The next three essays will focus on the three largest groups of Latinx people in the U.S.A. Hispanics in the U.S.A. prefer to be identified by their country of origin. And though there are at least three generations of Hispanics, in general, they tend to hold on to their national roots and cultural perspectives. We will begin with Mexican Americans, the oldest and largest groups of Hispanics in the U.S.A.
We might begin by asking, "How did Mexicans originate in the U.S.A? Why did they come here in the first place?" The truth of the matter is that Mexicans have always been here. They did not originate in the U.S.A. per se, but indeed, originated in the land, much of which was stolen from them by the U.S.A. The mentality is as someone has said "We never crossed the border: The border
crossed us."
The presence of Mexicans in the U.S.A. is due primarily to the conquest and subsequent occupation of Mexico by Spain in 1519, and also the westward movement or expansion across North America by English-speaking people not long after the thirteen British colonies on the continent's seaboard won their independence from Britain. With the exhortation "Go west young man" ringing in their ears, the Anglo colonists settled the territory up to the banks of the Mississippi River between 1776 and 1800. A track of land extending from British North America and from the Mississippi River to the Rockies caused the American republic to be doubled in size. The young nation was well on its way to consummating a mission in the making, a mission that would later be called Manifest Destiny, an expansion westward-to spread democracy and freedom-which would culminate in the occupation by Anglo-Saxon Americans of a territory stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific (Himilce Novas, Everything You Need to Know About Latino History. New York: Penguin Group, 2008, p.66).
It is ironic that this westward expansion and subsequent land-theft took place soon after the thirteen colonies gained their independence and sovereignty while at the same time repeating the very same colonial history that they had been subjected to. It was truly a case of formerly occupied people now becoming the occupiers. It was the historical repetition of the oppressed becoming the oppressor. At this juncture, we can truly allude to the saying that those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its errors.
A good deal of that territory between the Atlantic and the Pacific belonged to Mexico, and thus it was not long before the Anglos came into contact with the Mexicans. Around 1790, Kentucky mountain men trespassed on Spanish-American land in New Mexico to trap beavers, which were coveted for their fur. They trapped without licenses, and they traveled where they pleased. Sometimes their loot was confiscated, but no matter, they kept coming back for more. These frontier beaver trappers were grubby, bearded, and uncouth; they cussed and spat and picked fights willy-nilly. Often, the native peoples and mestizos of New Mexico would hold perfume to their noses if they had to stand next to the Anglo trappers. And so, the relationship between the fledgling United States and Mexico got off to a rough start (Novas, op. cit.).
In an editorial he wrote in support of the annexation of Texas that ran in the July-August 1845 edition of the United States Magazine and Democratic review, a political and literary journal that was published monthly in Washington beginning in 1837, John O'Sullivan, the magazine's cofounder and editor, put into words what the citizens of the nascent American republic had been feeling from the start and coined "Manifest Destiny." In his editorial, O'Sullivan maintained that "our manifest destiny is to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions." In a nutshell, Manifest Destiny was an Anglo-American version of the national supremacy theory and justified the aspiration of the United States to extend its borders "from sea to shining sea." The phrase took, and so did the sentiment. Politicians of all persuasions made mention of Manifest Destiny in articles and speeches everywhere, and they felt as full of imperialist zeal and purpose as the Spanish conquistadores had (Ibid., p. 67).
In the first half of the nineteenth century, the American republic would work especially hard at manifesting its destiny. Acquiring Mexican territory seemed like a logical step in American expansion, although the more extreme opponents of Manifest Destiny spoke of pushing America's borders as far north as the Arctic Circle and as far as Tierra del Fuego. Several Mexican observers have remarked that viewed from a different perspective, Manifest Destiny could have been called the "Mexican Fate," since that nation that suffered the most from this doctrine was Mexico (Ibid.).
In the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's, some undocumented Mexicans crossed the border without guides, an extremely dangerous undertaking, then roamed the Southwest and California until finding work. Others were led or transported across the border after paying a large sum to smugglers, known as "coyotes," who profited in the millions in this human traffic. These practices continued in the 1990's, and are still prevalent today, but a policy of stricter law enforcement in urban areas along the U.S.-Mexico border, first implemented in 1994 under Operation Gatekeeper, forced border crossers farther and farther of the beaten path and into remote desert areas of Eastern California and Arizona to avoid detection, making the crossing all the more perilous. In the years 1993 to 1996, almost 1,200 persons by official counts, lost their lives in border crossings because of exposure to heat and cold, dehydration, snakebites, injury and murder (Ibid., p. 102).
Some with border crossing cards have managed to remain in the United States by buying round-trip airline tickets to a destination far from the border as they enter the country. Once in Chicago, Detroit, or some other place, they join friends or relatives who may have found them a job. In the old days, when security at U.S. ports was lax, they would sell their return airline tickets which provided enough money until the first paycheck. The new arrivals would then lose themselves in the crowd and join the vast underground economy-but, of course, without legal recourse, and always under the threat of discovery, arrest, and deportation (Ibid., p. 103).
From this history of land-theft, economic havoc, forced migration, and second-class treatment in the Diaspora of the U.S.A., we are faced with the need for a theology which will be relevant in addressing the needs of our Mexican sisters and brothers. The theology needs to emerge from their historical and present-day experiences. It cannot be a "top-down" theology imposed by the colonizers, who in fact, have forced them to migrate to the U.S.A. It has to be a theology that in essence says that God has heard the cry of the people. It must be a theology that puts God in solidarity with these victims of injustice and oppression.
Out of this reality, Mexican-Americans (Chicanos) will have to insist on their theology recognizing the process of liberation. This theology will have to introduce and include the concept of "mestizaje (cultural/racial blend)." Mexican-Americans have been discriminated against and considered inferior because of the mixtures of the three races: indigenous, African, and Spanish. Chicano theology must take a new positive by using mestizaje symbolically to reinforce their identity and their positive cultural attributes. This will have to be done in the same way that "Black" once negative and derogatory, was symbolically given a positive and liberating meaning by Black leaders (Aime Cesaire, Discourse on Colonialism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972, p. 74).
Chicano leaders have to redirect the phenomenon of mestizaje, strengthening their identity, toward letting the phenomenon give rise to the struggle for equality and dignity. No one can do this for them; they must do it themselves (Andres Guerrero, A Chicano Theology. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1987, p. 160).
Theologically speaking, Mexican Americans must look for some alternatives for strengthening their history, culture, language, and dignity as human beings. The Church is one vehicle they can utilize provided they see the process of liberation going on concerning education. There is a need to organize or institutionalize endeavor to move leadership back into the barrios of the Southwest and wherever Mexican Americans live in the Diaspora (Ibid., p. 162).
Only as long as theology addresses the condition of our Mexican American sisters and brothers in the Diaspora, can it be considered faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Any theology which disregards or ignores these conditions and experiential realities, is a "pseudo-theology," to which the Church cannot adhere. The theology has to be a liberating theology which stresses God's salvific activity in the midst of agony, injustice, oppression, and suffering.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
No comments:
Post a Comment