Well, ain’t this some sorta shit? Paquita la del Barrio, an old time Mexican singer (she sings rancheros), announced in an interview that she’d rather see her child dead than adopted and raised by teh gays.
But she doesn’t mind teh gays marrying.
I realize La del Barrio is old school, so there’s not much that many of us can probably do or say to change her mind. So instead, I’ll just leave you all with a far more compelling image than dead children.
via Blabbeando: Mexican couples get married!
Puerto Rican Political Prisoners: A Panel Discussion!
Wednesday, April 7th 2010
6-8pm
Union Theological Seminary
Social HallThe Church and Society program and the Latin@ Caucus of Union Theological Seminary would like to invite the faculty and student community of Union, as well as the wider community, to a panel discussion regarding the plight of the Puerto Rican political prisoners currently being held in the United States. The political status of Puerto Rico will also be addressed.
Our Panel will consist of legal and pastoral activist/scholars that will frame the issue of these political prisoners within a context of justice, mercy, democracy and the right to political self-determination. Our panelists include:
Attorney Jan Susler of the Poor People’s Law Office in Chicago, IL;
Attorney and Law Professor Eduardo Villanueva Muñoz, of Maria de Hostos School of Law, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico;
Episcopal Priest Father Luis Barrios, Professor/Chair Department of Latin American & Latin@ Studies, John Jay College of Criminal Justice-City University of New York.
We eagerly anticipate your presence and participation in this critical discussion. For further information please contact Professor Cruz or Richard Colon, Chair of Latin@ Caucus.
In just a few days the March for America will jump off and thousands of gente from comunidades across the country will arrive in D.C.. Each person will have their own individual story and reason for being there and some of the messages will even conflict pero the unifying message is justicia for migrantes and their familias.
I will be highlighting over several posts some reasons why people are heading to D.C., including why I am going, and even some issues I have with the rally itself.
One reason to attend the March for America is to demand that immigrants not be ignored when it comes to health care reform.
In recent posts here at VivirLatino, La Macha has been pointing out how the current immigration and health care system fail immigrants, especially mujeres. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), who was poised as the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Champion, has been taking heat for saying that he won’t support the current health care reform proposal on the Senate floor because it prevents undocumented immigrants from using their own money to buy into the health care exchanges.
Wait, aren’t Republicans supposed to be against telling peeps what to do with their money?
When you’re an immigrant, I guess the rules are different.
PS. I never do this, pero please click on the March for America ad on the sidebar and the NCLR banner on the top to show them that you support them supporting independent Latino media like us, even when we disagree with them 
VL has covered several of the protests that have taken place on University of California campuses since the financial crisis in California hit the University system so hard (threatening to turn it from a public school system to a private one). The students are fighting hard to keep the school system public and affordable for the communities who are most in need of a university education but who simultaneously usually can’t afford it: communities of color, poor communities, LGBT communities, women, etc.
Today I just found about the protests that have taken place on several freeway ramps–the one I was focused on was led by the queer community:
On March 4th, students, staff, and community members attempted to overtake the onramp to the I-80 at the edge of the UC Davis campus. In a field of blooming daffodils, protestors held firm in a two-hour standoff with dozens of police officers. On the freeway behind the police line, miles of cars sat idle; behind the mass of protestors were the shimmering windows of the newest campus buildings, to the north a winter vineyard. As they approached the line of police, students were beaten with batons, tased, and shot with pepper balls. Some of these protestors held signs proclaiming their queerness — “Queers Bash Back,” “Not gay as in happy, queer as in fuck you” — and representatives of the campus LGBT Resource Center crossed police lines to advocate for students. Those representatives were the first administrative personnel to attend a protest in the last few months on behalf of students — not to negotiate with them or give them instructions or call in police forces, but to help students in confrontation with the often brutal response of the state and its representatives.
The logic behind this protest was especially intriguing to me:
The freeway is not merely a symbol of American wealth or mobility. That freeways are literally the mechanism by which bodies and goods are circulated and in which that circulation is regulated was the subject of the least romantic and most legalistic court battle over civil rights. Through freeways as the conduits of interstate commerce, the federal courts wrangled out of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause a way of enforcing the federal Civil Rights Act within individual states. The practice of using interstate transportation to regulate bigotry produced some excitingly absurd opinions, the most memorable of which found Lake Nixon Club in Little Rock, AK susceptible to regulation for having a snack bar where 3 out of the 4 foods served contained ingredients coming from outside the state. By regulating the whites-only Club thusly, the federal government was allowed to desegregate it, making federal control over the interstate system the mechanism by which laws about civil rights were implemented in places where such implementation often caused extreme violence. These opinions are delightfully queer: securing the square peg of anti-racism into the round hole of interstate capital flow, where the ability to discriminate was tied not to abstract ideas of equality but to the distance of one’s club from the freeway. To rush an onramp in protest of the privatization of education may very well be a gay riot, but not (solely) because gay people do it. It forces us to ask different questions about what people are saying when they use their bodies to protest. State violence often pits one group against another to defuse protest and expedite punishment, and this type of protest is a way to connect the discipline of the state to the privatization of the University, and vice versa. The ramp at Santa Rita is the road to the disciplinary action undertaken by the state when bodies and goods are not circulated according to their rules. To connect these two different ramps in the metaphoric valences of capitalism is to begin to understand both the struggle and the divisive tactics of power. To do so queerly means, to me, fighting the undertow of power that draws us inexorably into the denial of their connection.
I know several people who are planning to continue these types of protests in support–if you are one of the, let us know in comments!!!
Many people have asked why we need a Women’s History Month. Or a Latino history month. Or a Black history month. And why don’t white men get their own month?
Usually I blow these questions off. If people are too stupid or privileged to see that every single month, day, hour of the year is white male history time (how many Chicano leaders are school kids forced to memorize, ala the Presidents of the United States?), then I really don’t feel too much of a need to explain it.
But then I saw the news that Texas has taken the drastic step of almost completely rewriting history in their high schools. Not just the normal stuff–like the Pilgrims were awesome and the Native peoples welcomed them–but things like free market capitalism is not actually all that bad! And “when you’re suicidal, you should take heed that it is a personal choice!”
Or, as the New York Times tells us:
The conservative members maintain that they are trying to correct what they see as a liberal bias among the teachers who proposed the curriculum. To that end, they made dozens of minor changes aimed at calling into question, among other things, concepts like the separation of church and state and the secular nature of the American Revolution.
“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”
They also included a plank to ensure that students learn about “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.”
Dr. McLeroy, a dentist by training, pushed through a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the nonviolent approach of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.
“Republicans need a little credit for that,” he said. “I think it’s going to surprise some students.”
Mr. Bradley won approval for an amendment saying students should study “the unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation. He also won approval for an amendment stressing that Germans and Italians as well as Japanese were interned in the United States during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism.
Other changes seem aimed at tamping down criticism of the right. Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include “how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.” The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States.
Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons “the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.”
It was defeated on a party-line vote.
After the vote, Ms. Knight said, “The social conservatives have perverted accurate history to fulfill their own agenda.”In economics, the revisions add Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, two champions of free-market economic theory, among the usual list of economists to be studied, like Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. They also replaced the word “capitalism” throughout their texts with the “free-enterprise system.”
“Let’s face it, capitalism does have a negative connotation,” said one conservative member, Terri Leo. “You know, ‘capitalist pig!’ ”
In the field of sociology, another conservative member, Barbara Cargill, won passage of an amendment requiring the teaching of “the importance of personal responsibility for life choices” in a section on teenage suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.
“The topic of sociology tends to blame society for everything,” Ms. Cargill said.
I read all this and my jaw dropped, and stayed in that position for a few hours. THIS is why the various history months are so desperately needed. It points to the fundamental question about history–who gets to “remember” history about a certain group of people? Do a bunch of white folks on a school board get to define the Black Panthers as violent? Do a bunch of adults *really* get to tell teens that they need to stop “blaming” society when they are suicidal or dealing with any other mental health issue? Do a bunch of white folks really get to tell Latinos that they had no influence on the state of Texas politics, culture or society?
Contrary to what I am sure most of my libertarian friends are thinking right now, I am not of the belief that we need to go in the other direction either–that is, I do not think that we should blast the kids with a bunch of liberal crap either. Rather instead, I think that we should be teaching all of the students who go through public schools *how to question, critique and challenge* evidence sitting in front of them. That is: there should be some critical theory taught about how to interpret evidence–and kids should required to interpret the evidence on their own. For example: Fred Hampton was one of those “violent” Black Panthers. Kids should be given specific original source material (FBI files, Hampton’s speeches, interviews with co-organizers, etc), and asked to write up a paper on it supporting their own opinions on the evidence.
The opinion being secondary to the ability to creatively, concretely and academically *support* their opinion–or: to show that they know *how* to use the skills generations of historians have used to interpret and represent documents that they find.
But of course–we deem giving our kids thinking tools like critiques and theories as dangerous and wrong. So, that’s not going to happen any time soon, at least not in public schools. So until then, I will have to make do with the various history months. Where the community that the history is about gets to control the production of their own history. Gets to create their own commentary and theory about their history.
It may not be any more accurate or self-reflective than what the Texas school board is doing to history right now–but at least there is a reason for that. And that reason has nothing to do with racism, sexism or any other type of hateration.
Mami is a core part of my identity, my life. It seeps into every letter, every post, everything I breath out and take back in. I am proud to announce that we are a part of The New Mythos Tour that is jumping off next week and ask all VL readers and supporters to extend their love and support as well.
Gloria Anzaldua says: “By creating a new mythos – that is, a change in the way we perceive reality, the way we see ourselves, and the ways we behave – la mestiza creates a new consciousness. The work of mestiza consciousness is to break down the subject/object duality that keeps her prisoner and to show in the flesh and through the images in her work how duality is transcended. The answer to the problem between the white race and the colored, between males and females, lies in healing the split that originates in the very foundation of our lives, our culture, our languages, our thoughts. A massive uprooting of dualistic thinking in the individual and collective consciousness is the beginning of a long struggle, but one that could, in our best hopes, bring us to the end of rape, of violence, of war.”
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been called facil, pero no tan facil como vos.
I caught his song on Amylulita from Nacotheque‘s latest mix, which you can download here, and after a little digging found that my vecino, Andrés over at Blabbeando had written about F.O.K a whole year ago.
So this is for you Andrés, not that I heard that you were facil or anything.
On and for Hiram Monserrate, who was way too facil in turning on the comunidad to save his political career.
Ai dios mio.
So–you remember John Edwards, right? The dude running for president (and that I even considered voting for). And you remember that he was having an affair with an unnamed woman? And then eventually there were rumors of a child–that Edwards eventually confirmed?
Well, the Other Woman is talking. And talking fast. She’s got an opinion on everything, apparently, even on how the Real Mrs. Edwards is an emasculating bitch.
“And I believe what happened in his marriage is, he could not go to his wife and say, ‘We have an issue.’ Because he would be pummeled. So he had a huge fear. Most of his mistakes or errors in judgment were because of his fear of the wrath of Elizabeth. He’s allowed himself to be pushed into a lot of things that he wouldn’t normally do because of Elizabeth’s story line. And the spin that she wants to put out there. He was emasculated. And you know, the wrath of Elizabeth is a mighty wrath.”
Well–when all is said and done I believe two things. 1. If what John needed all this time was a submissive woman who made him feel like a man–than I feel therapy might’ve been a better option, and possibly the reading of a few feminist texts. There are better and easier and healthier ways to build a self-esteem than on the denigration of a woman’s self esteem. And 2. Even if Ms. Edwards is bitch extraordinaire–she has certainly handled herself publicly in a way that exhibits grace, calm and strength. And the Other Woman is acting little better than a high school Mean Girl.
Ms. Edwards wins this round from me–as she has won all previous rounds. And may John Edwards learn to better choose his submissive male ego enhancing women. In particular, he should focus on the ones who don’t talk.
For the latest Remembering Women’s History month post, I wanted to focus on this article I found about the health of Latina women in Arizona. As most of us know, Arizona is a notoriously unfriendly state for immigrants in general and immigrant women specifically. It is the state that has enacted some of the harshest anti-immigrant laws and, of course, has Sheriff Joe as well.
But all the anti-immigrant hysteria has led to some terrifying consequences for immigrant women. Namely in the form of their health. When a woman who is in the country without documentation gets cancer, what does she do?
In Arizona, the answer is rarely “she gets treatment.”
Undocumented women are more likely to forego treatment because of the costs involved with their care, said Mollie Williams, director of community health programs for Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a foundation that provides grants for services and education on cancer. “It is likely for these women to fall through the cracks.”
Williams said in some cases service providers who receive grants from the foundation have reported that women were able to cover the cost of their mastectomy and initial care using their state Medicaid emergency insurance. This type of coverage is available to anyone, regardless of immigration status.
But breast cancer is a complex disease that requires an assortment of specialists, expensive medicines and follow-up care. Treatment could extend for up to five years and cost between $20,000 to $60,000.
In some areas community clinics can only diagnose the cancer, but there is no follow up.
“We are able to screen them, but there’s not much we can do after that,” said Lucy Murrieta, an outreach community relations manager for the Sunset Community Health Center in Yuma County.
So–a few women can get a diagnosis–and even fewer women can actually get treated. And as usual, there seems to be little difference between “legal” and “illegal” woman.
In some cases the women have migrated legally, said Murrieta, but since they have been in the country for less than five years they’re ineligible for Medicaid coverage, available to low income people. When these women lose work after the farming season, they also lose their health insurance, making it difficult to obtain breast cancer treatment.
Similarly, there seems to be little difference between immigrants and citizens either. For example, what effect is this diagnosis and lack of treatment having on the generation of children who are US citizens and are watching their parents die from treatable and sometimes even preventable diseases? If we look toward the black community, we see that there is often a strong suspicion of doctors and the medical community–largely due to how the black community has historically been treated by the medical establishment (see: Mississippi Appendectomies and Tuskeegee Experiments among others).
What are we telling US citizens about their health when we’ll diagnose a disease but not treat it? What relationship with their health are we creating? And how does this unequal, terrifying and inhumane relationship with the medical establishment intersect with cultural based issues like: a Catholicism that often encourages a virgin/whore dichotomy that makes many Latinas think of their private areas as dirty and untouchable–something to be ignored until marriage or babies? Old school religious mothers that are the primary source of sexual knowledge for their daughters? “Good Girl” mentalities that teach girls (especially the oldest daughter) to be the caretakers of everybody else (the little mama) at the expense of themselves?
The consequences of all these factors mixing together cannot be understated. And if we look towards other Latina populations (the report is largely about Mexican women)–for example, Puerto Ricans–you can see how mother’s who were sterilized in the 70′s have raised daughters that often have not just a healthy suspicion of the medical establishment, but an outright fear of it. I know several Puerto Rican women–in their 30′s and 40′s–who have never once gone to see a gynecologist.
But how many studies are ever done on good methods to get Latinas back into the doctor’s office?
There is a desperate need for Latinas to begin our own studies, our own research and our own grassroots organizing to create our own clinics. The great news is that there are plenty of existing models on how to do this, including one that was started by Latinas.
If you know of other health clinics that cater to Latin@ populations specifically or women generally–please leave them in comments!
This morning’s musica comes to us from El Salvador via Queens (represent) via VL’s twitter followers.
Reyes del Bajo Mundo want your attention.
‘
