Korean Mexicans And Korean Cubans Explore Their Roots
by Guest Contributor Alex Alvarez, originally published at Guanabee
One of the things we love the most about being Latina is being able to claim ties with a vast and varied group of people. Of course, that’s only cool once we kind of gloss over some of the historical aspects of how it that some of these people came to Latino in the first place. With that in mind, let’s take a look at a segment of Latinos often forgotten – Korean Mexicans:
They were the descendants of Koreans lured in 1905 by ship to plantations on the Yucatan Peninsula in southern Mexico. Instead of finding a better life, they were sold to plantation owners and forced to cultivate henequen, a plant whose tough fiber was used to make things like rope.
The Koreans and their descendants would come to be known as the Henequen, in part because they were so hardy and hard-working [Ed. note: Every last one? Really? That name wasn’t given to them because, like. They were forced to cultivate this stuff? No? Ok.]. They had fled a Korea that was under Japanese rule, and despite their struggle, they sent money back home, hoping to help their countrymen gain independence. But few ever saw their homeland again.
History is a funny, funny thing. The LA Times followed one group of Korean Mexicans as they explored their roots during a visit to Lynwood’s “Plaza Mexico:”
Plaza Mexico, which opened in 2002, was the vision of Donald Chae, a Korean American who grew up among Latinos and who has traveled throughout Mexico. Chae tells people that, “I don’t speak Spanish. I speak Mexican.”
“I am a Korean American Mexican,” he quips. “I’m still waiting for my pasaporte.”
The center was built with Mexican stone and boasted touches like a swap meet with a facade designed after the colonial-era governor’s mansion in Guadalajara and a shrine for the Virgin of Guadalupe.
Swap meet? We’re there.
Chae said that when he spoke to the young Korean Mexicans, he could tell they were surprised he spoke Spanish fluently. He in turn was struck by how strongly their identity was rooted.
“They’re real Mexicans,” Chae said. “They have a real Mexican way of talking. They use a lot of doble sentidos (double entendres). Mexicans use a lot of double meanings.”
But he said it was important that they learn about the other culture that informed their lives and those of their ancestors.
“When you don’t know your culture,” Chae said, “you get lost.”
There is also, as it so happens, a small group of Korean Mexicans who made their way to Cuba:
They are, technically, Latin Americans, not just in appearance [Ed. note: Sigh.] but in their way of thinking, culture, customs and language. A Cuba-Korea culture center was built in 1921 that taught Korean writing and history in an attempt to remind the descendants of their heritage. But lack of funding shuttered the center and now it’s hard to find a Henequen offspring who can speak the language.
About 800 descendants of Korean henequen farmers live around Havana, Matanzas and other areas of Cuba.
So, question: When can we stop the idea that Latino is a race and, instead, an inclusive (Well. Eventually.) and extremely varied cultural group?
Korean Mexicans learn more of their Asian roots on visit to Southern California [LA Times]
Five Generations On, Mexico’s Koreans Long for Home [From Stranger To Kin]
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
gatamala wrote:
Great post. I find stories on diasporas fascinating.
I have no idea how to respond to your question, other than with another question:
HOW do we stop that idea?
Posted 17 Sep 2008 at 12:18 pm ¶
shoepins wrote:
This story reminds me of my family’s story. Being of Chinese and Nicaraguan background, I can definitely relate to the cultural conundrum.
Posted 17 Sep 2008 at 12:23 pm ¶
Afro-Taina Dominican wrote:
Latino is not a race, but it is also not the benign cultural group you see it to be. What do I, a Dominicana of African and Taino ancestry, have in common with the descendant of white Argentines who profited on slavery and colonialism? Moreover, why, as a Dominican, am I considered to be in Latin America and considered to be Latino? Ethnic identifications represent how one sees themselves in relationship to the world, and, in part, affiliates us with a particular meaning of society and history. So let me ask you, “we” apparently liberated our lands from the Spanish colonizers, so why is the basis of our identity and region rooted in Iberia, the region that colonized “us”? Even though the Dominican Republic is almost 90% of African ancestry, why am I an Afro-Latino, and not they, those who claim “Latinidad” European-Africans?
You write that this Latino cultural grouping of ours is inclusive. What a benevolent assimilationist model you propose. It reminds me of the propositions of Muslim conquerors when they stormed through North and East Africa converting and killing innocents over a thousand years ago. Our Muslim identity is open to everyone, so long as you negate those pagan, African aspects of your being that keep you as a savage (of course, they killed many who refused to join their inclusive cultural group). And this is how the idea of “browness” and “mestizoness” becomes standardized and normalized, and blacks and indians are thought of as being in the periphery. “Latinidad” is the inclusive group and those who propagate this ideology ascribe norms and standards to it. What a surprise that they are more often than not in line with the racist thoughts that dominated around the time of the Spanish Empire.
Why must I be Latino when I have no reason to be? Colonialism is over, and I hope you can see in your rhetorical usage of Latino the anachronistic links you are proposing with Spanish hegemony. Yes, many of us throughout the Caribbean, Central and South America, and Mexico speak Spanish, but many also do not. Are we forgetting all the indigenous languages throughout the Americas and Spanish-based creoles in Columbia when we say Latin America? Moreover, why is the linguistic characteristic of my people dominant over other aspects of my identity? Why am I made to see Uruguayans as being my brothers and sisters, and not the Haitian people with whom I share an island, the people who rescued Dominicans from Spanish slavery? Do I really have a link with people in Uruguay than our dissimilar colonial pasts and the language colonialism forced me to now speak? Maybe I have some things in common with some subgroups of that society, but I also probably do with the economic underclass in Iran. To illustrate the ludicrousness of these ties – when taken in the context that one does not revere Spanish colonialism and the ties it brought – imagine someone telling you as an English speaker are a member of the same ethnic/cultural group as people of Ghana, for not only do you both speak English but you were both colonized by Britain…
I understand the need for Spanish-speakers to form coalitions in the United States, for the hegemony of the English language in American society in this country is offensive and racist at times. But such coalitions need not only be for Spanish-speakers, but all non-English speaking immigrants. A Russian immigrant on the Lower East Side of Manhattan or a Korean immigrant in Washington state may all suffer from language discrimination, not just “us.”
All in all, not only is there no such thing as Latino, for Latin America does not exist (it is merely a construction of colonialism), but such an identity is both oppressive and restrictive.
Posted 17 Sep 2008 at 2:07 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Afro-Taina Dominican –
Please email me – latoya@racialicious.com
Posted 17 Sep 2008 at 2:13 pm ¶
Alex wrote:
@ Afro-Taina Dominicana: I don’t see Latinos as a benign group at all. I see it as a category of people brought together by lots of external forces – history, language, religion, etc. – that are grouped together in a way that usually works to the detriment of the group as a whole and to each individual member.
I didn’t identify as a Latina until I was made very aware of how this group – whether created by colonialism or Madison Avenue or the U.S. Census bureau or what-have-you – was marginalized and how my own whiteness (as in, my light skin color) constantly became fodder for debate and discussion the minute I moved out of predominantly Latino Miami.
In a very real sense, being Latina chose me before I chose to be Latina. I can become a better activist in the face of discrimination by making the decision to actively align myself with This Group Called Latino. Because whether one argues to what extent that label describes a “real” group, the fact remains that it is a meaningful category not only to people who choose to refer to themselves as such, but to people on whom the label is forced, regardless of their say in the matter.
Posted 17 Sep 2008 at 2:41 pm ¶
Alex wrote:
Oops, I meant “Dominican,” not “Dominicana.” Apologies.
Posted 17 Sep 2008 at 3:10 pm ¶
stankerbell wrote:
It’s always interesting to me to see how different groups of people ended up in other countries. There’s also a town in China and Russia that are populated by ethnic Koreans because of the Japanese occupation.
The sad part is that many of the descendants want to return to Korea and they’re not able to. Currently, the “kyopo” visa is only extended to North American and citizens. But I really hope that changes sometime in the future.
Posted 17 Sep 2008 at 3:51 pm ¶
Tiffany wrote:
I think people should check out this video
http://ebonyintuition.blogspot.com/2008/09/video-i-had-to-share-i-am-not-latino.html
Its called ” I am not Latino or Hispanic I want my racial and cultural identity respected
Posted 17 Sep 2008 at 9:32 pm ¶
Tiffany wrote:
@ Afro-Taina Dominican
You are so correct I agree with you 100%
Posted 17 Sep 2008 at 9:34 pm ¶
michael wrote:
@ Afro-Taina Dominican
Your post was brilliant, and you said it in such a clear and concise way.
Kudos to you.
Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 1:02 am ¶
AfriSurena wrote:
“All in all, not only is there no such thing as Latino, for Latin America does not exist (it is merely a construction of colonialism), but such an identity is both oppressive and restrictive.”
Whaaa? As a woman with roots in Africa, Europe and Latin America, who was raised between Latin America and North America, and spent a fair amount of time in the Caribbean with my family there, I have to ask what on earth the statement above is supposed to mean down here on Planet Reality.
I think all the huffing and puffing about “hegemony” and “standardization” and “normalization” is fine if someone is writing a thesis or addressing a group of academics.
But those of us of whatever color who live and work and breathe in these Latin countries of the diaspora on a daily basis certainly do feel a certain connectedness. It is my own humble (and paraphrased) opinion that this “there is no Latinidad because I was made to feel excluded from it at some point in my life” point of view is naive and pretty painfully out of touch.
Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 4:01 am ¶
Luis wrote:
Afro-Taina, this Afro-Euro-Taino loves you. You nailed it. I wish we could package this for our Dominican sisters and brothers and sell it en las bodegas.
I myself like the Latino label for a few reasons. It lets me give some side recognition to my Brazilian/Boricua half even though I grew up only with my Dominican family. It also lets me recognize my non-Dominican Latino friends as a special community with shared interests, culture (to an extent), and politics. It has the potential to build cohesion in an otherwise fractured group (ergo I’ve noted how white Argentines and Cubans often avoid the label).
That said, it’s not the end all, be all. I always try to build bonds with Haitian-Americans, or Haitian-Canadians, that I meet and in turn emphasize the mutual connections when among Dominicans (challenging). But the term Latino also can close us off to other communities that so many of us are related to by blood or by history, such as Amerindians from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, the English, French, and Dutch Caribbean, or West and Central Africans.
I recently heard a song by Sietenueve, a rapper of Dominican and Puerto Rican descent who was born in Brooklyn and raised in Puerto Rico. His biography alone is an incredible testament to transnationalism. In one anti-war song, “Guasabara,” he shouts out countries. This isn’t rare. But instead of stopping at Spanish American countries, or even Brazil, he rolls through and shouts out Trinidad, Jamaica, Belize, Suriname, the Canary Islands, and much more. It was a beautiful thing. He ends the track with personal messages from artists that hail from France to Peru, New York to Ghana, all in their own style and their own language(s).
So what I’m trying to say is we don’t have to play by Nixon’s rules. We can embrace Latino/Hispanic even as we recognize that it is only one of many threads that connect us to the fabric of the world.
Hotep,
Luis
Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 4:48 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
Afro-Taina Dominicana & Luis – preach!!
Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 9:24 am ¶
Gothic Guera wrote:
I myself had a different exeprince, most of my childhood people rejected my mother since she married a white man. In high school, Kids refused to accept that I also Latina. Yet in Mexico and in other parts of Latin America, I am admired for my fairer skin. (Hence the nickname dubbed by my family and others, Guera)
Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 9:27 am ¶
Afro-Taina Dominican wrote:
@Alex – Thanks for a great post. I understand and can relate to the seeming need for solidarity with this oppressed group to which everyone claims you are a member. But let me ask you this…What does Latino marginalization mean? I am not saying sub-sectors of that group aren’t marginalized, but what does it mean when one speaks of Latino marginalization as opposed to the marginalization of immigrants in the US? Surely, Cubans in Miami have very different socioeconomic circumstances to a 3rd-generation Puerto Rican in NY and a recently arrived Guatemalan immigrant. It is as if we are speaking of Asian educational success in the United States, that is not looking at the situation critically and wondering what to do with the Vietnamese and Laotian students who are performing well below the state-passing level. What leads us to group these differing circumstances under the same category and why is coming from a Spanish-speaking country the thread that links “us”? What becomes of the Guatemalan immigrant if he/she speaks an indigenous language and does not identify with the Latino narrative? Fighting American anti-Spanish sentiment then cannot be the link, for said immigrant would not speak Spanish, but still be Latino because he/she comes from “Latin America.” Furthermore, if we are thinking about this in terms of marginalization, as I tried to point out before, there isn’t a set socioeconomic condition for “Latinos” in the US, for it is a diverse grouping where peoples of various nations succeed or fail at different levels. If we take this assumption to be true, we can then begin to deconstruct the use of Latino as the basis for economic solidarity by similarly oppressed peoples, for their oppression, or lack of oppression, is not similar at all. We then truly see that Latino comes together because society sees them as having a similar history and culture, somewhat like the “Asian” ethnicity. All this serves to homogenize our nations, while standardizing our cultures along the scripts of those elites whose interest is in said groups. I can understand why such a group would be meaningful, after all, we are socialized largely to think of ourselves in these groups. I believe, however, that it is in the interest of and a ultimate necessity for “Latinos” to rid themselves of this neocolonial label and push towards a true and greater inclusion of its peoples that respects them in their diverse, largely non-Spanish authenticity. This alternate grouping too hopefully would be meaningful.
@Tiffany – Solid vid, indeed. One thing I noticed however was that the individual criticized the usage of Latino or Hispanic, but often used the term Latn America, as if it were conceptually different.
@AfriSurena – That’s the point though, AfriSurena; I was never made to feel excluded from Latinidad. All I had to do was straighten my naps, praise Duarte, damn the Haitians, dream of the day when I could visit Spain aka the Motherland, and I was good to go. But ok, I’ll go through each one of your points and try to limit the jargon as you see it, though I am pretty sure that if I had written how I might talk in the real world, “Latin America is bullshit my ni99a, we both know what they be tryin to do big uppin Spain and whatnot, ya dig?” you would have not respected my argument.
You chide my claim that Latin America is imaginary, yet implicit in your writing you prove my point: “As a woman with roots in Africa, Europe and Latin America, who was raised between Latin America and North America, and spent a fair amount of time in the Caribbean with my family there, I have to ask what on earth the statement above is supposed to mean down here on Planet Reality.”
You pose Latin America adjacent to North America, so I am guessing you are conflating it with South America? Here on Planet Reality the statement means that Latin America is the collection of countries and territories based upon an idea and social history, while North America, Africa, South America, and the Caribbean (to a lesser extent) are the collection of territories based on physical geography. If we don’t screw up the Earth in 500 years, aliens can come to our planet and, in their ignorance, recognize these physical masses of land as being distinct from other masses. You tell them to point out Latin America, the Middle East, black Africa, or Europe or Asia as opposed to Eurasia and you will find them scratching/probing their proverbial heads. As the Caribbean is part of North America, and “Latin American” nations make up parts of the Caribbean and North America, you could have lived in the Dominican Republic all those years for all I know, and merely altered your understanding and designation of the place you resided over time: not being allowed into a night club one day and believing the DR to be part of Latin America; the next day dancing Palo and Merengue and truly appreciating being in the Caribbean; and the next day seeing American economic influence/control over the Dominican people and sadly realizing you were part of a North American union. I can go on, but hopefully you see my point and how writing what you wrote doesn’t really make much sense…
The fact that a connectedness is felt does not make it legitimate. White people in 1950s Alabama probably felt a connection in the fact that they were all white – that connection was real, but it still is oppressive. Obviously, Latinidad exists in our society, that is the main problem. I did not mean it literally, just that Latinidad springs from an oppressive ideology, and just as it sprung up from nowhere, it can easily go away in favor of something more welcoming and…um…noncolonial to all.
@Luis – Great post, Luis. I personally agree with everything you wrote, spot on imo. My only question is to the last paragraph: why must we embrace the Latino label? If you agree with the problems that it poses, why must we embrace it and then branch out to other peoples? If I say I am Dominican and you are Puerto Rican, is the Latino label even needed when linguistic assumptions are already implied? Stripping it off its colonial offensiveness for a second, Latino signifies in the minds of most people that one is a Spanish speaker, but the problems with that assumption is that Latino claims to be a pan-national, cultural group. That it is not. If we wanted a linguistic identifier, I am all for that so long as it does not assume that indigenous peoples and languages don’t exist (and it doesn’t recreate the Spanish Empire). I am not against the Spanish language , for in our Dominican and Puerto Rican Spanish you can hear the sounds of Taino and African revolt. For that I am proud, for Latino/Hispanic and the Spanish Empire, I am not…just a few thoughts
Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 9:28 am ¶
LM wrote:
Props to Afro-Taina Dominican.
Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 10:11 am ¶
Tree wrote:
A bit like Hawaii, in the sense that what it means to be a Hawaiian has more to do with locale and history than any given race, though race is certainly a part of the story, and plays a part in shaping identity and community. The only difference of course being that a person descended from whites is not automatically a Pacific Islander. Afro-Taina Dominicana brings up a very good point in her post. Why does the US government lump everyone from the Antilles and South America in one category?
Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 10:36 am ¶
DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:
I wish somebody would do an article on the South Asian Hindu/Muslim diaspora in the Carribbeans. I find their culture so utterly fascinating and confusing.
Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 10:44 am ¶
Alex wrote:
@ Afro-Taina Dominican: Thanks!
I’m going to break down your question to make sure I address each point, because you bring up a lot of excellent questions I’ve struggled with myself – a lot:
But let me ask you this…What does Latino marginalization mean? I am not saying sub-sectors of that group aren’t marginalized, but what does it mean when one speaks of Latino marginalization as opposed to the marginalization of immigrants in the US?
I think Latinos, as a group that has been both invented by White men in advertising firms and a term that encompasses a group of people with roots in various Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries, holds a special place in the US in terms of how they are marginalized. This is actually delved into in greater detail in a feature I’m currently working on, but, here’s what I’ve been noticing, personally:
Latino immigrants, specifically, are more often treated with hatred because the stereotype of poorer immigrants from Latin America don’t fit the White beauty ideal in the same way immigrants from other countries do. So, as I see it, a lot of the malice and aimed at us and the exclusion many feel upon trying to become part of American society or the American working class is the result of aesthetics. Surely, it’s more complicated than that, but I think this “beauty war” against Latino immigrants is something often overlooked in discussions of racism and xenophobia aimed against Latinos. This shows not only that there’s a prevalent racist (because Latinos are indeed continuously racialized) attitude, but also a prejudice based on a lack of understanding regarding how diverse this community happens to be.
Surely, Cubans in Miami have very different socioeconomic circumstances to a 3rd-generation Puerto Rican in NY and a recently arrived Guatemalan immigrant. It is as if we are speaking of Asian educational success in the United States, that is not looking at the situation critically and wondering what to do with the Vietnamese and Laotian students who are performing well below the state-passing level. What leads us to group these differing circumstances under the same category and why is coming from a Spanish-speaking country the thread that links “us”?
It links us because, in part, we have no choice. That link was created for us – both by Spanish and Portuguese colonizers / missionaries – and more recently by ad agencies, the Census Bureaus, medical forms, fashion magazines, radio stations, etc, etc.
The label existed before we got here. So, as I see it, we can either use that in an advantageous way, forming a collective group of diverse voices who are, despite how incredibly different we happen to be, still lumped together in order to keep us separate from the majority, able to benefit from already being associated as a community. Or we can elect, to the best of our ability, to overcome the label by rejecting it.
But, then, what of the group? Are we rejecting others by also rejecting the label they’re placed under? Are we distancing ourselves from a community that considers us a member?
What becomes of the Guatemalan immigrant if he/she speaks an indigenous language and does not identify with the Latino narrative? Fighting American anti-Spanish sentiment then cannot be the link, for said immigrant would not speak Spanish, but still be Latino because he/she comes from “Latin America.”
I don’t see, and never really have, considered language the tie that binds Latinos to one another. I wouldn’t blink an eye if a self-identified U.S. Latina had never learned Spanish, nor would I if a Guatemalan only spoke the Xinca language. I’d feel no need to call their Latinoness into question.
Furthermore, if we are thinking about this in terms of marginalization, as I tried to point out before, there isn’t a set socioeconomic condition for “Latinos” in the US, for it is a diverse grouping where peoples of various nations succeed or fail at different levels. If we take this assumption to be true, we can then begin to deconstruct the use of Latino as the basis for economic solidarity by similarly oppressed peoples, for their oppression, or lack of oppression, is not similar at all. We then truly see that Latino comes together because society sees them as having a similar history and culture, somewhat like the “Asian” ethnicity.
But we do! We have a similar history in culture in the United States as this group a TV commercial trying to sell Chipotle Lime Tortilla chips to. The day they stop trying to sell me these chips because of my last name or parents country of origin is the day the label “Latino,” to me, breaks down. We’re a group that’s been marketed to from the day a Spanish missionary set foot in Mexico to the a few months ago when a company tried to get me to buy their car by showing tan people at the beach gyrating on its hood to a Daddy Yankee song.
So is it a label that was placed on a group of people by external forces? Absolutely. It’s as much a social construct as any other label. But that’s not to mean its without meaning or power. After all, I’m living and participating the very same society that constructed such a term in the first place.
All this serves to homogenize our nations, while standardizing our cultures along the scripts of those elites whose interest is in said groups. I can understand why such a group would be meaningful, after all, we are socialized largely to think of ourselves in these groups. I believe, however, that it is in the interest of and a ultimate necessity for “Latinos” to rid themselves of this neocolonial label and push towards a true and greater inclusion of its peoples that respects them in their diverse, largely non-Spanish authenticity. This alternate grouping too hopefully would be meaningful.
I think that, eventually, this is what will happen – at least concerning Latinos in the United States. Will my great-great-great granddaughter still be considered Latina? Will she consider herself a Latina? It’s interesting to think about.
I do think, though, that living and working and breathing and thinking under this label acts, in itself, as a way to demonstrate how different I happen to be from a Chicana in Echo Park or a Japanese-Peruvian in Lima or a Nuyorican. Simply by being how I am: my skin color, my socio-economic class, my political affiliations, my religion, my sexuality, etc, I’m defying stereotypes and, at the very same time, feeling connected to a group of people who can look to one another and roll their eyes collectively each time a Latina actress is called a “hot tamale.”
Ok, so. I apologize in advance for the length of this response and for the gazillion and five spelling and grammatical errors found within.
Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 5:21 pm ¶
Jorge wrote:
So what it all comes down to is splitting identity hairs. Take away this notion of being from Latin America, and I have almost nothing else in common with most other people. Other than language, as “white” / queer / Northern Mexican / middle class / etc., I have almost nothing in common with immigrants from other parts of the continent (or their descendants), let alone people from another continent. I have no impetus to form or be involved in a broader coalition with those whom I have nothing in common.
It is a fun academic exercise to tear down these oppressive, neo-colonial, etc. constructs, but what am I left to work with? The structure gets burned down, but how do we tear up the foundation? More importantly, what gets built in its place?
Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 5:46 pm ¶
Free wrote:
Well, I have certainly learned a lot from this post an comments. Thanks everyone!
Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 9:26 pm ¶
AfriSurena wrote:
Thank you Jorge, for such a succinctly, concisely and persuasively written point that you have made.
Posted 19 Sep 2008 at 2:42 am ¶
happybell wrote:
A little late to join in, but here are my 2cents.
I don’t identify as “latina”. I’ve been born and raised in South America -still live here- and I’ve got nothing in common with what I pereceive is the concept of “latino” used in the USA, except for the language I speak (and not even that).
“Latino is not a race, but it is also not the benign cultural group you see it to be.” (Afro-Taina Dominican)
I also don’t see it as a benign cultural group, and as I said, I don’t identify as belonging to it. What I see to be “my culture” is nothing like what I perceive to be latino culture The fact that I’m considered “latina” just because I was born in Sth.Am and speak Spanish is somehow insulting. Just as much as if I were cataloged as such because of my appearance.
I know some may not like to hear this, but appearance is part of the Latino concept. If someone met me IRL, didn’t know I’m Uruguayan, and I didn’t utter a word in Spanish, they wouldn’t classify me as Latina from the get-go. As a matter of fact, I’ve been told I don’t look Latina at all- while being in CA and by people who identify themselves as latinos.
As Afro-Taina Dominican said, I have nothing in common with her but that I speak Spanish, Uruguayan culture is totally different from that of R.Dominicana. I don’t feel she’s my “sister” just because of that; I have more in common with Argentineans from BsAs, and I don’t even feel them as my brothers and sisters. And honestly, the Spanish I speak is VERY different from the Spanish spoken in R.Dominicana, Peru, Chile, Mexico,etc. People here joke that when they travel to other parts of SthAm, people don’t understand them even when they speak the “same” language as the locals. So, not even language seems as a compeling argument to englobe us all under the label “Latinos”.
Actually, people in Uruguay do not feel latinos at all. Most people here will tell you they’re not, and that they find it quite annoying to be told they are latinos just because they are from SthAm. The most common perception of latinos here, is that it is the label used in the USA to englobe anyone born South to the border with Mexico. And, it does puzzle us a bit (or at least me) that Brazilians are not considered Latinos at all.( Btw, what about people from Belice, who speak English as a main language, are they latinos?) Honestly, down here, we don’t see any similarities with people from Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, R.Dominicana, Haiti, etc, but that we are all Americans, spak Spansih and were once colonies of Spain.
“They’re real Mexicans,” Chae said. “They have a real Mexican way of talking. They use a lot of doble sentidos (double entendres). Mexicans use a lot of double meanings.”
This, to me, sounds the same as when someone here says “Oh, you speak Spanish so well”. I mean, umm, I was born here, I live here, what do you expect me to speak?!? Or when someones seems surprised I eat asado and dulce de leche, and I like mate; really, like if there was anyway around living here and not having tried any of those things. For me, it is normal that as time passes immigrants, and especially their children, become “assimilated” to the dominant culture of the place they live in.
“When you don’t know your culture,” Chae said, “you get lost.”
So true. Problem is, multicultural people sometimes have a hard time defining what their culture is. I know I do. I struggle to integrate all that I am. I can use so many labels to define myself: Uruguayan, “koreouruguaya” or “uruguayokoreana”, “sudamericana” (Southamerican), “americana” (American) (sorry, I have a real problem with people from the USA considering only they are Americans), Korean, part Korean… so many labels, but somehow they all fall short to describe what I am.
I guess in the end, it all comes down to what you identify with, what you see yourself as part of. If you see yourself as Latino, if you feel that connections to other based on whatever brings you closer, then, you are. Just because someone thinks you belong to that group, that the “Latino” label fits you, it doesn’t mean you have to accept it or that it is true. The Latino/a concept is very subjective, and it only applies if you feel a part of it, if you feel identified.
Posted 22 Sep 2008 at 10:40 am ¶
Afro-Taina Dominican wrote:
@Alex, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think one of the reasons why we are seeing this from different perspectives is because I am using Latin America as the base while you are using the United States. That is, I am starting from Latin America, which I see as being an oppressive, non-geographical construction of dissimilar lands by dominant, criollo elites who wanted to maintain the power of the Spanish Empire in the “post-colonial” 19th century. While you – correct me if I’m wrong – are arguing from the perspective of Latinos in the United States who represent a linguistic minority group that are racialicized, exoticized, and discriminated against by a white supremacist state. Now while I agree with a lot of your points when starting from that framework, I cannot disentangle Latinidad in the United States from the neocolonial construction that is Latin America. Yes, the stereotypes of US Latinos are definitely put on them by external forces in American society, by the base grouping is itself initially projected by the continental unity between Latin American nations (Latino means a person from Latin America). This unity I find oppressive, and, consequently, Latino unity too, though I understand how it comes to exist and can be argued as being from a different conceptual framework. In practical terms it may, but it still cannot shake loose the homogenizing, Spanish-standardizing nature of the term.
You write that you think Latino marginalization exists because the Latino beauty ideal doesn’t fit into the white beauty ideal. I would agree with you, but for only non-white or non-light-skinned “Latinos,” for there are plenty of “Latino” models who are exoticized in their beauty for being from a different country, but still ultimately looking white in skin and features (like Gisele for example) As Latino is itself a demographic group and not a racial group, this racial marginalization that you rightly repudiate only applies to a subsector of the “Latino” population that does not fit the white mold. That, therefore, cannot be what ties Latinos together in terms of marginalization because it doesn’t affect all “Latinos.” Furthermore, this racial marginalization of immigrants in terms of beauty is equally experienced by Nigerians, Indonesians, Yemenis, and any other immigrant nationality that doesn’t fit into the white societal structure of beauty.
You write “Are we rejecting others by also rejecting the label they’re placed under?” Def not, but implicitly you are rejecting other by accepting the label (Latino) that you are placed under. The black and indigenous person has no place within Latinidad, for Latino is seen as an amalgamation of x, y, z but never solely x, y, or z, especially when these variables are black or Indian. Latino is ahistorical in its post-raciality, so when claims for further inclusion of peripheral groups in “Latino” multiculturalness are voiced, it is seen as an attack on the entire group. For people who live in lands with such racist and colonial histories, how are we blacks and Indians supposed to mobilize and claim our history when we are subsumed by an oppressive force that already claims to represent us?
And lastly, you write, “I don’t see, and never really have, considered language the tie that binds Latinos to one another. I wouldn’t blink an eye if a self-identified U.S. Latina had never learned Spanish, nor would I if a Guatemalan only spoke the Xinca language. I’d feel no need to call their Latinoness into question”.
Then what ties Latinos together? The fact that the US views them as one? Is that even true? Most Americans see me as black, and most Americans, if that Guatemalan spoke no Spanish, would not consider them Latino. Moreover, why would a Guatemalan person of indigenous descent be Latino or forced to subscribe to this European-derived identity? If you would argue because the US says that he/she is from Latin America, the next question is why are they said to be part of Latin America and are they part of Latin America? Wouldn’t this person be living proof that the homogenizing, controlling efforts of neocolonial, Spanish-Empire-esque elites do not represent the diverse realities of the region? That Latinidad is not real…and furthermore, is restrictive.
@Jorge, Jorge, it is just that you have been socialized to think you have things in common with these other “Latin America” people. Just like how you may have been socialized to think that Africans have a lot in common with other Africans, when, in reality, noting the 1000+ different languages and ethnicities, the similarities basically start and end at every African being seen as subhuman in the face of white supremacy (and I guess sharing a continent, but is that even meaningful…). All regions of the world are blessed with diversity and hybridity, and in abiding by colonial, Eurocentric orderings of it, not only are we simplifying and homogenizing peoples and cultures, but we are denying the existence of minority groups in these regions (these conceptual understandings of the world also tie into economic exploitation and marginalization).
Let me ask you what you have in common with people from “Latin America”? Yes, you come from a land that was a former Spanish colony, but not only was that in the past, does it not seem like an odd historical trait to relish and use as the foundation for solidarity? Furthermore, do you feel close with the Philippines, for they were also a Spanish colony? Language cannot be the tie because millions of people do not speak Spanish in the region. Language can only be used as the basis for a link if you are willing to negate the existence of all the indigenous people in the region…something the Spanish and Portuguese colonizers did. Furthermore, people in Equatorial Guinea, Mozambique, and Angola speak Spanish and Portuguese, do you feel close with them? And lastly, religion cannot be the tie because not everyone in the region is Catholic. Indigenous religions and African-based religions flourish in Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean. So what is the commonality that makes Latin America Latin America, with the countries it contains, while excluding many other countries in the region? If it is because of the characteristics I listed above, do you not admit that Latin America is an inherently oppressive understanding of the region, for it excludes those peoples from the history and memory of their lands? All I argue for is the structure of Spanish and Portuguese colonialism to be torn down; for there to be recognition of linguistic, racial, and religious minorities in the region (and of course for other minorities also); and for the implicit and explicit ordering and understanding of the region to be rooted in democratic, multicultural pluriversality, one that will allow all peoples to authenticate their identities freely from harassment and discrimination. In practical terms, this means no more Latin America (or Middle East, for that matter). Real, geographical regions, and, consequently peoples and cultures, should not be arbitrarily divided based on constructed, colonial ideals (this is not an argument against the nation-state but against ethnic supranationalism). If my vision were real, you, Jorge, you might lose the power structure and status quo you had been accustomed to, but you will now be living in a world where others not like you have greater cultural freedom in the absence of Latino hegemony. That would be progress to me.
@happybell, thanks for the post. I agree wholeheartedly.
Posted 23 Sep 2008 at 2:38 pm ¶
TiIxachitlan-Tlazoca wrote:
First of all there is no such thing as a latino peoples,nor nation or nationality(at least not in this time of history),nor ethnicity(any more as it once was),nor nothing at all…If anything all that is would be more of a linguistical classification…As in the spanish term for latin…As in not only the spanish(castellano)language but also: catalan,gallego,asturian,portugues,french,italian,romanian,and all other romance languages which originate from the latin language…People who live within the nations,or areas,or even if they don’t,but who speak these languages are not all or even at all decended of the romans or latins from where their languages come from…Some have germanic,celtic,slavic,or even other non indo-european ancestry…So why in heavens name would people out here consider themselves latinos,something that is false,and more of a media and politcally spread term…Especially here in the U.S…And worse because most spanish speaking/Hispanic culture people themselves have made this “latino” term popular amongst the distinct groups that claim to be so…Of course I understand their should be a term of unification for all the different nationalities and ethnicities that fall under this umbrella group but it should not be latino…Since those that speak other latin based languages are not even included within it…What about those peoples that speak the romance(latin-based)languages of france,potugal,and better yet italy-from where the real latinos originated and came out from…Why are they excluded,what makes them not latinos…Nothing really but it ain’t about the language it’s about the nation you are at or came from…The culture that is ths strongest within ones people…All people down the history line has mixed or assimilated to another…Hispanic/Hispano is a better term I believe because it is a culture and not a linguistical classification…The Hispanic-Culture is a conglomeration of distinct nationalities and ethnicities that where once under spanish influence,or that are within the bounderies of a mostly spanish speaking area…It don’t matter if they do or don’t have iberian blood or not…It is the culture that one falls under,it don’t make you less indigenous of this continent of thee Americas…Truth be told Native Americans and Hispanics should not be divided at all since most if not all,at least the majority I think,are more indigenous than not…And well you might say but Native Americans are not one people but many just bunched together for political reasons…Well yes true that,but one thing that they,and us Hispanics,have incomen is that we are natives of this continent:”AMERICA”…Thru history and blood going way back to the steepes of siberia and all Asia,from where we wandered off towards the east looking for the abode(house)of the sun,for my people that would be what is today the southwest of the u.s. and Mexico…So what about the Asians aren’t we connected thru that far past ancestry…I ain’t knocking my european ancestry nor those that have african at all…But like I said it is the culture one falls under that makes who one is…Personally I am not latino but I speak a romance language of latin origins…But that does not make me a latin(latino)…I am not Hispanic(Hispano)even dough I speak the spanish language and have spanish ancestry,only thing that makes me Hispanic is it’s culture which I was born under…I am Mexican and I am not,I am not because I am not a national of that country…I am because my asiatic ancestors,who became the nahuatl(azteca:mexica,tlaxcaltecaetc.)otomi,huaxteca,mayan,etc., ended up there centuries back before any europeans crossed the atlantic…Texas,South Texas to be more exact,and northern Mexico(Tamps.,Coahuila,N.L.,SanLuis) are my lands…I am Tejano(TexasMexican/Mexican of Texas,etc.)because my ancestors where in what is known today as the Lower Rio Grande Valley since before the u.s.,before Mexico,before it was a part of the spanish crown,lands where the coahuilteca roamed free…But most importantly I am an AMERICANO…I am that not because I was born in what today is u.s. territory but because I was born in this grand continent…So who are we really,well we are who we are,might be many categories of us but we are all just one,the same,people human beings,of the house of adam(ancestors of adam and eve)…Wait hold up did I side track what was the original question…Oh Mexicans of Korean ancestry…Well two distinct peoples with different cultures under the Hispanic-Culture group…So what was the problem…I think I might have forgotten…Anyways I think as long as you don’t forget non or your ancestral backgrounds it is all good…I don’t forget nor neglect my NativeAmerican(Coahuilteca-Mayan-Tlaxcalteca-Otomi,etc.)-Hispanic(Celtic-Germanic,etc.)-Basque-Semetic(Sepharadic/SpanishJewish,etc.)backgrounds…Point is we are all one…I’m out so take it
how you want,lates…One love,shalom!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“In the end we will all become one new man…”
Posted 10 Oct 2008 at 2:14 am ¶