LA riots aftermath

Influx of the Spanish Language

So far, a lot of my reflection on the readings and our class discussions has involved my personal experiences and firsthand exposure to the race, class and culture social themes we have studied. It occurred to me that the characteristic of ethnic issues within the US that has impacted me the most is the issue of different languages all being spoken and relied upon within one country.

Specifically, from growing up in Northern California, I have experienced the language barrier with Mexican immigrants and the Spanish language. Because I live in Wine Country, there is a large population of Spanish speaking immigrants who have come for the opportunity to work in agricultural jobs. In many cases, the families of these immigrants have followed, which has significantly increased the Hispanic representation in our community.

When I first really recognized the impact of the Spanish speaking immigrant population on our community was just before sixth grade when I had to choose to take either French or Spanish for my foreign language requirement. Although I was set on the decision to study French, my mom challenged me and made sure I considered the important advantages to learning Spanish. Her primary reason for this consideration was because of the growing Spanish population around us, and the fact that many of them did not know very much English.

Although many of the Mexican immigrants work on learning English once they move to the US, it seems from my personal interactions and relationships, that learning the primary US language is a fairly slow process. My best reasoning for this is the fact that even in a country so new to them, most of their time is spent with other Mexican immigrants within the community they have established, or even by social pressures, have been compelled to establish. Although the men work in agriculture under primarily white employers, majority of their time is spent in the fields/vineyards with fellow immigrants from Mexico where they can speak in their native language. Similarly, many women work in services with fellow immigrants, limiting their need to use English. In addition, specific schools have very high proportions of students who speak English as their second language or grew up bilingual, speaking mostly Spanish in their home. This, as well as the adapted educational culture with Spanish speaking teachers and staff, allows for students to converse in Spanish throughout most of the school day. Additionally, similar to the theme we have studied in class, the immigrants often live in certain neighborhoods with other Mexican immigrants, which represents their isolation within the Mexican culture and Spanish language. Their necessary communication in English is limited, therefore meaning that they have little need to learn the primary language of their new home.

Furthermore, the local community has adapted to the needs of the Mexican immigrants by offering a multitude of resources in Spanish. This includes the requirement for many employees of local businesses to be able to speak basic, if not even fluent Spanish, the array of written materials offered in Spanish, and youth camps and community events hosted in Spanish.

With the influx of the Spanish language, community members have had great exposure to the Mexican culture, and the enriching opportunity to learn a new language. However, the controversy continues to be very apparent with the debate about how willing US communities have to be to adapt to foreign languages. With the cultural benefits come frustration and community divides when Spanish adapted aspects of the community interrupt the usual routines and needs of English speaking community members. An example being the time when my dad had to drive nearly an hour away to find a DMV office that offered a pamphlet he needed in English, not Spanish. In addition to inconvenience, the adaptation of the Spanish language redistributes valuable community resources such as funding and allocation of efforts, which questions the fairness of veering away from traditional focuses to accommodate such adaption.

Tying this back to my language decision in 6th grade, my mom’s perspective was for me to consider the evolving necessity to know the new language of our community, which, as we all know is also the rapidly growing language of California and other states with many Mexican immigrants. This decision left a lingering and unresolved question in my head: how fair is it for me, and many other English-speaking US citizens, to learn a specific foreign language just to get by in our own traditionally English-speaking community?

Women's right to vote

I've noticed a major hole in all of our readings--something that seems to have been passed over by all of the authors so far despite the fact that it had huge significance for at least half of the Los Angeles population. Why is it that not one of the books we have read even mentions the women's suffrage movement and the 1911 state referendum which granted women in the state of California the right to vote? I was looking through the indexes of the books we have read so far and found nothing. I find this particularly interesting since Kurashige refers quite frequently to Charlotta Bass, the editor of the California Eagle and an active member of the suffrage movement. She wrote many columns for the Eagle supporting women's right to vote, but as far as I can tell he does not mention any of them. Much of the fight for women's suffrage in California took place over a time period covered by Avila, Kurashige and Deverell. While the goal was widespread change on a national level, action on a local level was crucial for the movement's success. Women in California, particularly in urban areas like Los Angeles, played a large role in the suffrage movement.

Here is a very brief history of the suffrage movement in California (I got the dates from the Women of the West Museum website). In 1893, the California state legislature approved a bill granting women the right to vote. Henry Markham, the then governor of California, vetoed the bill, however, deeming it unconstitutional. In 1896, suffragists added a referendum providing for women's suffrage to the ballot, but it was defeated by the male voters. Nearly 15 years later, with the help of suffragists and women leaders across the state, another suffrage issue was submitted to be voted upon by referendum. This time, male voters of California passed the referendum, allowing California to be the sixth state to give women the right to vote. It was not until 1920 that the 19th amendment was passed and women all across America could participate in the political system.

The omission of women gaining the right to vote seems to be a huge oversight on the part of the authors I listed above, but they are not alone. I am taking an American History survey course this semester as well that covers the time period from 1865 to the 1980s and as far as I can tell, none of the texts we are reading that discuss the 1910s and 1920s mention the suffrage movement either. In a course that is meant to cover all of American history, such a crucial moment for female American citizens needs to be included. I also took a survey course about American Politics last semester in which African Americans gaining the right to vote was brought up, but not women. Clearly, since women could not vote in almost every state for several more decades, it was just African American men gaining the right to vote that was mentioned. When half of African Americans were denied this right, how can we say that African Americans in general were able to vote after emancipation? When half of the American population could not participate in the most basic way in politics, how can women's suffrage be overlooked?

I am curious as to why these various authors decided to omit this monumental change in American politics and society. Since voting affects Americans of all races and classes, the subjects of any one of these books were directly influenced by women's suffrage. During the fight for suffrage, many social groups, church groups, ethnic groups, political parties, and unions all incorporated issues of suffrage onto their agendas. Suffragists handed out pamphlets (in many different languages), gave street speeches, canvassed door to door and founded their own newspaper in California, using several of the same media avenues we have talked about in different contexts. Such a fundamental event in the United States' recent history should be addressed when discussing this time period, since it had widespread effects and reached all levels of society. The racial conflicts during and within the movement could add interesting subjects in ethnic and comparative ethnic studies. The aftermath of the 19th amendment and the influence women voters had on the course of American politics is also significant in studying American history, politics, society or culture. In studying the United States and American culture, we cannot neglect to notice the long-awaited and hard-fought enfranchisement for half of the population.

Rodney King and Stephen Lawrence

When we studied the Rodney King incident, it reminded me of a similar case in England which occurred in 1993. An 18 year old boy from London was stabbed to death by five while males. Just as the King case had a year earlier in LA the murder instantly caused civil disturbance in England. Although Stephen Lawrence was not murdered by policemen they were blamed for racism and incompetence which is believed to have blighted the investigation which has been given as the reason for no one ever being convicted for the crime.

Both the King and Lawrence cases are examples of institutional racism. The attacks were believed by many to be unprovoked and racially motivated. In both cases the victims were single black males and the attackers were a substantial number of white men. The problem with cases like these is how to determine which one’s are racially motivated and which are not. When I first saw the video footage of the King attack I immediately decided it had to be a racist attack. But it is much more complex as many people interpreted the video differently. In the King case the policemen involved justified their actions and even the Jury felt that they had used reasonable force. In the Lawrence case his friend who was present at the attack heard one of the attackers call Lawrence a ‘Nigger’, this was enough for most of the public to determine the attack as racist. This is similar to the reaction that the short silent video of the King attack had on the American public when it was first released. The question is if these small bits of evidence are enough? And if not, what is needed to classify an attack as racially motivated?

The biggest similarity with these two cases is the profound effect they had on society. The King case led to rioting and a retrial which led to the conviction of one of the officers involved. The Lawrence case led to changes in English Law, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 abolishing the strict prohibition against double jeopardy. It seems that more is being done to stop these sorts of attacks from occurring, in these two cases however I still feel left with a feeling of a lack of justice. I feel as if more should have been done to catch Lawrence’s killers and more of the officers involved in the King case should have received harsher punishment for their actions. I think the two examples raise the same questions about injustice, cultural identity and continuing racism which still need answering.

The thing that I enjoy most about this class and American Studies in general, is the use of non-traditional sources. Being able to draw from the pop culture of whatever period we are studying, challenges us to look at history more fully. Doing this allows us (or maybe I can only speak for myself) to construct a very real bridge between a history of “fact” and a history of “feeling” (extrapolating from Rotella’s idea of cities of feeling and fact). I think a lot of people view history through the big wars, high profile names and public policy, but using nontraditional sources adds an important human lens to those bigger events.

For me this bridge is especially strong in our study of the Rodney King riots. Yes, there are the big facts. There were around 2,000 injuries, 52 deaths and over a billion dollars in property damage. However, Anna Deavere Smith’s expansive interviews in Twilight almost push those numbers to the background. Those personal narratives expand the understanding of what the King riots meant culturally and the greater divides and attitudes from which they emerged. Interviews from people that span LA’s social hierarchy openly present the conflicts, misunderstandings and tensions that led to different interpretations of the events. These interpretations are shaped by the individual actor’s role in a society that is rigidly divided by race and class. Deavere Smith’s interviews help to challenge the ideas that we get from the facts and see something much more complex. They work against the idea that all rioters are “bad guys” that disrupt social order and those in positions of power are always “good” because they did not directly contributed to the unrest. The riots were a symptom of an inequitable society and cannot be understood only through numbers. Sources like these evoke emotions that challenge us to go beyond facts and to (hopefully) analyze our own place in society.

It can also go the other way. Sometimes larger facts are obscured by our personal feelings. I think the idea of a felt history that overshadows fact can tie into Maia’s post on Disneyland. I am willing to bet that the Disney brand in all of its many forms has been a piece of most of our childhoods. It represents a certain set of American “values” and for many is a symbol of a middle class ideal. While Disney does bring about these distinct feelings, it has also had a very real, factual influence in shaping the lives (and the physical spacing) of Southern Californians. Avila’s non-traditional approach of linking highway development and land policy with Disney helps us to challenge what we have been thought to think about the brand and its representation as a middle class ideal.

Freeways

 Avila’s chapter about freeways sheds light on the negative impact the construction of freeways had on the way people lived in Los Angeles. What I found interesting is that freeways had a similar impact on cities and the people who lived in them throughout the United States.  Up until recently, I had never really taken into account the downside of freeways.  Like Maia mentioned in an earlier post, when I went to Disneyland, tomorrow land was my least favorite part, but it still shaped the way I viewed automobiles, in the sense that I couldn’t wait until I turned sixteen and would be able to drive on a real freeway.  I learned in high school about the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, and how great it was that people living in suburbs now had easy access to the cities. 

What Avila points out is that demise of the streetcar and public transportations, “had dire consequences for communities such as Watts and Boyle Heights, which became isolated centers of racialized poverty in the subsequent age of the freeway” (189).   The freeways were great for business men who lived the “suburban good life,” but they were awful for the people who lived in the existing neighborhoods that the freeways crossed over, like Boyle heights, a community that today is viewed as one of the worst parts of Los Angeles.  This is due in part because, as Avila points out, it is surrounded by three freeways – golden state, Pomona, and Santa Monica.

A few months ago, I read an article on Robert A. Caro’s Pulitzer Prize winning book The Power Broker, a book about Robert Moses, the master planner of New York City.  Up until that book was written, Moses had been seen in a positive light, as someone who did well for New York by planning out the freeways and bridges.  What Caro points out is that Moses had racist tendencies when building the freeways.  One example is that he would build freeways low enough so that busses wouldn’t be able to go under them, which meant that communities, like the Bronx, were sometimes trapped and not able to take public transportation into other parts of the city.   I found it interesting how Caro took a man that was idolized for many years as building such a great city, and shattered that image by exposing the underlying racism there was in his construction of New York.  I’ve never taken into account where freeways are built, or how they are built, and what affect that may have on the way people live their lives.

In San Francisco, I saw how the tearing down of freeways had a positive impact on the community in which it went through.  My dad was telling me about how on the embarcadero, a street alongside the waterfront, used to be aesthetically unpleasing, with a huge double deck freeway that led to the bay bridge.  This was hard for me to believe, because today I think of the embarcadero being a beautiful street with amazing views of the bay.  But it wasn’t until an earthquake struck in 1989 did the city decided to tear it down.  The neighborhood went from being somewhat of a slum, to becoming a tourist attraction with great restaurants and shops.  Once the freeway was torn down and the city began to rebuild the community, property values of the homes around the embarcadero shot up. 

On a more personal level, my own city began talks of building a freeway over a primarily Latino neighborhood about ten years back.  This happened when I was a child; I remember thinking that it would be kind of cool to have a freeway close by.  Luckily, I wasn’t the one making the decision.  The community came out very strongly in protest against the construction, and as a result, the idea never got past the planning stages.  I am happy that I can now look back and see how that would have negatively impacted the neigborhood, and how my views of  transportation and freeways have become more critical.

Lakewood's Spur Posse

I got deja vu when I was reading Avila. Last year for my CORE II class we read Joan Didion’s “Trouble in Lakewood,” which focuses on the Spur Posse. In the 90s, the Spur Posse was a gang of “All American” teenage boys from Lakewood who were accused, among other things, of raping underage girls. Didion uses the Spur Posse to get a better handle on identities in flux. What happens when the accessible American dream falls apart? As we read, Lakewood was supposed to be the perfect town. It is defined by its Americanism, Douglas plant, and gigantic shopping center. Everything feeds into each other. Like Avila, Didion is interested in the suburban character of postwar popular culture.

In his introduction, Avila declares that “space, like time, is an arbiter of social relations, and the identities that we inhabit—race, class, gender, sexuality—are codified within a set of spaces”(Avila xiv). The structure of the city embodies the “good life” and “progress.” Lakewood functions as an orderly, insulated, self-sustaining community. Didion’s question is this: “what does it cost to create and maintain an artificial ownership class? What happens when the class stops being useful?" (Didion 1029)As the Douglas Plant becomes less productive, the foundation of the community, identity, and self-worth is shaken. Masculinity too is under siege. Although Didion is not the most sympathetic of narrators, this essay did resonante with me because after all we aren't living with a booming economy right now.

Didion is fascinated by the response to the scandal. Parents blame the school, the media, “them.” The Spur Posse challenges a collective identity, one where everything is fine and dandy in true American form. What I loved about her essay is how she is able to capture the contradictions of Lakewood. It is an ordinary town thrust into the national spotlight. The hierarchy of Lakewood, with it's high school athletes embodying the future, has collapsed. The scandal splits the town down the middle and polarizes the people of Lakewood.

Although Didion does not deal exclusively with race, she does try to sketch at least the outlines of a very complex and contradictory Californian identity. To her, everything is intricately linked: from the postwar boom years and the good times to a faltering identity and a tarnished community. Avila defines cultural history as “the history of stories that people tell about themselves and their world" (Avila xii). Didion’s “Trouble in Lakewood” can be read as a cultural history. To me, Avila and Didion raise interesting questions about the narrative structure of the "accessible" American dream, as embodied in Lakewood, that are timely and relevant.

---

Didion, Joan. We Tell Ourselves Stories in Order to Live: Collected Nonfiction (Everyman's Library). (New York: Everyman's Library, 2006) 1029.