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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with the somewhat "hypocrytical" unity view you are trying to make. In class we've spoken about the different terms and how they apply to a certain location or culture or upbringing and how they each want to be distinguished from one another, yet they want to be a unity. I can see how this can cause much difficulty and confusion in the general public trying to be "PC" in reference to any of these groups. Great job bringing this up.
Post a Comment