Racist Fallacies, American Facts
Imagine, if you will, a carpenter and a plumber attempting to discuss their collaboration on “This Old House,” only to discover that they lack even the same blueprints.
Such is the context of too many discussions on matters of immigration, the Americas, and the United States of America.
Just when a critical dialogue is most needed, we appear unable to grasp even the most basic facts of the matter. Instead, all too often, discussions on immigration and the new latin Americans resemble a kind of shadow puppet theater set to a Wagnerian score: vague figures thrust and jab at each other as “the fat lady sings.”
Against this backdrop of confused and confabulated extremism, it is often quite uncomfortable to engage in a productive dialogue.
Yet, communicate we must. For it is our common inheritance and obligation to realize the stated goals of the U.S. through such a dialogue — to serve as both a beacon of and a workshop for justice and democracy, a task for which I know we are more than prepared.
It is in the hopes of facilitating this discussion that I submit the following facts.
It will be difficult enough to tend to the task before us. We certainly do not need to suffer any longer from the undue burden of misinformation and fallacy.
The United States economy is based on the premise that more is better.
At least two-thirds of our economic activity is based on consumer spending. That spending is fueled by an abundance of choices: between brands, between models, between prices, between lifestyles.
To my knowledge, no respected figure in the U.S. has advocated less choices for consumers, either by restricting the number of makes or models available for public consumption and use.
This we take to be self-evident: that more offerings leads to competition which leads to better offerings and a higher quality of life.
Against this backdrop, consider the absurd fallacy that bilingualism — the opportunity to speak more than one language — is a threat to the American way.
In fact, a choice between languages is just as important to the health and vitality of the U.S. economy as a choice of gasolines or donuts.
It should be noted that many (if not most) of those who publicly declare against bilingualism are, in fact, monolingual. They have lived without choice all of their lives. They simply don’t know what they’re missing, let alone, rejecting.
I say this because language is not only a means to an end (i.e., the way that we communicate), it is also a way of thinking.
Here’s why: let’s say you’re an Eskimo and you live in the North Pole. The year is 1800 and you don’t have a snow plow, you don’t have a stockpile of sand or a dumptruck, you don’t have Gore-tex parkas or a gas motor to fuel your year-round hydroponic hothouse. Clearly, you are living very close to the land.
Now, if this is you, you’re going to get to know your environment very, very well. Not because you’re a nature lover, but, rather, because your very survival — the survival of your family, of your village, of your civilization — depends on your intimate knowledge of the environment.
Is it any surprise, then, that the Eskimos are said to have 15 words for snow?
Clearly, there is more to language than just its usefulness as a tool for communication. To use today’s terms: language is an entire set of software, filled with complicated solutions to all sorts of important problems.
Knowing all of the above, what freedom-loving, hard-working, patriotic American wouldn’t welcome having unrestricted access to not just one language, but two — or three?
The fact is, the period of geographic isolation and colonization that made English the dominant language of the U.S. is now over. Instead, we live in a time (and an economy) where the entire world is instantaneously accessible.
That is our new environment. If the eskimos needed 15 words for snow, surely, we need new and alternate words for our global environment.
The Wall Street Journal reported on February 13, 2002 that “Inglés Sin Barreras is the most heavily advertised brand on U.S. Spanish-language television, ahead of even McDonald’s and Coke, according
to New York ad-tracking firm CMR.”
What is this powerful brand that trumps McDonald’s and Coca-Cola on Spanish-language television?
“English without Barriers” — an english language course.
As the WSJ put it, Inglés Sin Barreras is a “12-part course of videos, audio cassettes and booklets” that promises to teach English to the ”
millions of low-income Hispanics who have come to the U.S. in search of
jobs and a better life.”
According to the National Institute for Literacy:
“ESL programs are the fastest growing component of the state-administered adult education programs. In 1997-98, 48% of enrollments were in ESL programs, compared to 33% in 1993-94. Of these 48% enrollees, 32% were in beginning ESL classes, 12% in intermediate, and 4% in advanced.”
And while we’re talking statistics, let’s look at one that racists are not likely to bring up as they attempt to demean Hispanics and/or immigrants, in general:
When examining the average composite literacy score of native-born adults, the same NIFL report cited above found that “the U.S. ranked 10th out of 17 high-income countries.”
Note the specific terms of this finding: at issue are adult literacy scores, not those of children. Considering that the most recent immigration boom from Latin America began in the mid-1970s, the native-born population whose literacy ranks 10th among other wealthy nations is not, primarily, of a Hispanic background.
Moreover, the sheer size of the adult population in the U.S. versus the minority status of the African-American descendants of slaves, places the onus on white, “anglo” Americans to explain their generation’s poor showing when it comes to a facility with the English language.
I welcome any attempts to defend this poor showing on account of the “influence of Hispanics.” For this is a population that has had access to free and universal public schooling, this is a population that has been immersed in English language media (newspapers, radio, television, movies) from birth, this is a population that has come of age at the height of U.S. wealth and global power.
So, tell me again, who doesn’t want to learn English?
In the Christian tradition, the Bible records Paul’s Letter to the Galatians as including the admonition: “God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.”
U.S. companies, on behalf of their stockholders, owners and, supposedly, U.S. consumers, have sown all manner of seeds throughout the world.
In many cases, these seeds are not for “renewable and sustainable” crops (industries with a positive impact on the host economy), but, rather, for “cash crops” (industries with export-only outputs and an emphasis on unskilled labor and undervalued natural resources as inputs).
My suggestion is not that U.S. consumers should attempt to extricate themselves from the global economy. That would not only hurt all involved but it’s most likely an impossible task. Also, and quite emphatically, I am not suggesting that U.S. consumers and corporations are solely responsible for this harvest of shame.
It takes two to tango and just as culpable are the leaders and business men of these impoverished nations who essentially (and, often, literally) accept bribes to undersell their people’s potential and country’s resources.
My interest is only to lift a mirror to the face of the person who yells “They’re turning the U.S. into a Thirld World economy.”
If it’s a First World economy you desire, let’s start by making sure that what we are sowing in Latin America and Asia are the seeds for a First World economy and not, as it is today, the seeds for cycles of capital influx and flight, trade dependence and, inevitably, civil unrest and war.
As Andres Oppenheimer notes in the August 1, 2004 edition of The Miami Herald:
That’s why the periodic calls by both Republican and Democratic politicians to ‘’strengthen our border controls'’ will be a waste of time and money unless Washington tackles the core issue: the huge income gap between Americans and Latin Americans.
As long as the per capita income in the United States is $36,000 while that of Mexico is $9,000 and Peru’s is $5,000, and as long as U.S. Hispanics continue believing in the American Dream, the exodus will continue. The only solution will be helping speed up Latin America’s development.
Emphasis mine.
If this sounds like a tall order, it is. But, any country that can boast having birthed the New York Stock Exchange, FedEx and the Internet, can (and will) upgrade its now, clearly, global economy.
To restate the facts: immigrants from the Third World, the “outer burroughs” of the U.S. economy, are arriving via the same well-traveled roads that bring U.S. consumers a dazzling array of cheaper and cheaper products and services. Their entry into the geographical confines of the U.S. is part and parcel of the supply and demand networks that we otherwise — if thoughtlessly — cherish.
Garment factory, China, 2001.
As reported by the Wall Street Journal on May 17, 2004, the Inter-American Development Bank has found that while Latin American immigrants will send some $30 billion back to their countries of origin in 2004, they nonetheless spend 93% of their earnings here, in the U.S..
It is, as they say, a “win-win” situation, as the host absorbs most of the benefits of a cheap, flexible and mobile labor pool while the country of origin receives an invaluable injection of capital at various levels.
Now, Whether the U.S. should force industries that rely on cheap labor to move abroad in exchange for a decrease in the size of its working class population is another matter altogether.
As reported by the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal on May 27, 2004, “Immigrants who come to the U.S. live an average of three years longer than people born here, new research shows in a surprising finding that challenges some common beliefs.”
The articles goes on to cite sources at the National Institute of Health while adding that a “growing body of evidence reflects both immigrants innate vitality and their reluctance to embrace American’s drive-through, drive-everywhere mentality. They also smoke less.” Unfortunately, concludes this report, “As they assimilate…many immigrants adopt bad health habits.”
From the consumption of junk food (30% of the average American diet), to smoking (the habit of 1 out of 4 Americans), there is much that is, simply, bad about American culture. But this is hardly a matter of opinion: the preponderance of such unhealthy lifestyles adds several hundred billions dollars, yearly, to the overall costs of health care and health insurance.
This incredible drain on the national economy and the fiscal resources of our government, I must add, is a result of bad choices made in the aggregate and individually by a majority of U.S. citizens.
However, it is far easier to scapegoat uninsured immigrants, some of whom are illegal or unauthorized, for the more sensational offense of overcrowding hospital emergency rooms in specific, discrete communities.
Is it a scandal that the uninsured — and those who are, also, working illegally in the U.S. — are provided free medical treatment in the U.S.? In some ways, yes. But it is far worse a scandal to not provide every worker, elderly person and child with an affordable health insurance plan.
But, regardless of how we, Americans, choose to resolve this particular quandary, let’s be very clear about one thing: Immigrants arrive and remain healthy “even though they are more likely to be poor and less likely to see a doctor.”
Entries to be completed anon…