The Politics of Indigenous People in the Caribbean

For many years, political elites,especially in Cuba and Puerto Rico, have assumed the extinction of the indigenous populations of those islands, or at least their absorption into a mixed population that served as the basis of a new "indigenous" people who could then be mobilized to face outside threats, usually  the North American.  I have written about this in the context of the construction of a "Cuban" politically and culturally useful ethno-racial type. See, e.g., Larry Catá Backer, From Hatuey to Che: Indigenous Cuba Without Indians and the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, American Indian Law Review, Vol. 33, 2009.

A group in Puerto Rico has been working to destabilize these assumptions, as well as the racism and cultural privileging inherent in these ideologically driven histories.  They have produced a film speaking to these issues noted on the United Nations Radio Spanish language Website.

Una película sobre la extinción del pueblo Taíno, oriundo del Caribe, explora el tema de la autodeterminación de la identidad indígena y las raíces de la población en Puerto Rico. Pero además reflexiona sobre la negación de los orígenes indígenas, un problema actual inspirado en el racismo y la exclusión de esos pueblos.

Reportage:  La polémica sobre la existencia de los Taínos, United Nations Spanish Radio (August 11, 2010) (directed by Alex Zacharías).For those interested, a more general (and also short) broadcast on Latin American indigenous rights is also available.  Los derechos indígenas y las doctrinas coloniales United Nations Spanish Radio (Aug. 9. 2010).

 

Latino Immigrant Heads the ABA and creates Commission to study Latino legal issues

Stephen N. Zack, a Miami, FL lawyer who emigrated from Cuba in 1961 when he was 14 years old is now the President of the 400,000-member American Bar Association ("ABA"). The ABA is the world's largest voluntary bar association and a leading national legal professional organization.

After receiving the gavel from outgoing ABA President Carolyn Lamm at the ABA convention in San Francisco earlier this week, Mr. Zack shared his vision: “Today, I would like to talk to you about four responsibilities: preservation of the justice system, civic education, protecting human rights, and preparing for disaster.” President Zack further outlined his view that “[e]very day, our nation becomes more divided with respect to civil rights,” and introduced his Committee on Hispanic Legal Rights and Responsibilities. President Zack noted that , “We are a nation of immigrants. Our basic freedoms are based on the principle that the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority.”

Miami lawyer César L. Alvarez, also a Cuban-American, will chair the Hispanic Legal Rights and Responsibilities commission, which will hold public hearings in major U.S. cities with large Latino populations. The commission will analyze whether the legal system is addressing the needs of Latinos.

President Zack has stated that "[w]e need to find out the facts and we need to see how the system is working or not working to make sure that Hispanics are fully integrated and treated equally within our justice system.''

Once the commission conducts the hearings and analyzes its findings, these may result in a report akin into the one issued this past spring by the ABA's Commission on Immigration. The ABA supports the creation of a new immigration court system, and many other measures designed to improve consistency, fairness and efficiency in immigration law proceedings.

These are welcome developments and great news for the Latino community and the legal community as well.

Ethnic/Raza Studies and "Power Brokers"

Close on the heels of Governor Brewer's extra-jurisdictional anti-immigrant legislation the state's schools Superintendent Tom Horne also joined by Brewer supporters set their sights on the State's Ethnic Studies Programs. In sum, they are seeking to eliminate diversity in education and in essence drive the histories of the Indigenous, Blacks and Latinas/os and others from the State's educational structures. Even more critically and thus raising the alarm bells is that Arizona's actions are not isolated and ethnic studies are rendered vulnerable to yet other politicians that are joining the bandwagon of hate.

Chicana/o Studies exposed me and provided inter alia on the inequities of farm laborers that were ignored in mainstream education. To my dismay farmworkers were also commonly ignored (until recently) on the outside of academic investigation decades after earning my undergraduate degree.

Although during childhood, I was exposed to the unfairness and enslaved conditions of farmworkers, Chicana/o Studies underscored new ways of learning, sophisticated political nuances, and the subject of class warfare. It gave me the tools to assess critically and ask the myriad of questions that the nation's farm bills and methods of food production with a focus on those at the bottom of the food chain obligate. Try and reconcile the welfare handouts large corporate entities receive without regard to those at the bottom. For example, the welfare form of handouts also known as subsidies has induced a realm of harm on the poor and the workers that provide so much for those of us that like to eat. Reference the http://www.ewg.org website to locate the agricultural enterprises in your state that receive more than their fair share of public funds for a clue as to the nature of agricultural disparities.

Yet Brewer and other politicians as well as self-perceived "power brokers" would remove alternative ways of learning, teaching and seeking transformation for all communities in distress. Their actions require that we as a group remain vigilant on any ill-driven tactic to remove studies of those long disenfranchised.

Against the above backdrop and ultimately this post respectfully ask our communities to support the efforts of the educators and students who are supporting ethnic studies. Begin by going to their website http://ethnicstudiesweekoctober1-7.org and sign up!

Hate Marches On

Despite the injunction blocking much of Arizona's draconian Senate Bill 1070 legislation, and the threat of significant litigation and expense ahead, a Texas newspaper reported last week that two Texas lawmakers intend to push forward with bills inspired by Arizona. http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/07/29/2371938/texas-lawmakers-to-proceed-with.html.

This week, the word in Oregon is that a Latino state representative, Republican Sal Esquivel, may introduce similar legislation in Oregon. Oregon is drowning in unemployment and painful government cuts are commonplace. Although Texas has weathered the economic crisis somewhat better, I can't believe these legislators would set in motion laws that are legally dead on arrival, at least in the opinion of most scholars of consequence. Much as I appreciate the business for my former students and the legal community, passing controversial legislation sure to spark a wildfire of legal response doesn't seem prudent, especially during a financial crisis.

Of course, the legislators will contend they are trying to issue a clarion call to Congress to rescue the states from the supposed costs of undocumented immigration. Pete Wilson said the same thing in championing California's Proposition 187 that a federal court ultimately derailed. If so, a far cheaper route, and one insulated from legal attack, would be to pass a state resolution imploring Congress to act to better enforce the borders, whatever that means.

Instead, I think these legislators intend warfare on the Latino immigrant population and beyond. Just as we don't tend to do the math on warfare abroad, or even internally for such campaigns as the war on drugs, I believe that when it comes to Latinos, some people are willing to spend anything to keep demographic and cultural change at bay. But they are swimming against the current and history will recognize them as wasting our money, and poisoning our cultural well. Let's not wait for future generations to judge us for our shameful treatment of immigrants seeking a piece of the American dream. Our best hope is that Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 is swept swiftly into the dustbin of history and that other states keep their collective heads and hearts in the right place.

Dolores “Lolita” Lebrón, 1919-2010, QEPD (RIP)

Puerto Rican Nationalist Dolores “Lolita” Lebrón Sotomayor was born in Lares, Puerto Rico, on November 19, 1919. She passed away in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on August 1, 2010.

I do not abide violence as a matter of principle, even to promote Puerto Rican independence. I further object to the acts of Nationalist violence in which Lebrón participated on practical grounds because they were used to justify a disproportionate police response that only undermined Puerto Rico’s hopes for political status change.

But I have respect for the dedication and sacrifice of some of the nationalists, and for Lebrón in particular, since she did not cause injury and was disproportionately singled out for a politically-long sentence (she was thirty-four at the time of the attack on congress, was sentenced to fifty years in jail, and spent over twenty-five years at the Federal Women’s Prison in Alderson, Virginia). She conducted herself according to principle and with dignity in prison and upon her release. After her sentence was commuted by President Carter, as explained below, she became a non-violent political activist, and a potent symbol of Puerto Rican desire for fair treatment by the U.S. and of the desire of some of us for an independent island nation.

Lebrón reportedly became politically aware and active as a result of the Masacre de Ponce (Ponce Massacre), which I describe in my book: “on Palm Sunday, March 31, 1937, the pro-independence Puerto Rican Nationalist Party marched through the streets of Ponce. The mayor had initially granted a permit for the march but had tried to rescind it at the last minute after Governor Blanton Winship “ordered the chief of police, Colonel Orbeta, to tell the mayor” to do so. After a shot of “undetermined origin,” the police fired into the crowd, killing nineteen people, including two policemen. “A later inquiry by the American Civil Liberties Union “concluded that there had been a ‘gross violation of civil rights and incredible police brutality.’” The incident is known in Puerto Rico as the Masacre de Ponce (Ponce Massacre). (Pedro A. Malavet, America’s Colony: The Political and Cultural Conflict between the United States and Puerto Rico at 91 (NYU Press 2007) (citing Arturo Morales-Carrión, Puerto Rico: A Cultural and Political History (New York: American Association for State and Local History, 1983)).

Lebrón took part in the attacks carried out by the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party in Washington, D.C. “The nationalists … staged two attacks in Washington, D.C., during the 1950s. Coinciding with the uprising in Puerto Rico, on November 1, 1950, nationalists “Griselio Torresola and Oscar Collazo, attempt to assassinate President Harry S. Truman at Blair House in Washington. Torresola is killed and his partner and three police officers are wounded. . . . [White House Police Officer Leslie Coffelt died of his wounds in hospital later that night.] On March 1, 1954, four . . . nationalists [Rafael Cancel Miranda, Irving Flores, Andrés Figueroa Cordero, and Lebrón] fire 30 shots from the U.S. House visitors’ gallery, wounding five congressmen.” (Id. at 92, citing “Blast Rips World Trade Center in N.Y.; 5 Dead, Hundreds Hurt,” Los Angeles Times, February 27, 1993, sec. A, 1 (includes a timeline of attacks tied to Puerto Rican nationalists)).

Lebrón was carrying a weapon but fired only one shot into the air before displaying a Puerto Rican flag and reportedly yelling that she had not come to kill anyone, but rather to die for Puerto Rico that day. I am glad that she lived and had the opportunity to die in her own country, even if it is not yet free.

Emma Brown wrote for the Washington Post:

Lolita Lebron, a Puerto Rican nationalist known to some as a terrorist and to others as a near-mythic freedom fighter for her violent attack on the U.S. Capitol more than a half-century ago, died Aug. 1 at a hospital in San Juan of complications from respiratory disease. She was 90.

Ms. Lebron was called both fanatical and fearless for her efforts to draw attention to the cause of independence for her home island, claimed by the United States as spoils after the Spanish-American War and made an American commonwealth in 1952.

LeBron bought a ticket from New York to Washington on March 1, 1954. She and three fellow nationalists lunched at Union Station and then walked to the Capitol. They made their way to the House gallery. A security guard asked whether they were carrying cameras; they were not.

But they did have pistols. And in a crusade for Puerto Rico’s independence that Ms. Lebron saw as no different from the uprising by America’s 13 colonies against England in the 18th century, the four nationalists opened fire in the House chambers as more than 240 members of Congress debated an immigration bill.

“Viva Puerto Rico libre!” Ms. Lebron screamed. Chaos swirled as she unfurled a Puerto Rican flag. Five congressmen were struck by bullets, including 35-year-old Alvin Bentley, a Republican from Michigan who was hit in the chest.

Rep. James Van Zandt (R-Pa.) and a gallery spectator managed to wrestle away the assailants’ guns. Arrested and handcuffed, the four nationalists were photographed outside the Capitol in an image splashed across newspaper front pages.

In the photograph, a striking Ms. Lebron wears a set jaw and a stylish skirt and jacket. She had expected to die that day, and police found a note in her purse along with a tube of lipstick and Bromo-Seltzer pills.

“My life I give for the freedom of my country,” the note read. “The United States of America are betraying the sacred principles of mankind in their continuous subjugation of my country.”

‘I am a revolutionary’

The shooting and its aftermath captivated Washington for weeks. Ms. Lebron and her fellow attackers had unleashed 29 bullets, leaving scars still visible at the Capitol, but none of the five injured congressmen died.

Ms. Lebron sat quietly during most of the trial, breaking her silence to tell the jury in a fiery 20-minute speech that she was “being crucified for the freedom of my country.” She was sentenced to more than 50 years in prison.

In a move widely suspected to have been part of a prisoner swap to release CIA agents jailed in Cuba, President Jimmy Carter granted clemency to Ms. Lebron, two of her co-conspirators and a nationalist who had tried to kill President Harry S. Truman.

Released in 1979 after serving 25 years in prison, Ms. Lebron embarked on a tour of Puerto Rican population centers in the United States. She was also received in Havana as a guest of President Fidel Castro.

The attack came four years after a failed attempt by Puerto Rican nationalists to assassinate Truman. It gave Ms. Lebron a place among the most famous of Latin American revolutionary figures, including Che Guevara and Pancho Villa.
“I am a revolutionary,” she said at the time. “I hate bombs, but we might have to use them.”

Lolita Lebron was born Nov. 19, 1919, in Lares, a Puerto Rican village where, in 1868, local men rose up against Spanish colonists in a legendary rebellion known as El Grito de Lares, “the cry of Lares.”

Her father was a coffee farmer and her mother was a homemaker. Ms. Lebron, crowned “Queen of the Flowers of May” as a teenager, left Puerto Rico for a better life in New York in 1940. She left behind a baby daughter, who later died. Ms. Lebron’s granddaughter is writer Irene Vilar. A complete list of survivors could not be confirmed.

Working as a seamstress in the garment district, Ms. Lebron lived in grinding poverty and found herself the object of racial discrimination. “They told me it was a paradise,” Ms. Lebron said in a Washington Post interview in 2004. “This was no paradise.”

She began corresponding with Harvard-educated Puerto Rican nationalist Pedro Albizu Campos after he was jailed for his part in the 1950 plot against Truman. Albizu Campos reputedly tapped Ms. Lebron to lead the siege against Congress as a last-ditch effort for independence.

Ms. Lebron in turn inspired other nationalists to violence. Between 1974 and 1983, Puerto Rico’s Armed Forces of National Liberation set off dozens of bombs in Chicago and New York, killing six people and injuring more than 100.

But the independence movement did not gain momentum in Puerto Rico. When voters were asked in 1998 whether they wanted the island to become a state or an independent nation or retain their semiautonomous status, the prevailing response was “none of the above.” Independence won 2.5 percent of the vote.

Renouncing violence

After returning home to Puerto Rico, Ms. Lebron became a symbol of nationalist pride. She continued to protest U.S. involvement on the island, but she renounced violence, saying her change of heart was rooted in religious revelations she had while she was in jail.

In 2001, she was arrested at age 81 while protesting the U.S. military’s use of Vieques, a neighboring Caribbean island, as a bombing range. She was sentenced to 60 days in jail for trespassing. The bombing range was later closed.

Her pledge of nonviolence was tested in 2005 when the FBI shot and killed Filiberto Ojeda Rios, the Puerto Rican leader of a paramilitary pro-independence group. Ojeda Rios was wanted in connection with the 1983 robbery of an armored-truck depot in Connecticut. As angry crowds gathered in the streets, Ms. Lebron spoke out.

“She had a tremendous impact,” Juan Manuel Garcia Passalacqua told the Chicago Tribune in 2006. “Young people were protesting in the streets, and there was talk of getting revenge. But Lolita told people, ‘No violence!’—and there was none.”

Emma Brown, A fervor for Puerto Rico's freedom led her to violent act at U.S. Capitol, The Washington Post, B-4, August 2, 2010.

See also Sara M. Justicia Doll, Lolita Lebrón se Armó por Valor por su Ideal, Primera Hora, 2 Agosto 2010.

Challenges for Cuban Family and Society: Alberto Roque on Homophobia in Cuba

Dr. Alberto Roque Guerra a medical doctor associated with the Cuban National Center for Sexual Education (Centro Nacional de Educación Sexual (CENESEX)), has recently circulated the following paper that is worth reading for those interested in the state of Cuban law, society and culture with respect to the rights and assimilation of sexual minorities in Cuba:

Silencio y homofobia en Cuba, dos males de nuestro tiempo
Por: Alberto Roque Guerra

La sexualidad es parte de la personalidad de cada ser humano y se construye mediante complejos procesos que operan a nivel consciente e inconscientemente en la medida en que nos desarrollamos como personas. De forma ideal, dicha construcción debiera interactuar con otros aspectos de forma armónica y enriquecedora del desarrollo de la personalidad. La diversidad es el denominador común en su expresión, independientemente de los preceptos morales, culturales y religiosos de cada sociedad. Sin embargo, desde edades muy tempranas, las expresiones de la sexualidad humana se convierten en rehén de los mencionados preceptos; cada ser humano tendrá que ajustarse a una normativa rígida enmarcada en lo que hemos identificado como género.

Nuestras identidades sexuales y el significado de nuestros cuerpos sólo tienen cabida en las normas heterosexistas (heteronormatividad), basadas en relaciones de poder, donde lo masculino heterosexual dispone y manda, y predetermina una dicotomía entre lo masculino y lo femenino. El resto de las diversas expresiones han sido negadas,  estigmatizadas, violentadas, cercenadas y excluidas predominantemente a lo largo de la historia de la humanidad. Muchas,  incluyendo a la sexualidad femenina heterosexual,  se han visto obligadas a la expresión silenciosa, al confinamiento de lo privado.

Recluir las expresiones de la sexualidad al espacio privado es un acto cruel que limita la libertad plena de las personas. Es una violación y una negación al disfrute pleno de los derechos sexuales que todo ser humano tiene desde el momento de su nacimiento. Es igualmente grave la negación o la disimulación de la discriminación basada en la orientación sexual o la identidad de género de las personas.

El silencio es un arma contra toda expresión “diferente” a las normas socialmente impuestas, es en esencia discriminatorio y excluyente. Resulta llamativo y nada nuevo cómo se combinan en nuestra sociedad cubana contemporánea la homofobia y el silencio. Semejante asociación representa también un peligro equiparable a la homofobia basada en la agresión física o verbal.

Coincido con muchas personas en que hemos transitado favorablemente por un largo proceso de asimilación de las nuevas interpretaciones de las ciencias referentes a la sexualidad. Dentro los dinámicos y radicales cambios que se produjeron en las primeras décadas de la Revolución cubana se reconocieron los derechos plenos de las mujeres y se cuestionaron las bases de poder patriarcal en su relación con las mujeres cubanas heterosexuales. Sin embargo, el machismo, sinónimo de poder patriarcal, no se ha erosionado lo suficiente; sus fundamentos siguen intactos. Las y los defensores de su poder se atribuyeron el derecho supremo a aplicar y a apoyar políticas discriminatorias hacia las personas homosexuales durante las primeras tres décadas de la Revolución cubana.

Afortunadamente, esta contradicción con el sentido humanista y de igualdad de la Revolución, ha sido superada en gran medida en la actualidad. Ejemplos de ello es la despenalización de la homosexualidad desde 1997, la inclusión del trabajo con mujeres lesbianas y bisexuales en la Federación de Mujeres Cubanas (FMC) y los avances innegables en la atención integral a las personas transexuales, por mencionar sólo algunos.

La educación sexual en Cuba ha contribuido a lo que denomino erosión del poder patriarcal. En la actualidad, el Programa Nacional de Educación Sexual incluye un enfoque de género, que desarticula el enfoque binario (masculino y femenino) imperante en nuestra sociedad, además de incluir los temas relacionados con la diversidad sexual. Sin embargo, los prejuicios no  superados de los decisores en el área de la educación cubana limitan su aplicación  de forma transversal en todos los niveles de enseñanza.

La Campaña por el Respeto a la Libre y Responsable Orientación Sexual ha desencadenado un incipiente debate sin precedentes en la historia de la Nación.  Entre las opiniones contrarias más destacables tenemos la que denuncia “una homosexualización de la sociedad cubana que condiciona la conducta homosexual en los niños”. La obnubilación mental que produce los prejuicios homofóbicos no les permite apreciar que la mencionada campaña sólo persigue educar en el respeto y la igualdad entre los seres humanos. Su esencia incluye la validez de todas las expresiones sexuales, incluyendo la heterosexual y las expresiones transgéneros. Sus objetivos apelan al pleno reconocimiento de la igualdad y la no discriminación como principios fundamentales de los derechos humanos.

En un medio de prensa digital cubano leí un artículo titulado “Homofobia no, respeto” donde su autor, Jesús Mena Aragón, apela al silencio de la homosexualidad como expresión de respeto y minimiza, en un tono casi pueril, los efectos de la homofobia en Cuba. El autor no parece advertir, desde su limitada visión, que las personas homosexuales  y transgéneros en Cuba estamos en “desventaja social” en relación al resto de la población cubana. El texto entre comillas no es mío, lo sugirió un oficial de la Policía Nacional Revolucionaria en una pregunta que me realizara durante una actividad de capacitación. Me limitaré solamente a expresar en este texto algunas de los desafíos sociales que enfrentamos:

·         Las parejas del mismo sexo no tenemos reconocimiento legal, por lo que se limita los derechos patrimoniales de uniones amorosas legítimas y el derecho a la adopción bajo argumentos no demostrados por evidencias científicas y sí legitimados por los prejuicios.
·         Imposibilidad de contraer matrimonio, construcción en mi opinión heterosexista y de demostrados orígenes religiosos, pero importante para muchas personas homosexuales y transgéneros.
·         Imposibilidad de mostrar afectos en público, aun cuando no está penalizado por la Ley.
·         Imposibilidad de las parejas lesbianas de tener acceso a las técnicas de reproducción asistida.
·         Limitación para ocupar altas responsabilidades políticas y sociales. Salvo honrosas excepciones, y de no estar explicitado en ningún reglamento o Ley, en la práctica se aplica con impunidad.
·         Imposibilidad de pertenecer a cualquier cuerpo armado de la nación y silenciamiento de las expresiones sexuales diferentes a la heterosexualidad en los miembros de sus filas.
·         Prejuicio generalizado dentro de las filas de Partido y de la Juventud Comunista de que la homosexualidad no es compatible con los principios de la moral socialista. Afortunadamente en este aspecto hemos avanzado, pero mientras no se permita el ingreso de personas transgéneros (travestis y transexuales) y no se explicite en los estatutos y reglamentos la no discriminación por estos motivos, seguirá siendo discriminatorio. Muestras de ello son los avances en los temas de la religión y en la eliminación de las medidas  que sancionaban a los miembros del Partido que “perdonaban el engaño amoroso de sus esposas” (a las mujeres militantes engañadas por sus esposos raras veces se les aplicaban medidas disciplinarias cuando optaban por el perdón).
·         Violencia verbal y física en las escuelas hacia los niños y niñas con expresiones de género no coincidentes con su sexo biológico (asignado al nacer).
·         Imposibilidad de las personas transgéneros de acceder al empleo y la educación superior al vestirse con ropas diferentes a las  del género en sus documentos de identidad. La discriminación laboral hacia las personas homosexuales se practica de forma más sutil, ej. burlas, comentarios, acoso laboral o imposibilidad para ocupar cargos administrativos o a ser promovidas o promovidos.
·         Reconocimiento de la identidad de género de las personas transexuales y de sus derechos sexuales, sólo cuando sean sometidas a una cirugía de reasignación sexual.
·         Asedio policial hacia las personas homosexuales y transgéneros en sitios públicos.
·         Acceso a algunos sitios de recreación por parejas, solo se permiten   de hombre y mujer, nunca del mismo sexo o en solitario. Por más que me esfuerzo, no le encuentro la lógica a semejante medida de las administraciones en un país que desterró para siempre los clubes y espacios exclusivos para ricos y que cuenta con tan pocos sitios para el recreo y el esparcimiento.

Es esencial entonces romper el silencio y promover el debate sobre estos temas. Es imprescindible visualizar la homofobia y sacarla definitivamente de nuestras mentes. Es también importante que se garantice la plena expresión de las sexualidades diferentes a la heterosexualidad y la inclusión de estas garantías sociales en las políticas de nuestro país. Debieran incluirse de forma explícita en nuestro código penal leyes que condenen la discriminación basada en la orientación sexual y la identidad de género, así como el reconocimiento pleno de otros modelos válidos de familia –no solo la familia nuclear o heteroparental-  en las leyes civiles.

Cómo se puede apreciar, tenemos mucho que trabajar y que avanzar en el respeto y reconocimiento de estos derechos. Contrario a lo que plantea Mena Aragón en su artículo, el alcance de la Campaña es aún insuficiente y el debate no ha tomado la intensidad ni la profundidad necesarias.

Considero además que estos temas de alcance social, que también incluye la lucha contra la discriminación racial y de la mujer, deben tener tanta prioridad como los desafíos políticos y económicos que enfrenta la Nación. Retrasarlos o postergarlos es un acto de injusticia y se volverá contra nosotros mismos.

For those interested in following these issues, Dr. Roque Guerra maintains a blogs worth reviewing, La diversidad es natural and http://aroqueg.blogspot.com/ (a space to debate issues of sexuality and sexual diversity). For remarks in English and Spanish, see, Dr. Alberto Roque Guerra, Challenges to the Cuban Family and Society, May 16, 2010, Remarks given at the opening of the panel on the family and society during the observation of World Anti-Homophobia Day, 2010 (A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann).

A "TAKE OUR JOBS" Reminder

Arizona's ill-advised anti-Brown SB 1070 legislation is difficult to distinguish from the increasing hate bias actions across the nation that are facing our Latina/o communities and others impacted by immigration driven policies. By its actions Arizona is collapsing broad based immigration complexities into narrow minded approaches as to who is "permitted" in the nation. (Hmmm in a state with a large Indigenous population and others causes me to ask whether anyone has seen the purported "citizenship" credentials of those who promulgated SB 1070?).

To underscore the madness of SB1070 and the broad scope of bias it is engendering against all of us, an attorney with the New York based Center for Constitutional Rights was arrested while serving as an observer during the protests against SB1070. She along with the other attorneys were wearing hats and T-shirts that identified them as legal observers. Local attorney Antonio Bustamante who had organized the team of thirty volunteer attorneys stated: "she didn't intend to get arrested. . . I don't know why it happened. Maybe because they can't read." Whether or not they can read reveals that the State is doing all it can to diminish the health and safety of its residents by its promotion of racially biased legislation.

At this juncture one more emphasis is obligated. It is not difficult to surmise that Arizona's anti-immigration campaign is intending to drive out all individuals who appear "foreign sounding" or "foreign looking." Accordingly, this post serves as a reminder. Specifically, during the winter seasons California farmworkers head to Arizona to harvest its lettuce and other crops. If the State continues in its rabid race-based approach even where it lacks jurisdiction area farmers will face labor shortages. Why? Because anyone coming in the cross hairs of a state that refuses to acknowledge its jurisdictional limitations shows we can trust that no one will be safe from questioning "where are your papers" from officials lacking immigration training thereby causing many to probably flee the State.

To prepare the State all interested parties who argue that immigrants take their jobs are greatly encouraged to help out the region's owner operators of key food commodities. They are always crying the blues over the lack of domestic based workers. To apply applications can be pulled from the United Farm Workers "TAKE OUR JOBS" campaign site available at http://www.takeourjobs.org. Reference also Professor Steve Bender's July post on the Campaign with specifics on the nature of agricultural employment.

In the meantime be forewarned! The legislative framework of agricultural employment is tethered to ancient 1930s legislation that offers very few protections for those working in the fields or in agriculture generally. (see the National Labor Relations Act).

So if hired don't forget to take with you plenty of water, a portable potty, a first aid kit and if possible a cell phone. Why a cell phone? Well while a good sturdy hat is also in order it can only do so much against the heat and in the case of heat stroke the nearest hospital will be miles away from the fields. A good cell phone could come in handy with calling for assistance---something sorely lacking when seventeen year old Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez lost her life to heat stroke while employed in a California field. (Reference the http:www.ufw.org website).