A Gross Mislabeling

In a society of stereotypes, nowadays Mexicans and other Hispanics suffer from what is arguably the worst. Here in America they are labeled as illegal, uneducated drains on society, only here to take advantage of the generous political system and deplete our welfare and public aid reserves. This overwhelming assumption that many Americans have when encountering a dark skinned, Hispanic person is way too generalized and completely bigoted. A huge testament to some white Americans’ naivety when it comes to the actual differentiation of South Americans from Central American and Caribbean natives and so on is the broad use of the terms ‘Hispanic’ and ‘Latino’. People will use these terms and similar ones to “too tightly package the people categorized by [them]”(Gandossy) a CNN article by Taylor Gandossy points out. This article, The Complicated Measure of Being Hispanic in America, addresses the mislabeling and misunderstanding many people of ‘South of the Border’ origin are plagued by.
The author, Gandossy, doesn’t try to emphasize one opinion throughout the article. Instead, he presents multiple perspectives from people of all different levels of qualification. Those he interviewed ranged from people of all different South and Central American descent to a professor of Puerto Rican and Latino Studies at the City University of New York. These people all have different opinions on the issue of whether or not a “Latino identity” does truly exist and whether or not this shared identity is sufficient justification for a label as generalized as Hispanic or Latino. This issue must be considered before approaching the further issue of society’s use of these terms and their seeming current equivalence to ‘Mexican’.The terms ‘Latino’ and ‘Hispanic’ “are often used interchangeably, which is a point of some contention in the wider community” (Gandossy). These “governmental designations” are challenged by many of those who bear the burden of the label. They contend the perpetuation of the idea of the ‘Latino identity’. As one interviewee in the article said: "[Latinos] very often don't share language, don't share class circumstances, don't share education; it's very difficult to speak about them as one thing" (Gandossy).
People of any type of ‘South of the Border’ descent- with darker complexions, dark hair, and short stature- are often bunched into the ‘Hispanic/Latino’ category. Furthermore, those identified as Hispanic or Latino are also colloquially referred to as Mexicans. This nationality has become all encompassing as a derogatory and demeaning way to label all people of southern origin.

When considering this issue, many recent books, articles, speeches, debates, and opinions can come up. A great example of this would be TC Boyle's novel about the price of the American dream and the struggles faced by illegal immigrants weighted down by the label placed on them by a fed up society. The two aliens  in the novel give a face to these Hispanic/Latino/Mexicans (who are actually Mexican) and make it easy to see the restrictions and limitations imposed by this label. Other characters demonstrate the overuse of the label, bitterly wondering "did they all have to be Mexican?"(Boyle 149). Even a man considered tolerant and liberal, conscious of the different nationalities and origins, succumbs to this misconception.
Not only are Hispanic and Latinos in America being wrongly and rudely labeled in these two groups, but they are also now being further sequestered into the class of ‘Mexicans’, regardless of their actual origins. This derogatory mislabeling insinuates that all darker, shorter people are actually impoverished illegal immigrants and drains on our society. The Dominican-American who owns an insurance agency in Tampa, Florida is in no way the same type of person as an illegal alien who makes his living waiting on street corners for manual labor. This reprehensible assumption that people who look similar are similar and share a ‘Hispanic Identity’ should be challenged more openly and put right.

Works Cited:

Gandossy, Taylor. "The Complicated Measure of Being Hispanic in America."
CNN.com. CNN. 16 Mar. 2009 .

The Priorities of the Wealthy

By the second page of T.C. Boyle's compelling novel, The Tortilla Curtain, the reader is already becoming aware of a sad, disheartening reality: what the mindset of far too many Americans is when it comes to material possessions versus the value of a human life- but not just any human life, a Mexican life. The main character's immediate reaction to the frightening, possibly deadly, car accident he just had- hitting a man who'd jumped out into the road- is one of brutally cold materialism. Delaney admits to himself and the reader that his reactions were first "for the car (was it marred, scratched, dented?), and then for his insurance rates (what was this going to do to his good-driver discount?), and finally, belatedly, for the victim" (4). Instead of transporting the man to a hospital, Delaney drives to his Acura dealer following the accident, seeking a repair on his just recently-pristine headlight. As he calls his wife and explains what happened, his reasoning for giving the man a mere $20 and no other form of help is a shameful, yet to him undeniable, "I told you- he was Mexican" (15). This type of cold, detached justification for an act bordering on inhuman, is sadly very similar to that of many other Americans.

The Grapes of Wrath quote in the front of the book just about sums it up, before the reader even understands how pertinent it will be to the story to come: "They ain't human. A human being wouldn't live like they do. A human being couldn't stand it to be so dirty and miserable." (Steinbeck). Is this the actual mindset of most Americans? All of those people who support stricter border control and the deportation of illegal immigrants and closed borders and English as our only language and so on and so forth... is it possible that this is the way they view all of those Mexicans living in our country, striving for a better future? 

Prime-Time and Homosexuality

Anyone who ever watched prime-time television in the 90s knows of the sitcom spectacular that drew in millions. “Friends” was one of the most-watched TV shows of all time and reigned for a solid ten years. The show focuses on six young adults living and working in the Big Apple. The webs woven between the three female, three male characters- webs of sex, love, money, family, tension, conflict, and relationships- were ever-evolving and ever-engrossing to the avidly watching public of the wildly popular sitcom. Over its ten years, the show touched on every pertinent social topic there is, one of them of course being the sometimes-taboo homosexuality.
The main plot line that comes to mind at the word homosexuality is the story of Ross (one of the main six characters) and his first wife, Carol. The first season starts off with Ross slowly coming to the realization that his new wife is exhibiting some ‘gay tendencies’. Eventually, the news is broken to poor Ross that his wife has only after their marriage come to the realization that she is, in fact, gay and therefore not attracted to him but to other women. The hilarity of this story persists throughout the entire duration of the show, frequently being brought up by other characters to poke fun at Ross and often as a source of conflict between him and Carol, who became pregnant with his child before realizing that she was a lesbian.
Another related plot line is one of the chief ways that the other characters poke fun at Chandler (a chief character on the same level as Ross): his ‘quality’. At the beginning of the show’s run, before the awkward and corny Chandler dates and eventually marry Ross’s sister, Monica, people will sometimes comment on this certain vague ‘quality’ that Chandler has about him. The ‘quality’ leads many people (mostly women) to assume that he’s gay. The eight episode of the first season (The One Where Nana Dies Twice) centers around this elusive quality of his and his frustration with it. He comes to realize just how common this assumption about his sexuality is and frantically searches for an answer, an explanation as to what this ‘quality’ specifically is in a desperate attempt to suppress it. Chandler is, in fact, heterosexual, but this never-quite-identified portion of his personality leads many to assume the opposite.
In both of these plot lines- and specifically in episode eight, season one- homosexuality is not presented in a negative fashion. It isn’t something to be feared or revolted by or deemed ‘wrong’. The only way the show approaches this controversial topic is with a light heart and a joking manner. In no way is homosexuality being made fun of, only the misconceived sexuality is the big joke. While Friends could certainly have incorporated many more gay characters and plot lines into it’s ten-year run, it handled the few encounters the protagonists did actually have very well.