That Economist article is right about the racial tensions between Latinos and African Americans, and also correct that African Americans suffer in terms of their demographic representation in the state. I also don't doubt that they suffer as victims of violence in frightening proportion to their population representation. There is also a long, long history of tension between African Americans and Jews (See Cornel West and Michael Learner's book Jews and Blacks for more on that). Then you have to figure in the Asian issues, not only in tensions between Asian groups, but also between the category "Asian" and other non-white groups who feel that Asians are the new whites. Speaking of hate crimes, for example, in Orange County, just to the South of Los Angeles, the only group that experienced a rise in hate crimes following 9/11 was Arab muslims. I don't know how that compares to Los Angeles, but now I'm curious to find out. The complexities of race relations in CA are IMO quite different than those in the Southern US, and it's not fair to make sweeping, simultaneous generalizations about the two areas.
Also, I was struck by what seems a kind of anti-Latino bias in the article, in this, for example:
"The Latino struggle is quite different. Its goal is often the selective or non-enforcement of the law, particularly on immigration. A common demand, for example, is for local police not to co-operate with federal immigration agents. And, whereas blacks in the 1960s demanded power in proportion to their numbers as adult citizens, Hispanics want rather more."
I'm not sure there's *one* Latino issue or struggle, but in CA, it was Latinos who cast the decisive votes to deny public benefits to undocumented immigrants, and Latinos also voted in significant numbers for Proposition 209, the state constitutional amendment prohibiting affirmative action in the state. Some of the more established immigrants are actually much more conservative in their attitudes to newer immigrants. Also, the rates at which Latinos join the military is incredibly high. Almost three quarters of a million Latinos fought, for example, in WWII; they are often among the most patriotic of immigrants. To assert that the Latino agenda is all about thwarting law enforcement is a really prejudiced pov, I'm afraid, and it makes me wonder about the entire agenda of that piece.
no subject
Also, I was struck by what seems a kind of anti-Latino bias in the article, in this, for example:
"The Latino struggle is quite different. Its goal is often the selective or non-enforcement of the law, particularly on immigration. A common demand, for example, is for local police not to co-operate with federal immigration agents. And, whereas blacks in the 1960s demanded power in proportion to their numbers as adult citizens, Hispanics want rather more."
I'm not sure there's *one* Latino issue or struggle, but in CA, it was Latinos who cast the decisive votes to deny public benefits to undocumented immigrants, and Latinos also voted in significant numbers for Proposition 209, the state constitutional amendment prohibiting affirmative action in the state. Some of the more established immigrants are actually much more conservative in their attitudes to newer immigrants. Also, the rates at which Latinos join the military is incredibly high. Almost three quarters of a million Latinos fought, for example, in WWII; they are often among the most patriotic of immigrants. To assert that the Latino agenda is all about thwarting law enforcement is a really prejudiced pov, I'm afraid, and it makes me wonder about the entire agenda of that piece.
Robin