Thursday, April 28, 2011

What the new Champs-Elysées says about France



We'll always have Paris

What the new Champs-Elysées says about France

At the lower end of the avenue

"A GIANT naked male torso towers over the lower end of the Avenue des Champs-Elysées. Or, rather, a black-and-white photograph of a male model’s glistening muscles is draped across the four-storey façade of a soon-to-open Abercrombie & Fitch store. The unveiling next month of the first French outlet for the American retailer, renowned for improbably toned, half-dressed sales assistants and hooded sweatshirts, will delight teenagers, bemuse parents—and confirm that France’s best-known avenue has gone global.

When the first majestic lines of trees were planted in the 17th century by André Le Nôtre, Louis XIV’s landscape architect, the Champs-Elysées was a shady walk. It has long since been built up and turned over to shops, cafés and offices. But the avenue still has special meaning, both as an embodiment of French elegance and as a stage for displays of national pride and military might. Unlike London’s Bond Street or New York’s Fifth Avenue, the Champs-Elysées is where soldiers march, tanks roll and planes fly past in the annual Bastille Day parade every July 14th.

These days, though, it is getting hard to find much that is French on the Champs-Elysées, besides a few cinemas, car showrooms and luxury brands. International chains such as H&M (Swedish) and Tommy Hilfiger (American) have opened big stores, joining other foreign implants like Zara (Spanish), Virgin Megastore (British), Disney, McDonald’s and Gap (all American). Even Britain’s Marks & Spencer, which quit Paris a decade ago, is coming back soon, bravely hoping to sell women’s clothes and English sandwiches on the Champs-Elysées.

Plenty of Parisians are dismayed. Earlier this year, owing to soaring rents that make the Champs-Elysées the world’s fourth most expensive shopping street, according to Jones Lang LaSalle, a property firm, the post office closed its doors. “It will no longer be anything but a clothing street,” sniffed Lyne Cohen-Solal, a Paris councillor. A few years ago the town hall unsuccessfully appealed to the courts to block H&M’s arrival. “The Champs-Elysées is mythical,” declared François Lebel, mayor of the local borough. “The image of France is at stake.”

Like their politicians, the French always sound defiantly anti-globalisation. In polls they are far more hostile to free markets than Germans, Chinese or Russians. Yet when it comes to buying or eating foreign stuff, they are as enthusiastic. France is one of the most profitable markets for McDonald’s. Judging by the dress code of French teenagers, there will be long queues outside Abercrombie & Fitch—though whether to buy the hooded tops or to eye up the sales staff may be another question."

See my sociology of the Champs Elysées. E.C.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

France wakes up to a burka ban

France wakes up to a burka ban as Sarkozy unveils a new era

Monday, 11 April 2011 by John Lichfield for the Independent.co.uk

After 61 protester arrests, John Lichfield meets Parisian women affected by the new law

Mariam says she wears the niqab, or full-length Islamic veil, by "personal choice" and for "religious conviction". From today, if she leaves her home in the Paris suburbs she will have to expose her face in public for the first time in five years.

"I have decided to obey the law but to leave home as little as possible," the 32-year-old said. "I accept that the law of France is the law, even though I think that it is foolish and wrong to force me to go against my beliefs."

Most French Muslim women who wear the full-face veil are expected to bow, like Mariam, to the so-called "burka ban" which takes effect today.

But pockets of fierce opposition remain. On Saturday, police arrested 61 people who tried to hold an unauthorised demonstration against the ban in Paris. They included 20 women wearing the niqab – the Salafist or Saudi full-length veil with only a narrow eye opening.

Among those protesting or hoping to protest were a handful of Islamist extremists from Britain and Belgium, including Anjem Choudary, once a member of the banned group Islam4UK and a follower of the extremist preacher, Omar Bakri. Mr Choudary was arrested at the French border.

Their involvement was a political windfall for President Nicolas Sarkozy and a source of frustration for moderate Muslim leaders in France who have been trying to distance themselves both from the burka and the burka ban.

The law against "concealing the face in a public space", passed by the French parliament last October, was initially supported on both the left and right of French politics. It was seen as a defence of women's rights and a re-statement of the liberal and secular traditions of French society. It was also seen as a way of countering the advance of radical and intolerant strains of Islam.

Left-wing parliamentarians mostly abstained in the end because they did not want to be associated with what they saw as a wider drift by President Sarkozy towards alleged Islam-baitings.

Whatever its origins, the veil ban is in danger of being jumbled with other government initiatives such as a debate last week on "Islam and the secular state" and a series of provocative remarks on Islam by the new interior minister, Claude Guéant, Mr Sarkozy's former chief of staff, who recently suggested the growing number of Muslims in France could cause a problem.

Nonetheless, all sides except the hardline Islamists have agreed to try to take the heat out of the ban and to ensure that it takes effect with as little confrontation as possible. Last month the government instructed police not to force, or order, women to remove their face coverings in public or even in police stations. If a woman refuses to comply with the law, her name should be forwarded to the state prosecutor.

Moderate Muslim leaders cooperated with the government in drawing up the guidelines and many of the tiny number of fully-veiled women in France have already started complying with the law in advance of today's deadline.

Mariam said she had been insulted on the street on several occasions by people who believed that the ban had already taken effect. She said that, as a result of similar abuse, she knew of several women who had already started to leave their homes unveiled.

Mariam, married with three children, is a French citizen whose Tunisian-born parents never approved of her decision to wear a full-length veil. Young and French-born from a moderate Muslim family, she exactly fits the profile of the very small number of fully-veiled women in France.

According to a French internal intelligence service investigation last year, 1,900 women wear the niqab in France. None actually wear the burka, the all-encompassing and more restrictive garment popular in Afghanistan.

Since there are an estimated two million adult Muslim women in France, niqab wearers amount to roughly one in 1,000 or 0.1 per cent. The typical fully- veiled woman is young, French-born and a recent convert to a purist or radical form of Islam. Half are under 30 and the vast majority under 40. Two- thirds are French born. One in four is a white French woman who converted to Islam before or after she got married. Such a woman, Aya, formerly Hélène, told the news agency AFP last week that she had converted at the age of 14. She had begun wearing the niqab in 2005 "after I learned that this was the kind of veil worn by the wives of the prophet".

"But I don't wear it all the time," she said. "Because it is a very difficult thing to wear [when you leave Paris] and go to the provinces."

Moderate Muslim leaders in France reject the suggestion that the niqab is recommended by the Koran or associated with the wives of the prophet. Some have supported the ban; others fear that, by appearing to attack Islam itself, the ban will harden attitudes and persuade even more young Muslims to follow radical preachers.

The law which takes effect today does not mention the niqab or burka by name. It proscribes all facial coverings, except for reasons of health or safety (such as motor cycle helmets or welding masks). It also allows exceptions for carnivals and for "Father Christmases". Any woman who persists in wearing a facial veil can be fined €150 (£133) for a first offence. There are stiffer punishments – rising to a €30,000 fine and one year in jail – for anyone who forces a woman to wear a veil "by threats or violence".

Source: Independent Newspaper


Monday, April 11, 2011

Bittersweent Harverst: The Bracero Program

"Bittersweet Harvest”
The Bracero Program: 1942-1964

By Jessie E. Moreno


My family and I recently visited the Chamizal National Memorial to indulge in a little bit of our history here in El Paso. The main attraction there was an exhibition titled “Bittersweet Harvest: The Bracero Program” which had been recommended by the son of a family friend, whose grandfather, along with my grandfather, had been a part of the Bracero Program in the 1940’s. The exhibition was organized and sponsored by the National Museum of American History with help and funding from the Smithsonian Institute and was established to portray and give insight on how men from all over Mexico were exploited for their cheap labor during a span of three wars: World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam. All of these events were critical times in our history in which many, if not most of our American men were out fighting in countries all over the world.


As a student in elementary, middle, and high school here in El Paso, I was somewhat exposed to this program at a young age, but not to the extent of what had been delivered at the Chamizal National Memorial. The history that we El Pasoan’s receive in our local public schools comes mostly from textbooks that are written and published by Anglo Americans. The information provided in those textbooks is usually distorted, is dry and is sometimes meaningless. When those textbooks do talk about the Bracero Program for example, they tend to leave out crucial bits of information like the tales told by people such as my grandfather. In his stories, he quickly distinguishes how America, which had been portrayed as a benevolent country by so many, was instead a country full of narcissist people who would not for a second question throwing you under the bus just to make another cent. Through his accounts I could feel anger and pain, but I could also feel a sense of accomplishment in what he did as well.


I believed then and still believe today that this program was and continues to be a crucial piece of American history, especially for people like my family, who were born in America, but are of Mexican descent. There are quite a few of us who live here in El Paso, that have a grandparent, a parent, a brother, an uncle, a cousin, or a nephew and so on and so forth of whom were an integral part of the Bracero Program; a program spawned with courageous Mexican men who dared the odds to be a part of an American labor program that promised to provide them with better wages that they could not have otherwise earned in their homeland. By all accounts given, these men were seen as nothing more than animals, animals that could pull their own weight on the fields. They were treated like savages and yet they continued on with the struggle knowing that their family’s survival back in Mexico depended on it. Some of these hard laboring men grew fond of the United States, despite the way in which they were treated, and decided to make it their home. The Bracero Program would later serve to be an intricate piece of the Chicano movement, the social integration that took place in border towns such as El Paso, which greatly impacted the establishment of the Chicano neighborhoods into the massive, more prominent Hispanic communities that they are today.


Another intricate piece that should not be forgotten when telling the story of the Bracero Program, lies in one of the most influential Mexican-Americans of all time. On the last week of March, Mexican-Americans all across the United States take time to reflect and celebrate the birth and accomplishments of one of their own, one of the single most renowned Chicano activist of our time, Cesar Chavez, who in his own right, dedicated most of his adult life in protecting the distraught livelihood of the migrant farm worker. It was 1942, the year in which the Bracero Program was brought to the United States, that the Chavez family relocated from Arizona and landed in California. There, in the fields, they would soon share with Mexican migrant laborers the burden of blood, sweat, and backbreaking work, while also being equally discriminated against. Not long after, Cesar Chavez discovered the unpleasant taste of unjust wages, unsafe working conditions, and the disgusting treatment of Mexican-origin people. He would then go on to establish organizations such as the National Farm Workers Association, which fought for the rights of migrant farm workers, workers that included Mexicans in the Bracero Program. Although that is the case, Cesar would later fight to keep this program out of the United States, arguing that the constant inflow of Mexican migrant workers undermined the efforts of his group.


While I deeply resent the fact that Mexicans and Mexican-Americans were racially discriminated against and were severely taken advantage of, I cannot but stop and ask myself the following questions: What if America would have not brought this program to our towns? Would our neighborhoods be the same? Would America be the same? Who then, if not Mexicans or other migrant workers for that matter, would have been charged with growing and harvesting our foods while America’s men were out fighting in some of the most gruesome wars of all times? We shouldn’t be so quick into passing judgment, because after all, we are who we are because of the tribulations we have faced and overcome. So in the end, like the title of the exhibition proclaims, it was a bittersweet harvest for both Mexicans and Americans alike.

Jessie Moreno - UTEP student.

Friday, April 1, 2011

Cesar’s Last Fast

“Cesar’s Last Fast”

By Jessie E. Moreno

March 31st, 2011


A forthcoming documentary about Cesar Chavez titled Cesar’s Last Fast, is produced and directed by Richard R. Perez. Watching it for me was incredibly striking and moving, so much so that it sent a powerful chill down my spine that almost had me crying. It portrayed some never before-seen footage on the symbolic story of how Cesar Chavez fasted for thirty-six days in an attempt to show his discontent with the lack of progress made by his United Farmers Workers Unions when fighting the use of pesticides by farmers in California. Although this was the focus of the film, the director also shows later material that represents the difficulty and challenges when it comes to organizing farm workers and creating social movements such as Cesar Chavez orchestrated. It was almost as if this film was to be used as inspiration to get more people involved. Although this film screening was shown to us as an incomplete work (forty seven minutes), I left the UTEP Union Cinema wanting so much more.




[Double-click on the image to see it in full size]

Before watching the documentary, I thought I had a decent sense of who Cesar Chavez was and what he had accomplished, but ten minutes into the film I started to doubt what I thought I knew. I found myself wondering and questioning why I had underestimated his work so much and why I had devalued his sacrifice. When I heard that the Cesar Chavez Day at UTEP had been canceled and saw that some people were protesting on campus, I wondered why these people got so emotional over it. Then, about mid-way through documentary, I started to realize that some of those farm workers represented in the film were people like my grandparents, my parents, and me for that matter.



I remembered growing up in El Paso, Texas, and as a young boy (eight years old) having to go and pick onions in the fields with my family for a mere seventy-five cents a sack. We would all go home darker than before after about fourteen hours of working in the brutal sun (usually took us that long to fill one hundred sacks). My mother would take our hands and feet at night and do what she could to sooth the blisters, sores, and pains that we had developed throughout the day. The next day we would wake up before the sun came up, and we would be out there and be doing it all over again.

I have always had a hard time dealing with this part of my history, because working in the fields made me feel shame, as we were often called “wetbacks” at school, a term for those who worked in the fields. It was hard for me to hear those words, because we were Americans, and we had been born here, and we were just trying to make ends meet. I always thought that by letting people know that I had I worked in the fields, that I was only subjecting myself to more discrimination. It was easier for me to forget, knowing that many associated working in the fields as being a bad thing. Having been there and done that, and after viewing this documentary, I now feel that I have a better understanding of the importance Cesar Chavez had on farm workers in America, although some evil practices still occur today. This documentary has touched me more than I thought it would, and I can sense a little bit of pride inside me now, knowing how much my family and I have overcome to be where we are now.

At the end of the film, when the questions were being asked, one young lady asked why there weren’t any leaders out there today like Cesar Chavez to fight for Mexican-American rights. When the lady asked that question, I thought of the time Cesar Chavez asked his wife the same question, and she told him that maybe it should be him. Sometimes I think we get caught up and expect others to guide us and direct us in a certain path, when in fact it is us who need to stand up and lead the fight. The producer, Richard R. Perez, made an interesting point when he said that the price of upward mobility has been a decrease of our efforts to help those in the bottom of society. If we want to be treated better by our society, then we need to stop waiting for the next Cesar Chavez to come, and realize that deep down inside, we share the same characteristics, and are capable of organizing in the same way that he did.


[Double-click on the image to see it in full size]

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Demonstration of Solidarity with Ciudad Juarez






Demonstration of Solidarity with Ciudad Juarez

By Daniel Silvadoray


On January 29, 2011 at noon an event called a Day of Action took place, joining in solidarity with Ciudad Juarez to end violence and militarization. The event happened at Sunland Park, New Mexico few minutes from El Paso, Texas in an area called Anapra where people from Mexico and the U.S. can see each other across the border fence.

A mixed group attended including media. There was a good crowd of men and women. They mostly looked over twenty five years of age. I saw a little kid with his parents and there were also some a few small children in strollers. From just looking at the people there was no way to identify their profession or organization, with the exception of priest Arturo Banuelas, who was dressing in the traditional black pants and shirt with a white collar. For the most part every body was in casual clothes and wearing regular shoes. The priest gave out a long speech about how Ciudad Juarez and El Paso need to “raise up” in peace against the “narcos” in Mexico. He also talked about knowing about people that lost their lives in Ciudad Juarez. There were also a several Professors from UTEP. One of the speakers recited a poem, where he described some of the killings in Juarez. People talked in Spanish and English. At one point a woman amongst the organizers encouraged people to shout “Juarez, El Paso esta contigo.” El Paso is with you Juarez.



There were also several signs hanging on the fence. There were also several papers and stickers going around. The one that catch my attention was a “no mas sangre” that is “no more blood” a sticker that a man passed over the fence. There was a guy walking around with a sign that said “We missed Juaritos, J town”. Juaritos and J town are slang for Ciudad Juarez, so he was basically saying that he missed Ciudad Juarez.

There were several local new channels, filming and interviewing people. Some professional photographers literally sat on top of the fence to take pictures. Another good point to mark is the presence of a lot of Border Patrol personnel and a couple of Sunland Park police officers. Border Patrol was very good at enforcing their job with out using a rude tone of voice or force.

On the Mexican side of the border there was a different kind of crowd. There were some men and women, but also a lot of kids who live in the immediate area were present. There was one kid that for a while he was playing with a man on the other side of the fence by throwing a soccer ball over the fence. There was a variety of clothing patterns, from regular clothing, Mexican cowboys, and an American priest. The priest on the Mexican side of the border spoke good English and fair Spanish. There was a diversity of skin color among the people. They were also two Mexican university students dressing like clowns, to bring some humor and point to the bizarre nature of the situation in Juarez.

Just by looking at the people you could say that they were some low income people who live next to the fence, but also middle class people came for the event. They were also several speeches by the people in Juarez. The two sides would alternate. All of them were sad because they all had lost a family member due to the violence. On the Juarez side all the people were escorted to the event site by heavily armed police officers. Right before they arrived a man shouted “ahí vienen, tómenles fotos a esos cabrones que matan a nuestra gente” that is “here they come, take pictures of these fu* who kill our people.” At the end of the event the police escorted out the people on the Mexico side.

During the event both sides showed a different frame of mind. The people from Juarez were mostly sharing their sad stories and demanded the violence to stop. The El Paso people showed a lot of support by listening and giving words of encouragement to the people in Juarez. At the end of the event the people from Ciudad Juarez looked more relieved probably because they felt the support from the people from El Paso. The people from El Paso left the event with the hope that things would get better for the people in Juarez or at least that is how I felt at the end.




The following are some pictures of the event:



The following picture shows a Border Patrol officer and African American taking pictures.




The next picture shows a family from Ciudad Juarez and the low income houses on the background. There is also a sign on the Juarez side “PRIMERO LA JUSTICIA” which translate to “JUSTICE IS FIRST”.



Man passing out the “no mas sangre” which translate to “no more blood” stickers from the Juarez side of the border.




Audio coverage from NPR here and here

Charles Tilly and Sidney Tarrow "Contentious Politics" Book Presentation

Video from the book presentation of Contentious Politics at a bookstore in Mornigside Heights.




Sidney Tarrow reading from the book about transnational social movement against slavery



Tilly about the book and the research agenda, and the coming "Contentious Performances" from Cambridge University Press.



Goal and process of the book and research agenda



For more read the book "Contentious Politics" from Paradigm Press.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Creating Authority through Rhetoric and Ritual


Creating Authority through Rhetoric & Ritual:

Obama's Speech in Honor of the Arizona Victims


Ernesto Castañeda, University of Texas El Paso


President Obama spoke at the University of Arizona on January 12, 2011 following the shootings in Tucson, Arizona. The speech was not only politically superb but it also fulfilled many other real and symbolic goals even if at the latent level. The President led the United States of America in celebrating the lives of the victims of the shooting and in reviving the sense of community across the nation. The event masterfully, and in a very American fashion, blended the religious and the secular. It was a great example of civic religion (Bellah 1991 [1967]) [1].

The precedent was set by Professor Carlos Gonzales who gave a Native American blessing. Professor Carlos R. Gonzales, MD, FAAFP Associate Professor in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the University of Arizona’s College of Medicine was also representing the University faculty. Through his participation the University of Arizona’s Administration included local voices. Going back to the origins of academia, he mixed the religious and the scientific. Doctor Gonzales set out to bless the event following Yaqui traditions. Yet like the rest of the event, this was both a spiritual performance and act of civic participation through which the speakers renewed their legitimacy and grew in esteem, status, and authority. After asking, “If I may”, he blessed his son who was in Afghanistan, signaling to the audience that his family was patriotic and was fulfilling American military commitments abroad: thus his family is fully American. Yet, he clarified his multiple identities as a Doctor and Professor –but one of humble origins. In relation to his ethnic origins, Professor Gonzales, a Catholic, named twice Mexico. His speech served as a reminder that the event was taking place in the Southwest. He preceded the blessing by clarifying his authority to address the public and conduct the blessing. Gonzales said he was not an official priest or Medicine-Man (his words) but a lay member who had been given permission by Indigenous civic and moral authorities to conduct the ceremony and thus represent, and temporarily hold, the Yaqui authority [2].





Unfortunately the setting was set for misunderstandings and ridicule; while the content of his blessing was homologous to that of the other speakers, people (or at least Brit Hume a commentator on Fox news [3]4) confused his blessings of the four cardinal points as the literal blessing of the North, South, East and West “doors.” My guess is that the speaker made an accommodation to his un-initiated audience by translating an event that is traditionally conducted outdoors to that of one conducted indoors in a large sports arena and in front of an inordinate amount of people. He joked, “I have never made a blessing”, which initially sounded as recognition of his self-conscious theatricality and the usurpation of a role that was not really his. But he then added, “in front of so many people” which called to attention the “otherness” of the audience and the minor cultural differences between the Yaqui and other state residents. This was further underlined when Professor Gonzales calling those in the audience who knew, “The traditional blessing way” to follow it and for those who did not, the great majority, to stay standing. This invitation to remain standing was another important moment of cultural translation since in many Christian services one stands for the most sacred moments in a service or mass. This is also the case in key parts of civic ceremonies like the singing of the national anthem.





However “foreign”, bizarre or magic this intervention could have appeared to live and TV audiences, it set the right tone for the whole event. What followed, appeared in comparison more familiar and “normal” to Americans, but to a foreign audience, let’s say French, the whole event would have appeared worrisomely religious and curious. The participation of President Obama was so successful because it had a message for secular, non-Christian religious audiences, and Christian religious audiences. Implicitly assuming the role of a High Priest, Obama’s speech followed two readings made by his direct dependents and political appointees. The Attorney General Eric Holder and the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, read directly from the Bible as is done in many Christina services before the sermon. Obama delivered his comments and interpretation of events after these two readings as a homily, further reinforcing his temporal role as a civil Priest. The event did not finish with Obama’s lecture, instead there were more words uttered from the podium, and final chants as would be the case in a religious service. By the structural similarity and his temporal position in the whole event, Obama occupied the equivalent role of a Priest. Thus he acted not only as the political leader of the country, but also as the moral and spiritual leader of the nation. He stole a line from the Republican playbook by consciously trying to be perceived as a religious leader, but he surpassed them in delivery by a great deal. Rather than agitating his fundamentalist followers against infidels, he called for empathy, love, forgiveness, humility, cooperation and understanding that is to be found in the teachings of Christianity and other world religions [5]. He said,

“As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let’s use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together.”

So he called for unite and underlined commonalties. While some politicians appeal to the worst in people (fear, anxiety, and small-mindedness), Obama appealed to the best in them.

There was much for cultural and practicing Christians in the audience but also for other groups. The readings from the bible made explicitly mention of Israel, as an analogy of the chosen people destined to survive despite the worst drawbacks –a common theme in American civic religion (Bellah 1991 [1967])- and/or as a nod to include the Jewish victims of the shooting, and those in the audience and the nation. Muslims were not mentioned.

In his speech, Obama also addressed indirectly some criticisms made by his most fervent opponents: that either he is not Christian enough, or that he is Muslim. Without calling his opponents liars he eased their doubts by showing his faith, and by saying “I have come here tonight as an American who, like all Americans, kneels to pray with you today and will stand by you tomorrow.” He also evocated a secular activity (jumping in rain puddles) to be performed in Heaven, as the mother of the 9 year-old girl victim, Christina Green, told Fox news, "I'm so proud of her. I'm still proud of her today. I know that she's going to do great things in heaven" [6].

If reading from the bible and acting as a priest was not enough, there was even the presence of a miracle: just after Obama visited Representative Gabrielle Giffords, she opened her eyes for the first time. What this event means is on the eye of the beholder. For the secular eye, it could be considered a coincidence showing her improving physical states; for the cynic, an event manufactured by Obama and the Democrats; for a mystic supporter, a sign of Gods support of Obama. In any case Representative Giffords is showing quick signs of recovery and the visit and support from her colleagues could only inspire her, these were good news with which Obama could turn the event into a celebratory one.





Obama gained authority through an appeal to a religious and moral authority common among Black, Civil Rights, and Human Rights leaders. But consciously or not Obama draw legitimacy from another source of authority beyond his political office: the family. Talking about the victims, and calling for empathy towards them and their families, Obama called for us to imagine some of the victims as our own mothers. Quite possibly the most powerful moment of the night was when he asked us to consider the nine year old victim as our own daughter. In his face, and in an almost breaking voice, one could see him imagining his daughters, who are of similar age and potential situation. While respectable mature males were killed, he did not cast them as father figures explicitly. This could be because of biographical reasons, but consciously or not, Obama’s speech also placed him symbolically as the father of all Americans and thus possessing the most traditional and legitimate authority. He indeed spoke of an American family to which everybody is a part – the American family 300 million strong as Obama said.

Without assigning blame, he called for a more civil public discourse, encouraging cooperation for the public good. He said, hateful words did not necessarily caused the shooting, but a more civil discourse was needed to solve the challenges presented by these recurrent mass killings, and that is what would be worthy of the victims- many of them Republicans and devout Christians and humanists. Thus Obama met the expectations of all the pundits. Some on the left asked to demonize the right for their hateful words and provocations, the right called him to chastise liberal pundits for being quick to assign blame to them. By not assigning blame, and thus absolving, pundits and public figures on the extreme right, he robbed them of any arguments to attack him. The pundits commenting on Fox news right after the speech could not find fault with his performance and could only agree with the message of the President. This was not a spell, but a great opportunity to reinforce his authority, mourn the victims, appealing to reason, and show hope for the future.

If the shooter in Arizona turns out to be one of a number of Americans who believe (wrongly but still believe it and act in consequence) that Barack Obama is an illegitimate leader, the main role of the event in Tucson was to make them reassess their opinions; and given the response of right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck (who thanked Obama for his speech and his absolution), and opinion polls, it worked.

This event was criticized by some for looking like a rally but it was not criticized for borrowing from a religious service. Obama accomplished the roles that Durkheim ascribes to, both religion and civil religion: he brought together a distinct and distant people and created a sense of community, common purpose, and shared feelings and expectations; there were even moments of collective effervescence. Lastly, and at the end the audience could feel a sense that they belonged to the same family.

Sociologist Max Weber talks about three sources of political legitimacy and authority: traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational. Traditional authority is often grounded in familial respect. Charisma refers not only to popularity, warmth and likability in the contemporary sense, but also as a sign that an individual has been gifted (originally by God) with a sign of extraordinariness, a halo of inspiration and the qualities of a prophet. The legal rational refers to a source of power rooted in laws, a rational system of uniform impartial bureaucratic practices through which leaders are chosen and act within those constraints. With his speech in Tucson, Obama drew simultaneously from these three sources of authority in the way that only could have been done by a charismatic and powerful Pope (who by definition is simultaneously a charismatic figure, a religious leader, and the Vatican’s Head of State).

Obama’s State of the Union address on January 25th had a different tone and followed a different logic from the Tucson speech. It was seen as different and less moving and successful by the audience. However he continued some of the themes mentioned in the previous speech. He went back to the trope of the American family, this time expressly including Muslims by talking about the “the conviction that American Muslims are a part of our American family.”He also said,

“Tucson reminded us that no matter who we are or where we come from, each of us is a part of something greater -– something more consequential than party or political preference. We are part of the American family. We believe that in a country in which every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled” [7].

Civil religion was present even in a more quite way. Obama said, “I’m not sure how we’ll reach that better place beyond the horizon, but I know we’ll get there. I know we will.” The place beyond the horizon can be understood in both a secular and religious manner. And as customary for American Presidents, Obama closed with “Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.” While he made some references to civic religion, the bulk of his address concerned policy preferences and solutions to “win the future” not only by having hope and committing to higher civil and religious powers but also by hard work and government actions. Obama behaved as Head of State. His popularity in polls grew across the board after the speech in Arizona, where he regained legitimacy, authority and moral stature. He could then assume this and act as the legitimate leader of the country. Most congress members acted in consequence showing constraint and respect, when not showing fervor by waiting to shake his hand at the beginning of the ceremony or by asking the President to autograph their written copy of the speech. Thus Obama’s personal charisma and political authority was evident to all but those who say to represent “the Tea Party” who still challenged him and while echoing many of the points he made during the speech seemed oblivious to his words and point of view. Yet the majority of the audience approves Obama’s job. Introducing Barak Obama at the Memorial, the President of the University of Arizona Robert N. Shelton said, “at a perilous time in our history. We are fortunate to have someone with his intellect, his energy and his heart to lead us forward [8]". Amen.



References

1. Bellah, Robert N. 1991 [1967]. "Civil Religion in America." in Beyond Belief: Essays on Religion in a Post-Traditionalist World. Berkeley: University of California Press. Text


2. “Together We Thrive: Tucson and America - Dr. Carlos Gonzales Native American Indian YaquiBlessing.” 2010. Retrieved January 24, 2011 YouTube


3. "Brit Hume Questions Tone, Timing Of Arizona Shooting Memorial Service" Retrieved January 24, 2011 HuffingtonPost


4. "FNC's Hume praises 'pep rally' atmosphere, but calls Obama Arizona speech 'most peculiar '" Retrieved January 24, 2011 HuffingtonPost



5. "Obama's Eulogy Invokes Spirit Of Black Church, Reinhold Niebuhr" Retrieved January 24, 2011 HuffingtonPost


6. "The nine year old born on 9/11, the federal judge, and the aid that was about to be married: The victims of the Safeway Massacre" Retrieved January 24, 2011 Dailymail


7. Text of Obama’s State of the Union Address. The Wall Street Journal. WSJ


8. Tucson Memorial Service Honors Shooting Victims PBS




Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Sociologist John Krinsky contributes to discussion about Welfare "Reform" (more like dismantling) in England at the Guardian.co.uk Article reproduced bellow.



Welfare: the 18th Brumaire of Iain Duncan Smith

"In copying the failed US 90s model for getting people off welfare into work, IDS is playing out his own farcical repetition of tragedy.

It is the 18th Brumaire. On 9 November, 1799, Napoleon Bonaparte overthrew the French Directorate, replacing it with the French Consulate, signalling the end of the French revolution and the beginnings of French imperialism. Karl Marx, writing of the coup engineered by Napoleon's nephew, Louis Bonaparte, 52 years later, was full of scorn: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." Marx then writes about the conditions that enabled the coup: a series of compromises that weakened political parties and progressively marginalised the working class and its interests, and subordinated them to the craven, but divided, bourgeois and petty bourgeois of France.

On this 18th Brumaire, a different kind of farcical repetition of tragedy is playing itself out in Britain. I know the tragedy because it unfolded in the United States 15 years ago: it went by the name of "welfare reform". The raft of proposals put on the table by the government for reforming welfare in the United Kingdom is so close to those that unfolded in New York City in the mid-1990s that reading about them feels like the repetition of a bad meal. The lack of energetic opposition from the Labour party compounds the feeling of gastric reflux.

Shortly after taking back Congress in the mid-term elections of 1994, the Republicans moved to cut funding to the Legal Services Corporation whose offices often represented poor people in legal proceedings against the government. Legal Services lawyers had been crucial, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, in establishing basic rights of benefit recipients against loss of benefits without cause, and against intrusions on their privacy by fraud-suspicious government agents. As a condition of keeping some funding, Congress barred Legal Services from taking on class-action lawsuits against the government. Similarly, the Labour government cut funding for law centres, and more cuts are threatened.

New York City – a centre of welfare reform under Mayor Rudolph Giuliani even before the federal welfare reform law passed with Bill Clinton's signature in 1996 – bears all of the hallmarks of Iain Duncan Smith's welfare reforms. In New York City's "Work Experience Program" or "WEP", welfare recipients were compelled to work for their benefits with their hours set by dividing the total value of their cash and housing allowances by the minimum wage. Because financial strain had earlier forced New York City to reduce its staff by more than 16,000 positions (many in lower-skilled clerical and maintenance work), the new WEP workforce – 38,000 strong at its height in 1999 – supplanted the work of relatively well-paid public employees. They would not be hired back. And, indeed, there were quite a few cases of former public employees compelled to "work off" their benefits in the same work they had done earlier.

Giuliani was also aggressive about being sure that anyone who could work, did work. New York hired Health Solutions Services, a private firm like Atos in Britain, whose doctors' judgments about the fitness of many benefits recipients to work were at odds with those of other medical professionals, and whose judgments were often successfully challenged. In other words, the medical screening process was baldly a way to harass people off the dole, rather than to meet their actual needs.

The Giuliani administration, with the help of a new welfare commissioner, Jason Turner, who had, like Duncan Smith, thought long and hard about how to help the poor break the cycle of dependency, also curtailed access to benefits. By making the application process more onerous, cuts were made at the front end as well. A successful lawsuit changed some of these practices because they illegally denied applicants access to benefits that were not governed by state and local government.

Once on the job, however, workfare workers rarely got training and rarely got access to available jobs. In a sleight of hand, the Giuliani administration claimed that anyone who had got off the benefits rolls (kicked off or otherwise) had presumably found work. So they claimed enormous success for their workfare program, as the rolls fell to half their levels before the reforms began. Even at worksites, there were problems. Regular public-sector workers resented WEP workers' presence and sometimes mistreated them, while public-sector managers found it difficult to assign, supervise and keep track of WEP workers' schedules.

It is, perhaps, instructive, that WEP no longer exists in the ways that it did under Giuliani. And it isn't because his successor, Michael Bloomberg, is a leftwing bleeding heart. Rather, WEP created all manner of administrative burdens; increased the city's exposure to lawsuits for sexual and racial harassment, illegal displacement of public workers, and a host of other violations; and did nothing to alleviate poverty. To the extent that people who had been on benefit found work in this period, they did so because the local job market was expanding (albeit with worse jobs than before) relative to its pre-reform recessionary lows. No longstanding study of intergenerational cycles of poverty by Duncan Smith will create jobs. No parenting classes will, either.

The failures of welfare reform – still viewed as a great success by some – are increasingly well known, even if public discussion of these flaws is muted. The only way a hard workfare program like the one in New York "worked" was through public relations and half-truths (and not-even-half truths!). It reduced benefit levels. But it did little else. Its proponents, however, fled its consequences into thinktanks and consultancies. This group have apparently convinced the British counterparts of the Republican class of 1994 that American-style welfare reform is a good idea. As with welfare reform in the US, we may not see the worst predictions of the left come to pass. But we will see a deterioration in the conditions of work for "regular" workers as workfare becomes generalised and part of the everyday political fabric; and we will see private trusts and charities drawn into support programs they find repellent because they want to be charitable. We will see a weakening of a well-meaning opposition, and a sea-change in the politics of welfare, even with no improvement in joblessness and poverty. If it weren't so tragic, it might be farce."

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Mexican Immigrants in New York

Video from a great series from Canal 11 Mexico (in Spanish). Incluye entrevista con una "Estudiante Mexicana en Nueva York" (Columbia University).

Increased Attacks Against Mexicans in New York Area

Increased Attacks Against Mexicans in New York Area

Opinion Piece on Hate Crimes against Mexican Immigrants

GUEST POST BY Brad Powell

In New York City there have been no less than ten hate crimes committed against human beings of Mexican descent this year. Many of these vicious attacks took place in a neighborhood quaintly named Port Richmond in the borough of Staten Island. The most recent attack occurred over the weekend when a seventeen year old was beaten and subjected to racist slurs for $10 out of his wallet. The local media has continued to bow in deference to the NYPD classification of the attacks as "bias crimes" instead of "hate crimes;" the latter of course qualifies the perpetrators for harsher punishment.

New York City is largely off the radar in terms of the national discourse on immigration, especially in light of the inhumane laws being passed in more overtly racist places like Virginia (yes, Virginia), and of course most recently Arizona. New Yorkers have an obligation and a stake in protecting their Mexican brethren. The time has come to stand up for those who are duly oppressed because of their skin color and their legal status, which make them both targets for abuse by intolerant xenophobes and less likely to receive the full protection of the NYPD.

In one recent news account a citizen of Staten Island proffered an explanation for the attacks as grounded in the high unemployment of natives, "The average Mexican immigrant is working five days a week. There's young men here who can't get a job (http://wcbstv.com/topstories/staten.island.violence.2.1837529.html)." There is even a vernacular term for the attacks, "knockouts," defined as robbing a Mexican on their way home from work. The conflation of unemployment with immigration perpetuates the falsity that immigrants are stealing jobs out from under Americans. In fact, most immigrants are working long hours in below minimum wage jobs like dishwashing and meat packing that Americans brashly turn up their nose to.

In my own research for a class on immigration at Columbia University I have spoken with several immigrants of varying legal status. Time and again the story is one of very hard work with very little reward; many of these individuals work 11-12 hour days 6 days per week. These are hard workers often far from their families only searching for some way to improve their lot in life for both themselves and posterity. To blame them for our economic problems adds salt to untreated wounds. A more accurate account of high unemployment rates would look to the recent thieveries of Wall Street and the corporate downsizing justified in its wake, not to those at the absolute bottom of the capitalist hierarchy.

Perhaps it is a sad bit of irony that Port Richmond sits directly across from Wall Street, only obscured by one of our nation's most iconic monuments: the Statue of Liberty. This goddess of freedom stands ready to accept "the poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Nowhere is it inscribed either on the statue or in our collective consciousness that this freedom does not apply to Mexicans. All New Yorkers, indeed all Americans should be ashamed and outraged every time a hate crime is perpetrated against a human being, and that outrage should be doubled when the victim is a duly oppressed immigrant falsely blamed for our economic problems and lacking the full protection of the state.



Related notes:

3 NJ teens charged with videotaped immigrant death

SUMMIT, N.J. – Dusk fell around Salvadoran immigrant Abelino Mazaniego as he sat on a bench on a promenade in an upscale New York suburb after finishing his restaurant shift. As night encroached, so did a group of teenagers, including one with a cell phone videocamera at the ready.

Then, authorities say, they beat him unconscious, with the camera rolling.

Days later, the 47-year-old father of four was dead — but not before the video had been circulated among teenagers in Summit, N.J., authorities say. And not before a nurse in the emergency room where he was taken the night of July 17 was accused of pilfering several hundred dollars from his wallet.

The attacks on Mazaniego's body and dignity resulted in days of escalating court actions that culminated Tuesday in murder charges against three young men, ages 17, 18 and 19. A fourth teenager believed to have videotaped the attack hasn't been charged, but authorities weren't divulging details on the teen's involvement or potential culpability.

In Summit on Tuesday evening, a young girl sobbed, trembled, and clutched the waist of an older woman as they stood in a group of five people in front of a shrine of sunflowers, votive prayer candles, handwritten notes and a photo of Mazaniego that had been placed on the bench where he was attacked. Speaking quietly in Spanish, a woman with red-rimmed eyes said she was Mazaniego's wife of 29 years, and the rest were family members. She declined to give her name, saying she was too upset and scared to speak about the attack.

Mazaniego was "a hardworking, punctual, friendly employee," said Colin Crasto, manager and chef at Dabbawalla Indian restaurant, across the street from where the attack took place, and where the victim had worked for three years as a cook's assistant. A photo of Mazaniego was taped to the front window, with a message saying he had been the sole supporter of his family and asking patrons to donate money to help his family.

Along Summit's main thoroughfare, a place of upscale clothing and jewelry stores, real-estate brokerages advertising million-dollar homes, and luxury SUVS parked along the street, merchants and residents said the attack was an anomaly for the town, a vibrant mix of nationalities that considers itself welcoming of immigrants.

"I know bad things happen all the time, everywhere, but it's unusual here," said Neil Rodriguez, the manager of The Wine List, who knew Mazaniego, as he worked a few doors down. Recalling Mazaniego as a "genial, really nice gentlemen," Rodriguez said that, as a Hispanic, he was bothered that the incident was being portrayed by some as racially motivated.

"It's a random act of violence, there's not a lot of racial strife in this town," he said. "I'd like to see the parents that produced such monsters," he added, referring to the alleged attackers.

Khayri Williams-Clark, 18, and an unidentified 17-year-old, both of Summit, were arrested Wednesday on manslaughter charges. Williams-Clark pleaded not guilty to the charge Friday.

Now they're charged with murder, along with Nigel Dumas, 19, of Morristown. A spokesman for the public defender's office, which is representing Williams-Clark and the 17-year-old, declined to comment Tuesday and said the office hadn't yet received an application to represent Dumas.

The 17-year-old is being held in the Union County juvenile detention center, while Williams-Clark is being held at the Union County jail on $100,000 bail, prosecutors said. Bail for Dumas, at the same jail, has been set at $250,000. Authorities wouldn't say how many teens were in the group or whether there would be more charges. They also weren't discussing theories on the motive for the beating — whether it was Mazaniego's background, a thrill killing or some other reason.

But it apparently wasn't an attempt to get the $640 in cash that Mazaniego was carrying.

Police found the victim after the beating and took him to the hospital, where, officials say, nurse Stephan Randolph, 39, of Flemington, took the money out of the unconscious victim's wallet.

Family members noticed the missing money and told authorities, who charged Randolph with third-degree theft Monday, six days after Mazaniego died.

Randolph could not be reached for comment by The Associated Press this week; a phone listed in his name rang unanswered.


From the New York Times

July 30, 2010

Attacks on Mexicans Leave Neighborhood in Turmoil

Police officers patrolling by foot, car and helicopter have turned Port Richmond Avenue, a busy commercial strip on Staten Island, into something like an armed encampment. Reporters have descended en masse. Community leaders dash from crisis meeting to crisis meeting.

A spate of attacks in the past four months on Mexican immigrants has upended Port Richmond, a working-class neighborhood on the borough’s north shore that is more accustomed to being ignored.

But amid the show of force by the Police Department, which deployed teams of officers to the area this week in what it described as a temporary move to protect residents and defuse tensions, local leaders are taking a longer view.

“The question is, what happens when everybody pulls up the tents and leaves?” said the Rev. Terry Troia, an activist and Staten Island native who has been at the center of the hour-by-hour civic response to the unrest.

This is not the first time Latinos in Port Richmond have been victimized in bias attacks. Ms. Troia, executive director of Project Hospitality, an interfaith organization that serves the poor of Staten Island, said the violence dates back to 2003. In one attack, a Mexican immigrant who worked as a cook at an IHOP restaurant was killed by three assailants in 2006, according to local activists and the Mexican Consulate in New York.

Some of those earlier episodes attracted news coverage, but then the neighborhood fell back into its usual fraught rhythms. Now its Mexican population, Ms. Troia said, is particularly concerned about what might happen next. “They’re worried that as soon as the police leave, they’re going to be set upon,” she said.

The Rev. Dr. Tony Baker, pastor of St. Philip’s Baptist Church in the neighborhood’s heart, said the attacks pointed to deep-seated problems. “I think we’ve gone to sleep on the conditions we find ourselves in,” he said. “And we woke up in the midst of a racial war.”

The police said Friday that nine men — all of them Mexican immigrants — had been attacked since early April, all by young black men. Six suspects have been arrested in connection with three of the beatings, but a grand jury turned down prosecutors’ requests to indict them on hate-crime charges. Two men have pleaded guilty to robbery in two of the cases; the third case is pending.

The most recent attack was on July 23. Fidel González, a 31-year-old Mexican immigrant walking home after playing soccer in a park, was set upon by several men yelling anti-Mexican epithets, the police said. The men punched Mr. González and hit him with a scooter, breaking his jaw and cutting open his head, then stole his backpack, which contained an iPod and two cellphones, the police said.

On Tuesday night, after appeals by the consulate and local leaders, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly announced he was sending an emergency contingent to Port Richmond, including about 130 additional officers, a 15-member hate crimes investigative team, horse patrols, helicopter flyovers and mobile observation towers at key intersections.

Mexico’s consul general, Rúben Beltrán, sent a representative on Monday to set up a neighborhood office and directly assist the Mexican population. The representative drives around in a car emblazoned with the phone number for a 24-hour, toll-free hot line and a message in Spanish that begins, “Mexican, know your rights.”

Since the representative arrived, several more Mexicans have told consulate officials that they, too, were victims of attacks but had been too fearful of deportation or retribution to come forward sooner, consulate officials said.

“There are all kinds of beatings that aren’t recorded,” Ms. Troia said. “People talk casually about this: ‘Oh, I got a dislocated shoulder’; ‘I lost my eye.’ ”

Civic leaders and police officials say they are exploring many possible reasons for the violence: anti-immigrant fervor, racism, gangs, the boredom of idle youth during the summer, joblessness, overcrowding and even the notion that attacking Latinos acquired a cachet in the neighborhood this year, prompting copycat assaults. But in the past few days, all conversations about motive have eventually turned to a dynamic familiar to many neighborhoods in New York: demographic change.

In the mid-20th century, Port Richmond was heavily populated with Eastern European Jews and Irish immigrants, who owned many of the businesses along Port Richmond Avenue. But after the Staten Island Mall opened in 1973, stores closed, property values fell and many longtime residents moved away.

Blacks became the dominant population in the 1980s and ’90s, but the number of Latinos also grew. After 9/11 and the imposition of tougher immigration and travel rules that impeded the flow of migrant laborers around the country and across borders, the Mexican population planted deeper roots in Port Richmond and grew quickly.

In 1990, according to census statistics, 950 people of Mexican descent lived in the 120th Police Precinct, which includes Port Richmond. By 2008, that number had grown to 8,400. Before 9/11, there were only three Mexican-owned businesses in Port Richmond, Ms. Troia said; now there are more than 50.

The student body of Public School 20, once mostly black, is now nearly all Latino and predominantly Mexican.

That growth among Mexicans has unsettled members of some other minority groups, including Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, and especially blacks, many residents say. Black religious leaders and community activists say they often hear constituents complain that Mexicans and other Latinos have taken jobs that should have been theirs. “That’s a conversation that’s been going on,” Dr. Baker said. But, he added, some who have complained “are not going out to get jobs.”

Rogelio Vasquez, 48, the victim in one case that has been resolved, said he feared that he might be attacked again for cooperating with the authorities. Still, he said he harbored no ill will toward his assailants; the attacks, he said, were “the errors of young people.”

Port Richmond’s leaders are searching for solutions. Some want to address the lack of community resources, including jobs, housing and recreation. Others are looking for ways to bridge racial, cultural and even generational divides through initiatives like a gathering of mothers from different ethnic groups, or a midnight basketball league.

“What it calls for is work,” Dr. Baker said. “The Latino community, the African-American community, the Caucasian community, coming together and saying, ‘Enough is enough.’ ”

Al Baker contributed reporting.