Matt Ortega

CNN is running a special on the web called, “Uncovering America: The Hispanic Experience Today” for Hispanic Heritage Month: September 15 — October 15. (We don’t even get our own month, in the traditional sense.)

There are the good, the bad and the ugly, but at least they are trying.

The first and obvious is the use of the word “Hispanic.”

CNN solicited letters about what it means to be “Hispanic in America” today. The responses are telling and as a Latino of mixed heritage that does not speak Spanish fluently, I can certainly sympathize with many that wrote in. Here are a few:

Yolanda Alvarez from Seattle, Washington
For me, to be Hispanic in the United States today has been both a feeling of pride and a feeling of not belonging. Even though I was born and raised in the United States I feel as though I have to be truly Mexican and learn perfect Spanish to be accepted in my community and truly American (United States) to be accepted within the community here. I will be made fun of if I don’t speak Spanish right in Mexico and the same would go if I don’t speak English correctly. I thank God and my parents for truly blessing me with the ability to speak and write fluently in Spanish.

Indeed, as a community, sometimes we do it to ourselves.

Micaela DaCosta from Columbia, Missouri
A lot of people seem to forget, or don’t even know that there are black Latinos. Our ancestors came from Africa on the slave ships but instead of coming to North America, our ancestors docked in Mexico, Bolivia, Cuba or Brazil — every country of Latin America. White people want to know how in the world we speak Spanish, and black people think we’re showing off. Latino people refuse to recognize us as “real” Latinos. What’s it like being Hispanic in America? We’ll let you know.

Lorenzo Espinox from El Paso, Texas
I have noticed that from a commercial point of view, we are invisible. You can see all kinds of commercials made that portray whites, blacks and Orientals. Hardly ever do I see brown people buying an expensive car, being a doctor, or being portrayed as a high- or medium-end consumer. This sends a strong message that everybody can notice. …

Television does not present any Hispanic heroes. We are not portrayed as successful people who have smarts and lots of initiative, imagination, creativity, and hunger for advancement. Instead we continue to be presented like drug addicts, gang members, thieves and other low-life criminals. This hurts us because our little kids do not see “people like them” as good and helping individuals others can count on to solve problems.

For a while, we had The George Lopez Show and Freddie, starring Freddie Prinze, Jr. Both on ABC. Both off the air now. (George Lopez was replaced by a show about cavemen inspired by the Geico commercials. Freddie lasted 22 episodes.)

Furthermore, the Latinos network television does put on the air, we’re either light-skinned (no less “Latino” by any means but it sends a message of rejection about dark-skinned Latinos; hell, even Spanish-language television does it, too) or the usual common criminals in Law & Order episodes and the like.

It includes a photo slideshow of twelve, count ‘em, twelve “notable Hispanics” in the U.S. On the list are:

• Governor Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico), currently a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008;
• Singer Gloria Estefan;
• Archbishop Jose Gomez, of San Antonio, Texas;
• Pablo Alvarado, organizer and head of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network;
• Senator Mel Martinez (R-Florida), general chairman of the Republican Party;
• Filmmaker Robert Rodriguez;
• Jorge Ramos, television anchor for Univisión;
• Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU);
• Lionel Sosa, CEO of Mexican Americans Thinking Together (MATT);
• Writer Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez;
• Alex Rodriguez, New York Yankees third baseman;
• Astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz

Ten men and two women. I can think of a few more that deserve to be on that list.

Ruben Navarette, Jr., wrote a piece special to CNN’s section on Hispanic Heritage Month, that points out what many Latinos have known for years, and what some non-Hispanic-Americans are just now learning.

And despite efforts by nativists to keep out both legal and illegal immigrants in a desperate attempt to turn back the demographic clock, Hispanics aren’t going anywhere. Why should we? In many cases, we were here first.

And about that whole thing about assimilation that a certain presidential candidate likes to drum on and on about:

Ah, language. The great divider. More than three-fourths of Hispanics speak English or both English and Spanish, and less than a quarter speak only Spanish. Yet some Americans see a Spanish-language billboard and assume that Hispanics aren’t assimilating. Or they accuse Hispanics of sending mixed messages by claiming to value English while maintaining Spanish. And they’re convinced that the reason we have bilingual-this and bilingual-that is because Hispanics are demanding the accommodation.

They’re not. If only there wa$ $ome way to explain what the$e outreach effort$ are really about.

Navarette even tackled the issue of Latinos on television — mentioned in a letter earlier:

This week, PBS aired the first installment of “The War,” a 14½-hour documentary on World War II by Ken Burns. While most of his colleagues use color, Burns tells stories in black and white. Literally. He took care to include the experience of African-Americans but overlooked the contributions of more than 500,000 Hispanics to the war effort. That includes more than a dozen Medals of Honor recipients. When Hispanic groups pressured the film’s corporate sponsors, Burns sprinkled in 28 minutes of new interviews and photographs to tell the stories of two Hispanics and one Native American.

In an earlier commentary, I blasted Burns for his blunder. Then a reader wrote an angry e-mail blasting me. He insisted that Burns didn’t have to make a special effort to tell the stories of Hispanic veterans because they were, after all, Americans.

Awesome. Most Hispanic World War II veterans are gone now, but I’m sure they would have loved hearing those words. They were first-rate heroes who were treated like second-class citizens. And all they wanted was to be considered Americans.

Read the whole article. Navarette lays it all out there.

Speaking of glossing over history: CNN’s “Significant moments in Hispanic history” timeline starts at 1903 with a quaint sentence that summarizes the previous centuries in just one bullet point.

• Hispanic history in the U.S. dates back to the pre-Revolutionary War era

Whoo-wee! Quite the history lesson, CNN. Let me help you, while keeping with your one sentence limit — Hispanic history dates back to the Conquistador era.

Historians’ neglect of Latino contributions throughout history is nothing new. Growing up studying history as a young man, it seemed like we existed prior to the Revolutionary War period, only to be conquered by the Spaniards, occasionally popping our heads up in the 19th century as victims of expansionist powers, showing up for the Zoot Suit Riots and Bracero Program in the 1960s, and again in the 1980s for Reagan granting amnesty with IRCA in 1986. That pretty much sums up the Hispanic history I was exposed to while moving my way through the education system.

In the recent S-CHIP reauthorization, several Democrats voted against the bill in the U.S. House, prompting liberal blogger Matt Stoller to post an update on the “Bush Dogs” and the vote.

Also listed in the post, separate from the Bush Dog pack, was Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland, Ohio). Stoller wrote:

I’m glad Kucinich is getting a primary challenger. His time is over.

It sparked some reactions in the comments and elsewhere.

I don’t agree with his vote, but apparently now Dennis Kucinich is not progressive enough and must be challenged in a primary. Because he voted against the bill because it was not liberal enough. Dennis Kucinich.

Yes, that Dennis Kucinich. If Dennis Kucinich ain’t pure enough for these liberal purity purges, these folks are going to end up with a really, really, really small Democratic party.

Kucinich’s vote did not prevent the passing of the S-CHIP reauthorization, so this allowed Kucinich to vote in protest of the Democratic leadership’s yanking of the ICHIA provision. (ICHIA would have made legal immigrants and pregnant women eligible for health services.)

“I cannot support legislation which extends health coverage to some children while openly denying it to other children,” Kucinich said. “This legislation is woefully inadequate: and I will not support it.

“Legal immigrant children deserve the same quality health care as other children receive. It is Congress’ responsibility to address the main difficulties that prevent legal immigrant children from gaining access to health care. Today, we did exactly the opposite.”

As to Kucinich’s motives, they could be construed in any number of ways: support for the immigrant community, pandering for presidential primary support, another opportunity to talk about the cornerstone of his White House bid — single-payer healthcare, or a combination. (To be honest, I am not sure which one it is exactly. I am not too familiar with Kucinich’s voting habits to make an accurate judgment.) That motive would be tested should the Democrats in the House seek to override a Bush veto.

Either way, there are likely some in the immigrant community that are just pleased someone made including legal immigrants in the authorization an issue regardless.

Larry Willmore, the “Senior Black Correspondent” for The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, went to dine at Sylvia’s restaurant in Harlem following Bill O’Reilly’s racist remarks regarding blacks.

(Hat tip: Nicole Belle, Crooks & Liars)

When you are a monk in Burma this very week, barred from entering a temple because of your gospel of peace … well, then none of us are truly free.

–Bono from U2
(Associated Press, 09/27/07)

These words from Bono are reminiscent of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., written nearly 45 years ago. (Perhaps that is where Bono received the inspiration for the aforementioned statement.)

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

–Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
(”A Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” 04/13/63)

Here’s more from Bono’s acceptance speech for the Liberty Medal for his work in Africa.

Calling America “my country,” Bono said he’s a fan of the United States despite its problems because of the country’s contributions to the world.

“Your America is where Neil Armstrong takes a walk on the moon,” Bono said. “Your America gave Europe the Marshall Plan. Your America gave the world the Peace Corps.”

“America is not just a country, it’s an idea, isn’t it? It’s a great and powerful idea,” he said. “The idea that all men are created equal, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Bono exhorted Americans to pledge to continue to help the world.

“America has so many great answers to offer,” he said. “We can’t fix all the world’s problems, but the ones we can we must.”

Today, September 27, is my mother’s 52nd birthday.

She died of cervical cancer in November 1992.

So last year, when news broke that Merck produced a potentially life-saving vaccination, Gardasil, against the human papillomavirus (HPV), a leading cause of cervical cancer, I cannot describe the joy I felt at the thought of future families not having to bury 37-year old mothers of four like mine did.

Meghan O’Rourke, writing at Salon today, picks it up there.

So when Merck announced that it had a created a drug that could prevent some 70 percent of cervical cancers from developing, you would think Americans would rejoice. Instead, there was a backlash. Last February, Republican Gov. Rick Perry signed an executive order that would have made Texas the first state to mandate the vaccination of schoolgirls against HPV, the sexually transmitted virus that is a frequent cause of cervical cancer. He promptly came under fierce attack. The Texas Legislature expressed its deep reservations about the vaccine, and the media reported that Perry had received a campaign contribution from Merck prior to signing the order. Ultimately, the order was vetoed by the legislature. Earlier this year, 24 states were contemplating making Gardasil—as the cervical-cancer vaccine is known—a mandatory vaccination for young women. Today, only one state, Virginia, has such a law, and it leaves a loophole for parents to opt out.

In one sense, this reluctance seems understandable. Merck is the same company that made headlines in 2004 for failing to disclose that its painkiller Vioxx raised the risk of cardiac arrest and stroke in patients. Gardasil is a brand-new drug, and the company has conducted only limited testing on it. Though the pre-release studies suggest it is highly efficacious, the vaccine’s long-term side effects are not fully known. What’s more, the vaccination comprises three painful shots, at an estimated cost of $360. Given all this, it is hard to blame parents who resist putting their daughters on the drug’s front line, preferring to wait until more is known about it.

That is a totally understandable, precautionary skepticism that any responsible parent would display. Just as O’Rourke points out, it is the other argument pushed forward by opponents that is problematic.

Much less understandable, though, is the position taken by many opponents: namely, that a cervical-cancer vaccination would “promote promiscuity” among teenage girls. Implicit in this argument is the assumption that good girls don’t get cervical cancer; only “loose” ones do—and they may get what they deserve. Earlier this year, State Sen. George Runner of California told the Los Angeles Times that American money would be much better spent on other types of vaccines, since cervical cancer is a result of lifestyle choices, rather than bad genetic luck.

O’Rourke notes the rank ignorance of proponents of this absurd argument. With this logic, cancer research — namely, much needed governmental funds — should be chauffeured away from deadly illnesses such as AIDS/HIV and lung cancer caused by emphysema.

Also, State Senator George Runner (R-Los Angeles) doesn’t seem to realize that HPV can be caused as easily as casual skin-to-skin contact or environmentally, notes Wikipedia. Ever take a shower in a college dorm with a community bathroom? It is that easy.

In fact, most Americans don’t even know they have it, and can unknowingly pass it along to others. O’Rourke notes the troublesome data:

The CDC reports that at least 50 percent of Americans are infected with HPV over the course of their lives, and a whopping 80 percent of American women are infected by age 50. Admittedly, the chances are slim that HPV would lead to cervical cancer: Only a small portion of HPV infections become cancerous. Still, according to the National Cancer Institute, roughly 11,000 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer this year in the United States. Nearly 3,700 women will die. If you are one of those 3,700 women, you might feel that a vaccine could have changed everything. And—contrary to Runner’s insinuations—you needn’t be a slut to be among them: You could have married a guy who slept with just one other girl. Or, of course, you could be one of the approximately 13 percent of American women who, according to a 2003 study, are or will be a victim of rape over the course of their lives.

Sluts, all of them, according to George “the Cruel.”

Disgraceful.

[This post is not endorsing a mandate for Gardasil, but I do hold out hope for its potential in sparing families the pain that mine went through. The medical evidence is not all in, and skepticism is healthy, especially given Merck's history. But the rhetoric of those like Runner has no place in this debate. At all.]