Readers are invited to address letters to The Editors, Report on the Americas, 475 Riverside Drive, Suite 454, New York, NY 10115. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. Immigration I am writing to congratulate you on your generally excellent July Report, "Coming North: Latino & Caribbean Immigration" [Vol. XXVI, No. 1]. For those of us who work in the inner cities, racism, discrimination andEnglish-only activities are among our major con- cerns. The bigger picture presented by this issue will prove helpful. I have, however, a major criticism of the issue: nothing was said about either emigration from Brazil or Brazilian immigration to this country. I suspect that with the exception of Mexico, more people have immigrated to the United States (with or without documentation) from Brazil in the last 10 years than from any other country in Central or South America. In greater Boston, Bra- zilians represent the largest newcomer group. Here in Somerville, they out- number both Haitians and Central Americans. I often find that people talking and writing about Latin America are in fact talking about Hispanic America. This is unfortunate since Brazil represents half the area and half the population of South America. I don't think NACLA falls into this trap-yourissue on "The B lack Americas" [Vol. XXV, No. 4], for ex- ample, had excellent material on Brazil. I hope, however, that you raise this concern with your writers from time to time. Jack Hamilton Somerville, MA Latino Politics Earl Shorris' article, "Latinos: The Complexity of Identity" in your Sep- tember Report [Vol. XXVI, No. 2], and the book from which the article was excerpted, Latinos: A Biography of a People, are a unique trip into a labyrinth of contradictions and mixed feelings. As Iread, Ithought: you'reright, Shorris, no way, Jos6, who told you that?, bril- liant, off-target, poetic, that's bull..., can't you, Earl, understand ourpeople?, not bad for a non-Latino, basta!, Latinos of the world, unite, bravo, Earl, you did it! After I moved to the United States from Mexico in 1977, it took me-the radical, the open-minded one, the inter- nationalist-more than five years to recognize and accept that I was a "Latino" in this country. Son of peasant parents, I have had the fortune to study for free the most pretentious theories at the most elitist institutions: the Jesuits' seminary and El Colegio de Mexico. From a conser- vative Catholic, I became a well-orga- nized anarchist, moving later on to more accepted sanctuaries of the political Left: socialism and liberation theology with a touch of Zapata and Cardenismo. I came to the United States to get married and to receive a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago (which I didn't get), and in the meantime, to fight Milton Friedman's "Chicago Boys" (which I did almost on a full-time basis). I in- tended only to learn a few secrets about "The Monster," and then to return to Mexico to fight the good war against the PRI, the Mexican bourgeoisie and U.S. imperialism. Sure, from my Mexican trench I would support the struggle of Latinos and Latinas for self-determination, but it was their fight, not mine. Remember, I thought of myself as a Mexican, a proud Mexican from Mexico, always in the process of buying a one-way ticket to my querida patria. After 15 years in Gringolandia, when nobody, except my mama, hopes I'll return to Mexico, what is my identity? Very simple: I am a radical, open- minded, internationalist muchacho. What else could I be, being a Latino? Ask Shorris. His article and book are an authentic portrayal of my new life, of my revealing Latino existence as poor Salvadoran refugee, wealthy Cu- ban in exile, black painter and Chicano organizer, Protestant Asian and Catho- lic Lebanese, the Jew with some poems, the Puerto Rican with a couple of dreams, the ever-resisting Indian, the out-of-place Spaniard, thePachuco from L.A. and the Young Lord from you- know-where, the community advocate, the mulatto trade unionist, the mestizo comecuras, me the merengue king, the undocumented immigrant murdered by la Migra, the homeless person beaten by the skinheads, me the Sandinista, and the registered unregistered. Earl Shorris corroborated a univer- sal suspicion: we are La Raza Cosmica, we are Latinos! Therefore, Shorris shouldn't be concerned about Latinos becoming the largest insignificant mi- nority in U.S. history. In fact, the prob- lem is that we don't want to be seen and treated as a minority, no matter how large or significant. A minority condi- tion and a minority mentality is oppres- sion. We need to disappear as a minor- ity A.S.A.P. Let's look in the mirror with our own eyes to re-discover that we carry in our skin the colors of the rainbow, and in our history, everybody's cultures, struggles and aspirations. Enough of the Establishment's self- serving We Will Be the Largest Minor- ity by the End of This Minute. In this socially balkanized country, let's have the privilege of showing to ourselves and everyone else our true identity: we are working women and men from ev- erywhere, we are human beings, in- deed. What else can we be, being Latinos and Latinas? Primitivo Rodriguez Director Mexico-U.S. Border Program American Friends Service Committee My gut reaction to Earl Shorris' essay, "The Complexity of Identity," was anger at its infantile matrix. My second reaction was sadness. As a third-generation Chicana born and raised in El Paso, Texas, I take offense at the notion that 1) Mexicans are docile, 2) they live by inference, divination and luck, 3) they are enam- ored of education, and 4) their political power depends upon a homogenous identity or assimilation, with no other alternative on their horizon. Perhaps the issue is not so much that Latinos do not fit a precise political mold, but that Shorris' mold is shallow and traditionally racist. Shallow because it reduces the process of building politi - cal power to the simplistic and singu- larly North American formula of poten- tial voting blocs. Racist because it ana- lyzes a complex historical and political reality through the prism of white cul- ture, and develops broad generaliza- tions and judgments from verbal snap- shots of individuals and organizations. Regardless of his personal upbring- ing and background, Shorris remains a typical gringo. All he can see and smell is the jalapefio, and all he can think about is how to package it for the North American market. l am saddened by the fact that almost 20 years have passed since the begin- ning of my political activism and that a publication such as yours still believes it is appropriate to print such an article. I am saddened as well that the political and social panorama still does not allow Latino intellectuals and academics to speak for their own people. I can't imagine what Report on the Americas hoped to accomplish by pub- lishing this piece. Perhaps this was the result of a search for a succinct analysis of "Latinos" a la United States Census. Perhaps it's not Shorris' problem that he failed, but that your magazine really expected to find such an article. Cecilia Rodriguez New York, NY Earl Shorris responds: I would like to take the occasion to respond here, in a magazine of good and serious intentions, to Cecilia Rodri- guez' version of the tragic misunder- standing of human diversity. The response will be in four parts, beginning with three brief comments on her letter and concluding with some thoughts on the more serious question. 1) The article in Report on theAmeri- cas was a digest of a book of more than 500 pages. While the editors did a re- markable job of choosing paragraphs from various parts of the book and weav- ing them into a coherent piece, the com- pression necessarily asks a lot of the reader. Much of what reviewers have described as a "celebration" of Latinos had to be left out. 2) Of the four notions that "offend" Cecilia Rodriguez, two are quotations from leading Latino intellectuals, one is simply a truism of immigration, and she has misread the other. Dr. Raymond del Portillo spoke of the "steadfastness and loyalty" he had observed and then said "their docility is sometimes disappoint- ing." ProfessorLeobardo Estrada spoke of the "reverence for education" he found among Mexican Americans. Those are the opinions of del Portillo and Estrada, as reported by me. Rodriguez is welcome to complain to them. Why the love of education is offensive to her is impossible to under- stand, but the Mexican-American com- munity is surely not in need of political activists who are offended by such love. Neither the book nor the article sug- gests a "homogeneous" identity for Latinos. That is, in fact, the exact oppo- site of the central thesis of my work. People in power imply. People who do not possess power are left to infer, to divine the often secret or unspoken wishes of those in power, and ultimately to trust to luck that they will be able to survive in a difficult, even hostile envi- ronment. If Ms. Rodriguez does not believe that is the situation in which minorities, particularly new immigrants, in the United States find themselves, what is the impetus for her "political activism"? 3) Had Cecilia Rodriguez looked at the book, Latinos, from which the ar- ticle was digested, she would have found that, in the late 1960s, I asked my friend Rub6n Salazar to write a series of ar- ticles, ultimately a book, about Latinos in the United States. Rub6n was shot to death by aLos Angeles County Sheriff s Deputy before he could do the work. I waited for nearly 20 years, expecting every year that someone would produce such a book. Finally, I thought I'd better do it. When we were reporters together on The El Paso Herald-Post, Rub6n had saved my life. If he couldn't write the book, at least I could do it and dedicate it to him. On the other hand, Rodriguez is cor- rect. Had Rub6n written the book, it would have been better. I share her concern for the poor reception given by the mainstream press to Latino writers. She may have read my essay in The New York Times Book Review on the subject. It was helpful, I think, to novelists and poets, but I erred in not talking about writers of non- fiction. Changes are coming, however. Working together as writers and intel- lectuals, not as gabachos and chicanos, we are now more able to find literary agents and mainstream publishers for Puerto Rican, Cuban-American and Mexican-American writers of non-fic- tion as well as fiction and poetry. A complete literature, not merely a litera- ture of curiosities-gangsters and drug addicts, etc.-is developing. 4) The thrust of Ms. Rodriguez' let- ter, which is that an Anglo is ipsofacto a racist and therefore incapable of writ- ing about Latinos, is a danger to civi- lized society. Her view embraces the very essence of racism. Consider the practical consequences of the adoption of Rodriguez' thesis by the general society. If Anglos cannot write about Latinos, then surely Latinos cannot write about Anglos. And if Latinos cannot even write about Anglos, there is no possibility that Latinos can govern them. If Henry Cisneros and Federico Pefia were to accept the conse- quences of her thesis, they would have to resign from the Clinton cabinet. Un- der the Cecilia Rodriguez rule of the ethnic wall, only Anglos could govern Anglos; the United States would have to return to the brutal majority that existed prior to the Civil Rights Move- ment and the Voting Rights Act. Newspapers and television stations could limit their employment of Latino writers and editors to those needed to cover the Latino community. Under the Rodriguez rule, they could argue that Latinos are incapable of writing about Anglos or blacks. There would be no exceptions. Rodriguez is clear on the point: "Regardless of his personal up- bringing and background, Shorris re- mains a typical gringo." Still in the realm of practicality, the Rodriguez Rule is anachronistic. As Andrew Hernindez of the Southwest Voter Registration and Education Pro- gram said, "Latinos must now learn how to govern." He is correct. The old separatist views are not useful for people whose numbers and voter participation have begun to bring them political power. The Rodriguez Rule is the last vestige of docility; William (Willie) Velasquez founded SVREP to partici- pate, to take power, to hide no longer in the ghetto of separatism. Velasquez was not docile; he was equal to, part of, as good as, different from and yet alike; in the great human, democratic tradition he advised his young followers to read Aristotle. And vote. The theory of the ethnic wall is very old. In the beginning, it was xenopho- bia, and it was then, as now, useful to the xenophobes. In ancient Greece and all through the Middle East xenophobia allowed those in power to hold slaves and make war. It still has the same effect. One has only to look at Germany today, where strangers are being killed by the ethnic purists, or Germany yes- terday, where Jews, gypsies, homosexu- als, all those who were different were killed. In Ireland, the Protestants and the Catholics make war. In Europe, the Serbs are killing the Bosnians. In So- malia, where people are of the same race and speak the same language, the members of one clan are killing and starving the members of another clan. To breach the wall, to be success- fully human, one must first concede the existence of others and then perform the glorious act of mind, which is to imag- ine them, to imagine how it is to be them. That is pluralism. It is the hope of each of us and all of us. Neither justice nor mercy has any other beginning in a complex world. So I would ask Cecilia Rodriguez to rescind her iron rule, to tear down the ethnic wall, to imagine me as I imagine her; then together, wearing our differ- ent faces, we can be political activists, citizens, tough-minded singers of the human chorale. Cuban Photo The photograph of a nineteenth-cen- tury Cuban dwelling which appeared in the February 1992 Report, "The Black Americas" [Vol. XXV, No. 4], should be further identified. Most Cuban homes of that period were not made of cement nor equipped with gun ports, as the home in the photo was. The photo shows a fortification lo- cated on the Spanish precursor of the Maginot Line, built in a futile attempt to contain pro-independence forces on the eastern end of the island. Philip Russell Director Mexico Resource Center Austin, TX
