Hispanic Fanatic

Here at The Hispanic Fanatic, we are positively giddy. Actually, there is no “we,” just me, but it sounds more impressive if I make the following idea seem like the product of a select committee of experts.

The occasion is the inaugural Latino of the Month award. It’s the first one because, well, I’ve only been blogging for a month. With hope, I can identify one Hispanic in April and every four weeks thereafter who does something notable, laudatory, or even notorious to merit this prestigious honor.

So who is the charter recipient of this exclusive prize, which carries no monetary value, offers no plaque, and does not even have an award ceremony covered by the E Network?

It is none other than former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson.

I’ve always liked this guy, if for no other reason than he was the first legitimate Hispanic contender for president. He dropped out of the race early, of course, because his intelligence and experience can’t make up for the fact that he has all the warmth and charisma of day-old flan. Those superficialities aside, he would have made a good president.

He earns the Latino of the Month award because his endorsement of Barack Obama garnered national attention, shook up the presidential race, and pissed off a lot of people. That’s a lot of impact for one Hispanic to have.

It’s not about the specificity of his praise for Obama. It’s because, regardless of your political affiliation, one has to admire Richardson for his willingness to take a definitive and principled stance. I’ll also add that he refused to get embroiled in petty name-calling with people who accused him of being disloyal to the Clintons (statements that had the vague stench of white people getting pissed at a Latino for not doing what he was told).

No, he did his own thing. Didn’t I say he would make a good president?

But alas, he has to settle for the next-best thing: the first Latino of the Month award. So he has that going for him.

By the way, if you have any nominees for April’s award, let me know.

Often, people will stop me on the street and ask, “Hey, Hispanic Fanatic, what is the role of government regulation when it comes to preventing racial discrimination versus abridging an individual’s First Amendment rights?”

I can’t tell you how many times this has come up.

Fortunately, we now have a precedent to clarify matters. To recap, a restaurant in Philadelphia recently posted a sign inside that read, “This is America: When ordering, please speak English.”

Well, at least they said please.

The city’s Commission on Human Relations ruled that the restaurant’s sign did not intimidate or discriminate against people who didn’t speak English.

What should we make of this? The sign is clearly a response to the restaurant owner’s irritation with the recent influx of Hispanic and Asian immigrants into his neighborhood. There is no doubt that he is being, to put it mildly, a jerk for demanding that people conform to his comfort level.

At first glance, this seems as straightforward as the infamous Wetback Wednesday incident that I blogged about recently.

There are some differences, however. The restaurant’s sign is not an overt insult like the one at the bar in Pittsburgh (by the way, what is it with Pennsylvania?). Also, this case has the government getting involved, while the Pittsburgh dust-up had no such factor.

So as much as I think the restaurant is vile for attempting to bully its customers, I have to admit that they have a right to do so. As long as they are not refusing service or actively threatening people (and there is no evidence that the management ever did), they can proclaim whatever preference or agenda on their own property that they like. Having bureaucrats tell people what they can and can’t post in their own business is beyond chilling, and I would even support those jerks in Pittsburgh if the government intervened.

So the First Amendment wins again. Although it would be nice if people, especially business owners in a position of power, realized that having the legal right to state something doesn’t give you a pass on decency or common sense. In essence, it doesn’t mean that it’s ok to be a dick. And that’s true in any language.

First off, thanks to Rafi for his insightful comment (see under “Defining My Terms“).

Second, in a comment to the Fanatic, L John asks if Southern California is going the way of Kosovo. He ponders whether Mexican-Americans and recent immigrants will demand their own country.

I’m really not qualified to analyze the situation in Kosovo, although I have at least one Serb-American friend whom I’m sure would love to post a comment (so go ahead already, dude).

But some obvious differences spring to mind:

The problem in Kosovo goes back hundreds of years and has been simmering, by some estimates, longer than North America has been on the map. Supposedly, the role of centralized religion (which we do not have in this country) plays a part. Also, about 90 percent of Kosovo is native Albanian. The odds of SoCal becoming 90 percent anything are astronomical.

Furthermore, in Kosovo, the ethnic divisions are fixed and stark. Here, in contrast, we prize assimilation. The idea is that people should adapt to American culture and then they will be regarded as rightful inhabitants. Witness that even most jingoistic Americans want people to “learn English, damn it!” But in Kosovo, no matter how long an Albanian lives among Serbs, he or she will never be regarded as Serbian (and vice versa).

Finally, the Balkans are often portrayed as a region where people look backward, which helps them preserve important cultural traditions over time. It also helps them hold grudges across generations. In America, we look forward, which is seen in our leadership in art, technology, and commerce. The drawback, of course, is that we barely know who our grandparents are. Despite the numerous flaws with our approach, it is unlikely to fuel centuries-long conflict. For all these reasons and more, SoCal will never be Kosovo.

As for the specifics of Southern California becoming a new nation, I can safely say that we will never let anyone take our movie stars and/or Disneyland.

Furthermore, the U.S. government has never given up native soil (protectorates and territories are another matter), and will not start with one of the most economically vital, densely populated areas of the country. Also, why would Mexico want a struggling nation on its borders? It has enough issues keeping its economy afloat without a fledgling land trying to find its way next door. So no organized government would stand for an independent SoCal.

By the way, I lived in Southern California for five years, and I never met anyone who wanted a separate country. I never even met anyone who thought it was a serious concept. Now, of course, maybe I just wasn’t talking to the right people. But by any standard, the people who advocate such a position are numerically and politically irrelevant. I believe the official term is “fucking nutjob.”

Regarding the flag story (see L John’s original comment under “Hello“), I know of only one incident, not the rash of events that has often been claimed. Basically, a dumb teenager staged a misguided protest (for which he was punished), which is not exactly the basis for a revolution.

In essence, most immigrants come here because they like and admire America, not because they want to form their own nation. Most first-generation Latinos, such as myself, have no desire to build a mythical Hispano empire. All this struggle over assimilation and cultural adaptation and separation is the messy byproduct of a country, rare in the world, where everybody wants to be a citizen.

In a comment to my initial post, Lori asks, “What do you make of the candidates adopting Spanish for a day as they swing through a Latino community? An attempt to be understood by everyone there, or shameless political maneuvering (or both)?” 

It’s political pandering.

According to the Pew Research Center: “Most Hispanics who are naturalized citizens (52%) speak English very well or pretty well.” Few citizens are wholly unable to communicate in English. And those are just the naturalized ones. The vast majority of native-born Hispanic citizens, like me, speak English at least as well as professional athletes (e.g., “We played good”).

So these faltering and stumbling attempts at Spanish aren’t about communicating ideas, because most people who have the right to vote can understand the English version of “I promise not to raise your taxes.” Instead, these barbarously accented speeches are a politician’s way of saying, “I am just like you, except that I’m rich and in all likelihood have no common ancestors with you beyond Australopithecus. But vote for me anyway.”