DSCC Your Still On Notice
A couple of weeks ago, I put Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on notice for a 35-second Internet video ad comparing undocumented immigrants crossing the border with bazooka-toting terrorists and Osama bin Laden. DSCC quickly took the ad off the website after Hispanics blasted the Democratic Party for their hypocrisy.
Although the ad was pulled off, up to now, neither Sen. Charles Schumer nor the DSCC have offered an apology to the Hispanic community. As the mid-term elections are quickly approaching, I don't see this happening anytime soon. It seems like this year has become an open season on Hispanics and this ad happens to provide some insight as to the type of political attacks that we should expect in the coming months from both political parties who are battling out for control for Congress.
Stace at Dos Centavos just reported that another Democrat, Harold Ford, also has an anti-immigration ad in his Tennessee senate race.
Last year, when Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Howard Dean spoke at the National Council of La Raza's (NCLR) annual conference, he outlined the core values within the Democratic Party
I know the all the arguments about protest voting but the justification seems to be that little transgressions such as breaking a rule or two that others are subject to, or letting things slide here and there, is forgivable because of the greater good of "The Movement." If this is the case, then for how long do we let it continue? Say the Democrats do get into office, don't they have to adhere to the same standards we put on the Rethugs? Are they not obligated to their constituents without looking as if they lied to them? Or do they get a pass, just because they are Democrats?
The problem is, if people are going to whore themselves to stay in the good graces of the center, and, politics aside, willingly use distortion and fear mongering, then what the fuck will these people do when there's literally something important at stake? As history obviously shows us, those in power rely on the promotion of a certain ideology to maintain cultural and linguistic hegemony. From the turn of the 20th century well into the 1930s the US was an apartheid state (that is to say it was legal to discriminate on the basis of nationality and mere appearance) because people were considered either American - meaning white Anglo-American - or Mexican. Being Mexican meant, being dirty, unworthy of living here in the US. Sound familar? It should, that is the same thing being used now.
There are those who wonder why those of us who are Hispanic are overly sensitive when a word like "Mexican" is used freely. Although this word should innocently be denoted as a "citizen of Mexico" or a "person of Mexican-descent", but to a gringo the word also connotes. The word conjures up many things in the mind of the gringo: a swarthy race of people who were half-Indian, the stereotypes of the shifty-eyed thief, dangerous drug abuser, or the passive siesta-taking fellow in a serape who is napping against a cactus. When a television ads comes on, all the person is seeing is someone who is not white crossing the border. Visual rhetoric is more powerful then oral or written rhetoric, hence the Willie Horton ad. If the DSCC thinks they are specifically are targeting a sub-group within the Hispanic community, they are sadly mistaken. The words Hispanic and Latino already are synonymous with illegal immigrant and illegal alien. If I got a nickel for every time have been asked, "Where am I from?" I probably would be a billionaire. When that question is being asked to a Hispanic, it does not have the same meaning if it was asked to a gringo. To a Hispanic, they are being asked what country did they come from; assuming anybody non-white just happens to be NOT American.
Well, enough is enough; enough of the privateers who contunue mixing their own racism and xenophobia with populist patriotism and demands "more can be done" about immigration. Of course, we need to protect our borders, but we do not need to conduct witch-hunts and enforcement-only stopgap measures to achieve this goal. To ensure our border are safe, we need an immigration policy that will recognize immigrants as economic refugees, not some sub-human savages from countries less civilized than ours.
If we are going to clean house of the corrupted, of the two faced liars and spinners, of the whores and used car salesmen now raping the country from the right, we don't need to sink to their level. If we are going to call ourselves progressive and proceed to hide our head in the sand by never calling out those within our party who feel the need to scapegoat and persecute immigrants whenever it is politically convenient, we are no better than the ones we are trying to kick out of office. And in this case, this is not the party for me.
Although the ad was pulled off, up to now, neither Sen. Charles Schumer nor the DSCC have offered an apology to the Hispanic community. As the mid-term elections are quickly approaching, I don't see this happening anytime soon. It seems like this year has become an open season on Hispanics and this ad happens to provide some insight as to the type of political attacks that we should expect in the coming months from both political parties who are battling out for control for Congress.
Stace at Dos Centavos just reported that another Democrat, Harold Ford, also has an anti-immigration ad in his Tennessee senate race.
Last year, when Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Howard Dean spoke at the National Council of La Raza's (NCLR) annual conference, he outlined the core values within the Democratic Party
Our moral values, Latinos and Democrats, are much more similar than some would have us believe...I have been meaning to write about my thoughts about, but have been caught up with the Mexican election, which I will write about my own personal thoughts on the issue. After reading Maegan la Mala's thought provoking post, Latinos not Invited to Any of the Parties, at VivirLatino, it had me thinking about a recent statement Stace made regarding Barbara Radnofsky, Texas Democratic Senatorial candidate.
"And while we're talking about moral values...it's not a moral value to scapegoat undocumented immigrants. President Bush won't stand up to the anti-immigrant forces in his own Party...
The Republican leadership targets minorities to advance their own party agenda, but in elections they look for ways to divide us. It was African-Americans in 2002, gays in 2004, and it's going be immigrants in 2006, you wait and see. There's no place for discrimination in America. Democrats will never divide Americans to win elections.
Of course, the apologist Democrat in us will say that Radnofsky is only trying to appease the voters in the "center" by "talking tough."It is becoming more evident that our two-party system, are egar enough to sell out Hispanics in a minute if it means getting elected. And I can not really blame Maegan if she is "seriously considering sitting this one out."
I know the all the arguments about protest voting but the justification seems to be that little transgressions such as breaking a rule or two that others are subject to, or letting things slide here and there, is forgivable because of the greater good of "The Movement." If this is the case, then for how long do we let it continue? Say the Democrats do get into office, don't they have to adhere to the same standards we put on the Rethugs? Are they not obligated to their constituents without looking as if they lied to them? Or do they get a pass, just because they are Democrats?
The problem is, if people are going to whore themselves to stay in the good graces of the center, and, politics aside, willingly use distortion and fear mongering, then what the fuck will these people do when there's literally something important at stake? As history obviously shows us, those in power rely on the promotion of a certain ideology to maintain cultural and linguistic hegemony. From the turn of the 20th century well into the 1930s the US was an apartheid state (that is to say it was legal to discriminate on the basis of nationality and mere appearance) because people were considered either American - meaning white Anglo-American - or Mexican. Being Mexican meant, being dirty, unworthy of living here in the US. Sound familar? It should, that is the same thing being used now.
There are those who wonder why those of us who are Hispanic are overly sensitive when a word like "Mexican" is used freely. Although this word should innocently be denoted as a "citizen of Mexico" or a "person of Mexican-descent", but to a gringo the word also connotes. The word conjures up many things in the mind of the gringo: a swarthy race of people who were half-Indian, the stereotypes of the shifty-eyed thief, dangerous drug abuser, or the passive siesta-taking fellow in a serape who is napping against a cactus. When a television ads comes on, all the person is seeing is someone who is not white crossing the border. Visual rhetoric is more powerful then oral or written rhetoric, hence the Willie Horton ad. If the DSCC thinks they are specifically are targeting a sub-group within the Hispanic community, they are sadly mistaken. The words Hispanic and Latino already are synonymous with illegal immigrant and illegal alien. If I got a nickel for every time have been asked, "Where am I from?" I probably would be a billionaire. When that question is being asked to a Hispanic, it does not have the same meaning if it was asked to a gringo. To a Hispanic, they are being asked what country did they come from; assuming anybody non-white just happens to be NOT American.
Well, enough is enough; enough of the privateers who contunue mixing their own racism and xenophobia with populist patriotism and demands "more can be done" about immigration. Of course, we need to protect our borders, but we do not need to conduct witch-hunts and enforcement-only stopgap measures to achieve this goal. To ensure our border are safe, we need an immigration policy that will recognize immigrants as economic refugees, not some sub-human savages from countries less civilized than ours.
If we are going to clean house of the corrupted, of the two faced liars and spinners, of the whores and used car salesmen now raping the country from the right, we don't need to sink to their level. If we are going to call ourselves progressive and proceed to hide our head in the sand by never calling out those within our party who feel the need to scapegoat and persecute immigrants whenever it is politically convenient, we are no better than the ones we are trying to kick out of office. And in this case, this is not the party for me.
Tags:
