Where I feel uncomfortable is this whole idea of nativisim…it is where the battle turns into a Chicano nativism vs Anglo nativism. Nativism is one of the aspects of (at least some sections of) the Chicano movement that I’ve always had an issue with. It is the waving of the Mexican flag at protests, but not as a symbol of cultural pride (which I have no problem with) but as a symbol of Mexico against the invading power of the United States, it is the view that the Mexican immigration is not just a physical movement of people in search of opportunity, but a political movement of taking back the land that was originally stolen from Mexico (who of course originally stole it from the indigenous).

Most of the time when I hear talk about liberating Aztlan, I make excuses for it, recognizing that all political movements need a concept around which to increase the sentiment of community and therefore create a cohesive political unit that can be mobalized. In that respect Aztlan, or liberating it, are myths the movement has created to sustain itself. But at the same time its obvious they are more than purely rhetorical concepts, and that they do help create a nativism vs nativism instead of a dialogue to try to seriously address our concerns about civil rights and our concepts of citizenship or who we believe has legitimate claim to be here.

Immigration is not an issue that is cut and dry, when the discussion gets framed in an “us” against “them,” or a pro vs anti-immigrant(ation) discourse, it anticipates a more neuanced discussion of the situation, as well as our ability to asses in what ways it affects our society. What the benefits and the possible drawbacks of mass immigration are, whom it may harm (and benefit) the most in our communities, and in what ways those negative aspects might be able to be ameliorated through policy. Or whether, rather than centering on slogans like “keep on crossing,” it might be more productive to discuss what could be done to decrease the push factors in Mexico (or other countries) and the pull factors here in the US that lead people to see their only salvation as being forced to leave their families and communities behind in order to travel thousands of miles away from home to eke out a meager living in a foreign land.

I truly believe in defining myself as a global citizen, one who (while recognizing the affects that our location has on who we are) does not define himself by any affinity to a political territory. I realize it is more of an ideal that I strive for than a reality, as I realize that the concept of “global citizenry” is to some extent bullshit as long as we still place an unequal value on the different political territories (and those who come from them). I also realize that nationalism can be an important tool to fight oppression, but I think it needs to be used (if it is to be used at all) with a serious recognition of its shortcomings and negative aspects.

I agree with your pessimism. Nativism will always trump tolerance. No one cares that we’re all “newcomers” in one way or another. I really appreciate you pointing out the “contrast between the personal accounts that you have summarized and the image being put forth in the “mainstream” media.” Because that difference is really what Global Voices is all about. It’s a daunting task to dig deeper on international issues than the mainstream media is willing to offer, but in all honesty, I think that GV is the best place to start.

Medea,

I can’t wait to read your reflections. And … I think that when we meet, I should take you for a real tour of sorority houses – it’s even worse in real life.

Ces,

I don’t think I got enough sleep last night to effectively articulate my own thoughts about the boycotts, but I do see a lot of complexity, lots of contradictions, and a little hypocrisy. I’m gonna go take a nap and then cycle around the city with my camera. it’ll be interesting to see what the day brings us.

The boycott to me becomes a blurry matter. What will it really do?

I know some folks are scared there’s going to be chaos, but quite frankly, I highly doubt our entire country will fall to it’s feet. However, all of this—I am glad—is finally opening up dialogue.

I want this to continue.

Cindylu, pondered whether she should even participate, and I felt the same way. I work at a private university that caters a lot to hispanics—but I also work at an IT department that has nothing to do with illegal immigration. Even then, most of my co-workers are taking time off, in observance of today.

I’m doing it too.

My fiancee went to work today, and she was confused. She doesn’t know what to think. She doesn’t quite understand. And as I drove her to work today, I tried to explain, as I have been for the last few weeks, why something like this is important to me, and to everyone else. Should she have stayed home?

No, there are countless other ways to express solidarity, compassion, and understanding about this movimiento popular than just a boicot.

What I find interesting is the contrast between the personal accounts that you have summarized and the image being put forth in the “mainstream” media.

For heaven sake, the “expert” to analyze the days events on the “Today Show” this morning was Pat I-am-a-sensible fascist Buchanan.

And all the hoopla surrounding the “Spanish” American national anthem. Who the Hell cares? Most people don’t know the words in English!

Not only do immigrants (not just Latinos/Latin American/Mexicans/(illegal) aliens) have to fight ignorance, they have to struggle with the constant misrepresentation in all aspects of life.

If we are to succeed (all of us, because we are in this together) we will have to overcome the many obstacles that lie ahead. Do we have the will? I am not sure. I do believe that things will get worse, more contentious, and probably nastier in tone before it gets better.