Cuba, Fidel, and the Bloc

I know it is a little off topic, but at first I wanted to talk about Fidel's resignation. Fidel Castro was the one that held together Cuba as a socialist/communist state and his brother does not have nearly enough charisma nor strength to 'keep up the fight.' So I see the U.S. moving in quickly to buy up companies and become a power in the Caribbean island once again. I think they should have been a part of Cuba a long time ago when they first opened their doors, but that is a different story. The main issue here is all the Cubanos in Florida that have simply been waiting to 'go back home.' I have never been in agreed with the rich landowners who ran here to simply wait to take their land back from all that have suffered these times. These Latino voters have been a huge group that has had a lot of influence over Washington D.C. and their legislation on the issue of Cuba. There are reports that private land has been being set out and bought under the nose of the government and that they are simply waiting for it to collapse to be official. It will obviously be chaos for Cuba, but I think that the Latino bloc here will lose a very powerful and influential force that has been a little separated but still a component of the nexus.
Well, I guess it actually is not that far off from my blog topic in the end...

The way I think is all over the board and my mind jumps around from topic to topic, which brings me to the other thing I wanted to talk about is: in trying to unite the entire Latino community, what is to be done about view of 'native-origin' or allegiance? Many Latinos, like the wealthy Cubans, simply are waiting for better times back home or confused about their allegiance. So how can you include these people who are citizens, but see it as a simple convenience?

http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/2008-02-22-voa1.cfm
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/industries/government/article/cuba-suffers-strains-poverty-stifled-potential_485319_18.html

Voters needed

Third week in and I am already having trouble finding topics, which is just simply a problem of setting myself down to think and find sources. This week I have been thinking about the primaries and actually right now I am sitting down to fill mine out. The thing that it got me thinking to is that it does not matter about race or getting a block out to vote we just need to get people to vote regardless of race. The United States is has some of the worst turn out rates, I personally would not be against making it a holiday and forcing people to vote, but that will not happen anytime soon so something needs to be done. The Vote or Die campaign was sort-of successful even though hypocritical Paris Hilton did not even vote, but more needs to be done. A measly 54% of Americans vote. Data seen here on wikipedia--I know, not the greatest source, but the sources are reliable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout

Latinos the world over need not worry of getting together, but simply getting out to vote.

Assumed ethnic unity

If people are constantly complaining about these political and made up terms of Latino and Hispanic, then why is there always people analyzing and talking that there should be unity among this group? I understand that most of them have some common history and culture, but one simply need to look at the general atmosphere in South and Central America to see that their heritage does not promote a general union. Also within the country, North versus South Mexico or general unrest in Guatemala, Colombia, and so many more.
Colombia v. Venezuela
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3134

I understand that the institutional racism and conditioning of the group is where the idea of togetherness comes from, but this does not hold true in all groups especially dependent on socio-economic status. However, Lisa Bedolla talks about in Fluid Borders of how "it seems that for marginal groups, specific types of institutional activity and membership are of greater significance" (Bedolla, 13). Which this group of "Latino/Hispanic" could be of greater meaning then the occupational group.

The ideology and term of classification still does not exist for the entire group, but the overall psychology and contextual factors have to be examined (Bedolla, 17). To be continued, after reading more of Fluid Borders.

Bedolla, Lisa. Fluid Borders Latino Power, Identity, and Politics in Los Angeles. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2005.

The idea

My idea for this blog is to show my thought process in analyzing if there is a huge difference between what Americans and other people think of Latinos and/or Chicanos. Also I want to look for if there has ever been or will ever be a united bloc or front or whatever you want to call it of immigrants from Mexico or from a general collection of Central and South American countries.

After recently reading Walls and Mirrorsby David G. Gutiérrez, I do not think that there will ever be a general unity. As he talks about the intense debates over the immigration position, the biggest consensus that has been achieved was on the Simpson-Rodino immigration proposals. But as we talked about in class on Wednesday it was shown that not everybody came to an agreement and that a huge rift was set between CASA and the new Chicano movement. It's obvious that an organization with such socialist roots and theories, like CASA, would be eliminated during the red scare, but I personally believe that this type of thinking could make a come back. Granted Cuba is going down the tubes and Chavez's attempt in Venezuela failed, with the economy in the United States the way it is and also in Mexico a large population is becoming frustrated not only with the structural racism, but the government as a whole.
In the L.A. times today an article talks about the loss of 17,000 jobs in the US and the fears of a recession.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-jobs2feb02,1,6839828.story


We could be seeing a major change in Latino/Chicano politics or it could just stay the way it is, pretty much in the back ground...but I'm betting on the former.