A Conversation for Californians
First, some surveys from the Public Policy Institute of California:
“There is little variation among groups, with Latinos (28%), blacks (28%), Asians (27%), and whites (26%) all naming schools and education as their primary policy concern. In addition, most Californians also believe that insufficient educational spending is part of the problem. Even among whites, who are the least supportive of increased spending, 68 percent think that the current level of state funding is too low.” Cause For Cheer, Concern In Study Of Racial And Ethnic Attitudes
“Consistent with recent statewide surveys that place education at the top of residents’ concerns, 48 percent say that school facilities should be the top infrastructure priority, followed by surface transportation (23%), water systems (16%), sewer systems (5%), and airports (3%). However, residents are divided about infrastructure funding, given the state budget crunch: 44 percent support continuing funding at current levels, while 43 percent favor a reduction.”
Not My Problem: Californians See But Don’t Feel Pain Of Growth-Related Challenges Facing State
“Forty years from now, whites will no longer be the largest racial group in California, but they may still dominate the electoral process.” Majority-Minority Twist: Whites May Dominate State’s Voting Population Well After They Lose Status As Largest Group
I hate to think it.
I am embarassed to say it. But, as time passes, I do not see an alternative explanation.
California’s educational system is failing to meet the needs of tomorrow’s work force — just when this demographic includes more and more hispanics.
Coincidence?
In the 1950s and 1960s, California all-but-transformed itself into a beacon for modern society by investing heavily in its roads, waterways and schools.
It took a collective act of sacrifice, dilligence and foresight to lay the foundations for what eventually became one of the most successful regional economies in the world. Certainly, we could not have reaped the rewards of Silicon Valley, of the aerospace industry and now the biotech sector, without this very investment.
Yet, today, in the year 2004, just as California is entering possibly its second most significant demographic shift in a century, that same committment is notably absent. In its place is rhetoric about leaving no child behind or, on the negative side, maximizing the efficiency of our schools.
Much of it, sadly, is code for lowering the bar.
As a Cuban refugee growing up in Florida then New York and, eventually, attending a private liberal arts college in Massachusetts, I was only infrequently singled out because of my immigrant status or my so-called ethnicity.
My white skin and facility with language largely innoculated me against those who carry the viruses of racism and xenophobia. Given my “walk in the park,” I was often skeptical of groups or individuals who claimed they had experienced discrimination because of their — my — Latin American heritage.
Then I moved to California.
Suffice to say that now, having lived in the Golden State for nearly a decade, I not only believe that hispanics — and Mexican Americans, in particular — are often singled out for denigration, I have come to accept, however reluctantly, that such discrimination is, in fact, systematic and deeply embedded.
Comparing New York City to Los Angeles, I can’t help but wonder how different California’s condition would be if the City of Angels were confined to a landmass no larger than the island of Manhattan. For it is in crowded, frenetic, busy New York City that I learned not just the possibility of a mulitcultural, multiethnic, multilingual, multiracial society — but witnessed (and benefitted from) its brilliant success.
Back West, however, that distinctly American society is not as common a goal. At best, it is a shared destiny, recognized in many parts with as much dread, perhaps, as white southerners considered their future during the era of Reconstruction.
From the dismal lack of reporting for and storytelling about hispanics in English-language media to the unquestioned assumptions about linguistics which curtail school spending to woefully inadequate levels, the symptoms of a society in denial are everywhere in California.
The discrepancies between my twin — conjoined — world views, as both an Anglophone American and a Hispanic American — have never been as pronounced as they are today.
Never before would I have thought that the chasm between my brothers and sisters is so great that we must pursue parallel courses in order to advance our common goal: securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
In sum, in California, what is required today is more aggressive political manevouring by hispanics… as hispanics.
The time to come together in the pursuit of happiness, at Wal-Mart and Ikea and Home Depot, is not yet upon us. There is still the tricky matter of liberty to be resolved, of being free as equals.
Moreover, this struggle for a just society will not be possible without shifting the balance of power between conservatives and liberals — for neither group appears particularly prepared to accept us as we are.
Anglophone liberals may tolerate our differences but they often avoid the difficult negotiations that come with assimilation (a process, it must be noted, of bilateral compromises).
Anglophone conservatives, on the other hand, happily assume that, deep down inside, underneath our varying exteriors, we are all one and the same: a rich, white man.
Alas, we are not. As the most recent immigrants, we are largely poor and very poorly educated. For the moment, at least, ours is not a spiritual poverty. But, for every year that we remain exposed to America’s promise without the shelter of its polity and the nourishment of its press, we pine away.
Without the benefit of these institutions — that is, without representation — our contact with American is restricted to its most base and poisonous undercurrents: its hollow consumerism and shallow navel-gazing.
In the theatrical spectacle of California society, hispanics have been given a role to play — that of shadows. We “loom” and grow as “the sun sets.” In fact, we are, at the very least, a large part of the rising sun; as warm and bright as any other morning light visited upon this wretched Earth by our creator.
And so, what is required is nothing less than a struggle to define ourselves against a backdrop of ignorance — our own and theirs — the product of which is a subtle albeit pervasive hostility.
The school funding we so desperately need today does not come from good intentions: it comes from taxes; and taxes, as we all know, are a sacrifice. We cannot create the consensus that built the modern California until we address, out loud, the facts of who we are.
What is needed is a very broad and a very open conversation. Not just between anglophones and hispanics but between hispanics, themselves. For if we know not who and what we are, we cannot even begin to represent ourselves.
One thing I know for certain: we are not a race, we are not a single people and ours is not a single history. If anything, we hispanics are the flagbearers for diversity — given our own diverse origins.
For this reason, we who did not choose to be born, either physically or culturally, “on the other side of Rio Grande,” should be wary of the temptation to be reborn, in that distinctly U.S. tradition of evangelism, as “pure” hispanics — or “pure” Americans.
There is no purity in this world. Even the Christians acknowledge their savior was born of flesh and, woe, died as a mortal. In point of fact, every religion — though not every cult — affirms this taint, the complexity of our carnal souls.
And, so, while we expand upon the last century’s achievements, we should not dwell on them. For example: in its time, several decades ago, “La Raza” was a powerful rallying cry. No longer. Mysticism may uplift spirits, but it does not harness them, financially or politically.
|
|
|
| Survey says: Things we need not carry on our backs. | |
Likewise, as hispanics increasingly enter the middle class, we must be wary of the low-hanging fruit: the native rightwing and leftist ideologies.
If the highlight of the evening is hailing Che Guevara or Ronald Reagan as the godhead, we’re at the wrong party. For what are their legacies? Spokesmodels for a corrupt fundamentalism that bears no resemblance to reality, they tore down but did not build anew.
To destroy institutions may be a sensational achievement, but the hard part — and the lasting legacy — is what gets built.
Right about now, California could really use some new schools, houses, bridges, highways and parks.
The alternative, sadly, is a future already on display in South Africa, where “apartheid left millions of blacks with little education and no trades.”
If this reference to apartheid also strikes you as a tad much, a Chicken Little hysteric, I encourage you to reread the survey results at the top of this page.