Total Pageviews

Latino Politics in the U.S.

Latino Politics in the U.S.
Kendall-Hunt, 2012 (2005)

Search This Blog

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Honorary Whites: Where are Latinos in a Future Multiracial Society?

Where are Latinos in a Future Multiracial Society?
Raúl March 13, 2010 Race Culture & Power No Comments

http://consciousness-in-action.com/archives/187


“Yet, if we remember that Latinos are already no longer considered a “racial” group, but an “ethnic” one: Would Latinos even be counted, as a group, AT ALL?”

Full article here:

http://consciousness-in-action.com/archives/187

My good friend and colega, Dr. Raul Quiñones-Rosado clarifies the complexities of what I call the third racializing process, this occurs when racial groups, either by contesting or adapting (coerced) are positioned (or attempt to position themselves) in a higher racial status than the one this society’s racial architecture traditionally assigns to them. The Irish for example, in order to gain the status of “white” stepped over (in a myriad ways) African Americans in order to distance themselves from them so as not to remain in a lower racial status. They initially, in Virginia had coalesced with Africans in the struggle against the plantocracy, but decided to opt for whiteness (with help from the legal systems). The colonized Irish, changed their green politics of contestation for the white politics of acquiescence and in their efforts solidified and helped perpetuate the racial construct in the U.S.

But Latinos also participated in this process too (Puerto Rico is a separate and distinct and more complex process which I will not describe now). One of the first advocacy groups in the Mexican American community, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) sought from its inception, not to challenge the inequality of the system of racial stratification, but instead tried to position itself inside the white social group. It promoted Americanization, it engaged in mimicking whites in order to gain acceptance as members of white society. It also challenged racializing discrimination, when Mexican schools were created, and they legally resisted, not by resisting the notion of “separate but equal” but by arguing that Mexican Americans were white. Puerto Ricans in the Northeast also followed different but similar “racial positioning” strategies. At times, just like with Cubans in 19th century and 20th century Florida, it led to the division of the Cuban community between “white” Cubans and “non-white” Cubans. Today, the Black Cuban experience and “white’ Cuban experience walks along two different paths.

However, I have followed the debates about the Census and where do Latinos (again, Puerto Rico is a more complex process) fit in this new racializing process by society’s institutional arrangements. My major disagreement is that the reality is that Latinos/Hispanics have never been considered formally a separate “racial” group (as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census). In fact, Mexicans were considered “white” in the 1930s, Puerto Ricans have also been on the see saw of racial politics in the United States. However, in the U.S. popular culture Latinos/Hispanics are thought of as a pseudo race, or to use a better concept, as a “racialized ethnicity.” For me the issue is that: whether Latinos self-identify as “white” the overwhelming majority will still be considered “suspect whites” and in the best of all cases “honorary whites” (to use my colega Eduardo Bonilla’s term) in their experiences.

But worst of all it will divide Latinos because if one self-identifies as white it indicates a lack of political consciousness of the role of white supremacy in the U.S. In Texas, in the 19th and early century self-identified as “Spanish,” in order to distance themselves from poor working class Mexicans. Some of the elite even joined the Ku Klux Klan. Was there any political capital gained? Maybe at the individual level, but collectively it led to the retrenchment of racism in Texas. In fact, Texas has the highest number of lynchings of Mexicans than any state in the Southwest (Webb and Carrigan, 2009). More recently, during the racist Proposition 187 (1994) in California, those who self-identify as “whites” were more likely to vote in favor of this draconian law that expelled children from schools, made teachers into spies and excluded undocumented immigrants from receiving medical care (Garcia Bedolla, 2003).

In the end, it is important that Latinos be counted in a complete and accurate fashion. As for me I always choose “other” even despite the possibility of imputation (Census assigning you a race). I do not want to negate my multi-racial ancestors Tainos, African and Spanish, and until the census reveals that, I will be “none of the above.” Will that change why racial experience in the U.S? No, but I raise the question about the irrationality of race.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Las mentiras alrededor del Censo 2000 y la unidad nacional puertorriqueña

(Esto fue el producto de una investigación que realicé al final de la década del noventa, también gracias a una fuente confidencial dentro de la Junta de Planificación quien me proveyó muchos detalles sobre el proceso que utilizó el gobierno de Pedro Rossello para incorporar a Puerto Rico in toto en el Censo Yanqui. Todas las profecías resultaron ciertas, 80.5% de los Boricuas se identificaron como blancos y los esfuerzos de los demógrafos puertorriqueños por desarrollar un censo Boricua, con sus propias categorías e idiosincrasias, desapareció del mapa. Hay reformas que matan)

Las mentiras alrededor del Censo 2000 y la unidad nacional puertorriqueña


Por Víctor M. Rodríguez Domínguez

Especial para Claridad

(El autor es catedrático de sociología en el Departamento de Estudios Chicanos y Latinos en la Universidad Estatl de California, Long Beach, California, Imperio Yanqui. Correo electrónico: rodrigvm@cox.net)


"La cuestión racial es el problema del siglo XX"
---W.E.B. DuBois

"Esta sobre el tapete la suprema definición: O Yanquis o Puertorriqueños"
---Pedro Albizu Campos



Cultura, Nación, Política

Es ya un lugar común decir que la identidad nacional es la raíz fundamental de las potentes expresiones políticas escenificadas en Puerto Rico en los últimos anos. Pero, dado el lugar estratégico que la cultura y la identidad nacional ocupan en las luchas políticas, cabe la redundancia en estos momentos. Cualquier persona familiarizada con la experiencia puertorriqueña conoce lo profunda que es la identificación nacional puertorriqueña. Esta identificación no es meramente una identificación con el folclor, esta experiencia representa una realidad cultural que transforma la visión de mundo Esta visión de mundo ha sido tradicionalmente una sobre la cual se ha construido el proyecto nacional puertorriqueño. En otras palabras, ha sido el pueblo independentista quien ha llevado el liderato (no el monopolio) de la profundización de la cultura e identidad nacional en la experiencia diaria del pueblo boricua.

En anos recientes otra generación de investigadores sociales han descubierto el mediterráneo al redescubrir la cultura. Entre otras cosas han resaltado el rol del capital en promover y cooptar la producción cultural. Arlene Dávila en su libro "Sponsored Identities" (1997) menciona entre otras cosas el rol de las agencias de publicidad y las corporaciones que representan, en la promoción de los símbolos culturales puertorriqueños. Nancy Morís en "Puerto Rico: Culture, Politics and Identity" (1995) menciona como la dialéctica relación entre la influencia norteamericana y la identidad puertorriqueña ha llevado a profundizar la identidad puertorriqueña en formas contradictorias a lo anticipado: la asimilación.

La cultura, ese fenómeno resbaloso, contradictorio continua sorprendiendo a los especialistas por su habilidad de eludir nuestras redes teóricas. Pero lamentablemente, con la honrosa excepción de Lillian Guerra en su "Popular Expresión and National Identity" (1998) esta nueva generación aunque reconoce el rol protagónico de la cultura y el sentimiento nacional ignoran algo que investigadores sociales en el pasado, aunque de manera somera, resaltaron de forma sutil: la cuestión racial en Puerto Rico. Por otro lado, el enfoque de la Profesora Guerra es la experiencia histórica de las primeras décadas de este siglo mientras que los anteriores estudios tratan de extender su análisis hasta el presente.

La fuerte unidad nacional que se ha desarrollado en los últimos años alrededor de los prisioneros políticos, pero particularmente alrededor de Vieques y su lucha contra la marina de guerra yanqui, es obviamente una consecuencia de la profundización de la cultura e identidad nacional boricua. Cuando miembros de partidos colonialistas, presionados por la fuerte voluntad de unidad hablan de unirse a la desodebiencia civil en defensa de la integridad del territorio nacional en Vieques, algo importante se está dando en la formación social boricua. El reconocimiento por líderes estadistas de que la lucha estadista ha sido afectada por la lucha Viequense es también un reconocimiento del importante cambio cultural en ciernes. Empero, este fenómeno cultural de identidad no siempre camina por una vía, particularmente la vía deseada. El dirigismo cultural es mas una construcción teórica que una realidad concreta.

En unas semanas comenzará a circular el cuestionario federal del censo 2000 en Puerto Rico. En el horizonte se cierne una amenaza que aunque a distancia parece pequeña, sutíl y aparentemente burocrática pudiera minar las cimientes de este muro de contención al poder metropolitano en Puerto Rico. Se trata de la intromisión de las categorías polarizadas raciales yanquis al interior de la cultura y vida cotidiana puertorriqueña. A continuación el trasfondo de este proceso.


Censo 2000 la cuestión racial y la "integración automática"

Meses atrás en Claridad (11-17 de Junio 1999), miembros del Grupo Puertorriqueño sobre Raza e Identidad llamaron al pueblo boricua a responder a las preguntas sobre raza e etnicidad que por primera vez en 49 años aparecerán en el censo federal realizado en la isla. Este llamado responde a la realidad de que no contamos con los datos empíricos necesarios para revelar los patrones de discriminación racial en Puerto Rico. Existe la información anecdótica y descriptiva pero no el tipo de información empírica que se utiliza en el sistema judicial para llevar casos sobre discriminación racial a los tribunales. Además, como fue evidente en conversaciones que sostuve durante en junio 1999 con amigos, miembros y dirigentes de el movimiento independentista, hay una escasez de información certera sobre el racismo en Puerto Rico.

Lamentablemente, la prensa puertorriqueña aun no ha presentado (porque no ha tenido acceso a las fuentes de información) la realidad completa de como y porque se determinó utilizar exactamente el mismo cuestionario utilizado en los Estados Unidos. Los últimos 50 anos, en Puerto Rico el censo utilizaba un cuestionario ajustado a la realidad cultural y demográfica puertorriqueña. La historia detrás de esta decisión revela de forma clara la manera de funcionar de la administración Rosellista.

El uso de este cuestionario mas que un problema metodológico, es un problema político que traerá importantes consecuencias sociales en Puerto Rico. Forma parte de lo que Juan Mari Bras aducía en una entrevista reciente "la estrategia Rosellista de la integración automática" de Puerto Rico a los Estados Unidos. En cierta medida, ya se ha logrado de forma significativa, la integración económica de Puerto Rico a la economía norteamericana. La mayoría de los estudiosos aceptan esta realidad, las diferencias que existen entre estos tienen que ver con cuan integrado o no esta Puerto Rico a la economía imperial norteamericana.

Pero en términos sociales y culturales, la distancia entre los Estados Unidos, y particularmente dado el incremento en el sentimiento nacional Puertorriqueño, es amplísima. La intensificación de la identificación cultural, e unidad nacional puertorriqueña ha servido de muro de contención sobre el efecto de la integración económica. Pero, esa unidad nacional que palpamos en una actividad donde Sila Calderón anuncio su candidatura a gobernadora y donde lo único que ondearon fueron banderas puertorriqueñas, y en su reciente visita a Vieques esta cimentada sobre una base relativamente frágil. La unidad nacional por la que los sectores patrióticos han luchado y han dado sus vidas durante los últimos 150 años tiene su talón de Aquiles: la cuestión racial.

Censo 2000: Las Mentiras

Desde que se anuncio oficialmente la decisión de utilizar en Puerto Rico el mismo cuestionario que se utiliza en los Estados, el gobierno Rosellista comenzó una labor de esconder como y porque se realizo esta decisión. La administración Rosellista, temía las posibles repercusiones políticas en un momento en que la administración se encontraba aun reculando del efecto de el plebiscito de Diciembre 13, 1998. En este, la mayoría del pueblo Boricua dio al traste con los intentos de atosigarle la estadidad a Puerto Rico. Pero, a pesar de el mensaje claro de el pueblo, el gobernador no se amilanó.

La estrategia Rosellista de la "integración automática" implica implementar administrativamente, en forma sutil, aquellos procesos que conduzcan a reducir las diferencias sociales y culturales entre los Estados Unidos y Puerto Rico. El desarrollo de programas bilingües, y el uso de el cuestionario de el censo de los Estados Unidos son formas graduales de impulsar unos procesos culturales y sociales que preparan a la isla para la estadidad. Este es el legado, un caballo de Troya que la administración Rosellista le deja al pueblo boricua y cuyas consecuencias se seguirán experimentando décadas después de su salida de La Fortaleza. En este caso del censo, las consecuencias serán potencialmente dramáticas.

Una fuente cercana a el proceso en la junta de planificación, donde se discutió inicialmente esta decisión, me proveyó de recortes y trasfondo de este complejo proceso. La primera noticia, que pasó casi desapercibida, apareció en la prensa del país el 9 de enero de este año. El Nuevo Día en la edición de ese día decía "Ingresa la isla a las estadísticas del censo federal." El Comisionado Residente, Carlos Romero Barceló, presenta las nuevas de que en Puerto Rico se utilizara el cuestionario estadounidense traducido al español como una victoria de sus gestiones. En realidad el proceso fue muy distinto. Si uno se limita a la lectura de la cobertura de la prensa, se lleva uno la impresión de que el Buró del Censo fue obligado a acceder a los reclamos boricuas, nada mas lejos de la verdad.

En el 1958, el gobernador Luis Muñoz Marín llegó a un acuerdo con el departamento de comercio de los Estados Unidos (bajo el cual se ubica administrativamente el buró del censo) para asegurar la participación de Puerto Rico en determinar que tipo de cuestionario se utilizaría en la isla. Puerto Rico estaría representado por la junta de planificación la cual utilizaría su experiencia técnica para determinar el contenido de dicho cuestionario. El propósito lógico de este acuerdo era determinar primero que necesidades tenia Puerto Rico y que tipo(s) de preguntas proveían la información necesaria para la planificación social y económica de la cual la junta es responsable.

La práctica que se desarrolló desde ese entonces, era el de un comité interagencial que reunía a usuarios privados de la data (académicos, expertos en mercadeo, demógrafos etc.) y las agencias gubernamentales que usaban estos datos para cumplir sus responsabilidades gubernamentales. Estos determinaban cuales tópicos eran necesarios y le informaban al buró federal del censo que querían/necesitaban y así procedía el buró del censo. Existía autonomía local en determinar estas prioridades y necesidades en cuanto a los datos y/o preguntas. El Buró del Censo, según la fuente cercana al proceso, siempre estuvo abierto a recibir e implementar las preguntas y/o temas que los miembros del comité interagencial estimaban importantes.

Desaparece cuestión racial de el discurso demográfico en Puerto Rico

Una de las decisiones que se realizaron, temprano en el proceso a mediados de la década de los cincuenta fue no incluir preguntas sobre raza/etnicidad en el cuestionario distribuido en Puerto Rico. Se pensó entonces, que las preguntas de este tipo no se adecuaban a la realidad social puertorriqueña. Desde el censo de 1950, hace 49 años, no se incluían en el cuestionario preguntas sobre las raza o etnicidad de los informantes.

En años posteriores a esa decisión hubo peticiones de distintos grupos de que se utilizara el mismo cuestionario. Según nuestra fuente, en el 1980, la Corporación de Servicios Legales requirió que se incluyeran preguntas sobre raza en el cuestionario utilizado en Puerto Rico en los censos subsiguientes. Una decisión legal, donde se utilizaba la jurisprudencia de la DPR (Decisiones de Puerto Rico) en la Corte Suprema de Puerto Rico y el circuito federal, dictaminó que dada la realidad social y cultural de Puerto Rico esa información no era necesaria.

Mas recientemente, la organización "National Puerto Rican Coalition," a través de su portavoz José Núñez, pidieron que se utilizara el mismo cuestionario. Una de las razones para esta petición es que permitiría aumentar de forma automática la población latina y boricua en los Estados Unidos. Al presente, cuando se presentan datos poblacionales sobre los latinos en los Estados Unidos nunca se incluyen los mas de 3.9 millones de puertorriqueños residentes en Puerto Rico. Obviamente, cuando organizaciones latinas o boricuas están en sus gestiones de cabildeo el añadir 4 millones mas de personas le provee mas poder de regateo. Los 3 millones de puertorriqueños se convierten en 7 millones, los 32 millones de Latinos se convierten en 36 millones. Aparentemente, algunos de los miembros del Caucus Congresional Hispano apoya esta petición.

La mayoría de los que apoyan incluir o integrar a Puerto Rico en los cálculos poblacionales de los Estados Unidos son personas u organizaciones radicadas en los Estados Unidos. Para estos individuos u organizaciones hay razones estratégicas para que se unan los datos. Recordemos también las intensas gestiones del Gobierno de Rosello durante su incumbencia como presidente de la asociación de gobernadores norteamericanos de congraciarse con sectores organizados entre los latinos de los Estados Unidos. Particularmente Roselló busco apoyo de estos para sus gestiones a favor de la estadidad.

En esta ultima ronda en preparación para el año 2000, el comité interagencial estuvo dirigido por la Sra. Lillian Torres, en aquellos momentos directora de la área de planificación social y económica de la oficina del censo dentro de la Junta de Planificación. Este comité, cuyo encargo era servir de asesor al gobierno sobre el contenido del cuestionario, y que estaba constituido de expertos en demografía, mercadeo, abogados etc. no recomendó que se utilizara el mismo cuestionario que se usa en los Estados Unidos. Aunque se discutió, por ejemplo la necesidad de data sobre las relaciones raciales en Puerto Rico no se sugirió el uso del el cuestionario federal sino una versión modificada como se había hecho en los últimos 49 años.

Durante las discusiones internas del comité, una de las áreas donde se sostuvieron los intercambios mas dramáticos fueron alrededor de el incluir o no preguntas sobre raza y etnicidad. Los académicos (demógrafos, sociólogos etc.) se encontraban divididos en torno a el incluir o no pregunta sobre raza y etnicidad. Al final de la discusión se llegó a una decisión donde una pequeña mayoría decidió incluir la pregunta de raza y etnicidad. Entre los participantes estuvieron algunos representantes de agencias federales que aducían la data sobre raza y etnicidad era necesaria para la recopilación de estadísticas sobre vivienda y salud. Esto permitiría determinar si hay patrones de discriminación racial en Puerto Rico. Pero, en torno al uso total de el cuestionario norteamericano la decisión del comité interagencial fue continuar el mismo proceso de los últimos 49 años que le proveía a la isla autonomía y participación directa en la confección del cuestionario a utilizarse en Puerto Rico.

Pero, el trabajo arduo de los expertos en esta materia demográfica, los usuarios de esta data, y las agencias gubernamentales que participaron n el comité interagencial, resulto en vano. La Sra. Norma Burgos, a la sazón presidenta de la Junta de Planificación le informó al Gobernador Roselló de la decisión del comité. Contrario a la practica de medio siglo el gobernador, se reunió con su gabinete y unilateralmente tomaron la decisión política de utilizar el cuestionario norteamericano.

Se le instruyó a los secretarios de agencias que prepararan planes de contingencia para recoger datos necesarios para la planificación de las distintas agencias. Unos de los resultados de esta decisión, como se destacó al principio de la discusión en la prensa, es que ahora se perdería información estratégica sobre tendencias en la fecundidad, analfabetismo, uso de energía eléctrica etc. El único recurso que recogía esta información en Puerto Rico es el censo federal cada diez años.

Control del daño: la cobertura periodística

Es interesante notar como la cobertura periodística desde enero 1999 en adelante comienza señalando esta valiosa perdida de información debido a la utilización de este cuestionario federal. El Nuevo Día (18 de enero) titula "Pierde el censo el toque criollo" dando un matiz negativo a esta decisión. Puerto Rico, contrario a los Estados Unidos no tiene otras formas de recoger información en las áreas que ahora quedaban fuera del cuestionario.

Aparentemente los expertos en relaciones publicas del gobierno decidieron darle un giro positivo a la noticia. Entre otras cosas, le prohibieron a miembros del personal de la junta discutir el asunto con la prensa. De ahí en adelante, solamente el presidente de la Junta de Planificación, Sr. Héctor Feliciano hablaría con la prensa sobre el Censo 2000. Automáticamente, desapareció de el discurso sobre el censo noticias sobre lo que iba a perder Puerto Rico ya que no desarrollaría sus propias preguntas. Además, no se discutía cual seria el impacto de las preguntas sobre raza y etnicidad en la sociedad boricua. Ahora el discurso en la prensa sobre el Censo 2000 gira alrededor de materias técnicas o de como Puerto Rico se va a beneficiar en términos de acceso a mas recursos federales.

Por otro lado, se da la impresión de que esta fue una decisión tomada por la junta de planificación al ser el Sr. Feliciano, presidente de la Junta de Planificación quien provee la mayor parte de la información publica sobre el Censo 2000. En realidad, la decisión fue tomada por razones políticas por la administración Rosellista. El Sr. Feliciano se ha visto "forzado" a difundir información que raya en la falsedad.

Dice El Nuevo Día en su edición del 9 de mayo que según el Sr. Feliciano "la Junta, que creo un comité para el censo con personas de otras agencias, decidió que se entregaría el mismo cuestionario lo que, según Feliciano agilizara el proceso." Dos falsedades en una misma oración.

Primero, el comité interagencial no decidió utilizar el mismo cuestionario, la decisión fue mantener las preguntas utilizadas en años anteriores e incluir preguntas sobre raza y etnicidad. La decisión de utilizar el cuestionario federal fue tomada por La Fortaleza. Segundo, esto no agilizará la distribución de los datos en forma dramática. De acuerdo a la fuente es posible que se reduzca en tres meses el tiempo para la diseminación de la información. Pero lo que se pierde en información no es compensada. La razón para el continuado retraso es que los datos de "las posesiones" se tabulan al final de las tabulaciones y el procesamiento de los datos de los estados. Esto no va a cambiar.

Los que si sucederá es un cambio radical en la forma en que se presentan los datos pues ahora, es factible, tal y como lo pidieran organizaciones latinas y boricuas en los Estados Unidos, presentar los 3.9 millones de boricuas en Puerto Rico como parte de la población "hispana" de los Estados Unidos. Esto se facilita ya que la información aparecerá contigua a la información de los Estados Unidos. Integración censal por decreto burocrático! Lo que no logró Roselló a través de un plebiscito lo logró tras bastidores en cuartos oscuros llenos de humo.

La cuestión racial en Puerto Rico y el discurso independentista

La sociedad civil en Puerto Rico ha asumidos unas características distintas en la ultimas dos décadas. La fragmentación de la vida cotidiana, la ubicua influencia cultural estadounidense, la migración de retorno de boricuas, y la expansión de la cultura consumista en Puerto Rico han cambiado las relaciones entre "el pueblo" y las instituciones sociales. Estos procesos junto al derrumbamiento de el socialismo burocrático en Europa han tenido un marcado impacto al interior de las organizaciones políticas independentistas.

Particularmente en la práctica política, las organizaciones que luchan por la independencia, con sus honrosas excepciones, han enfocado la mayor parte de su acción política a consolidar un trabajo alrededor de la cuestión nacional. Esta línea no es solo producto de una deliberada práctica política sino surge también de la debilidad organizativa de el independentismo y de la creciente influencia ideológica capitalista en su recalentada vertiente neoliberal. Es por esto que en cierta medida, aun cuando no se han abandonado totalmente la luchas por los derechos de la mujer, el ambientalismo, la justicia económica, el peso mayor de la práctica y el discurso político gira alrededor de la defensa de la nacionalidad. Esto en cierta medida ha tenido resultados positivos, particularmente en la lucha en defensa de Vieques.

Irónicamente a pesar de la debilidad estructural, el independentismo ganó la batalla cultural, nacional. Y de seguir desarrollándose el diálogo alrededor de los tímidos intentos de la administración colonial de reivindicar al independentismo encarpetado es posible que los independentistas puedan incluso escalar un peldaño mas en su influencia moral. Parte de los frutos de la incrementada posición moral de los independentistas se concentran en estos momentos en el incremento en el prestigio del ex-senador Rubén Berrios.

Así que ahora tenemos que la existencia de nuestra nación es ahora un lugar común entre grandes mayorías en Puerto Rico. Lo que era, hace tres décadas subversivo, alternativo se convierte ahora en el medio utilizado por las transnacionales para expandir el consumismo. Aunque la razones para esta victoria son complejas es obvio que se ha creado un espacio importante dentro de la sociedad puertorriqueña para una labor de liberación nacional.

Irónicamente, esta situación de "hegemonía" cultural nacional y la relativa debilidad organizativa no ha llevado al independentismo a re enfocar estratégicamente en áreas rezagadas del trabajo político. En cierta medida, el trabajo que se realizaba hace unas décadas, particularmente por organizaciones tales cómo el Partido Socialista Puertorriqueño, en áreas tales como los derechos de la mujer e inclusive sobre la in equidad social ya no tienen el mismo claro relieve que antes. No quiere decir esto que no aparecen en programas y declaraciones, sino que obviamente la cuestión nacional es por mucho el énfasis primordial de la mayoría de las organizaciones patrióticas.

La iniciativa de bregar con estos asuntos, incluyendo el racismo, sexismo y la homofobia han quedado en las manos de organizaciones dentro de la sociedad civil que solamente bregan con un asunto a la vez. En otras palabras, con excepción de organizaciones tales como el Frente Socialista, la mayoría de las organizaciones bregando con estos temas dentro de la sociedad boricua solamente trabajan una área en particular. Las organizaciones políticas ya no tienen la practica de bregar con una multiplicidad de asuntos sociales. Cada asunto o reivindicación social tiene sus núcleos independientes que enfocan su trabajo en su particular nicho. Esta "especialización" es producto de la fragmentación de la vida cotidiana puertorriqueña.

Lamentablemente, la decisión del Gobernador Rosello de introducir en Puerto Rico un cuestionario con preguntas sobre raza y etnicidad extrañas a la realidad boricua causará confusión y división. En el discurso puertorriqueño no se establecen las nítidas y polarizadas distinciones de blanco/negro. En el Caribe las categorías raciales son mas matizadas y graduales, cimentadas en una línea continua basada en las gradaciones de color.

No creo que esta decisión se hizo sin discernir lo que esto implicará para la práctica política independentista. Particularmente cuando hemos sido renuentes en poner el debido énfasis a la discusión y exploración de el racismo en la sociedad puertorriqueña y dentro del movimiento independentista. Si el movimiento patriótico puertorriqueño no comienza a desarrollar un proceso para reflexionar sobre el racismo en Puerto Rico el caballo de Troya de Rosello logrará su propósito de dividir aun mas a las fuerzas patrióticas.

No tenemos un lenguaje ni la experiencia en Puerto Rico para hablar y comprender el racismo. En conversaciones recientes con campaneros dirigentes de varias organizaciones hubo un consenso de que no hemos enfrentado la cuestión racial en Puerto Rico. Algunos campaneros de hecho entienden que la cuestión racial no debe ser parte de la lucha nacional. En otras palabras, que aun cuando obviamente estamos en contra del racismo no debemos poner ningún énfasis en nada que no sea la cuestión nacional. Yo también en el pasado compartí esa perspectiva, pensaba que el racismo era un hombre cubierto por una capucha blanca. En realidad el racismo es mas sutil, entrelazado en la cotidianeidad, se expresa en las normas culturales de nuestras mas preciadas instituciones. Para muestra hay que mirar quienes son los que habitan nuestro sistema penitenciario, veremos ahí el racismo como fuerza sistémica independiente de nuestra individualizadas buenas intenciones o de que "tengamos amigos negros."

Desde que el profesor Isabelo Zenón publicó su importante libro "Narciso descubre su trasero" la mayor parte de el trabajo anti-racista lo desarrollan intelectuales e organizaciones dispersas en la sociedad civil. Ningún partido u organización política independentista ha querido tomar el toro por los cuernos y explícitamente combatir el racismo.

En los próximos meses los puertorriqueños serán forzados a auto identificarse y a pensar sobre raza y etnicidad. El cuestionario les obligará a pensar soy negro, blanco, asiático, indio etc. Aunque hay muchos boricuas que enfrentan esta realidad en su cotidianeidad, particularmente los que son pobres y/o viven en los caseríos o barriadas pobres, la mayor parte de los puertorriqueños obvia u ignora la identificación racial y optan por la nacional. Pero esta no es la pregunta que el censo formulará en Puerto Rico. La pregunta iniciara una reflexión que no se ha realizado en mucho tiempo en nuestro país.

En vez de permitir que se imponga desde afuera los términos de esta conversación podemos comenzar a discutir que implica el racismo en Puerto Rico. Como se manifiesta la cuestión racial al interior del movimiento patriótico? Porque la mayoría de el liderato patriótico boricua es blanco? Porque el discurso independentista tiene atracción para unos grupos sociales y no a otros?

Una compañera independentista me comentaba que en ocasión de haber sido asaltado, la policía le pidió que mirara unas fotos del fichero de la policía. La gran mayoría de las fotos eran de jóvenes negros puertorriqueños. Otra compañera dirigente me decía recientemente que cuando ella asistía a actividades patrióticas ella sabia que seria la única persona negra en la misma. También relato como una joven estudiante pobre residente en un caserío le decía que ella "no valía nada porque era negra y pobre." Obviamente un sector importante de nuestra población experimenta una opresión adicional a la nacional, la opresión por no ser lo que nuestra sociedad considera "blanco."

Tenemos que re enfocar nuestro trabajo ahora que la lucha cultural ha cosechado victorias, que estamos cosechando el respeto por nuestra alta moralidad y patriotismo. Debemos hacerlo antes de que se nos imponga una "visión de mundo" distinta. Es factible que sin echar a un lado la cuestión nacional enfilemos nuestra mirada para que "veamos" el potencial que tiene el racismo de dividirnos. La cuestión racial muy bien pudiera ser, nuestro talón de Aquiles. El racismo nos divide al cegarnos a ciertas realidades que son obvias para otros que las sufren en su cotidianeidad.

"Tejiendo Los Fragmentos Dispersos de la Historia de Puerto Rico" Reseña Libro Ayala Bernabe

Tejiendo Los Fragmentos Dispersos de la Historia de Puerto Rico

Victor M. Rodríguez Domínguez
(Catedratico, Departamento de Estudios Chicanos y Latinos, California State University, Long Beach, vrodrig5@csulb.edu)



Cesar Ayala and Rafael Bernabe. 2007. Puerto Rico in the American century: A History Since 1898. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.


Las nueva generaciones intentan definirse en relación a las generaciones anteriores. En ocasiones, el proceso incluye rechazar o re-escribir las memorias heredadas y compartidas. También en el mundo académico puertorriqueño las nuevas generaciones de intelectuales re-interpretan el legado histórico y los marcos de referencia que le dieron sentido a las generaciones que le precedieron. A menudo, al querer distanciarse de las metodologías, interpretaciones y marcos teóricos que consideran obsoletos, desechan, no solo la paja sino también el grano. Al afirmar que aramos en terreno virgen, perdemos de vista que lo que construimos está imbuído de sabiduría heredada.

Luego de más de una década de pesimismo y de una febril estampida donde todas las vacas sagradas de nuestra cultura, historia y política han sido desmenuzadas y atacadas, es refrescante contemplar un ejemplo de trabajo intelectual edificante que re-evalúa el pasado y el presente sin botar fuera de borda los legados teóricos e interpretativos que dieron base a una mejor comprensión de lo que es Puerto Rico hoy día. Ayala y Bernabé han logrado lo imposible: conectar las variadas hebras del tapiz de la formación social puertorriqueña a la vez que nos proveen un marco de referencia teórico que le da sentido a las partes. Si la tendencia en los últimos años entre los intelectuales puertorriqueños era la visión fragmentada, pesimista e iconoclasta de nuestro acontecer histórico, cultural económico y político, Ayala y Bernabé nos proveen un atisbo a otro modo de imaginarnos.

Los autores nos proveen una perspectiva que conecta la vida cotidiana con los cambios sistémicos del capitalismo. Evitan caer en un determinismo económico al proveer un espacio para el desfase o ruptura que se da entre la cultura y los cambios económicos. Nos proveen una taxonomía de periodos históricos que revela aspectos nuevos de nuestra vida social, cultural, económica y política desde las calles de San Juan hasta los barrios boricuas en los Estados Unidos. En un lenguaje claro, no obtuso, contrario a muchos textos post-modernistas, los autores ofrecen un análisis e interpretación que aún el mismo Jacques Derrida pensaría es una respuesta ponderada a su reciente libro el AEspectro de Marx.@ En este libro Derrida invoca el espíritu radical de Marx en un momento en que el capitalismo salvaje se vanagloria de sus éxitos.

El analisis del rol del imperialismo en Puerto Rico evita una visión monolítica del mismo. Tampoco, asumen la perspectiva del Aimperialismo bobo@ que comparten de forma variada y contradictoria los seguidores de Luis Muñoz Marín e irónicamente algunos escritores desde la perspectiva post-modernista. Es claro que no todo lo que está mal en la formación social y la experiencia puertorriqueña es producto del colonialismo. Pero tampoco ignoran el rol del capitalismo en su etapa mas depredadora ni como el contexto tiende a facilitar y/o limitar las alternativas a la que han tenido y tienen acceso los puertorriqueños en su vida política, cultural, económica y social.

La intelectual filipina Delia D. Aguilar recientemente advertia sobre la forma irreflexiva en que algunos intelectuales post-modernistas aclamaron el libro de Michael Hardt y Antonio Negri, Imperio que le sirve de contrapeso al esfuerzo que realizan Ayala y Bernabé. Contrario a Hardt y Negri estos entrelazan el análisis económico y su examen de las otras esferas de la vida humana sin que ninguna ámbito pierda su autonomía y dinamismo. También evitan caer en el error garrafal en el que cayeron Hardt y Negri cuando concluyeron que el imperialismo habia sido substituido por un imperio descentralizado, fragmentado, donde la nación/estado habia desaparecido como categoría de análisis. Esta hipótesis fue totalmente devastada por lo eventos del 11 de septiembre, la presidencia imperial, la guerra en Irak y la actividad de movimientos sociales desde Peru hasta Honduras. Hardt y Negri además se burlan, del nacionalismo y los movimientos de liberación nacional como retrógrados, y ven el mundo como uno donde las clases proletarias se han convertido en multitudes (o en masa a lo Ortega y Gasset o Areguerete@ a lo Muñoz). Los post-modernistas parecen haber caído en la alegórica caverna de Platón y se encuentran cegados por las imágenes fantasmagóricas perdiendo de vista los procesos reales que se desarrollan en el mundo.

Por otro lado, las contribuciones en el área de la historia económica recuperan ciertos aspectos positivos del análisis económico marxista. Ha sido un lugar común en muchos análisis históricos y económicos contemporáneos el rechazar el análisis marxista in toto. El producto de este análisis totalizador resulta en un proceso en el cual al querer cortar la maleza también se desruyen las plantas productivas. El concepto leninista de la fase imperialista como una fase cualitativamente diferente del capitalismo se recupera en algunos de sus aspectos pero lamentablemente no se utiliza para describir la “anomalia” de la colonia en Puerto Rico.

Uno de los aspectos mejor logrados por Ayala y Bernabé es su evaluación e interpretación de las bases ideológicas del Aposibilismo@ de Luis Muñoz Marín. Los autores nos proveen una explicación razonable del abandono de la independencia por parte de Muñoz Marín que problematiza la idea de que este traicionó el ideal. La realidad es que ya temprano en los años cuarenta Muñoz Marín había dejado de creer en la independencia como un proyecto posible. Contrario a Don Pedro Albizu Campos, Muñoz Marín no entendió que los Estados Unidos eran una nación que no respondían a actitudes serviles de sus sujetos. Igual que los estadistas, los autonomistas asumieron una posición de servilismo frente al imperio que meramente re-afirmaba el paternalismo de los norteamericanos. Esta idea del Aimperialismo bobo@ que permea el pensamiento muñocista se ve claramente en la forma en que este presentaba un discurso en el congreso y luego otro tipo de discurso en la isla. Esta falta de comprensión de la naturaleza del imperio norteamericano ha contribuido a perpetuar la situación colonial de Puerto Rico.

Como dice Laura Briggs en su libro Reproduciendo el imperio la historia siempre es teórica. Cuando enlazamos un evento historico con otro creamos una narrativa que está imbuida de significado. Es por esta razón que sorprende el uso en este libro de la idea de un “imperialismo informal.” El uso de este concepto para explicar la ambigüedad del imperialismo norteamericano realmente existente en cierta medida está en conflicto con la estructura teórica del libro. Por ejemplo, este concepto se utiliza cuando se analiza la anomalía que representa el que una republica democrática gobierne sobre una posesión colonial. Estos concluyen, luego de listar una serie de intervenciones imperialistas norteamericanas en el Caribe que AComo se puede ver de esta lista, el imperialismo de los Estados Unidos, a diferencia de sus predecesores Europeos, no comenzó con intenciones de construir un imperio colonial formal.@ (P. 30) En cierta medida, y aunque mencionan que Puerto Rico es una anomalía dejan al lector con la impresión de que los Estados Unidos andaba a ciegas y al tropezar se vio enredado en la madeja imperial. El cuidado con el que Elihu Root estudió los volúmenes de estudios conducidos por los antropólogos y políticos Británicos en el proceso de construir una administración colonial indica que las elites norteamericanas no tropezaron sino que sabían muy bien lo que hacían. Al igual que se hizo con los grupos indígenas, las estructuras burocráticas de los grupos religiosos protestantes en los Estados Unidos ya se habian dividido entre sí las futuras posesiones coloniales en áreas de influencia.

Elihu Root, como Trías Monge y otros revelan, fue quien fundamentalmente orientó la construcción de la administración colonial en Puerto Rico, sabía muy bien que los Estados Unidos no era la democracia que sustentaba los principios democráticos contenidos en la Ordenanza del Noroeste de 1787. Esta ordenanza establecía que todos los territorios adquiridos por los Estados Unidos serían colocados en un proceso hacia su eventual admisión como estados. Root escogió el modelo Británico, implícitamente reconociendo que los Estados Unidos entraba a una nueva etapa imperial, el edificio que el construyo en las Filipinas y Puerto Rico meramente lo formalizó y lo concretizo. Como vemos en el trabajo de Cabranes y Jorge Duany en cierta medida, los Estados Unidos había puesto una verja alrededor de las áreas donde los ciudadanos tendrían una ciudadanía de primera clase. Así, los Estados Unidos se aprestaban, en caso de que conquistaran otros territorios, a no tener que admitirlos en su unión. Es por esto que el sociólogo William Graham Sumner de Yale escribió el clásico articulo titulado ALa conquista de los Estados Unidos por España.@ Obviamente, el carácter racializado de los Estados Unidos no le permitía a los Estados Unidos incorporar a una nación como Puerto Rico (o las Filipinas) con una cultura y población que los Estados Unidos no podían Adigerir.@ Los debates en el congreso sobre la disposición de las Aposesiones@ claramente indican que los imperialistas tenían aspiraciones territoriales, pero también encontraron oposición de los que veían como una contradicción el que una nación democrática poseyera colonias. Esto no es un proceso de imperialismo informal, sino otra forma de imperialismo del siglo veinte.

Finalmente, su certera crítica de la corriente post-modernista puertorriqueña resalta importantes debilidades del mismo. Arturo Torrecilla y Carlos Gil, uno de los fundadores de Postdata, escriben en sus textos que los sujetos de la modernidad (proletarios) sustituyeron viejos mitos por nuevos mitos. El mito nacionalista fue substituido por el mito marxista de la heroica clase trabajadora. La nueva visión de mundo Apost@ encuentra a un nuevo chivo expiatorio para explicar las derrotas sufridas por algunos movimientos sociales en Puerto Rico. La huelga de los telefónicos se perdió por culpa de la izquierda, según los editores de Bordes, otro proyecto post-modernista. Para Juan Duchesne Winter la lucha de Vieques fue redundante, ya que la marina se fué en el periodo establecido por la orden ejecutiva de Clinton. Duchesne Winter reduce la lucha de los Viequenses a un espectáculo utilizado por los populares para aunar los sentimientos nacionalistas en su proyecto electoral. Este distorsionado análisis de la realidad puertorriqueña es producto de una visión fragmentada de los procesos sociales. No conectar las dinámicas económicas y geopolíticas del imperio norteamericano con el acontecer social en Puerto Rico transforma el imperialismo en un "imperialismo bobo." Si un presidente firmó una orden ejecutiva entonces, )como pueden los boricuas asegurarse de que la palabra no se convierta en letra muerta? Este análisis ignora los que ocurría tras bastidores en los círculos de poder norteamericanos para impedir el cierre de las bases navales en Puerto Rico. Los Estados Unidos han firmado mas de 300 tratados con las naciones indígenas de Estados Unidos, y firmaron el Tratado de Guadalupe-Hidalgo en 1848 con México y han violado todos y cada uno de estos tratados. Lo que Duchesne Winter y los otros post-modernistas proponían como estrategia era abstenerse de participar en dichos procesos de apoyo.

Finalmente, Ayala y Bernabé sugieren una revisión a la estrategia de los Aestadistas radicales@ y en particular a la propuesta de Grosfoguel de una lucha concertada con los movimientos sociales norteamericanos para defender los derechos democráticos de los boricuas en camino a la estadidad. Los autores de esta historia mantienen un tono de respeto intelectual a las ideas que critican en su texto. Señalan que hay aspectos admirables y progresistas en la propuesta de Grosfoguel de Aresistir la privatización neoliberal y los cortes en las transferencias federales . . . Cualquier descolonización de Puerto Rico debe demandar una ‘indemnización histórica’ de los Estados Unidos para reconstruir la economía de Puerto Rico . . . A Estos tambien sugieren alianzas con los movimientos sociales en los Estados Unidos. ¿Pero que hay de nuevo en esta propuesta? Duchesne Winter y Ramon Grofogel parecen sugerir que podemos enfrentar al imperialismo con una estrategia de “seduccion.” Cuando descartamos la economía política del imperialismo y el carácter racializado de la dominacion imperialista de nuestro marco teórico terminamos siendo seducidos por el “imperialismo bobo.” Esto aparentemente le sucedió a Juan Duchesne Winter que culminó en su apoyo de la invasión de Afganistán.

Este libro tiene el potencial de facilitar herramientas históricas y teóricas para entender la realidad colonial e imperial de la dominacion de Puerto Rico por los Estados Uniodos. Esta dominacion aun le resulta opaca a la gran mayoria de los sectores progresistas o liberales en los Estados Unidos. La ideologia del daltonismo racial en la sociedad norteamericana afecta la óptica de los movimientos sociales estadounidenses. La creciente conciencia sobre el carácter imperial de los Estados Unidos no incluye una creciente conciencia sobre el caso colonial de Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico es aun invisible (por razones muy complejas) para los liberales y la izquierda norteamericana. El creciente movimiento anti-inmigrante enfrenta una creciente xenofobia y racismo representado en las numerosas leyes locales que estigmatizan a los inmigrantes. La elección de Obama a la presidencia no ha conducido a una etapa post-racial en los Estados Unidos, el proceso de confirmación de la jueza puertorriqueña Sonia Sotomayor a la corte suprema lo evidencia. Las recientes decisiónes de la corte suprema re’interpretandoBrown v. Board (1954) y el “Voting Rights Act” auguran un nuevo periodo de lucha. Pero concertar alianzas con los movimientos sociales que están emergiendo para pedir la estadidad seria contradictorio. Los profesores Ayala y Bernabe nos demuestran que a veces el camino hacia el futuro implica recordar donde estuvimos. Este trabajo será un clásico en la historiográfica puertorriqueña. Esperamos que su edición en español (UPR) salga pronto.

Friday, February 26, 2010

The Racialization of Chicano Studies: The Genealogy of the Subsuming of Utopia

Michael Soldatenko. Chicano Studies: The Genesis of a Discipline. The University of Arizona Press, 2009.

(In Press CENTRO Journal of Puerto Rican Studies, Fall 2010)



When a member of discipline produces an intellectual project that arises out of a deep introspective process of self-reflection, it signals the maturity of a discipline. In 1980, Alvin Gouldner, wrote the Coming Crisis of Western Sociology a stinging, powerful critique of the conservative encasement of the discipline. Its focus was on structural-functionalism, the dominant theoretical and epistemological paradigm that was the foundation of much work in sociology. But sociology produced that self-reflective assessment of its strengths and weaknesses, two centuries after the discipline already had established itself on the hierarchical shelf of the academic world. Michael Soldatenko's book is a tour de force that critically evaluates the process by which Chicano Studies found a space in academia. He provides a mature and comprehensive self-evaluation of the shifting paradigms, theoretical perspectives, master narratives and power struggles which have shaped and ultimately ensconced the discipline in an almost respected stratum within the academic intellectual ladder. But, as Soldatenko poignantly reveals, in the process, Chicano Studies lost its soul.

This is probably the most comprehensive, and iconoclast treatment of the genealogy of this discipline. In order to achieve this comprehensive assessment and mapping of the tortuous journey of Chicano Studies, he used archival sources, self-studies, and interviews. He also gave a close reading to some of the major works produced by Chicano Studies scholars during this period. He covers a critical, conflictive period in higher education, 1967-1982, and because of the leading role that California=s university systems had in the rise of the discipline, it receives most of the attention.

The first thing that he challenges is the master narrative which functions like a creation myth that many in the discipline have used to introduce the discipline to students and to legitimize its presence in the academic arena. Chicano Studies, just like Black Studies were not the outcome of an epistemological shift in the leaders of white higher educational institutions, they were partially the outcome of the struggles to expand the realm of freedom in the 1960s. But in its evolution the creation myth erased the internal intellectual and contradictory journey transforming the journey to a teleological process into the finished product. Soldatenko, like many other scholars in Chicano Studies departments across the nation, is not trained in Chicano Studies; he is a historian whose training was in European history. As a young discipline, there are still very few programs that provide doctoral education in the discipline. It could be argued that his ability to reconstruct the myth and reveal the historical and intellectual process may lie in his different academic background. This background provides him with the epistemological distance that produces a nuanced and critical description and interpretation of 15 years of scholarship, politics and in the end, the domestication of an oppositional movement that entered the dusty world of academia.


Soldatenko begins describing how a discipline with activists scholars who like Marx did not merely wanted to describe the world but to change it, became subsumed and racialized in one of the most important pillars of the empire, higher education. He carefully describes the role of the mythical Plan de Santa Barbara which laid out the foundation for contemporary Chicano Studies programs, department or research centers. The hidden agenda was to enter the intellectual space of academia and from within provide the knowledge, understanding and ethos to transform the subordinate role of Chicanos in the United States. Unfortunately, the efforts were marked by the fissures that are part of the American social landscape, race, gender, class and sexual orientation. What is unique about this book, in addition to its comprehensiveness, is its well constructed narrative of the marginalization of Chicanas, not only as scholars but also as purveyors of new epistemologies to challenge the dominant male-centered paradigms which emerged within the discipline.

Forgetting the wise warning of Audre Lord about not using the master's tools to dismantle the master=s house, Chicano scholars engaged with every new Eurocentric theoretical or methodological tool in the master=s shed. The first dominant paradigm, nationalism was later transformed into internal colonial model, shaped by Marxist theory (in its various schools). Later, other scholars in search of tools to develop an oppositional discipline latched onto post-modernism, post-structuralism, and more recently post-colonial theory. More recently, Cultural Studies and Transnational Chicana/o Latina/o Studies have become interdisciplinary ways of approaching the subject. The underlying logic was the need to know the Mexican American community, in order to provide the tools to transform it.

The basic trends that early struggled for hegemony within the discipline are described by Soldatenko as the Perspectivist Chicano Studies and the Empiric Chicano Studies. The Perspectivist wanted to challenge the prevailing epistemology with subjectivity and a standpoint epistemology. Many of its adherents we unable to build a strong position in academia and eventually lost ground to the Empiric Chicano Studies, this last became the dominant form of Chicano Studies. It was initially rooted in the Plan it wanted to create knowledge to aid in the liberation of the Chicano people and saw its role as institution builders. It mimicked other disciplines, embraced the methodological tools of the social sciences and the humanities but with the purpose of politicizing and presenting an oppositional discipline to contribute to the struggle. Following the call of the Plan it eventually drifted towards advocacy, public policy research as a way of maintaining a connection with the community as the Plan had called for.

But in order to conquer a space in higher education, the Chicano scholars had to seek legitimacy, in seeking it they were constrained by the rigid bureaucratic structures that exercise control over academic programs. Budgets, systems for tenure and promotion all had pre-ordained strictures that created the path these programs had to follow in order to stabilize their programs. They had to publish, provide service to the institution and were constrained by formal and informal rules that shaped the contours and at times limited contestation and oppositional practices.

In the end, Chicanos Studies had created an infrastructure which included the National Association for Chicano Studies, its own peer-reviewed journals, a diverse canon but canon nonetheless which reified the process of intellectual production. But in the process of gaining relative success, it also failed to engage in a critical self-reflection about the epistemologies and methodologies which it incorporated into its practice in order to gain institutional respectability. Its collection of data on the Chicano community, more progressive than the pseudo-racist research on Mexican Americans still failed to provide the vision for change. The Cartesian foundational epistemology that is at the basis of the positivistic social sciences used by many was not challenged in a fundamental way. While the perspectivistic attempted to transform it based on a standpoint epistemology that was rooted in a Chicano reading of Jose Ortega y Gasset, Samuel Ramos and Octavio Paz, the product was not a structural transformation but as Soldatenko characterizes it was a new “philosophy of life.” It was a way of challenging Anglo materialism with the Chicano values of carnalismo. This project however could not survive in academia and empiric Chicano Studies became entrenched in the ivory towers. The perspectivist failed in their project, most remained outside the academic world and the trend withered away.

Ironically, the existence of Chicano Studies programs inside institutions of higher education softened the radical critique of the academy and led to the racialization of Chicano Studies. Racialization is the social and historical process by which individuals and groups (and institutions) are assigned a racial identity and status. The process by which the racialization of a discipline occurs provides the participants flexibility and a space which leads eventually, not to the transformation of the larger institution, but to a process of negotiation whose end product is accommodation. Racialization fragments, individualizes members of the groups as they strive to climb into positions of more access to power and prestige. Just like the Irish who found that distancing from African Americans gave them leverage in their aspiration to become white, the collective values of Chicanismo became substituted for the individualistic ethos of the Anglo academy. The struggle to transform the Mexican American community became an individual ascent through the hierarchy of institutions of higher education.

Because there was not a fundamental questioning of what the “given” epistemology and methodology were really all about, in the mad race for upward social mobility the ex-movement lost its soul. Social sciences are about control, the educational system, despites its spaces for liberation, are still the pillars of the empire and white supremacy. The scholar-activists were processed by racialization and bureaucraticization--- which are the cornerstone of institutions of higher education---and produced managers. The other potential source of resistance that could have provided a rupture with the structures and limits placed by Eurocentric epistemology and methodology, feminist epistemology, has faced strong resistance within the discipline. The Chicana feminist perspective which challenged ideas dear to the traditional disciplines’ objectivity, universality was too radical and crashed into a wall of skepticism and sexism. While the impact is growing within the discipline this trend is still contesting territory with empiric Chicano Studies. Also, it remains to be seen whether it can avoid the processes of co-optation that plagued the previous generation of Chicano Scholars.

The revolution never took place, except in monographs and conferences, or in the documentaries that have reified the movement and which now have also become part of the creation myth. Just like in traditional politics, Chicano and Latino students are exposed not to real persons but to mythical figures like Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huertas (less often) which seem so mythical that they are impossible to emulate. The sense of powerlessness that is pervasive among Chicano and Latino youth is being, ironically reproduced in departments that were to be the spaces to train the catalyst agents for social transformation.

Some important lessons have been incorporated into the Chicano Studies discipline. Soldatenko’s narrative is nuanced, gender and sexuality are explored in the curriculum and unlike some years ago many Chicano Studies departments have reluctantly embraced a pan-Latino perspective. But again, they are part of a curriculum that compartamentalizes knowledge and while it eulogizes its “interdisciplinarity” in practice, students are offered a fragmented vision, not the kind of utopic vision that mobilizes. Taylorism, has entered Chicano Studies and while the original version was about creating domesticated and efficient blue collar workers now we are creating domesticated and efficient Chicana/o/Latina/o white collar professionals.

Soldatenko also briefly addresses in its conclusions the new “fads” of Cultural Studies and Transnational Chicana/o Latina/o studies. He hopes these trends will initiate a broader conversation with Jose Marti’s “Nuestra America” to widen the narrow focus of earlier Chicano Studies focus. He feels it would lead to a better understanding and deconstruction of nationalism because nationalism was also based on racialization and required the homogenization of diverse groups (in this case the nation) and to the erasure, in the case of Mexico of Mexicanos of African descent. The national imagery, out of which Chicano nationalism emerges, is based on a “mestizaje” which is anti-black and at times ambiguously anti-indigenous. Being Ladino is better than being black or “indio.” Also, the barrios are transnational; therefore, the approach to organizing and knowing of the community must also be transnational.

In the end, we are wishing for “the solution” a way out from this totalizing “system” that Chicano/Latino Studies is enmeshed in, but Soldatenko gives us a “Frankly, I am not sure.” There is no utopic visionary way of avoiding the role of gatekeepers for those in Chicano Studies. What he offers leaves the reader wanting. After an intellectually stimulating drive through the genealogy of the discipline we find ourselves at a crossroads with a cul de sac and a call for something that could be characterized as an ethical praxis. While Soldatenko provides a wonderful philosophical argument for the need of a way for those in the discipline not to continue “othering” each other, this ethical turn seems insufficient. Soldatenko says “The Ethical turn questions the centrality we have given to ontological and epistemological issues as well as our battle for institutional spaces.” (p. 184). The ethical call to be responsible for each other, basically a philosophical discourse on the Christian “golden rule,” just seems so distant from the kind of major transformation and rediscovery of what was the “raison d’être” for Chicano Studies. Unfortunately, he respectfully dismisses somewhat Rudy Acuña’s call for challenging epistemologically and politically the dominant paradigm. In Sometimes There Is No Other Side, Acuña explains his struggle with the academy, and clarifies why so many acquiesce “The main reason for this, I believe, is that an essential part of positivistic logic is to evade responsibility for one’s actions and recognition of one’s true motives, in this case, opportunism and a lack of political commitment.” This stance together with an ethical praxis can be the way for realizing the promise of Chicano Studies. Can Chicano Studies now within the “belly of the beast” find its soul?

Victor M. Rodriguez Dominguez
Department of Chicano and Latino Studies
California State University, Long Beach

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Ten Reasons Why Puerto Rico Will Never be a State: Historical and Political

 (Postlude: December 7, 2012. Last November 6, Puerto Ricans, for the fourth time rejected statehood for Puerto Rico. Voters were presented during the regular electoral process with a very confusing referendum. But what was not confusing was the outcome, of the 1,864,186 voters, only 46.46% voted for statehood, all the other voters, 53.64%,  supported anti statehood proposals. Since the 1993 referendum this is the lowest percentage of support for statehood ever registered. National identity trumped assimilation and cultural suicide.)

(This Spring we might hear a buzz around Puerto Rico and its political relationship with the United States, I share some ideas about why the idea of statehood for Puerto Rico is a dream that is also a nightmare for many. In July 2009, the House Natural Resources Committee approved the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, HR 2499 which would establish at least one plebiscite in the Caribbean territory to survey the populace about what status they want for their island. According to the office of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the bill will come up for a floor vote this year. "It remains a priority," spokeswoman Katie Grant said. This is characterized by some in Puerto Rico as a effort to impose statehood. Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, the non-voting delegate from Puerto Rico and a Democrat who represents Puerto Rico in Congress (although there is no real Democrat or Republican Party in Puerto Rico), together with Gov. Luis Fortuño, an energetic and rising Republican star (recently Obama placed him in an advisory group on national security and defense), have marshaled 182 House co-sponsors for the legislation, including 58 Republicans. The two say they have commitments from more than 264 House members - 180 Democrats and 84 Republicans - to vote for the bill. In 1998, another similar effort failed in the Senate where this one will also fail, but in the meantime will keep the pro-statehood party collecting donations from those who aspire to the dream/nightmare of statehood.)

UPDATE HR 2000 was submitted in congress by Resident Comissioner Pierluisi, money has been allocated for a survey which will not include the Estado Libre Asociado (status quo) and will certainly, again, not lead to any de-colonization process. 


Ten Reasons Why Puerto Rico Will Never be a State: Historical and Political

Víctor M. Rodríguez Domínguez, Ph.D.

April 2009

1. The United States did not conquer Puerto Rico to convert it into a state of the Union. Don Pedro Albizu Campos said, “The United States is interested in the cage, not the birds.” If it had wanted, it would have happeneda long time ago. Puerto Rico has spent more time as a colonial possession than New Mexico which became a state in 1912 after being conquered in 1848. The reason it took so long is that Hispanic culture was still strong (bilingual schools) and Chicanos were the majority population. After they were conquered economically, statehood arrived.

A. Every other land conquest bought or annexed by the United States became a territory. According to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the United States places every land held, conquered or annexed as a territory. The territorial status is the early state into the road to statehood (From the experience of Arizona, California, Louisiana, Alaska to Hawaii the U.S. has followed this process). Puerto Rico has NEVER been a “territory” of the United States. People use the term colloquially but Puerto Rico's relationship to the U.S. was defined by the Supreme Court in a number of cases called the Insular Cases from 1901-1922, as an “unincorporated territory” of the U.S. (Belongs to, but it is not a part of . . . sounds like a mistress). Further, the court in 1922 said: "[W]e find no features in the Organic Act of Porto Rico of 1917 from which we can infer the purpose of Congress to incorporate Porto Rico into the United States with the consequences which would follow." Balzac V. Porto Rico (1922). (Federal Appeals Court Judge agrees with me in a recent conference "The Insular Cases: A Declaration of their Bankruptcy and my Harvard Pronouncement" Harvard Law School February 19 2014.



2. Puerto Ricans were granted United States citizenship by a statute of congress, which means that congress could legislate and take it away. The Jones Act of 1917 granted citizenship to Puerto Ricans in order to gain loyalty during a period of war. (Puerto Rican federal judge Cabranes’ book explains this whole period in Citizenship and the American Empire: Notes on the Legislative History of the United States Citizenship of Puerto Ricans, 1979)


3. During the debate to grant statutory U.S. citizenship to the United States, the main concern of most congressmen was how “white” Puerto Ricans were, they did not want to allow a “mulatto” population to hold U.S. citizenship. Many were convinced by various means that Puerto Rico was the “whitest of the Antilles” (it was not then or today but then, who cares).


4. The colonial nature of Puerto Rico’s relationship to the United States occurs in violation of the 1787 Northwest Ordinance and to its democratic principles. Democratic countries do not possess colonies. When a country has colonies, it ceases to be a democracy and becomes an empire. During the congressional debates in congress, many members of the Anti-Imperialist league because they felt it would damage U.S. democracy (some were frankly, outright racists but not most). It was a motley crew which included people like Jane Addams (founder of the social work profession and the first woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize), Samuel Gompers a labor leader, John Dewey a philosopher of education, Grover Cleveland a former president, Mark Twain the writer, etc.).

5. There is no will in congress to go through this process (all other efforts have failed, the most recent one HR 2499 will also fail so will HR 2000) since Puerto Rico would have to be transformed into a territory and then legislation would have to be enacted to frame how Puerto Ricans (if they so choose) would be incorporated into the United States. When Congressman Young R-Alaska sponsored legislation (1998 “Young Bill” HR 856) the whole process collapsed, died in the senate, partially due to the question of imposing the English language on Puerto Rico.

6. Puerto Ricans, in contrast to Alaskans or Hawaiians, already had a clear sense of national identity which has, ironically been reinforced under United States colonial control. When Puerto Rico was conquered and ceded by Spain under the Treaty of Paris, the population was close to a million. It already had two centuries of literature, poets, painters, sociologists, philosophers, political leaders, etc. In fact, under the Autonomous Government granted by Spain to Puerto Rico in 1897, Puerto Rico had more freedom than under the “Estado Libre Asociado” incorrectly translated as “Commonwealth.” Puerto Rico, even under oppressive Spain, at various points in time had representatives in the Spanish Parliament with voice and vote (people like Ramon Power y Giralt).  Puerto Rico today has less sovereignty than under the Autonomic Government granted to Puerto Rico by Spain in 1897. Puerto Rico was able to enter into international trade agreements, pring its own currency, have its own postal system etc. Today Puerto Rico has a “Resident Commissioner” with voice and no vote (except in some minor committees). In Puerto Rico we call that “derecho al berrinche” (the right to scream like children).

7. The metaphorical “mancha de plátano” (this notion that we are always Puerto Ricans first, second and third) is evidenced by the fact that Puerto Ricans, even in the United States are one of the “Latino” groups which are more likely to maintain its language and connection to its nation. In the island, we are “un-assimilable,” English is taught in school from first grade to 12th grade and still Spanish is the vernacular in Puerto Rico. In the 1900s, the United States imposed English as the language of instruction in the public schools and it failed miserably. The colonialists were so desperate that they even sent Puerto Rican students to Carlisle Indian Boarding School founded by Captain Richard Henry Pratt in 1879 whose motto was "kill the indian, save the man" (See pablo Navarro's work on this subject). They brought teachers from New England and some of our best writers wrote great satire about the comedic nature of that process. One of the best is called “Santa Clós Va a la Cuchilla” (Santa Claus Visits Cuchilla) by Abelardo Díaz Alfaro about how Puerto Ricans dealt with U.S. imposed culture. In the 1940s, after decades of student walkouts and strikes the first Puerto Rican Education Commissioner, Jose A Padín returned to the use of Spanish as the medium of instruction in Puerto Rico’s public school system in 1946.

8. The pro-statehood party, all the way back to Luis Ferré in 1968 and Carlos Romero Barceló have talked about a “Jíbaro Statehood.” What they meant by that is that Puerto Rico would be accepted as a state with its Spanish language, customs, some form of international status other states do not have (Olympic Teams, Pan American teams, Central American Team, Miss Universe, Miss World). Whenever I tell my students about this they laugh since they now that if one becomes a state you have to give up all that. Whenever the Puerto Rican Basketball team, or a Puerto Rican boxing fighter defeats an “American” competitor the roar is deafening. Puerto Ricans are very nationalistic, that can not be erased.

9. If Puerto Ricans forgot their history, and decided to commit cultural self-genocide and voted for statehood (congress would never accept less than two thirds because it could find itself with Northern Ireland in the Caribbean) it would mean that because of the island population (close to 4 million right now) Puerto Rico would have more congressmen (actually, close to seven) than twenty-nine states, most of them conservative and from the South or the Midwest. I don’t see two thirds of congress voting to admit a state with seven congresspersons (likely Democrats, but not all). Alaska and Hawaii had very small populations and even today Alaska has one, Hawaii has two.

10. The United States knows that Puerto Ricans have shed their blood to preserve our culture and have struggled against repression and oppression in the island and in the United States’ mainland. Puerto Ricans have endured massacres (Ponce Massacre, March 21, 1937 20 dead, 100 wounded), assassinations, bombings, surveillance, demonization. We have struggled through peaceful means (we defeated the U.S. Navy in Vieques), Puerto Ricans are now struggling against the Republican governor of Puerto Rico’s efforts to impose neo-liberal and anti-working people measures. Most people do not know that during the Vietnam War, the draft in Puerto Rico collapsed. While many poor peasant kids ended up in the United States Armed Forces, thousands of others refused to be drafted, resisted the draft directly (not as conscientious objectors) burned their draft cards and stopped, for all intents and purposes, the drafting of Puerto Ricans to fight in Vietnam. There was no way that thousands of Puerto Rican youth could be sent to jail like it occurred in the United States, since it would have caused an international uproar. In the streets of San Juan and Mayaguez and other places where university and high school youth protested against the war, Puerto Rican and Vietnamese flags were unfurled. We have also fought through armed struggle. From the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN) to the Voluntarios Para la Revolución, Comandos Armados Liberación (CAL), Movimiento Independentista Revolucionario Armado (MIRA), to the Ejército Popular Boricua- Machetero, the Nationalist Party, many organizations from the past and some still active today (but not engaging in armed struggle) have reminded the United States government that we cannot be erased, culturally, politically or physically. Don Pedro Albizu Campos said a phrase that we can read in t-shirts among Puerto Ricans across the diaspora, “Para quitarnos la patria, tendrán que quitarnos la vida.” (In order to take our motherland away, they will have to take our lives.)

Harvard Philosopher Santallana said “Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.”

Ponce Massacre

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/ponce-1937.htm

Thursday, January 14, 2010

The Social Historical Context of “Natural Disasters”: Haiti

The Social Historical Context of “Natural Disasters”: Haiti

“Poor Mexico, so far away from God but so close to the United States”
---Porfirio Diaz

“Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it”
---Santayana

Victor M. Rodriguez Dominguez
rodrigvm@cox.net
http://ethnosboriquen.blogspot.com/

Just like we have learned earlier from the Katrina disaster, it is important, while we share our solidarity and our support for the tragedy being endured by the courageous people of Haiti, not to forget the historical and social context that frames this most recent disaster in the Haitian experience. After hearing the news and the self-congratulatory speech of President Obama about the “historical ties” of Haiti and the United States, I could not but recall a different narrative of “historical ties” than the one the media is conveying. This counter narrative is more congruent with a famous quote from former Mexican Dictator Porfirio Diaz which applies to the Haitian experience in an ominous way. Dictator Diaz in the last half of the 19th century opened Mexico to foreign capitalists, especially U.S. investors and created the precursor of today’s neo-liberal policies in that country. By the early part of the twentieth century half of Mexico’s wealth was in foreign hands. Today, Haiti is under the total control of the United States and its institutions. A country that used to produce its own rice, now imports it from the United States.

One aspect of these “historical ties” that are not told in United States’ high school history textbooks is that Haiti, by being the first independent country in the Americas, led by people of African descent, created fear in the white slave holding elites throughout the world. Haiti was the most prosperous European colony in the Americas and one that brought to France a significant amount of the wealth that catapulted it to the rank of a developed nation. But, France’s and the United States ascent to the developed world were rooted in the sentencing of Haiti to centuries of economic despair and political instability. This is the story we are asked to forget.

In 1804, Haiti declared its independence from France under the leadership of Jean-Jacques Dessalines, who succeeded the brilliant military strategist and former slave Toussaint L’Ouverture. In the preceding years the Haitian army defeated the most powerful European army in Europe, Napoleon Bonaparte’s army of tens of thousands and at different times defeated smaller attempts by the British and the Spanish to subdue the Haitians.

Europe and the United States never forgave Haiti for becoming a model of freedom against the infamous system of slavery and after Haiti was in a state of political weakness because of internal strife imposed economic blockades (like in Cuba). Ironically, France collected “reparations” for its loss of “property” (slaves) during the Haitian war of liberation and Haiti was isolated (worse than Cuba is today). The United States waited sixty years before it granted recognition to the nascent republic. What today we call the global north, dominated by the United States created the conditions for perpetual Haitian underdevelopment. The example of an African nation which was prosperous in the Americas was too much to swallow for the slaveholders of the United States and Europe. In fact, President Jefferson initially supported the French efforts against Haiti until it discovered that Napoleon wanted to then expand the French empire beyond the Louisiana territory. After Napoleon’s defeat, it sold the Louisiana Territory to the United States dramatically expanding the United States’ empire. So thanks to Haiti’s victory, the United States began its modern phase of territorial expansion. We paid them with economic sanctions.

Unfortunately, Latin American nations in struggle for their own independence from Spain, also betrayed the nascent Haitian nation. Simon Bolivar, the liberator of the most of Latin America, received military support and weapons from the Haitian revolutionaries in 1816. Yet, in the end Bolivar denied support and recognition to Haiti when they needed it. Their own fear of a “pardocracia” (government of the people of color) instilled more fear in the Bolivarian revolutionaries than the Spanish or the United States imperialists. Brazil did not abolish slavery until 1888, being the last country in the world to do so.

The economic disaster created by United States and Europe policies of isolation, let to the creation of one of the first debtor states. Haiti, in what was latter debt peonage, was forced to endure a period of formal colonialism when the United States marines invaded Haiti in 1915. After 19 years they left the country neatly re-organized to become a neo-colony of United States. In order to assure obedience and discipline to the imperial requirements, the United States military trained the Haitian National Guard (like in recent years the formerly called “School of the Americas” trained Latin America’s military) and left the military forces that would lead to the eventual dictatorship of Francois Duvalier in 1957, probably (together with another U.S. protégé in the other side of the island, the Dominican Republic’s dictator Rafael Leonidas Trujillo) one of the most cruelest and murderous in the Americas.

In recent decades, after the end of the Duvalier dynasty period of bloody control, the Haitian nation has attempted to stand on their own feet and establish a democratic and prosperous nation. Each time their efforts have been thwarted, this time again by the United States and the support of Europe. Father Bertrand Aristide, who despite his weaknesses was by far a step in the right direction for Haiti, was elected democratically by the Haitian people twice and twice removed by forces supported and directed by the United States. The last time, in 2004, President Bertrand Aristide, was overthrown by former military forces influenced by the Duvalierists and other forces allied to the light-skinned elites who have ruled Haiti for decades in alliance with the United States. Marx said that history repeats itself, the first as tragedy the second time as a farce. The first tragedy was that President Bertrand Aristide was kidnapped by United States agents, placed in a United States military plane and whisked away to the Central African Republic. Today he lives in exile in South Africa. Last summer 2009, President Zelaya from Honduras was also overthrown and later kidnapped and exiled in a sequel that seems more like a farce. Today, he is also still in exile.

Someone has said that “Americans are the people with the most access to information and the least informed.” As we watch the coverage of the Haitian tragedy and we hear President Obama’s words, the first African American president, let’s not forget white supremacy is alive and kicking in the United States. The main networks are in a self-congratulatory mood about how we are the first responders and celebrating the spirit of giving of the nation. The United States people are a generous people and they will respond but we should not forget the reasons why this disaster has been amplified. The government and the infrastructure of Haiti are so inefficient and inexistent that the coordination of efforts will be more difficult.

Ironically, corporate media in the United States, because they are monolingual and do not read Spanish or Creole, are cheerleading the arrival of Canadians and U.S. planes late on Wednesday, the fact is that the first responders came from Venezuela, which sent its air force with medics, food and equipment a few hours after the tragedy, Cuba, which already had 344 medical doctors on the ground and more teams with 151 more specialized medical doctors that arrived (Cubans already had two tent hospitals serving 800 wounded), the Dominican Republic which sent a 20 member Urban Rescue team, and through which Puerto Rico attempted to coordinate and sent a team of three helicopters, dozens of urban rescuers (who had earlier served in New York during 9/11 attack) and 20 structural engineers. However, Puerto Rico was unable to send them as quickly as they wished, at least until last night (1/14/2010) teams of technicians with water purifying systems, communications and military police did not receive permission from the Southern Command. As a colony of the United States, they had to wait for approval from the U.S. Southern command. God forbid Puerto Ricans and Latinos upstaged the U.S. rescue efforts.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Racism and Identity in Puerto Rico

A version of this article was published in Spanish in:
"Censo 2000: Nacion, raza y el discurso independentista" in two parts in Claridad (Puerto Rico) January 7-13, 2000 pp. 14 & 31 and January 14-20, 2000 p. 14 & 31.

Racism and Identity in Puerto Rico

Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez Domínguez
Department of Chicano& Latino Studies
California State University, Long Beach

(Draft. Please do not quote without consulting with the author. E-Mail: vrodrig5@csulb.edu)

There is an increasing divergence between the mode of racial representation Puerto Ricans use in the Diaspora and Puerto Rico to describe their sense of self, their identity. After the U.S. Census of 1950, questions about race where not included in the questionnaire used in Puerto Rico. This article attempts to trace the political context which led to the decision by the colonial pro-statehood government in the late 1990s to utilize the U.S. Census racial categories which have brought this rupture to the fore of public and academic discussion. This piece also discusses the perspectives on race held by the leadership of the pro-independence movement and how its stances on race can be the Achilles heel for the movement. Finally, essay argues, that the Puerto Rican experience in the United States is increasingly becoming so differentiated from that of Puerto Ricans in the island that the long held notion of being part of the same nation has become problematic. It also suggests, a theoretical perspective about race, rooted in the anti-racist social movement that could provide the framework within which this gap can be mediated. This analysis and practice incorporates anti-racist and anti-colonial perspectives in ways that help develop a politics of liberation for Puerto Ricans in the metropolis and in the island.

Since 1950, the population decennial census questionnaire used by the U.S. Census Bureau in Puerto Rico, did not include questions about race. For the first time in 49 years, during the 2000 Census, Puerto Ricans had to self identify themselves as Black, white, Asian or Native American.

In 1999, Hermenegildo Ortiz Quiñones, former member of the Puerto Rico Planning Board, wrote an article in Claridad, a local weekly, reporting that the federal government, in response to a petition by the Puerto Rican government, would ask Puerto Ricans to fill out the same race and ethnicity questions used in the questionnaire administered decennially in the United States. While this change had been reported earlier in the island´s mainstream press, little public attention was provided to the portentous reform this bureaucratic decision was effecting on notions of racial representation in Puerto Rico. Later, in June of 1999, members of the “Puerto Rican Group on Race and Identity, ” a group of academic scholars who researched issues of race and ethnicity, called on Puerto Ricans to answer the racial items that would appear in the 2000 census in order to gather the empirical data necessary to challenge racial discrimination in Puerto Rico.

For many years, anti-racist activists in Puerto Rico had complained that the “racial paradise” image that Puerto Rico had carefully cultivated for many years, was in fact a facade that veiled a society where racial stratification limited and excluded black Puerto Ricans from full participation in civil society. With some exceptions, there is a deafening silence about the role of race in everyday life in Puerto Rico. Race is not part of the public or private discourse in the island, for this reason, anti-racist activists have not been able to muster popular support or significant public attention in the island, At least since 1950, there was no official and reliable data on the racial make up of Puerto Rico and of the social and economic experiences of the various racial groups. A dialogue on race and racism in Puerto Rico was a tabu subject, one that could lead individuals to experience ostracism and to be considered a “paranoid.” The politically correct perspective, was that racism, was an “American” problem, not a Boricua problem.

The presence or absence of questions about race in Puerto Rico was not merely a methodological problem, it was a profound question about Puerto Rican identity. But also, it was a political issue that brought into play the eternal debate about Puerto Rico’s colonial status. Juan Mari Bras, a prominent leader in the movement for Puerto Rican independence called this move by the local government: “the Rossello strategy for automatic integration.” In other words, this bureaucratic change was part of a strategy by the pro-statehood administration to gradually annex Puerto Rico into every social and institutional sphere of the United States. The local government contended, however, that this change would allow census statistics about Puerto Rico to be issued simultaneously with other regions of the United States. Since 1960, census statistics about Puerto Rico were released after all the data of the 50 states were processed.

Since 1898, Puerto Rico has experienced a process of social, economic, and cultural subordination. This process, has also included a process of racializing Puerto Ricans, just like Puerto Ricans are being racialized in the United States.

However, the consequences of both processes have had divergent results. In the United States, Puerto Ricans increasingly reject white or black racial identities choosing, instead, a hybrid racial identity, “other.” In Puerto Rico, the process of racialization has promoted a process of “blanqueamiento” (“whitening”) of the population. According to the latest data from the 2000 Census, 80.5% of Puerto Ricans chose “white” while only 8% chose Black. The data for Puerto Ricans in the United States has not been released yet ( as of October 2002) but in 1990, only 45.8% of Puerto Ricans in the Diaspora chose white in the census form, in contrast, 47.2% chose “other.” While the population of Puerto Rico is “whitening,” the mainland Boricuas are “browning.”

This “rupture” as Jorge Duany describes it, represents an important issue for the future relationship between Puerto Ricans in the island and those in the Diaspora. Particularly, since, in a few years, more persons identifying themselves as Puerto Ricans will live in the mainland of the United States than in Puerto Rico. Additionally, this issue goes to the core of Puerto Rican identity, the politics of liberation and to the anti-racist struggle in Puerto Rico and in the United States.


Census 2000: The Lies

In 1998, the colonial administration of the New Progressive Party, a pro-statehood political party in Puerto Rico, called for a referendum on the island´s political status. After being re-elected once, Governor Pedro Rossello felt that for the first time in that century, pro-statehood forces could defeat those favoring the status quo in a referendum. With that victory in his hands he could go to Washington, D.C. and begin a process to convince Congress that Puerto Ricans were ready for statehood. In 1996 he was re-elected, with 51.1% of the electorate, the widest majority ever for a pro-statehood party. However, in a complex election with 4 alternatives, statehood was defeated by a de facto coalition between supporters of the commonwealth, autonomists and pro-independence supporters. The alternative, “None of the Above” received the support of 50.3% of the Puerto Rican voters while statehood only received 46.5%.

The pro-statehood governor, initiated a series of policies and programs which were designed to reduce the social, cultural and political distance between Puerto Rico and the United States. While bilingual education in Puerto Rico was a process of integrating English speaking Puerto Ricans into Puerto Rican culture, new bilingual programs were created to create bi-cultural, English speaking students. Pro-independence sectors argued that asking the question of race was a way of insinuating a destructive “Trojan Horse” into Puerto Rican society in order to divide the national unity of the Puerto Rican people.

Historically, nationalist discourse discouraged raising racial issues because it was feared they would divide the nation. Two of the most prominent Puerto Rican political leaders in the early 20th century, Pedro Albizu Campos and Jose Celso Barbosa, both of African descent, for different reasons, did not raise the issue of race throughout their careers. Barbosa, leader of pro-statehood forces chose not to discuss racial issues and proclaimed: “Today, superiority is manifested not in the race, not in the more or less quantity of color in the skin but in the quantity of grey matter . . .” However, Barbosa was the victim of discrimination by the Jesuits and also in Harvard where he graduated. In fact, he did not choose an academic career because he did not think it was prudent for a man of color to aspire to that position. Pedro Albizu Campos, however, also a victim of discrimination during his student days at Harvard, did not raise the issue of race within the nationalist movement he led for many decades. Racism, was a “Yankee” phenomena, not a Puerto Rican issue.
This was not only the independentista position it was also the position taken on race by the majority of the island intellectual, cultural and political elite. This was evident during the 1930s, a period of much economic uncertainty in Puerto Rico as in most of the world. This uncertainty and a host of other factors led the island's intelligentsia to explore the meaning of "Puertoricanness." In some sense it was a way of answering the question of whether Puerto Rico was a nation of just an aggregate of people.
This exploration took place within the context of racializing policies such as the imposition of a public school system that had displaced Spanish as the medium of instruction in 1900 in order to “Americanize” Puerto Ricans. In order to accomplish this educational process white teachers were brought from the United States. These teachers and the language also introduced the Anglo-Saxon race paradigm into the island.

Like in the United States and within the Mexican economy, the process of racializing, subordinating Puerto Ricans included a dual wage system. A newspaper an article said in 1900:

“The American teachers enjoy a better salary than the Puerto Rican teachers, yet instructions are given to the School Boards in the official newspaper, La Gaceta,
that all American teachers must sign their contract for next year. No mention is made of Puerto Rican teachers, who are in more need because they earn lower salaries.”

This dual wage system taught American teachers they were superior and taught Puerto Rican teachers that they were inferior. This institutional arrangement was part of the process to socialize the Puerto Rican population into acceptance of its new inferior status vis a vis the white “Americans.”

Some of the island’s most important cultural critics, like Antonio Pedreira, in a noted essay titled "Insularismo" echoed the racist ideologies so prevalent during that era. By stating that the "African and Indian "races" were inferior to the European races and particularly the "Spanish" he places himself in a stream of Latin American thought that shared a racist ideology. Juan Flores notes that from the 19th century Domingo Faustino Sarmiento's Conflictos y armonias de las razas en America (1883), José Enrique Rodó's Ariel (1900) to La raza cósmica (1925) of José Vasconcelos all assumed the inferiority of the contribution of Africans and Indians to the Europeans. For Pedreira, this confusion experienced by Puerto Ricans during this period was precisely a result of amalgamation.

But these ideas were also ideologically supported by a scientific discourse that was still popular among the Europeans since the later part of the 19th century. Gobineau in history, Herbert Spencer in sociology, Cesare Lombroso in criminology and Francis Galton in eugenics all articulated an ideology of scientific racism. De Diego, an ardent proponent of independence for Puerto Rico at times evidenced the influence of these ideas. In fact, even a person that was an anti-imperialist seemed to experience some self-doubt about the notion of equality of the human race.

These ideas found much support among significant sectors of the Latin American elites, including Puerto Rico's colonial elite. Specifically in Puerto Rico, these perspectives found a substratum of support among the elite because of their daily interaction with North Americans. The local elite was mostly an economic intermediary between United States business and Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans. In many ways, members of the intermediary elite coped with their own racialization as junior partners in the colony by uncritically adopting the racial world view of the metropolis.

Another way of coping was by an attempt to “erase” from the collective memory the role and presence of Africans in Puerto Rican society and culture. Often these attempts took the form of minimizing the obvious African presence in Puerto Rican history. For example in 1948, Tomas Blanco, another prominent social and cultural critic said:

“Our people has an abundance of Black blood, although in general, there are no pure Blacks, and although our population of color is completely Hispanic, culturally, the African contributions to our culture are very scarce in our environment, except in our musical folklore.”

This attempt to erase Africans from the collective memory is a form of cultural genocide that is rooted in a reaction to the racialization of Puerto Ricans. Blanco was trying to “blanquear” Puerto Rican culture in order to challenge the racialization of Puerto Ricans by the United States. Puerto Ricans were not natives, were not uncivilized (African), Puerto Ricans were also European in character and culture. Antonio Pedreira who earlier had joined the effort to “whiten” the most important symbol of Puerto Rican culture and Puerto Ricans, the “Jibaro.” In 1957 he says:

“From the mixing of pure Spanish, who struggled in the island against disadvantageously against the climate, diseases, the creole was born . . . the Jibaro . . . generous, cordial, hospitable, festive has had to hide in his shrewdness to protect himself from the urban sprawl and black competition in the coast.”

This symbol of a “true Puerto Rican” began to spread through Puerto Rican popular culture during the 19th century. The opposite racial “other” were the Spanish, but in the 20th century, the “other” were U.S. whites and their process of “Americanization.”

Lillian Guerra develops Jose Luis Gonzalez’ Pais de los cuatro Pisos in 1993 analysis of how the “Jibaro” became an instrument that was used as a pivot to leverage into a whiter status within the racialized hierarchy in Puerto Rico. The myth of the “Jibaro” as representation of true “Puertoricanness” was pivoted on a ”denial of an Afro-Mestizo historical reality from which many Puerto Rican customs and world views were derived—even by creole peasants, the jibaros themselves”.
However, U.S. white colonizers were not entirely convinced:

“Brigadier General George W. Davis, one of the colonial governors of Puerto Rico, stated that ‘between the Negro and the peon there is no visible difference. Davis found it difficult to ‘believe that the pale, sallow and often emaciated beings’ were indeed ‘the descendants of the conquistadors . . . ‘”

The “civilizing” mission of the United States, utilized the Americanization efforts as a way of bringing the “native” into a close, yet unequal status with U.S. whites. The natives were constructed as violent, overly sexual beings that required domestication. In 1906 a dockyard strike in San Juan was described by colonial Governor Winthrop as a an uncivilized crowd: “August 1 saw the climax of the situation. The mob became turbulent and ungovernable . . . The police used force but the gangs retaliated in the same measure.”

These efforts to deny any role for race in Puerto Rican society, was coded in the attempts to deny the African role in the island´s culture in order to challenge the process of subordination that colonialism represented. In order not to be what white Anglo-Saxons said Puerto Ricans were, it was necessary to expunge the culture and society of any stigma and marker of blackness. Unfortunately, by denying blackness they were perpetuating a racist system that denied people of African descent not only their humanity but also confined all Puerto Ricans to live a lie. Puerto Rico was never a racial paradise and until it addressed its racial and class inequities it would never achieve the true democracy Puerto Ricans aspire.

These efforts to acquire legitimacy in the eyes of the racializing forces, also found their counterparts and supporters in the institutions of the colonial government. In 1958, then Governor Luis Muñoz Marin reached an agreement with the Department of Commerce (where the U.S. Bureau of the Census is administratively located) to assure the participation of Puerto Rico in determining what type of questionnaire will be used in the island. This agreement made sense for supporters of the commonwealth since they believed in some degree of autonomy from the United States. This would allow its own local planners to determine which items would appear in the questionnaire so that it would reflect Puerto Rican realities. In reality, some questions in the form used in the United States did not make sense in terms of the climate and culture of Puerto Rico. The plan was to form an interagency committee that would be responsible for choosing which items were necessary to gather the information that would guide short and long term planning. The first items to go where the items using racial classifications. The argument was that they did not reflect Puerto Rico´s reality. However, the interagency committee never reached an agreement to develop racial items on the basis of Puerto Rico´s racial system.

Race in Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico, contrary to the polarized and bifurcated white-non/white racial system in the United States, has a system of racial classification based on phenotypical characteristics where color is a major variable. Because of the amalgamation of the island's population, phenotypical traits were clustered in a number of categories that were points along a gradual, continuum. The phenotypically constructed categories still had "whites" as their reference point, but also were influenced by the class position of the labeled individuals. For example, references to a person's color were used less often than references to their class position.

"....in the Iberian areas...the overt references to one's economic circumstances ("nosotros los pobres") might be more frequent than one's color. The term "blanquitos," by which certain sectors of the dominant classes are referred to, has a "racial" connotation spiced by the suggestion of a racial mixture..."

As the quote suggests, even in the use of "racial" designations there is a questioning of them because of the high degree of amalgamation. Also, since class was more important than race, people of "mixed" race could legally have their "racial status" changed if they had the economic means to finance it. They obviously could not change the physical traits but they could "buy" a higher racial status. In societies where dichotomized racial characters exist, the only practical means of leaving behind a stigmatized racial category is by "passing" but not by a legally accepted process. "Passing" is the only informal way open for people with lighter complexion to escape stigmatized racial categories. In societies that make distinctions based on color and other phenotypical traits society validates (since the categories are not discrete) means of "upward mobility."


This is a system that Vadi calls "highly elastic system of racial classification." One important feature of it is the "mulatto escape hatch." Rather than the system being based on some mystical lack of mixture of black and white genes (unscientific) it is the result of a combination of factors including, but not limited to: wealth, class, education, gender, etc. The composite combination of all of these factors places one within the stratification system.


Because of the larger number of factors involved in placing people within social strata, you end up with a system that has a larger number of gradations, that are less sharply defined as in a system of either/or. All of these gradations serve as buffers that alleviate stress in the system being the "mulatto escape hatch" probably being the most interesting. Since it is more dynamic it allows for greater movement between strata. Charles Degler believes that the mulatto for example is like a bridge that spans racial categories that dulls the sharpness of the racial distinctions.

"The existence of the mulatto, for example, makes most difficult if not impossible, the kind of segregation patterns that have been so characteristic in the United States. With many shades of skin color, segregating people on the basis of color would incur both enormous expenses and inconvenience...Furthermore, in a society in which distinctions are made among a variety of colors, rather than race as in the United States, families would be split by the color line...Moreover, in a society in which the mulatto has a special place, a racist defense of slavery or of Negro inferiority cannot easily develop, for how can one think consistently of a "white" race or a "Negro" race when the lines are blurred by the mulatto? The search for purity of race is thus frustrated before it begins..."

However, one consequence of the existence of a population that straddles the categories is that it tends to deny the role of race in social life. The “mulatto, at times, because he or she can “pass” as white will not feel the need to raise issue of racism and discrimination. As a result of this refusal to engage in an anti-racist struggle the basis of support for the system of racism is widened by the unconscious support of those who benefit by not having to be Black. As follows from this brief description of the historical roots of Puerto Rico's system of assigning social identities, Puerto Ricans developed an emerging sense of national identity where race occupies a less significant influence as in the historical formation of United States national identity. Being "American" in the minds of most residents of the United States is being "white." This is also true for foreign perceptions of United States national identity. This despite the obvious fact of the multiracial and multi cultural roots of the United States. In Puerto Rico, in some sense, for many years, being Puerto Rican is not being, “non-white.” Recent self-definitions as white in the 2000 census may indicate some transition in how “Puertoricaness” is defined in terms of race. While in the minds of white American Puerto Ricans are non-white, increasingly Puerto Ricans see themselves as white in this utopic perspective on race.

Race, National Identity and Politics in Puerto Rico Today

There is a resurgence in studies of Puerto Rican culture and identity. Sponsored Identities by Arlene Davila in 1997, Nancy Morris’ Puerto Rico, Culture, Politics and Identity in 1998, Juan Otero Garabi’s Nacion y Ritmo in 2000 and more recently Carlos Pabon’s Nacion Postmortem in 2002. Only two recent studies, one by Lillian Guerra and Jorge Duany have attempted to insert race within a discussion about Puerto Rican culture and/or identity. Clara Rodriguez, who as a sociologist has done significant research on race, has mostly focused her extensive work on the race paradigm within the United States. This absence is richly meaningful of the silence about race in Puerto Rican society and culture. This silence is even more deafening among progressive sectors in the island.

Both in Puerto Rico and in the Diaspora, we have seen a powerful expression of national unity in the political struggles around Puerto Rico’s political prisoners, the struggle for peace in Vieques. The continued fragmentation of every day life in Puerto Rico, the ubiquitousness of United States cultural symbols and ideologies, the expansion and deepening of a consumer and values, the continued return migration of Puerto Ricans from the Diaspora and the phenomenal growth of an informal economy have wrought dramatic changes to the architecture of Puerto Rican life. These changes have laid out the foundation for a new, emerging society whose features still seem fuzzy and unknowable. To Pabon the nation seems “undead” while for Jorge Duany “Puerto Rico” has become a “translocal” entity with deep cultural continuities bridged by circular migration.

In some sense, being a Puerto Rican today in an internet connected world means in many ways living across cultures and geographic boundaries. However, this connectedness does not erases the social and cultural consequences of face to face interaction in Puerto Rico and the Diaspora. While we can feel immersed in Puerto Rican daily life by reading Puerto Rican papers, hearing videos and CD’s the experience is still vicarious. While the connections exist between the two wings where the “Trans-Rican” lives, these lives are lived within specific and contextual social spaces which shape those experiences in powerful ways. The presence of Wal-Mart, or being able to see CNN news in Puerto Rican cable companies can not reproduce the social experience of living in the Bronx, or Irvine, California for that matter.

Particularly in Puerto Rico today, civil society has acquired marked characteristics that create a different society from a decade ago. The changes Puerto Rico has experienced has changed the relationships between “the people” and the island’s most basic institutions. These changes are evident in the relationship between Puerto Ricans and “their” political institutions. In many ways, political parties don’t seem to exact the same kind of blind loyalty they did in the previous decades. A recent poll by the local daily, El Nuevo Dia, indicates that all political parties have lost a significant measure of legitimacy, in the eyes of most people all political parties are responsible of corruption. However, this does not mean the complete demise of political parties, it means a different relationship with other sectors of civil society. Pro-independence forces and political organizations have, for many years been the leading edge of progressive politics in many areas, with the exception of the struggle against racism.

During the last decades, the major struggles that have mobilized thousands of Puerto Ricans, both in the Diaspora and in Puerto Rico were rooted in cultural nationalism. While initially these struggles were led and energized by pro-independence sectors and forces, eventually their own success in tapping into the sense of nationalism of Puerto Ricans, extended the movements beyond the control and hegemony of the political nationalists. This success was of such a magnitude that the largest public gatherings of people achieved by any social movement in recent history were achieved in support, for example, of the efforts by the people of Vieques to stop naval bombardment of their island and recuperate the territory expropriated by the U.S. navy. These efforts, were not only the result of the independentistas it was also an accomplishment of a coalition of religious, labor, political, professional and other segments of the island’s civil society. Included in these sectors were supporters of all of the three status alternatives that have divided Puerto Ricans for 104 years.
Unfortunately, this incredible resurgence of cultural nationalism has not been able to re-energize the social and political infrastructure of the pro-independence movement. Th reason for this, seems to be the lack of a strategic vision that includes in visible and concrete ways a struggle against the divisions that exists within the Puerto Rican nation. The often cited Benedict Anderson in his classic Imagined Communities (1991) sees nations as a cultural artifact that create a sense of community based on “deep, horizontal comradeship.”

But that deep sense of equality cannot be based on a fiction or on a lie, it needs to be based on the trust that rises from a deep commitment to justice and democratic ideals. This can only take place within a movement that struggles against classism, racism, sexism and heterosexism. Since the demise of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party, most political organizations in the pro-independence movement (with the exception of the smaller Frente Socialista) do not have comprehensive strategy or program to combat any of these ills, even less a mode of initiating a conversation among race in Puerto Rico.
In informal conversations I held with some leaders of the pro-independence movement during the summer of 2000, most agreed that the race issue is not raised in any significant form within the movement. Some leaders even argued that there is no relationship between the national question and the racial question in Puerto Rico. The recent response by Puerto Ricans in the census form validates the concern that race has become a pivot around which Puerto Ricans organize their sense of self. It is not the product of dialogue and conversation but the outcome of a process of 104 years of racialization in Puerto Rico. White supremacy has established a beach hold in Puerto Rico, the census responses speak loud about the racial content of “la puertorriqueñidad.” Being Puerto Rican is imagined as being white, in performing this exorcism, Puerto Ricans imagine a “deep, horizontal comradeship,” but this is a castle built on sand, a castle who walls will begin to crumble. This opting for “whiteness” is intensified by the changing demography of Puerto Rico and the arrival of Dominicans and Haitians who have become the “other” in the racialization process today. On one extreme, Anglo-Saxons represent the white pole, and on the other extreme darker Dominicans and Haitians become the unwanted others. As Duany, Hernandez and Rey (1995) have clearly shown, Puerto Ricans do not want to be black, and the most concrete symbol of blackness are the ne immigrants who occupy the lowest rungs of Puerto Rican society. In many ways, the racial system in the United States is being reproduced in the island.

This process of racialization, both in the diaspora and in Puerto Rico is challenging the notion of the national unity of Puerto Ricans in the United States and Puerto Rico. In the 1970s, the Puerto Rican Socialist Party argued that the diaspora and the island were part of the nation. While this was not implemented and deconstructed to all its implications it was an acknowledgment of the bonds between “los de aqui y los de alla.” What these recent census reports indicate is that this rupture is probably the most important sign that the two communities are moving apart.

It remains to be seen how Puerto Ricans in the United States identified themselves in the Census 2000 (SF 4 files still pending) but if the trend is continued, they will increasingly reject white or black and chose the racialized “other” as evidence of the fluidity of their process of self-identification. This category does not necessarily means a rejection of the system of race, it could quite well mean an accommodation, like Jorge Duany argues or a way of coping with a society that is increasingly racializing people of Latin American origin.

While Boricuas in the diaspora increasingly see themselves as “others” as part of a “browning” process, Puerto Ricans in the island take a u-turn and chose to imagine themselves as white. This process began immediately after the arrival of the United States in 1898 and reflected in each census until 1950 when the last racial items were dropped from the questionnaire. However, despite the prodding by the census the process of “whitening” continued unabated until this last census when an overwhelming majority of Puerto Ricans saw themselves as white. In fact, Puerto Rico is even “whiter” than the United States where only 75.1% of Puerto Ricans identified themselves as white. Unfortunately, both processes do not represent a frontal challenge to white supremacy, but at least choosing “other” represents son awareness that the system of race is a fiction that kills. As David Hollinger said in his 1995 book, PostEthnic America, “Race is a myth, Racism is not.”

Conclusions

The racialization of Puerto Rican ethnicity has important implications for both the 3.4 million Puerto Ricans residing in the United States and those 3.8 million residing in the island of Puerto Rico. It also has implication for political alliances in the United States between Latinos, Latinos and other groups and between people of color/and language and progressive whites in a movement to search for justice for all people. It also has long term implications for the future of an anti-racist movement that will contribute to the dismantling of white supremacy in the United States.

The decision to be “white” chosen by 80.5% of Puerto Ricans moves Puerto Rico closer to the United States system of race. The closer Puerto Rican culture approximates the United States system of bi-polar racialized categories wide-ranging political alliances will become less possible. The potential of building a "common ground" both in the United States and in the island become more elusive as Puerto Rican ethnic identity becomes “cleavaged” by racially polarized racial distinctions. This phenomena has already taken place throughout United States history and has precluded it from developing a broad based movement of social justice. The "racial wedge" issues, "racial politics" has served to separate constituencies that could benefit from such a broad alliance.
While racial politics are not as prevalent in Puerto Rico as yet we already have some glimpses of it in recent years. During one internal primary squabble inside of one of the colonialist parties, a dark-skinned Puerto Rican was considered as a candidate for mayor of San Juan, the island major city. This candidate had to retire from the competition and it was widely assumed that the issue was his color although the debate was codified in terms of his being a forced candidate of the party's ruling guard.

Finally, Puerto Rico's more than centenary struggle for independence depends on a broad, inclusive multi-class alliance if it is to succeed. The adding of another cleavage to these liberation politics makes the achievement of this goal not impossible but more complex. This is particularly more challenging since we do not even have a language to begin a conversation about the intersection of race, class, gender and other isms in Puerto Rico. This becomes a greater challenge since in the nationalist discourse that pervades the pro-independence movement issues of race and color are still considered anathema and subject to marginalization. Ironically, if the racialization of Puerto Rican ethnicity continues not to acknowledge it will become the movement's Achilles heel.

During the United States early colonial administration race was used to divide Puerto Ricans. Race and other factors partially led a significant group of Puerto Ricans including the pro-statehood leader Jose Celso Barbosa to become advocates of the United States. The popular support for statehood today among Puerto Ricans of clearly visible African heritage is relatively high. This heritage seems to be rooted in the intersection of race and class during the early years of United States domination, another chapter of this history that deserves closer scrutiny. In the meantime, there is a need for a broad based effort to initiate a discussion on race in Puerto Rico. One that begins to define the issue in terms that allow people in different experiential places to be able to imagine themselves in the experiences of people of African descent in Puerto Rico, a group, that includes a higher percentage than the 8% Census 2000 would have us believe.

. Claridad April 2-8, 1999, 8.
. Since January of 1999, local newspapers had reported that Puerto Rico was to be included in studies and reports conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. See Leonor Mulero, “Ingresa la Isla a las estadisticas del censo federal” January 9, 1999; “P.R. to be part of U.S. census stats” San Juan Star January 9, 1999.
. “Racialization is the social and historical process of assigning individuals and groups a socially constructed racial identity and status.” Victor M. Rodriguez “Internalized Racist Oppression” (manuscript).
. See Victor M. Rodriguez “The Racialization of Puerto Rican Ethnicity in the United States” in Juan Manuel Carrion, Ed. Ethnicity, Race and Nationality in the Caribbean. San Juan: Institute of Caribbean Studies, University of Puerto Rico, 1997.
. “Neither White Nor Black: The Representation of Racial Identity on the Island and in the U.S. Mainland,” in Puerto Rican Nation On the Move: Identities on the Island and in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2002.
. Some of this material was published before in "Censo 2000: Nacion, raza y el discurso independentista" in two parts in Claridad January 7-13, 2000 pp. 14 % 31 and January 14-20, 2000 p. 14 & 31.
. Unless specifically noted, translations are my own. This quote is from Martin Sagrera, Racismo y Politica en Puerto Rico. Rio Piedras: Editorial Edil, 1973, p. 25. This interesting book has received scarce attention by scholars despite the paucity of books addressing the issue of race and racism in Puerto Rico. This is an example of the silence about race in the island.
. Sagrera, 25.
. In Aida Negron de Montilla. Americanization in Puerto Rico and the Public School System: 1900-1930. Rio Piedras: Editorial Edil, 1971, p. 55.
.. See Juan Flores' excellent analysis of Pedreira, his Insularismo e ideología burguesa. La Habana, Cuba: Editorial Casa Las Americas, 1979.
.See Flores (1979).
. According to Juan Flores' essay "National Culture and Migration" in Divided Borders Houston: Arte Publico Press, 1993, DeDiego, citing his readings of Lombroso describes North Americans as "the superhuman of the modern age" and "descendant as they are from one of the superior races of Europe."
. Sagrera 22.
. Antonio Pedreira, Insularismo. San Juan: Biblioteca de Autores Puertorriqueños, 1957, p. 27.
. In her book Lillian Guerra. Popular Expression and National Identity in Puerto Rico: The Struggle for Self, Community and Nation. Gainsville,FL: Florida State University Press, 1998 she explores the role of race in the formation of a multi valenced Jibaro symbol.
. Guerra 55
. In Kelvin A Santiago-Valles."Subject People" and Colonial Discourses: Economic Transformation and Social Disorder in Puerto Rico: 1898-1947. Albany: SUNY Press, 1994,
P. 45.

. Santiago Valles 107.
. Interestingly, in a phone conversation with Lillian Torres Aguirre, who was then chair of the interagency group that framed items for the local census and director the social and economic planning office of the census in Puerto Rico, she said that it was not until 1980 that the Supreme Court and the federal district court decided that racial items were not necessary in Puerto Rico. But according to a letter sent to Jorge Duany on January 21, 2000 she said that “the race question was dropped because the local government is not required by law to collect racial statistics in order to provide social services.” (Duany 252). However, the racial items in the local census were dropped in 1960, previous to the court’s decisions.
.. Jose Vadi (1989) mentions this quote from Harry Hoetink's "Africa and the Caribbean: The Cultural Links" in M. Crahan and F. Knight Africa and the Caribbean: Legacies of a Link. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1979.
. In 1783, King Carlos III issued a decree in which a person of mixed, Spanish and African heritage could receive a “cedula de gracias al sacar” This “cedula” would grant the status of “white” to the recipient (Guerra 215).
. Jose Vadi (1989) p. 3
. Charles Degler. Neither Black Nor White. New York: MacMillan, 1971.
.. Charles Degler. Neither Black Nor White New York: MacMillan, 1971, p. 225. I appreciate the suggestion of this reference by Jose Vadi (1989).
. There is a growing body of literature that is exploring the construction of "whiteness" as a privileged category in the United States. Recent examples include Theodore W. Allen's The Invention of the White Race Verso, 1994 and How the Irish Became White 1995. In addition to the role of the state in establishing greater social distance between whites and Blacks through legal means, the notion that "one drop of Black blood" made a person Black reinforces ideologically even today a polarized system of racial classification.
. Her most recent book Changing Race: Latinos, The Census and the History of Ethnicity in the United States . New York: NYU Press, 2000 is probably the most thorough contemporary treatment of racial and ethnic Latino identity from a social science perspective.
. In 1975 Isabelo Zenon Cruz wrote his path breaking two volume Narciso Descubre su Trasero (Humacao, P.R. : Furidi) where he breaks the silence for some time. Despite some focus on his courageous critique of racism at all levels of society, in a few months, silence became the norm. More recently a number of essays and books, (the most noteworthy is La mujer negra en la literatura puertorriqueña Rio Piedras: Editorial Universidad de Puerto Rico who in 1999 came out with a social analysis of short stories and their treatment of women of African descent in Puerto Rico), have tried to break the silence.
. Puerto Ricans identity is becoming a “Trans-Rican” identity that bridges the gap between the two geographic spaces where Puerto Ricans live, to use Juan Flores terminology in From Bomba To Hip Hop 2000.
. See “Todos los partidos son responsables: La Corrupción” Tuesday April 30 2002.

. It must also be noted that a large percentage of the leadership in civil society organizations involved int these movements are independentistas,
. Benedict Anderson Imagined CommunitiesReflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism . London: Verso, 1991.
. Jorge Duany, Luisa Hernandez Angueira, Cesar Rey. El Barrio Gnadul: Economia Subterranea y migracion indocumentada en Puerto Rico. Caracas: Nueva Sociedad, 1995.
. In a manuscript by Victor M. Rodriguez, “The Racialization of Puerto Ricans and Mexicans, 1890-1950" it is argued that that the process of racialization of Latinos has significantly increased post-1965.