Global Relations

Global Relations

Those Mexicans Will Have Us All Speaking Spanish

posted by Sam Richards


Do you have any idea how many times you’ve been lied to and didn’t know it? Really…think about it. How often does your silly, gullible self accept something as true because…well…because you believed the source? And how often have you passed on the lie to others? It’s painful for me to even think about it in my own case.

So I recently received an email from a friend that contained a video of a story that Fox News broadcast a while back. The tag line said that I needed to watch it to understand a terrible injustice brought about by liberals, illegal immigration, and political correctness — not necessarily in that order. It was one of those emails that I receive once or twice per week. Take a look at the video for yourself (it’s only a 36 second clip):

If your first response is to tilt your head to the side and scratch the back of your skull while having a dazed and confused look on your face, then you know exactly how it affected me. The thought that went along with said reaction, however, was the same one that I had when I was a kid and someone offered me the opportunity to see some freak such as a “bearded lady” at the local carnival — “this simply sounds too crazy to be true.”

Being the skeptic that I am, I decided to conduct an investigation to see if I could get to the bottom of it and find out what really happened. I started by reading some of the comments that were being made on YouTube. They were pretty scathing: “Round ‘em up and send ‘em home,” said one patriot. Another brain surgeon in the making chimed in, “This is what happens when we elect a black man as president.” (The politically correct violation that is referenced in the video occurred a couple of years ago, by the way, long before Obama entered our national spotlight.) Clearly, these blockheads were not searching for the real story and so I would not find it there.

So I plugged some combination of words such as “Oregon Mexican firefighter fired” and quickly found what I wanted: a statement from the State of Oregon’s Department of Forestry that explained the matter in considerable detail. It took me all of about 45 seconds to read, but what it revealed was very depressing (given the number of people who watched and believed the original story). I’ll summarize it for you here:

Oregon’s Department of Forestry contracts private fire crews. (Remember conservatives, privatization = cost savings = free market capitalism.) If these companies choose to hire non-English-speaking firefighters for a crew, then they must have bilingual crew leaders because while English is the official language of firefighting in the U.S., crew leaders MUST be able to communicate with their crews for purposes of safety. If a private company hires Mexican firefighters, then English only speaking crew leaders can’t lead that team. If they hire only English-speaking firefighters, then the crew leaders need only have the ability to speak English.

It makes sense that so many people hate liberals and Mexicans and political correctness with stories like this floating around on the WWW. Who wouldn’t be clamoring for the microphone to add to the shouting chorus of red-blooded citizens who want to preserve the United States for the “real Americans” (not to be confused with Native Americans, of course).

So how many times have you been duped by such an email or a rumor? How often do you find yourself saying, “No way. This can’t possibly be true. I have to tell everyone I know so this outrage will stop.” And how often do you follow that up with, “This sounds fishy and so I’d better explore it before I pass it on down the rumor mill.”?

This stuff cuts both ways, mind you, because misinformation enters the public discourse from both the right and the left wings of the political spectrum. (This story originally aired on Fox News, but left-wing blogs and web sites picked it up and carried it as though it was true, by the way.) My gut inclination tells me that the right is slightly better at putting out misinformation than the left, but only because they have more money to do so. I think that both are equal in terms of their scruples about lying–but the right-wing is better at it and more flagrant about it than the left-wing. My personal opinion, folks. Perhaps that’s just because more of their political operatives have written tell all books about their strategies and misdeeds. (If you haven’t read any of these and you fancy yourself a conservative, then perhaps you ought to take a look.)

An addendum: One respondent who is a firefighter noted the utmost importance of communication while fighting fires and pointed out that non-English speaking firefighters would be problematic on English speaking crews. I absolutely agree and would maintain that Mexicans who do not speak English should NOT be on crews with U.S. firefighters who only speak English. To which I respond…no kidding.

The Mess Beneath the Words

This article critiques the way political groups find ways to discuss the brutal facts of war and combat without having to upset anyone in the process. Similarly, you might notice how we learn to use and not use certain terms in our conversations about race and culture by using words that “scrub up” the facts that are uncomfortable to face. And so we use language that permits us to exchange ideas without having to feel the facts that lie below those ideas. Think about it: We can discuss “inequality” without picturing children who truly do not know where their next meal is coming from — those facing empty refrigerators and no heat or roofs over their heads — or imagining others who regularly throw out large amounts of edible food and have more than enough warm space in their homes. And when we discuss “privilege,” we don’t have to imagine individuals with an attitude of detached entitlement to comfort and status, people who may actually be connected to that empty refrigerator. (Those privileged individuals, by the way, would clearly be anyone who is reading this blog — if we contrast our lives to the less fortunate two-thirds of the world’s population.)

Read the article:
“The Words Have Changed, But Have the Policies?”

Consider the term “enemy combatant.” Many agree that this term is functional to us. This is tantamount to agreeing on a stereotype without having to consider the person who is being labeled “enemy combatant.” How different is this than calling someone “ghetto” or “dot-head” or “illegal immigrant”? “Dot head” is a great term here because that mark on the forehead of a person who is Hindu (the “bindi” or “tilaka”) actually has meaning that is related to a religious belief system as well as a person’s station in life. This is quite different than “ghetto” — a term that refers to an existing geographic location, an actual physical place that some people would always consider a “neighborhood” and not a “ghetto.” How many of us could walk through New York City and agree on which parts of it are actually “ghettos,” for example?

So “enemy combatant” doesn’t reveal the meaning behind some line that we draw in the sand. How do we determine who is on one side of it and who is on another? So we must mystify and whitewash our language in order to convince ourselves that a person is inherently bad or good or violent or of one mind or another.

Now reflect on the article with the following questions in mind:

1. Which terms of the race dialogue fail to personalize life conditions and experiences that are important to understand?
2. To what degree is the current (Obama) administration constrained by the same assumptions as the former (Bush) administration?
3. How much are we being manipulated so that our collective thinking gels into a mindset that supports the status quo? And how might that benefit YOU and for all of us?

With all of this in mind, I feel obliged to relay what President Obama said yesterday to a group of Turkish students: The United States is like a giant oil tanker. I moves very slowly and cannot be easily turned. Give it time…give me time. We cannot change things over night. (I’m not putting quotes around this because I don’t recall his exact words.) So perhaps he sees some things more clearly than it might at first seem. Who’s to say?