Landscapes - Nieves

Today was an interesting and unusual day in class. Professor Nieves began class by posting a sign at the door that prevented anyone who didn't have i.d. on them from entering the classroom. The class was divided in two and only those who could show a drivers liscence were permitted to go in. After this surprising and unexpected exercise, we began class by discussing the purpose behind it. We talked about how it felt to be either inside or outside, included or excluded. Many of else said we felt silly or embarrassed for having to prove who we are. Those on the inside of the classroom who happened to have their ids generally felt lucky, but they also felt bad for the rest of us.

Professor Nieves then shifted our focus from this exercise to a discussion of space and how we think about it. He taught us that all space means something, even the space of the classroom we were sitting in. He talked about the literal and figurative meaning of space between people and/or between objects and he then showed us a power point of images that helped us apply this concept to the borderlands as a space. As we moved through different pictures of the borderlands, we began to define the term "cultural landscape" and the many layers of meaning that such a term carries. We looked at the wall, at particular signs, and also at images of the expansive desert. In compiling these images, we began to formulate a more rounded view of the U.S./Mexican border as a physical location that enabled our discussion of the figurative spatial limitations that exist there.

Professor Nieves then collected all of the short pieces we had written about "nervous landscapes" and taped them to the board. We spent about ten minutes walking around the room and reading one another's interpretations of what, exactly, the phrase "nervous landscape" means as it was defined in the aritcle we read, and also how we can apply it to a place like the Sonora Desert. This exercise was intersting because it didn't require each person to explain his/her write-up, we were able to read fellow students' thoughts and think about them without analyzing for a few minutes. We then discussed our various interpretations of this assignment and moved on to talk more in depth about "nervous landscapes" as places. We specifically talked about the nervous landscape in Australia where the colonization of Aborigines through a manipulation and imposition of space damaged an entire society of people.

Lastly, in order to reemphasize the point that space matters everywhere and that nervous landscapes exist all around us, Professor Nieves broke the class into three groups. Each group had to discuss different places as a nervous lanpscape. Some examples of the places we discussed as nervous landscapes were the World Trade Center or Kirkland College. This shifted the way we had been talking about cultural landscapes from something along a faraway borderland to something much more close to home. In conceptualizing a nervous landscape as something that can and does exist at Hamilton, we were able to understand Professor Nieves' point that everywhere, space says something that has serious consequences for those that inhabit it.

Public Presentation

On Wednesday, April 28 the Borderlands class and participants in the No More Deaths spring break trip gave a public presentation on their experiences and the knowledge gained in the class. The audience first received a summary of the borderlands course and the border issues in all disciplines covered, which Natalie delivered. Peter then gave a brief explanation of a feeling shared by many in the class: that border issues are much more complicated than they appear at first glance, and that many of us have finished the class more confused than when we began. Next Kate and Corinne introduced the No More Deaths component and the involvement that Hamilton students have had with the organization over the past three years. Sam, Connor and Christina shared the thrill they felt when the opportunity to help migrants arose, but the frustration they felt when the migrants left the camp abruptly and could not take with them the containers of water they were preparing. Exhilaration and frustration was a common experience, as Carlos shared the experiences of the week 2 participants. Carlos told the story of an immigrant who had been robbed by the coyotes he paid to take him through the desert and left without food and water. After three days of wandering the migrant stumbled into the campsite, which he only found when he heard a No More Deaths leader singing and playing guitar. Carlos shared his frustration with the condition that migrants are met with when they arrive in a US city. As an illegal immigrant himself he has seen these conditions firsthand, and while able to obtain an education himself, has seen the effects of insufficient education opportunities for spanish speakers in the US in his own family. The last group of presenters shared what they learned through other experiential components of the course. Stephanie presented on her experiences in Argentina, interviewing the mothers whose children were victims of political kidnappings, and staged a protest. It was a very successful evening that helped raised awareness and likely will help grow the Now More Deaths organization at Hamilton.

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.

Border Angels Presentation

Tonight I attended the speech by human rights activist, Enrique Morones. He spoke about his organization, “Border Angels”, a group very similar to “No More Deaths.” “Border Angels” is a non-profit human rights organizations, founded in 1986 by Enrique Morones. The organization consists of volunteers who help individuals trying to cross the United States/Mexico border. They give water to the individuals, who attempt to cross the borders in horrifically hot temperature conditions as high as 127 degrees. Winter clothing, food, and water are placed in winter storage bins to help decrease negative health results from being exposed to freezing temperatures during the winter months.
The members of “Border Angels” also spend time trying to raise public awareness about the hardships that could so easily be prevented, as well as trying to break many false stereotypes about the Mexicans trying to cross the borders. Some myths include that Mexican immigrants don’t want to learn English, don’t pay taxes and that they are a drain on the United States economy. In reality, 91% of second-generation immigrants are fluent or near fluent speakers, undocumented immigrants do pay taxes, and the average immigrant pays a net 80,000 dollars more in taxes than they collect in government services.
“Border Angels” are always looking for volunteers and donations, and this program is definitely relevant to everything we’ve learned thus far. If you’re interested in helping out or donating, contact Enrique Morones at www.borderangels.org. It’s definitely a great cause.

Professor Hagstrom - February 23

In class today, we approached the topic of immigration from a different angle than we have in the past. In previous classes, both with Professor Hagstrom and others, we discussed historical problems and the rudimentary and key issues of how immigration has affected us since our country’s founding. However, this Tuesday we discussed how the United States has approached immigration in light of the August 22, 1996 reforms and current regulations for federal programs.

Several of the facts we learned were expected, for example: since the beginning of federal programs (even with progressive reforms) non-documented immigrants were ineligible for the vast majority of federal programs. Even so, aside from this exclusion, there are also two different classes of immigrants who reside in the United States legally: qualified and not qualified immigrants. These two separate levels of qualification determine whether an immigrant is eligible for federal programs.

Qualified immigrants include lawful permanent residents (LPRs). These residents hold “green cards.” This also includes refugees and persons granted asylum. This group of immigrants is qualified to apply for assistance from federal programs. On the other hand, non-qualified immigrants include the obvious: undocumented and illegal aliens. This also includes non-immigrants with temporary visas and immigrants with legal troubles. These non-qualified immigrants are excluded from all federal programs, such as Medicaid. However, they are entitled to emergency medical care, school breakfast and lunch programs, and homeless centers, among others.

Our class continued by discussing the other changes from the 1996 welfare reforms. Block grants to states and stricter work requirements (30 hours per week) accompanied these reforms. Professor Hagstrom concluded this section of the class by probing the following question: What is the cost of public assistance for undocumented immigrants? We referenced the Tumlin and Zimmermann reading, addressing how California, New York, and Texas all had different responses to immigrant welfare. Finding that working is encouraged or forced by reforms, we questioned what might be the negative effects of mandating work?

Undoubtedly, the solution to these complex problems is challenging. However, alternatives to better approach the problem of financing welfare for immigrants can possibly be addressed through several different alternative solutions, including: goals to increase self sufficiency and finding new ways to assist the neediest while reducing costs (a problem that has plagued the United States Congress for centuries). Finally, we learn many of the basic fiscal costs of undocumented immigrants. According to a 2002 study, costs include Medicaid and food assistance, among many others. However, benefits include income taxes and increases in business tax payments.

Put simply, the finance of immigration is an increasingly complex topic. While immigration certainly forms constraints on different federal programs, it also has proven highly beneficial and has even stimulated the economy at times. The 1996 reforms allowed welfare and other federal programs to become more explicit in their distribution of resources, but it still unclear why certain groups of immigrants gained assistance why others do not. Why do certain immigrants have the ability to prosper, while others suffer in economic disparity? Tumlin and Zimmermann help address these questions through their examination of three separate cities, but it is evident that these challenges are far from solved. The issue of immigration economics will continue to be a crucial component of federal program reform in the future.

Tuesday, February 16th

The Economics of Immigration

On Tuesday, we began with the question of what exactly economists do. Professor Hagstrom gave us an overview of the responsibilities of an economist, what he/she studies, and how, generally speaking, he/she does so. In thinking about immigration as an economics question, professor Hagstrom told us that we should think in terms of Immigration versus Immigration policy. Whereas immigration deals with who can come to the U.S. and under what conditions he/she can come, immigration policy concerns rules that apply specifically to immigrants once they have entered the U.S. legally of illegally (do you pay taxes? receive welfare? etc.).

Before moving on to the evolution of policy in the U.S., we became acquainted with the many different kinds of immigrants that are present in the U.S., as well as the language we use to talk about them (citizens, noncitizens, naturalized citizens...). We also looked at numbers for the first time, and we were able to begin conceptualizing what percentage of the U.S. population is composed of immigrants, how many are legal, how many are illegal, etc. We learned that 53 % of U.S. immigrants come from Latin America.

Professor Hagstrom then discussed the evolution of immigration policy. This was helpful in respect to the last unit, which professor Lopez taught on history. We were able to think about the major historical moments she pointed out and thus try to understand what was going on when different laws were being enacted or changed. We began in the early 1800s, a time when virtually all immigrants were welcome, as America was a growing nation in need of a populus. We moved from there throughout the next two centuries, marking major dates such as:

1864 -- contract labor was allowed

1882 -- contract labor outlawed

1906 -- English speaking requirement for laborers begins

1920 -- per country annual limits begin

1942 -- allowed guest workers to fill labor shortages

1965 -- switched from a European based program to a family/work based program, green cards

1990 -- added a diversity lottery

I have selected the most significant dates from the list. This time line gave us a sense not only of the progression of U.S. immigration policy throughout the past two centuries, it also gave us insight into the thought processes behind these changes and their correspondence to the movements we know were going on at these different times.

We then discussed the readings (Papendemetrious and Martin) and looked at the different kinds of visas that are currently available in an attempt to better understand the process and condition of immigration today. There are two different routes to a visa: permanent and temporary. There are a number of problems with this system, about which we learned that many people across the political spectrum agree is broken. Because of the manner in which temporary visas function and are assigned, illegal immigration is, more often than not, encouraged as it is the easier, more efficient route. We talked about the possibility of provisional visas, and how they could potentially solve many of the loopholes in the current system.

We ended the class with a more general question, one that Professor Hagstrom asked us to look at from a number of different perspectives: What is the U.S. immigration system doing to protect jobs? We have to remember that the purpose of immigration policy in our country is not to help people from other countries, and we need to keep in mind who exactly is threatened or directly effected by immigration, both legal and illegal.

Thursday February 11th

In class on Thursday the 11^th, we were to have read “Chicano!” which was a brief history of the Mexican-American struggle for equal rights. Much of the article dealt with Reies López Tijerina and his quest to reclaim lands across the southwest that had been taken by the Anglos or the federal government. The article also touched on the fact that Chicano movements around the southwest during this period “exhibited differences…which at times created divisions” between movements. These differences mostly stemmed from what each regional group defined as a priority; there were many different facets to the Chicano Movement. In class, we discussed these at length, with some of the more prominent examples being: better education, land rights, better treatment in the workplace, and proper treatment in courts.

We also discussed César Chávez. Although Professor Lopez was not too keen on the analogy, she told us that Chávez could be considered the Martin Luther King, Jr. of the Chicano movement. Just like MLK, Chávez was one of the most symbolic people for his respective movement because he was able to bring a wide range of people together. His grape boycott, which began in 1965, was the first time the conditions of agricultural workers had been brought to attention; these people were some of the most disenfranchised people in the United States at the time.

To end class, we read the poem I am Joaquin by Corky Gonzalez. We were asked by Professor Lopez to read the poem and then ask ourselves “What story are we hearing?” Gonzalez’s poem takes many stories from Mexican history and combines it into one consecutive narrative and presents it as an alternative to American assimilation; Chicanos had no desire to become a part of the “American Melting Pot.” This poem was also a way for the Chicano movement to unite. With the class divide between Mexican haves and have-nots widening, the need for cultural survival was paramount.

Movie on Sunday Feb 7 - Chicano! Quest for the Homeland

Sorry this took me a few days - I wasn't sure if we would be discussing the film in class and I wanted to hold off until then.

The focus of the documentary Chicano! Quest for a Homeland is the Chicano Movement of the 1960s. A lot of the film was focused on the actions of Reis Lopez Tijerina, the leader of the Alianca group, who claimed federal land as their own due to a treaty from twenty years earlier between the US and Mexico. Millions of acres were taken from the original landowning families. In 1965, the US Forest Service revoked half of the grazing permits. Then in the spring of 1967, people faced federal charges for occupying the land of the forest reserve. Much of Tijerina's earlier actions revolved around citizen's arrests. One of the first was of Alfonso Sanchez, the District Attorney who placed federal charges for occupying forest reserve lands.

Another important member of the Chicano Movement was Corky Gonzalez, a former boxer who became involved in Democratic politics. He registered many Mexican-American voters for John F. Kennedy and started the Crusade for Justice. Gonzalez strived for national attention and visibility for the Chicano Movement.

A major event in the Chicano Movement was the 1969 Denver Youth Conference. Here, issues were addressed such as women's roles in the movement. Women began to press for equality within all aspects of the movement. Additionally, a fifteen-point plan was drafted with a poem as its preamble, describing the search for the homeland of Aztlan, an Aztec myth than came to represent the southwest United States. Furthermore, issues such as the war in Vietnam were addressed - while Mexican Americans made up 12% of the US population, they accounted for 20% of the deaths in Vietnam.

Tuesday February 9th

In class on Tuesday February 9^th we discussed the impact of the Mexican-Americanization Movement, the consequences on class consciousness, the role of Mexican American’s in WWII and collection of these factors on Mexican American youth and American culture at large.

We began class by touching on George Sanchez’s concept of ‘American Ambivalence’ where he describes the consequences and fears instilled through forced Americanization. These were, Sanchez’s explains, experienced after the 1930’s and President Hoover’s ‘Repatriotization’ act. Professor Lopez then explained the consequences to the voice of Mexican Americans during the Hoover years. Professor Lopez highlighted the campaign ideals that effectively silenced Mexican Americans and their needs during the 1930’s and extending until the war. We then discussed how this instilled a sense of perpetual fear within the Mexican American community and resulted in a need to maintain ties and a focus on the events occurring in Mexico in case they were to be deported.

This lead into a discussion regarding the true contribution made by Mexican-Americans during World War Two and the lack of recognition for their sacrifies. We began by examining four photographs. There was one that I found particularly interesting which was a photograph of a group of American women stationed in Brussels sent to aid with the European front. At least one of the girls was Mexican-American. This was interesting as it demonstrated the role Mexican-American women played in the war, the intermingling of different races, and the education these girls must have received in order to be valuable enough to be sent abroad. Similarly it was able to highlight the need, contribution and value Mexican-American women were able to provide to the US war effort. Professor Lopez continued to articulate the lack of evidence in historical documents of the Mexican-American contribution, let alone that of Mexican-American women.

We continued on to discuss Vicki Ruiz’s depiction of class-consciousness specifically in the 1940’s and during the war. We followed on to examine the notion of opposing forces and the idea of social space, which culminated in the concept, and common concern of inter-ethnic relations. Furthermore, Ruiz examined the role of the Mexican-American women taskforce, and specifically addressed the impact of Dorothy Rae Healy, Luisa Moreno and the significance of the creation of the UCAPAWA-CIO. Ruiz further discussed the idea of public space, which displayed the impact Mexican-American women played at home in aiding the war efforts. Ruiz identifies the changes in labor unions and the campaign of women for equal rights. Ruiz highlights and example of this within the Mexican-American female community with the campaign for stronger, better workbenches to replace the existing tattered, splintered ones that ruined their work uniforms. We discussed further that by asking for such a small change in women’s equality, very little was actually changed, and the real issue of wages became a more difficult objective to reach. Ruiz highlighted finally, that a leader needed to come from within their community and ranks, which lead into our discussion of the significance of Dorothy Rae Healy, Luisa Moreno and the idea of ‘Rosie the River’. Lastly, we discussed the concept of class-consciousness as the possibility of a coalition between different communities – an idea which began to seem plausible in the ever blending world and the time of war.

We ended class by discussing the Zoot Suit Culture and the wartime Xenophobia that accompanied these times of intermingling. The Zoot Suit fashion was enjoyed by much of the urban youth: Mexican-American, African-American, and even Anglo youth. However, it was interpreted as insensitive and flamboyant in a time of conservation and selfish and provided a scapegoat and a means to target the Mexican-American youth. This lead to many young Mexican-Americans being attacked as a result of the fear of inter-mingling through war efforts. This also threatened the white-man’s idea of masculinity and provided a greater sense of fear and loss of culture.

Class on February 4

Today was our second class with Professor Lopez and we discussed the social fluidity of Mexican Americans working in the Cotton fields in Texas during the period of the Great Depression. We examined and discussed pictures from Neil Foley’s the White Scourge: Mexican, Blacks, and Poor Whites in Texas Cotton Culture. The first picture depicts black sharecroppers picking cotton. Though at the time blacks and whites often worked side by side in picking cottons, this picture does not show any white people. The next picture showed a family of Mexican sharecroppers. We discussed the social hierarchy in this community. Temporary workers were the lowest on the totem pole, followed by tenants, then sharecroppers like this family, followed by land owners who are the oldest. This picture was taken in 1937 and demonstrates the shift in level of permanency of Mexican workers in the cotton industry in Texas. At first most immigrants were Mexican men, but this picture shows that more families were coming. Although the American government sent approximately 1/3 of Mexican immigrants back to Mexico, but employment agencies needed workers so they recruited some Mexican families. Mexican workers who had families were more likely to be committed to working throughout the season. The next picture demonstrated that Mexican families that may have first come in as temporary workers were able to move up in social hierarchy and eventually achieve some level of status. This picture depicted a Mexican family with an automobile and dressed nicely. This demonstrated that some Mexican’s had disposable income and were achieving a level of higher status. The next picture we discussed was of a white family sitting on their porch playing with their children. This family was pretty well off and demonstrated that even in 1939 there was a leisure class that benefitted from other poor workers. The next picture was of a sign hung outside a restaurant that said “we serve whites only, no Spanish or Mexicans” This demonstrated that during the depression there was a racialized society and that Texas operated under Jim Crow-like laws. This most likely resulted from the fact that the whites were worried about lack of money and jobs and therefore blamed all their problems on immigration as we always do when an economic crisis strikes. This sentiment led to rampant racism during that time.

We then discussed the construction of whiteness in America during periods where there was an influx of immigration. During the time of lots of Mexican immigration there was a difference seen between dark and light skinned Mexican. In 1910 there was a Mexican dictator named Diaz who wanted to modernize Mexico and therefore wanted to take land away from indigenous Mexicans in order to build railroads. They got pushed up towards Oregon. Until 1917 there was an explosive atmosphere and tension between light and dark skinned Mexicans. Eugenicists construct what it means to be white and that white is good. This happened initially when lots of Irish immigrated here. They were at first not seen as being white and there was at first a lot of black and white mixing. However, the Irish, wanting to be accepted into society, started race wars against the blacks. By making a “common enemy” with those considered white in America, the Irish became accepted into white society. The Italians did this to. Thus some lighter skinned Mexican’s of Spanish, rather than pure Mexican descent did the same type of thing so that they might be considered to have more Nordic features and thus be considered “white” and achieve higher status than darker skinned Mexicans.

We went on to discuss the differences between Mexican communities before the treaty of Guadalupe and Mexican life in cotton farming. The Cotton crop is a cash crop and is extremely dependent on the economic market. People could lose everything in one bad season. Before the treaty, Mexican communities dealt more in trade and had diversified crops so they weren’t so reliant on just one thing. However, after the treaty when Mexican ranches were taken they were forced into the “king cotton” civilization where they had to sharecrop and were entirely dependent on cotton in the new hierarchical Americanized system of racial polarity. We then discussed the immigration quotas of 1920 and 1924 that let people in based on a racial hierarchy. Immigrants that were already in this country were not welcome. There were race wars and competition between Mexican Immigrants and those from Eastern Europe.
We continued to look at more pictures from the White Scourge. We saw a picture of a lynching that represented the strata of whiteness and the need to exclude people in order to feel powerful. The other pictures showed an employment agency recruiting seasonal Mexican workers who were brought in despite immigration quotas, and the picture of an older black couple who still had to work despite their advancing age. We also looked at a picture of all the workers of a giant farm coming out for the funeral of the farm owner. This was reminiscent of the slave age, when the only day a slave would have off was for a master’s funeral. These pictures depicted the harsh slave like conditions of the cotton plantations in Texas.
We moved on and began a discussion about the place of Mexican women in society and how it was different from that of American women. Mexican women were respected and had agency of their own. They were permitted to own land. Midwives were considered wise and were respected even above Mexican men. Spiritual leaders and healers who were women also had high status. Additionally, because men often had to leave and find seasonal work elsewhere, women took care of the land while they were gone, which was of integral importance to the Mexican community. We will continue to talk about the role of women in class next week.

Professor Lopez, 2/2/10

Today was our first day with Professor Lopez. The main theme of the class was the frequent omission of a Mexican perspective and account in U.S. history. We began with a John Wayne clip from The Alamo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6Y3SMMrVJs&feature=PlayList&p=29A7E6E1B05FC6B6&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=19), which helped to portray common accounts of Mexican-American relations: that of the Americans being brave and just, while the Mexicans were savage and deserving of their defeat. The Alamo is still referenced today as being an example of American freedom and democracy, while the Mexican perspective is generally all-together ignored.

We discussed the omission of non-Anglo perspectives in U.S. history as they apply to different events. For example, high school classes learn about The Manifest Destiny as a time of innocent exploration and American citizens realizing their "divine" right to expansion. Seldom do we consider the U.S. residents who were not included in this destiny (slaves, women, etc.) or the people whose land was being acquired (that of the Native Americans, Mexicans). We discussed the concept of American land acquisition as a concept of annexation rather than conquest, and of U.S. history's omission of accounts of the culture and land before Anglo-Americans "found" it.

We then looked at important dates from a Mexican-American account, which Vicki Ruiz emphasizes in her article, "Nuestra America: Latino History as United States History." Professor Lopez focused on three time periods as follows:
1830-1848: "The Conflicts" This was a time of Anglo settlement on previously Mexican land, which was made possible in part by unrest and disorder from the country's recent independence. During this time Anglo-Americans attempted to push Mexicans into Central Mexico. This was also a period of racialization and dehumanization of Mexicans, some of which still remains today.

1848: End of Mexican-American War
1848-1875: "The Resistance" During this time, both Mexican-Americans and Anglo-Americans acted in a push-and-pull cycle of violence. An increasing number of Anglo-Americans migrated to the contested lands, and conflicts surrounding racial hierarchies exacerbated already-raw relations between residents of the area.

1875-1900: "Subordination" The Texan Rangers continued lynchings of Mexican-Americans and Mexican identity was largely ignored, as Anglos emerged as the racially dominant social group.

Finally, we discussed several documents from Vargas' book, Major Problems in Mexican American History. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was significant as it ended the Mexican American War, and also set the stage for future relationships between Mexicans and Americans in the contested areas. One significant problem with the treaty was its purported inaccessibility to the masses. Mexicans had to decided whether they wanted to adopt U.S. citizenship or retreat to the new Mexican border within a year of the treaty's signing, yet it is difficult to determine how such citizens would know about this choice. Furthermore, the treaty was full of loopholes and ambiguity that ended up exploiting Mexican land ownership and in many cases, allowing Anglo-Americans to take over formerly Mexican land. We discussed the story of Joaquin Murieta in a police journal, which illustrates the stereotyping of Mexican Americans as savage, sub-human, violent land hoarders. Meanwhile, the Anglo-American is portrayed as innocent and justified in his constant state of pioneering.

We were left with a few questions to ponder over the next couple of weeks. Firstly, why was the matter of landholding so tenuous for the Mexican-Americans? We addressed this question in part through considering the importance of racialization of the hierarchies. Secondly, what caused the anti-Mexican sentiments? For this question, we considered the unawareness of the incoming Anglo-Americans, who were often immigrants and at times clueless about their surroundings. This fear of the unknown often turned into hostility, which was then fueled by Mexican stereotypes and the dehumanization that had occurred in these areas. Professor Lopez concluded this class period by mentioning the economic instability of the West during these times of hostility and shifting relationships between the Mexicans and Americans.

Tuesday 1/26 (Sorry the date's are out of order...)

On Tuesday, January 26, we continued our discussion of nationalism from the previous class. We began by reviewing the arguments presented by Ernest Renan, Anthony Smith, and E.J. Hobsbawm. In particular, we noted how each of these authors construct their nationalist theories based on the Western experience.

We then turned our attention to Benedict Anderson's book Imagined Communities. Anderson claims that three paradoxes have traditionally "perplexed" nationalist theorists: the relative modernity of nations in the eyes of historians versus the inherent antiquity of nations in the eyes of nationalists, the perceived universality of nationality versus the particularity of its real-life application, and the philosophical poverty of nationalism versus its political power. Anderson's response to these inconsistencies is to define a nation as an imagined political community that is inherently both limited, and sovereign. In class, we examined each part of this definition. According to Anderson, a nation is an imagined community due to the fact that, although most of the nations inhabitants will never interact with the majority of their fellow citizens, a nation promotes a sense of horizontal brotherhood and shared purpose. A nation is limited in the sense that it is not imagined to be coterminous with all humanity; it is sovereign due to the fact that the concept of a nation has historically replaced the system of hierarchical dynastic rule.

We then discussed Anderson's claim that nations and nationalism have arisen out of the disintegration of two long-standing cultural systems: the religious community and the dynastic realm. He cites the emergence of the phenomenon he labels "print capitalism" as the primary force in breaking the socio-political hold of these ingrained systems and encouraging the development of nationalism. Print capitalism refers to the commercialization and secularization of literature that followed the invention of the printing press. Religious texts, which traditionally made up the entirety of most people's literary canon, were generally written in "sacred" languages such as Latin. It was believed that these language facilitated a deep connection with God, and were an necessary component of the sanctity of the texts. This allowed for a monopolization of religious communication by the educated. The invention of the printing press however, promoted the competition of languages and the capitalization of literature, thus exposing numerous people to texts written in their own vernacular. Anderson makes the case that being able to read in one's own language is conducive, indeed necessary, for nationalism to develop.


We ended with a discussion of two main components of print capitalism: the newspaper and the book. Anderson argues that both have played a significant role historically in the rise a nationalism. As Americans, we instinctively are aware of which novel's constitute the American canon. The literary canon of a nation allows for the dissemination of values that come to be seen as "characteristic" of that particular nation's citizens. By consolidating information from widespread sources in one place, newspapers also serve to affirm a person's nationality. Reading a newspaper, which Anderson compares to a form of prayer, gives the reader a sense of commonality with his fellow citizens, whom he knows are reading the very same news. In this way, both novels and newspapers serve to consolidate and strengthen nationalist sentiment.

Thank you Professor Trivedi!

oops

I obviously had the date wrong in my post. Class was on Thursday, the 28th, not the 29th.

Trivedi, 1/28, Nationalism

On Thursday, January 29th, we talked more about nationalism in class. We began by finishing up discussing Benedict Anderson's book Imagined Communities from the previous class. In regard to Anderson, we talked mostly about his chapter on "Census, Map and Musuem." These three things are related in that they all serve to objectify a population. Census categories reflect the ways in which the census-makers already conceive of a certain group of people. A mueseum can show a nation's power over its past -- the power of imperialism, colonialism and economic domination over certain groups. We show in our musuems that which we wish to preserve through memory, but omit that which we wish to forget. Moving on from this chapter, we then discussed "Memory and Forgetting." The main ideas of this chapter were that, in creating a sense of a national identity, we suppress memories while we remember others that favor the ways in which we want to be viewed as a nation (much like the way in which musuems favor certain artifacts as opposed to others). We see how nationalism attempts to make itself seem like a natural process by omitting certain details and events in its collectively remembered history.

We then moved on to discuss Partha Chatterjee, who writes against colonial history -- specifically in India. Chatterjee agrees with many of Anderson's points, but has one major problem with the fact that Anderson assumes the model for nationalism was created solely by western European nations (and Russia) when in fact, the process of nation-creation may be the same for certain nations, but many nations capitalize on the differences from that original model. Furthermore, Chatterjee expresses that nationalism is not solely the effect of being dominated but a process of self-creation. We also discussed Chatterjee's theory of Anti-Colonial Nationalism: dividing social institutions into two domains, spiritual and material.

After discussing Chatterjee, we moved on to talk about Thongchai Winichakul. Winichakul was a student of Anderson's and his biggest contribution to the debate on nationalism stems from his creation of the idea of a geo-body. He studies what is lost in a nation through the processes of mapping, naming, dividing and categorizing a culture/population into a nation. In addition, he talked about the ways in which a geographic piece of land is objectified and represented and how that objectification then contributes to the formation of a nation. We concluded class with the reflection that, by mapping, dividing and naming a nation, the population of that nation is then able to conceptualize their society as bounded and sovereign, and in turn, view themselves as an independent entity.

Article about Haiti

Trivedi 1/21 'Nations'

On Thursday Jan 21 Professor Trivedi discussed with us the idea of a nation.

We began with Ernest Renan, a Frenchman, who wrote ‘What is A Nation?’ in 1882 after the violent popular uprisings of 1848. In this essay he rejected the commonly held beliefs that nations are rooted in religion, dynasties geography language and especially race (which at the time was understood as natural and biological rather than a social construct). Citing the many different tribes that comprise the Anglo-Saxon and French races, he said that the idea of a single history of a homogenous people is a fiction. Rather, he argues poetically that “a nation is a soul, a spiritual principle” (Renan 52). It becomes clear in the final section that a nation is the shared idea and belief in a common story and struggle. For instance we discussed the different ways we could tell the story of the founding of our nation, the U.S. focusing on the revolution for liberty and democracy rather than the take-over of Native American land and people.

We then discussed Anthony Smith who wrote ‘The Origins of Nations’ shortly after the final decolonization period of the 1960s and 70s when several new countries were formed. He first rejects the idea that nations are only modern but notes how many ancient civilizations show nationalist tendencies. He secondly argues against Renan that nations are not merely constructs, rather they are a process and a combination of constructed and real commonalities among a body of people and their territory. Here, he introduces his idea of a ethnies which are groups of people that usually share (1) a name (2) origins (3) history/ memory (4) territory (5) language religion of customs (6) a sense of solidarity. He stipulates that these things are not necessarily in common from time immemorial but are understood commonalities during the process of becoming a nation.

Finally, we discussed E. J. Hobsbawm’s ‘The nation as novelty; from revolution to liberalism’ which he wrote after the Second World War, but before Smith’s time. Unlike Smith he argues that although the definition of nation changes over time he does understand them as modern. He dates the rise of nations to the 1830s and argues that they rise out of revolutions and are fundamentally economic units. He describes education, the army, and the common currencies / fiscal policies as technologies of nationhood.

Times Article "In Drug War, Tribe Feels Invaded by Both Sides"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/us/25border.html?hp

Article about an Anti-Arpaio March in Pheonix

Joe Arpaio is the sheriff of Maricopa county, one of the most conservative districts in Arizona. He runs a strong anti-immigration campaign that violently and I believe illegally targets Latinos in Pheonix.

http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=50008

NYT Article about detention centers

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/us/10detain.html?hp