Small-talk Dialogue: Racism in a Biblical/Theological Framework: Fuerza...

Small-talk Dialogue: Racism in a Biblical/Theological Framework: Fuerza...: Before moving on to the next essay which will focus on the Cuban-American community, I would like to briefly address a movement that has ...

Racism in a Biblical/Theological Framework: Fuerzas Armadas de Liberacion Nacional (Armed Forces of National Liberation)

Before moving on to the next essay which will focus on the Cuban-American community, I would like to briefly address a movement that has had an impact on the Puerto Rican-American community.  I am referring to the group known as FALN which stands for Fuerzas Armadas de Liberacion Nacional (Armed Forces of National Liberation).  This was a paramilitary group whose focus was taking direct action to achieve the independence of Puerto Rico. I will not go into much detail on this essay concerning this group because my focus is on the issue of how we evaluate the issue of ethnic and racial discrimination within the framework of Scripture and theology. The reader is encouraged to do her/his own research on this group and draw her/his own conclusions.  I would also encourage the reader to read my previous essay on Puerto Ricans in the diaspora in the U.S.A. and determine for herself/himself if the role played by FALN is a legitimate one by biblical/theological standards.

As mentioned before, FALN was a paramilitary organization that focused specifically on the independence of Puerto Rico, and to a lesser extent, on the democratic rights of Puerto Ricans living in the U.S.A. It is said that they were guided by a Marxist ideology, and they did believe in resorting to armed struggle as part of the mission to achieve the goal of political indepence.  They claimed responsibility for many acts of ¨terror¨ in both the U.S.A.  and in Puerto Rico.  I personally witnessed one of these ¨terrorist¨ acts when I was working as a teletype operator for Thompson-Mckinnon, a brokerage house in lower Manhattan.  The year was 1975.  While I was I was typing, I heard an explosion which came from across the street.  Suddenly, I saw people running in different directions and within minutes of the explosion, many police cars and firetrucks arrived on the scene.  The building in which the Fraunces Tavern was located had been bombed and several people had died as a result of the bombing. FALN claimed responsibility for this ¨terrorist¨ act.

The reader may want to know why I place the word ¨terrorist¨ within quotes.  The reason for this is because the terms ¨terrorists¨ and ¨freedom fighters¨ are relative depending on whose perspective is the dominant one.  The American revolutionaries fighting against England for national independence were considered ¨freedom fighers,¨ and Palestinians and other Arabs who have fought against Zionist Israel and their lackeys are designated as ¨terrorists.¨"  The issue is not so much whether armed struggle should or should not be used, but rather whether the cause for which armed struggle is used is a justified one.

My issue is a different one.  Is armed struggle, which usually resorts in bloodshed, a valid way of achieving justice according to the Christian tradition?  The answer to this question will depend on who one asks.  Christians on both sides of the issue will give different answers according to not only their personal conviction, but also according to which interests they are trying to promote and reserve. Many American Christians will vehemently defend the method of armed struggle used by the American revolutionaries who fought against England, but then turn around and condemn those who use similar methods to defend what they consider their legitimate rights.

My question would be, whose particular biblical hermeneutic (interpretation) is the correct one in terms of addressing the issues of war and peace?  Is the correct hermeneutic determined by those in power or should it be determined by those who believe and consider themselves to be oppressed?

I invite you, the reader to join this dialogue by sharing your perspectives and views.  No answer is ¨right¨ or ¨wrong¨ in and of itself.  Your participation is most welcome and appreciated.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona

Racism in A Biblical/Theological Perspective: Puerto Ricans in the Diaspora

                                                             Puerto Ricans in the Diaspora

This essay will focus on the presence of Puerto Ricans in the diaspora, i.e. the presence of Puerto Ricans in mainland U.S.A.  We ask why are so many Puerto Ricans in the U.S.A?  Any honest and serious student of history will know that the major factor in the presence of Puerto Ricans in the U.S.A. is due primarily to the colonization of our island by the U.S.A. after the Spanish-American War in 1898, and subsequently the economic chaos on the island generated by the colonization. It is precisely because of the colonial relationship between Puerto Rico and the U.S.A. that we make, for the purposes of this dialogue, a distinction between Puerto Ricans in the U.S.A., on the one hand, and on the other hand, Hispanics (Latinos) who come here from other countries.

Himilce Novas raises the questions as to why isn´t Puerto Rican migration considered immigration and how did it get started?  She informs us that since all Puerto Ricans are citizens-no matter if they dwell in San Juan or in San Francisco-and not foreigners, they can travel freely back and forth between the island and mainland U.S.A.  without passports or visas.  In other words, their movement constitutes the internal migration of Americans, not immigration.  Confusion abounds in mainstream society about Puerto Rican citizenship status.
Most mainland Puerto Rican mainlanders have a story or two to tell about the time they were asked about their green card or Puerto Rican currency, or Puerto Rico´s president, and more than one media pundit has pontificated on national television about the issue of ¨illegal Puerto Rican immigrants¨ in America (Himilce Novas, Everything You Need to Know About Latino History, p.154).

Puerto Ricans first came to the U.S.A. in the 1860´s.  After Puerto Rico was ceded to the U.S.A at the end of the Spanish-American War, more Puerto Ricans making their way to the U.S.A., and after 1917, when they were given U.S.A. citizenship, they began to settle or sojourn, an experience fraught with risks, uncertainty, and obstacles, including a language barrier, poverty, social isolation, and overt discrimination. In the early days, the majority went to Florida and New York to labor in cigar-making shops. Forty percent of those who arrived between 1890 and 1910 eventually returned to Puerto Rico (Novas, p. 155).

The first great wave of migration from Puerto Rico to mainland U.S.A took place only in the aftermath of World War II, and lasted until 1967.  The reasons were many, but they essentially boiled down to one issue: economics.  During World War II, about one hundred thousand Puerto Ricans had served in the U.S. military.  Military life exposed these islanders to the ¨superior" quality of life on the mainland, fueling their desire to move north.  In addition, Puerto Rico´s population doubled in size to two million during the first quarter of the twentieth century, and continued to grow at a rapid rate due to improvement in medical services.  With so many more people on the island, the standard of living did not rise substantially, and the unemployment rate soared.  By contrast, jobs on the mainland were plentiful.  New York City was a destination for Puerto Rican workers , who found low-paying labor intensive jobs in the manufacturing sector-which eagerly hired unskilled and semi-skilled workers-making apparel, shoes, toys, novelties, and electrical good, and assembling furniture and mattresses.  They also went to work in the food and hotel industries, the meatpacking, and baking industries, distribution, laundry service, and domestic service.  About half of all these workers were women (Novas, p. 155).

Since 1967, Puerto Rican islanders have settled on the mainland spurts, depending on the health of the U.S economy, and the mainland job market.  Those who went to New York City in the 1960´s generally wound up in manufacturing, even though this sector had already began a gradual decline as early as the 1950´s.   Then in the 1970´s,  New York City was gripped by a major financial crisis as businesses packed up and headed south and overseas in search of low-wage, non-union labor.  This shrinking of the manufacturing sector had a devastating effect on New York City´s Puerto Ricans , who generally did not have the formal education needed to fill in the white-collar jobs that were opening up in the city´s growing service sector (Novas, p. 156).

It should be added that for many decades, Puerto Rican migrant workers, about whom most Americans are not even aware, have worked on a season basis harvesting potatoes on Long Island, fruits and vegetables in New Jersey and New York tobacco in Connecticut, and sugar beets in Michigan (Novas, p. 156).

Puerto Ricans have historically been the most socially and economically disadvantaged of all Latinos.  In 1998, for instance, a full 30.9  percent of Puerto Ricans lived in poverty, and 43.5 percent of Puerto Rican children lived below the poverty level.  In 2000, approximately 40 of Puerto Ricans had slipped to or below the poverty line.  The depressed economic status of mainland Puerto Ricans has been attributed to a number of phenomena, such as the disproportionate number of Puerto Rican migrants settling stateside as compared to immigrant groups , owing to the fact that Puerto Rican´s U.S. citizenship removes all obstacles to entering the mainland.  Low levels of educational attainment, limited job skills, disease disparities (including a high incidence of diabetes, high blood pressure, and depression in the Puerto Rican community), and drug use have also been frequently cited as reasons for the economically underprivileged class of Puerto Ricans on the mainland.  Some social observers have suggested that the culprits underlying all these circumstances are rampant ethnic and racial discrimination; the language barrier, and the process of transculturation, of straddling the two cultures and two-languages, which is commonly accompanied by a disorienting sense of being ¨neither here nor there¨ (Novas, p. 157).

It is important to point out that the socio-economic status of mainland Puerto Ricans is advancing at a steady pace.  Large numbers of mainland Puerto Ricans hold professional, managerial, technical, and administrative support jobs, which are cornerstones of economic well-being.  Interestingly, Puerto Rican mainlanders who live outside of the Northeast have shown better economic outcomes than their counterparts in the Northeast, owing to their human capital and labor market characteristics (Novas, p. 158).

Two questions come into play here.  They are:

1.  How do we evaluate colonization from a biblical/theological perspective?

2.  How do we evaluate the status of second-class citizenship from a biblical/theological standpoint?

I have consistently maintained in these essays, that the grain of Scripture (especially the Gospel accounts) mitigates against both the illegal and immoral usurpation of land, on the one hand, and relegation of a group of people to second-class on the other.  I now invite you to share your perspective as to whether or not we can examine both colonialism and the lack of democratic rights in the context of the Christian tradition, and of theology as a whole.  Please feel free to share your views and how theology fits or does not fit into this discussion about colonization and discrimination.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona