Lately immigration laws have been in the news and people-- especially those from the southwest -- have been talking about it. My friend Linda recently wrote an editorial for a list serve I'm on. She's black and has a unique perspective. I encourage you to read it:
http://www.saywhatclub.com/newsletter/sept07/coedspeaks.html
We had a friend here last July who mentioned it over dinner one evening. I honestly have to say I had not given it much thought, as this part of the country isn't flooded with Mexicans -- who are the main focus of illegal immigration-- but I know it's a big issue in the southwest. Every time we see someone from that part of the country they bring it up. Our dinner friend, Phil, lives in Vegas, and Linda lives also lives in the southwest.
Of the Mexicans I personally know, they all speak English and work. I have no problem with them. The eastern half of Washington state is full of fruit orchards. We all know who picks the fruit here. I don't know where we would be without Mexicans picking fruit. It isn't the kind of work white people care to do mainly because it doesn't even pay minimum wage. We like to pretend they're all here legally, but most of us know they wouldn't pick fruit if they were, and we turn a blind eye. This arrangement has worked pretty well for us for the past 100 years.
"So -- did ALL of your ancestors immigrate here legally?" Phil asked that evening last July- - "because mine didn't." Then he went on to explain how his Italian grandparents worried they might be detained at Ellis Island after a cousin had been held in quarantine for weeks. They detoured through Canada instead, eventually making their way south and settling in northern Idaho.
I gulped. My mother's family tree is littered with wife-deserters, abandoned orphans, and bastard children who grew up to be bootleggers with suspected connections to the Mafia-- a band of ne'er do wells. They were the kind of people whose roots were hard to trace, though God knows I've tried. Most likely they were running from the law back home somewhere in northern Europe. They all had pale skin and bright blue eyes. What I DO know is this; Like Phil's family, a couple of them drifted south from somewhere over the Canadian border in the late 1800s/early 1900s. I'm not even positive they officially became citizens. We don't know where the rest of them came from or how they got in to Amerika. We don't want to know.
My father's roots go way back on American soil. I've traced them to the 1500's. Though we are white as snow now, three hundred years ago my ancestors were dubiously listed as "guides" in Cadillac's first settlement venture from Montreal to Detroit. In genealogy studies, I have learned the word "guide" was French code for Indian. Because the French in the Old World regarded Indians as little more than savage animals, those in the New World thought it prudent not to inform business associates in France just exactly how much they were hobnobbing with their new friends, the Indians. In truth, the possibility of Cadillac's party making it on foot through the treacherous woods between Montreal and "Detroit" without an Indian guide would have been near impossible. "Detroit" was already a thriving Indian (more precisely Wendat and Chippewa) trading post before Cadillac decided to "settle" it. My ancestors were already living there.
Slave history is well known in America. Linda brought this up in her passionate article. Indian history of the Midwestern US before the Louisiana Purchase is less well known. Why? Because that part of the country wasn't a part of America then, therefore it wasn't a part of American history. American schools act as if the Midwest didn't exist at all until Thomas Jefferson bought it from France in 1803. Then voila'! Suddenly a new piece of land appears out of nowhere and is added onto America like a huge puzzle piece. I was astounded to learn then, that Samuel de Champlain-- a Frenchmen-- started converting Hurons as early as 1609, just two years after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth. For two hundred years, while the British battled Indians, the French converted them, mated with them and bought beaver pelts from them in "New France" the stomping grounds of my Wendat (Huron) ancestors.
It's the same with most of the southwest. Texas doesn't pop up in our history books until we're suddenly fighting at the Alamo-- most confusing since no mention has been made of Texas prior to that. The great American map gets a new puzzle piece of "untamed" land. But the truth is Spain was all over the the American Southwest as early as the 1500s, converting the people and building little mission towns.
So let's back up a bit to my ancestors-- Since the French did not come to the New World to colonize, there was a shortage of white French females to populate Cadillac's Detroit. However, Cadillac had the perfect solution-- A) an abundance of single young French males in the backwoods + B) an abundance of single young female Hurons in the backwoods = Detroit from 1702 until about the mid 1800s when the Erie canal was built. The reason there were so many single Huron females was because most of the males had been wiped out by other hostile tribes in the area. Again-- this was a wonderfully suitable business arrangement for the both the French and the Indians. Young French trappers would no longer be lonely in the backwoods. They would spend more time trapping, while their self-sufficient Huron wives would be perfectly content with their new husbands in their homes at the trading post. Business thrived. Everyone got rich.
The French had a word for the peoples who lived in Detroit and all along the Mississippi River on down to Louisiana. Metis. The literal translation meant "mixed"-- as in a mixture of French and Indian. The English had a similar word for the same people-- "half-breed." Not so nice.
I am blond, and look more Scandinavian than Indian, but it still shows up in my gene pool occasionally. My oldest son is dark, tans well and has distinctly Indian features, which you can see if you know it's there. I love this about him. My daughter, too, looked Indian at birth, then she whitened up. After the English started moving into the Detroit area, it was no longer OK to be a "half-breed." In my grandpa's time, the fact that our family was part Indian was kept a secret. They passed for white, but you could still see the 'Indian in the woodpile' as my great-aunts used to put it. What does any of this have to do with my feelings about immigration? I'm getting to that. . .
It seems unfair to me to make such stringent requirements for Mexicans coming to America when it's so easy for Canadians to come here. I can hardly judge Mexicans when some of my own ancestors came here illegally-- and probably should have been kicked out.
Additionally, some (a LOT) of my ancestors were here first. Then America came to us. This is exactly how it was for many of the Mexican people living in the Southwest. Also, for close to three hundred years before it became an English speaking country, the Spanish language was spoken here. We're denying our American heritage when we pretend entire pieces of the continent didn't exist until they became part of America. The land was there, the people were there, villages were there, a different culture was there. Mexicans are very much a part of who/what America is today, whether we like it or not.
I can't help thinking that the immigration issue is just a new form of racism popping up. If Mexicans were more white looking, if they were more Spanish looking, I wonder if some people would be as concerned about them coming here illegally. But most of them look like Indians. We are NOT a "white" country. We never have been. From about 20,000 years ago, there has existed a very large indigenous group of people in N. America who were non-white. They have every right to be here.
We don't want them to come through our borders illegally, though. What's past is past, and it's time to think of our futures together. We need to help them so they will have more employment opportunities in Mexico. Then they won't need to come here. When they do come here, we need to strengthen our support system so they can assimilate quickly. We need to eliminate "picking" jobs and prosecute businesses that do not pay a minimum wage if we really don't want them here. No double standards. Is this what we really want? Because if not, then we shouldn't be creating more expensive laws to enforce. If we are the Christian country we claim to be, helping them seems to be the most compassionate way of dealing with the immigration problem.
http://www.saywhatclub.com/newsletter/sept07/coedspeaks.html
We had a friend here last July who mentioned it over dinner one evening. I honestly have to say I had not given it much thought, as this part of the country isn't flooded with Mexicans -- who are the main focus of illegal immigration-- but I know it's a big issue in the southwest. Every time we see someone from that part of the country they bring it up. Our dinner friend, Phil, lives in Vegas, and Linda lives also lives in the southwest.
Of the Mexicans I personally know, they all speak English and work. I have no problem with them. The eastern half of Washington state is full of fruit orchards. We all know who picks the fruit here. I don't know where we would be without Mexicans picking fruit. It isn't the kind of work white people care to do mainly because it doesn't even pay minimum wage. We like to pretend they're all here legally, but most of us know they wouldn't pick fruit if they were, and we turn a blind eye. This arrangement has worked pretty well for us for the past 100 years.
"So -- did ALL of your ancestors immigrate here legally?" Phil asked that evening last July- - "because mine didn't." Then he went on to explain how his Italian grandparents worried they might be detained at Ellis Island after a cousin had been held in quarantine for weeks. They detoured through Canada instead, eventually making their way south and settling in northern Idaho.
I gulped. My mother's family tree is littered with wife-deserters, abandoned orphans, and bastard children who grew up to be bootleggers with suspected connections to the Mafia-- a band of ne'er do wells. They were the kind of people whose roots were hard to trace, though God knows I've tried. Most likely they were running from the law back home somewhere in northern Europe. They all had pale skin and bright blue eyes. What I DO know is this; Like Phil's family, a couple of them drifted south from somewhere over the Canadian border in the late 1800s/early 1900s. I'm not even positive they officially became citizens. We don't know where the rest of them came from or how they got in to Amerika. We don't want to know.
My father's roots go way back on American soil. I've traced them to the 1500's. Though we are white as snow now, three hundred years ago my ancestors were dubiously listed as "guides" in Cadillac's first settlement venture from Montreal to Detroit. In genealogy studies, I have learned the word "guide" was French code for Indian. Because the French in the Old World regarded Indians as little more than savage animals, those in the New World thought it prudent not to inform business associates in France just exactly how much they were hobnobbing with their new friends, the Indians. In truth, the possibility of Cadillac's party making it on foot through the treacherous woods between Montreal and "Detroit" without an Indian guide would have been near impossible. "Detroit" was already a thriving Indian (more precisely Wendat and Chippewa) trading post before Cadillac decided to "settle" it. My ancestors were already living there.
Slave history is well known in America. Linda brought this up in her passionate article. Indian history of the Midwestern US before the Louisiana Purchase is less well known. Why? Because that part of the country wasn't a part of America then, therefore it wasn't a part of American history. American schools act as if the Midwest didn't exist at all until Thomas Jefferson bought it from France in 1803. Then voila'! Suddenly a new piece of land appears out of nowhere and is added onto America like a huge puzzle piece. I was astounded to learn then, that Samuel de Champlain-- a Frenchmen-- started converting Hurons as early as 1609, just two years after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth. For two hundred years, while the British battled Indians, the French converted them, mated with them and bought beaver pelts from them in "New France" the stomping grounds of my Wendat (Huron) ancestors.
It's the same with most of the southwest. Texas doesn't pop up in our history books until we're suddenly fighting at the Alamo-- most confusing since no mention has been made of Texas prior to that. The great American map gets a new puzzle piece of "untamed" land. But the truth is Spain was all over the the American Southwest as early as the 1500s, converting the people and building little mission towns.
So let's back up a bit to my ancestors-- Since the French did not come to the New World to colonize, there was a shortage of white French females to populate Cadillac's Detroit. However, Cadillac had the perfect solution-- A) an abundance of single young French males in the backwoods + B) an abundance of single young female Hurons in the backwoods = Detroit from 1702 until about the mid 1800s when the Erie canal was built. The reason there were so many single Huron females was because most of the males had been wiped out by other hostile tribes in the area. Again-- this was a wonderfully suitable business arrangement for the both the French and the Indians. Young French trappers would no longer be lonely in the backwoods. They would spend more time trapping, while their self-sufficient Huron wives would be perfectly content with their new husbands in their homes at the trading post. Business thrived. Everyone got rich.
The French had a word for the peoples who lived in Detroit and all along the Mississippi River on down to Louisiana. Metis. The literal translation meant "mixed"-- as in a mixture of French and Indian. The English had a similar word for the same people-- "half-breed." Not so nice.
I am blond, and look more Scandinavian than Indian, but it still shows up in my gene pool occasionally. My oldest son is dark, tans well and has distinctly Indian features, which you can see if you know it's there. I love this about him. My daughter, too, looked Indian at birth, then she whitened up. After the English started moving into the Detroit area, it was no longer OK to be a "half-breed." In my grandpa's time, the fact that our family was part Indian was kept a secret. They passed for white, but you could still see the 'Indian in the woodpile' as my great-aunts used to put it. What does any of this have to do with my feelings about immigration? I'm getting to that. . .
It seems unfair to me to make such stringent requirements for Mexicans coming to America when it's so easy for Canadians to come here. I can hardly judge Mexicans when some of my own ancestors came here illegally-- and probably should have been kicked out.
Additionally, some (a LOT) of my ancestors were here first. Then America came to us. This is exactly how it was for many of the Mexican people living in the Southwest. Also, for close to three hundred years before it became an English speaking country, the Spanish language was spoken here. We're denying our American heritage when we pretend entire pieces of the continent didn't exist until they became part of America. The land was there, the people were there, villages were there, a different culture was there. Mexicans are very much a part of who/what America is today, whether we like it or not.
I can't help thinking that the immigration issue is just a new form of racism popping up. If Mexicans were more white looking, if they were more Spanish looking, I wonder if some people would be as concerned about them coming here illegally. But most of them look like Indians. We are NOT a "white" country. We never have been. From about 20,000 years ago, there has existed a very large indigenous group of people in N. America who were non-white. They have every right to be here.
We don't want them to come through our borders illegally, though. What's past is past, and it's time to think of our futures together. We need to help them so they will have more employment opportunities in Mexico. Then they won't need to come here. When they do come here, we need to strengthen our support system so they can assimilate quickly. We need to eliminate "picking" jobs and prosecute businesses that do not pay a minimum wage if we really don't want them here. No double standards. Is this what we really want? Because if not, then we shouldn't be creating more expensive laws to enforce. If we are the Christian country we claim to be, helping them seems to be the most compassionate way of dealing with the immigration problem.
4 comments:
That is a great response to the two articles in Online Voices, Linda's and (Elsie's? - I'm not sure I got her name right). But hers disturbed me a bit, and you've helped to clarify why.
Melissa, now speeding off to a long lond work day
That is indeed a great response to my article in the SWC Online Voices, Kim. I wonder why the articles, mine and Elsie's, disturbed Melissa? I will have to ask her. In an email to me, you wrote that 'there is nothing to dispute' as my feelings on the immigration issues are my own, and unique, to be sure. I do know that they are unique. I wasn't expecting dispute, actually, only, maybe, acknowledgement.
I had to re-read Elsie's article to find what might have disturbed Melissa. You will have to ask her yourself. I can only guess. I think it was the reminders of how America used to be toward's blacks. What I got from Elsie's message was she understands the position Mexicans are in. Still she feels we need to look ahead to the future of America now. I feel deeply disturbed how black people have been treated in the past and still today. It bothers me when people talk about Mexicans being lazy because I know of some hardworking Mexicans. It's no longer PC to talk down blacks, but I hear whites complaining about Mexicans and the immigration issue often. My point is few Americans have pure racial bloodlines. You can't judge a book by its cover--white, black, Mexican, Jew. Even though I look white, my grandfather didn't. I haven't forgotten. We're all in this together.
Kim ..
Great article. You obviously spent time researching the background, which I really appreciated. It was an entertaining and informative posting about some of the lesser known historical facts.
I grew up in the Southwest. I'm white, blue-eyed and look every bit the All-American blonde-haired surfer boy. But, I have a great-great grandfather who was actually Mexican (whose ancestors were from Spain). My family is quite prominent in the southwest's history, ranging from Denver to El Paso.
In Las Cruces (45 miles north of El Paso), immigrants are able to move more freely. The Border Patrol checkpoints beyond the borders are some 30 miles north of Las Cruces (a city of more than 300,000).
Illegal immigrants are a vital part of the economy in Las Cruces (and to a lesser extent, Albuquerque), whether we like it or not. The same can especially be said of El Paso, in which it is not uncommon for people living in Juarez, Mexico (literally next door to El Paso), to find work in El Paso and commute daily. You'll find an abundance of home-cleaning, janitorial, warehousing, data-entry and other menial work available and cheap.
I lived in Juarez over a summer. Many Mexicans dream of living in the United States because of a perception that the grass is always greener here. And I met many deaf people there - if you think homeless people have it tough in the United States, let alone deaf people, imagine what it's like in Mexico. Little financial support; educational requirements pale in comparison to the US (as a whole and especially for disabled/deaf children); and poverty rules supreme.
Conversely, with a recession looming, native Americans are going to be wanting a greater stake in their livelihoods, so can you blame them for scapegoating Mexicans and illegal immigrants? And the "law of the jungle" that is the business world would rather hire cheap labor than afford expensive unions who may go on strike any day now after complaining of not enough medical paid leave (while illegal immigrants might be provided Worker's Comp if the employer has at least some scruples).
The problem with politics is that you will never please everybody. Politics by it's nature is adverserial over whose principles, beliefs or perspectives are most important - even if ultimately, a political process is achieved through compromise (and sometimes not).
And you know what I always say: where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit at the table.
So, we do need better controls for immigrants but the problem isn't Mexicans. The problem is the stereotyping and blame.
Have we become a nation of victims?
Great post (sorry for the diatribe).
:o)
Paotie
Post a Comment