Comments on: Ruben Navarrette

By: Karen

Karen — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 04:15:44 +0000

I doubt he can write about whatever he wants. Newspapers hire Latino columnists to write about “Latino issues.”

And to the media all Latino issues begin and end with immigration.

By: oso

oso — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:20:36 +0000

That’s a good point Karen. However, he is certainly at a point in his career now that he can choose to write about whatever he wants, but for whatever reason he sticks to immigration over and over again.

By: Karen

Karen — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:55:32 +0000

I think he’s kind of bitter because Mexican-Americans are limited when it comes to careers in the media. He has a BA and an MA from Harvard. Others in his position are writing for Time, Newsweek, giving commentary on cable TV, etc but Mexican-Americans are not allowed in those jobs.

We don’t get to comment on “American issues” because we’re not seen as American, even if our families have been here for generations. We’re seen as “aliens.”

Mexican-Americans get to comment in the media if the issue is immigration.

And then they ususally choose somebody with heavily accented, broken English not only to undermine the message, but because to the media that is what a “real” Mexican sounds like. People who actually know how to debate are not booked.

So can you blame Navarette for being a little bit arrogant or bitter?

By: Carlos Chavarin

Carlos Chavarin — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 10:00:22 +0000

I usually agree with Ruben Navarette’s columns. I don’t beleive he is a spokesperson for any particular group. His book, “A Darker Shade of Crimson” was a factor in influencing me to complete my Bacleor’s Degree.

By: Roy Jimenez

Roy Jimenez — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:37:10 +0000

I to, likke Ruben Navarette, grew up and evolved in the San Juaquin Valley. Somehow Mr. Navarette’s vision of the Chicano is cloudy and blurred. He gives a very coservative perspective that is indeed disturbing and at the same time distorted. His “know it all” attitude is not only arrogant and sloppy, it is generally wrong. I don’t trust him, I don’t believe him, and I don’t like him. He is to me comic opera, great theater but no substance.

Roy Jimenez – rjime532@aol.com

By: aliron1314

aliron1314 — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 05:59:37 +0000

First time visitor to this site. I was gathering information about Ruben Nanarrette and got to this link. Some very interesting and intelligently presented views here.

By: HispanicPundit

HispanicPundit — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:17:23 +0000

Like DT I too have personally dialogued with him via email. Everytime we chated he always seemed easy going and very attentive and while I don’t always agree with everything he writes, I can relate to a lot of what he says and consider him a breath of fresh air compared to other modern day journalists.

By: Daily Texican

Daily Texican — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:07:11 +0000

Did you know Navarrette is a former MEChistA? At least, that’s what he once emailed me. I used to trade emails w/ him back when he was in Dallas. He said he would read my blog. I somehow doubt that. He’s ok. I like his points sometimes, but yup, very arrogant.

There’s no real umph in his columns, but he is a smart guy who can break it down. He says, what we’ve been saying all of our lives. Really, I read a column once, and I could have sworn that debate had been going on for 10 years. Then I realized, he writes for folks who might not have been part of that discourse. Sepa.

By: elenamary

elenamary — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:12:58 +0000

Say it loud sister Julissa! and for the person who mentioned “John Stossel”…well, John Stossel is sexist ball muncher.

By: Julissa

Julissa — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:35:53 +0000

Seyd said it best, “La Divina Garza” I also read his articles – I love to hate Ruben Navarette. His writing IS sooooo obnoxious it drives me nuts, but I cannot not read it, know what I mean?