LATINOS IN AMERICA: WHAT DO YOU THINK?

LATINO IN AMERICA was a project of Herculean proportions given the scope of diversity and complexity of the Latino community. For sure Soledad O'Brien did a fantastic job and her stature has certainly increased, which bodes well for her future at CNN. I know she will continue to push for more Latino stories and in this, we have her back.

 

I definitely hope there's a Latino in America 2 next year with a more panoramic view of the state of Latinos in the USA. It should definitely include a panel with articulate Latinos and non-Latinos having a go at a few pet peeves and stereotypes (like we don't want to learn English.)

 

There were many well-reported, moving segments, many of them on issues we already were familiar with, others less common. The one about separate masses at a Catholic Church in Part 1 was excellent. Particularly good were the "Habla" bits at the beginning of each show and the Campbell Brown panel discussion with Soledad, Maria Elena Salinas, John Leguizamo, Daisy Fuentes and Congressman Becerra just before Part 2.

 

Important issues were touched upon and I wished it had lasted longer or better yet, that discussions such as that would have been part of the show. 

 

But as a whole, at the end of the four hours, I have to say I was disappointed by its lack of analysis and contextualization of who we are, where we are at now, where we're going. The show needed an opening and a closing that like book ends would hold all the personal stories together and bring in some insight and inspiration. In a larger scale I wish it had somehow acknowledged the framework of five centuries of historical and geographical interaction between Latin America and the U.S.A.

 

Its content was unbalanced in terms of the number of stories of struggle-and-success vs. stories of struggle-and-failure. It was a case of the glass half-full or half-empty, I guess.

 

True, about 50 percent of Latino students don't graduate from high school, but the other half does, and girls don't get pregnant and many go on to college, etc. It would have been nice to see a young Latino preparing to start college and follow him or her to the first day of class.

Too many segments involved the police one way or another. Too many visuals of iron fences, iron gates and barbed wire. Too many pregnancies. I'm not saying that these issues should be ignored, but there was a bit of overkill.

 

Of course, we couldn't expect that the shows could cover everything and everyone in four hours, but there were glaring omissions-like nothing on Texas and tejanos. They forgot The Alamo!

 

For a change of pace about Miami, it would have been nice to see a Cuban young man or woman who came to Miami in the Mariel Boat Lift in the '90s, shoeless and in rags and see how he/she is doing now. This was an especially interesting wave of the Cuban exodus in that Marielitos were not as welcome as previous waves, not even by many well-established Cubans in Florida.

 

The ending was sort of a downer. I'd have prefered a more upbeat, inspirational story. The sheriff wannabe was not a sympathetic character. He lacked fired in the belly, didn't project any ganas, making it hard to root for him. Being jobless and getting his girlfriend pregnant in the interim made me doubt his sense of discipline and responsibility.

 

I'm not sure I believe his wishy-washy promise to take the test again and succeed. It would have helped if his segment had been followed with a quick yuxtaposition of some Latinos who also struggled with the English language and ended up mastering it big time, like some of our writers: Sandra Cisneros, whose family went back and forth between Mexico and the US so much that I think she never went to the same school twice. Sandra is a MacArthur fellow, the so called 'genius award'...or Nilo Cruz, who came from Cuba at age 10 without speaking a word of English and became a playwright and received the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for drama. Or Esmeralda Santiago or Julia Alvarez or Josefina Lopez, author of "Real Women Have Curves", an undocumented Mexicana who became legalized when Reagan approved amnesty in the 1980s. (Now I know I'm dreaming, but I'm thinking of the Puerto Rican actor Jose Ferrer, who possesed the most crystalline English diction to grace the American stage in half a century, delivering a Shakespearan monologue...Take that Lawrence Olivier!)

 

SPANISH: I cringe every time I hear that it's the Spanish language what brings us together as Latinos in the USA. There are millions of US-born Latinos who do not speak Spanish and we have to stop demonizing them.

 

Being Latino is exactly that-a way of 'being' that cuts accross borders. It's that manera de ser grounded in the culture that, whether we like or not or as politically incorrect as it may be, came down to us from Spain along with the language. Any Latino visiting España for the first time will know and feel this even if your tatarabuelos didn't come from there.

 

LATINO/HISPANIC: Before the next show we should get our caca together on this silly issue. We are free to call ourselves whatever we like individually, but need to settle on an umbrella designation to do our collective business out there--and Latino is the proper one. There are so many outlandish interpretations of the two designations that to non-Latinos hearing us bickering about it may sound confusing...like we don't know who the heck we are.

 

IMPACT ON NON-LATINOS. I don't know that I can successfully channel a Middle American frame of mind to ascertain what the impact of the show was on non-Latinos. But given the negative coverage we've had in the last couple of years, I doubt that after watching the four hours of LIA, Americanos in Peoria will be sending telegrams to their congresspeople asking them to please, hurry and vote in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, or stop complaining about having to 'Press 1 for English' when making phone calls.

 

For me, I had a variety of mixed feelings about watching at least night two (I am awaiting re-run of night 1 because due to scheduling conflicts, I missed it).  I feel that, just as with Black in America WAY too much time is spent on the downtrodden, violent side.  It's not typically balanced enough. 

 

There is also never any "the way forward" included.  So children are being detained in these immigration holds, what and who are working to solve that problem?  How can the viewer help? 

 

But my biggest problem with both Black and Latino in America is the numbers. The numbers just aren't there for CNN because, in my opinion, they do not typically promote enough to these demographics - and even more specifically not to 18-34 of this demo -  and then expect them to tune in for a one a year bone thrown.  CNN just doesn't get it.

 

They need to bring in specialist to help them create campaigns across mobile phone and on-line platforms to both promote and engage specific to these markets for these programs and throughout the year, but they just don't seem to understand that (the fact that they have no anchors of color in primetime, doesn't help either). This would be my biggest recommendation, and we would love to help with that endeavor.

 

 

Pienso que el documental Latino en America es una exelente pinselada de nuestra experiencias como nuevo imigrantes o nacidos en este pais.

 

Epecificamente se deberia continuar con este tipo de documental educativo  para todas las comunidades que conforman este pais.

 

En mi humilde opinion el sigiuente documental deberia ser sobre la primera generacion de latinos/as enfocando los desafios culturales - educacionales - laborales y sobre todo racial de parejas mixtas 

1. Did "Latino in America" accurately represent the realities of the Latino population in this country today? It provided only a snapshot, but definitely did not give a complete picture.
 
2. What were the most positive contributions of this documentary? It acknowledged that Latinos are not invisible.
 
3. What were its most negative aspects? It depicted problems that are not faced solely by Latinos (such as teen pregnancy).
 
4. What image or images of the Latino community do you think this series projected to the non-Latino American public? I think it highlighted recent immigrants and did not credit the contributions of earlier groups (such as Puerto Ricans).
 
5. Did you find the series' focus on personal profiles, especially its examinations of the problems faced by young Latinas, effective?
No, I would have preferred to have the individual stories framed within a larger context. There are many young Latinas pursuing an education, working hard and helping their parents. Also, Latinas are not the only ones impacted by teen pregnancy. Once again, this did not give the whole picture.
 
6. Did the series adequately look at issues beyond that of individuals to examine the role of social structures and institutions in affecting Latino realities? No, I think it touched on some topics, but it warranted closer scrutiny. For instance, the high suicide rate among young Latinas seemed to be attributed mostly to difficulty with parents.
I am astounded at that conclusion. I wonder how much cultural acclimation, being treated as a minority, entering a culture with a different aesthetic standards for women, etc. may impact a young Latina.
 
7. Were all significant segments of the Latino population (national origin groups, age and gender groups, social classes, etc.) adequately represented in the series? No, such an endeavor would warrant a year-long series.
 
8. Should CNN follow-up with another documentary on Latinos? Why or why not? Yes, and provide more in-depth coverage.
 
9. If CNN produces another documentary on Latinos, what issues do you feel they need to cover? They need to cover issues impacting specific groups, not just immigration. However, I would like to see issues balanced by contributions.
 

Marco Portales:

Soledad O'Brien's "Latino in America" raised a question of balance for me.  The immigration stories from Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and from Puerto Rico (my wife Rita is Puerto Rican) were all good and informative, especially for a non-Latino audience. These stories appeared placed against all other previous immigration stories of Americans with European backgrounds and ancestries. 

 

Being "Mexican," however, was considered "bad" (even though it was by a 17-year old).  That characterization was allowed to stand.  Doesn't CNN have better editors? 

 

Mexican Americans and Mexicans make up more than 2/3 of the Latinos in the U.S.  Most Mexican Americans have been here for a good number of generations. They are NOT new arrivals, and that fact was not given sufficient attention or time on the air. 

 

My 3 books on U.S. Latinos seek a more balanced perspective on admittedly difficult Latino groups to capture visually and in words.

 

Patricia McCann Vissepó, Casa Otoñal, New Haven, CT:

1. Did "Latino in America" accurately represent the realities of the Latino population in this country today?  For the most part and she tried very hard to show different communities within the "Latino" community even though she kept on foisting that term on people who clearly felt more comfortable id-ing themselves by nationality.

 

The attitudes expressed by the Anglos at the  Holy Trinity Church was less than Christian-like and very revealing about folks really feel.
 
2. What were the most positive contributions of this documentary? It showed that Latinos are a not a homogenous group and that the stereotypes of maids, gangs and gardeners are false.

 

3. What were its most negative aspects? This might seem small given the 2 hrs but I keep on hearing and being outraged by the member of the Holy Trinity Church telling a mother she had to speak English to her son at home! What, it's 1955?
 
4. What images or images of the Latino community do you think this series projected to the non-Latino American public? It showed us for what we are: hardworking people, trying to do our best to raise our kids and give them a better life just like everyone else.

5. Did you find the series' focus on personal profiles, especially its examinations of the problems faced by young Latinas, effective? No, it focused too much on the negative and the cultural downside. They could have shown some of the wonderful young women in our community, who go to college, etc.

 

6. Did the series adequately look at issues beyond that of individuals to examine the role of social structures and institutions in affecting Latino realities? In a word: NO!

 

7. Were all significant segments of the Latino population (national origin groups, age and gender groups, social classes, etc.) adequately represented in the series? Más o menso, given the time span.

 

8. Should CNN follow-up with another documentary on Latinos? Whay or why not? Probably yes since the more people know, the better.

 

Well, the "Latino in America" series was somewhat disappointing. I understand the need to create and present stories to entertain a viewing audience but at the end of the day, I think the audience came away with a very strange picture of Latinos in America and what the lived experience of Latinos is today in the United States.

 

How to tell our stories in only 4 hours? And yet, Soledad O'Brien and the CNN team provided a great introduction.

 

I was puzzled when I first read the subtitle of part 1, "The Garcias."  I immediately hoped it was not a two-hour special on some family named Garcia, but was happy to see the name used as a metaphor for who we are, and the different cultures, colors, and aspirations we represent.

 

It was striking to see the young Dominican boy in Charlotte, who is not all that accepting of his own culture, react defensively when called a "Mexican." 

 

One of your responders found this offensive, and I would like to reassure her that it was not. As a Cuban living in Kansas City, with a substantial Mexican population and a negligible Cuban one, I find it amusing when I'm asked out to a Mexican restaurant and informed that I "will really like the tacos, (or tortillas, or chimichangas) because the salsa or the guacamole is really good." 

 

I constantly have to explain to my friends, some of them Mexican, that I never ate any of this until I was nearly 40 when I moved to Kansas City, and that I would much prefer maduros, moros y cristianos, and a Malta Hatuey to wash it down. 

 

I think that was in part what the boy's reaction reflected, a Mexican boy in New York City may react the same way if called Puerto Rican. I love mariachi music, but give me a mambo any time.

 

I hope non-Latinos at least got the point that we're not all the same, just as much as Anglo-Americans are not all the same.

 

Latino in America also reflected the valiant attempt of upwardly mobile families (the Dominicans that moved to Charlotte, the Venezuelans who only speak Spanish at home) to maintain some of our culture in spite of the environments in which we live.

 

And yes, there were examples of successful individuals and communities (Soledad herself, Sen. Martinez, Eddie Olmos, Lupe Ontiveros, the daughter of Tony Alvarez - whose first name escapes me, Pico Rivera and South Florida). 

 

What was disappointing was not the program, but what it portrayed.  The ignorance and intolerance in Shenandoah, PA, whose poor white residents perceive a threat from immigrants that should not exist, and, that fear is exploited by a white supremacist purporting to be concerned about African-Americans!  Don't that beat all!

 

I was disappointed by the young Latinas being torn between helping their families and trying to live up to their mothers' values, and not giving themselves a chance to succeed.  And yet, they find themselves in even worse situations by ending up pregnant, unmarried, and without any education to speak off. Just where are the mothers and the community leaders that will provide better guidance for these young women?  Isn't this a perversion of Latino family values?

 

What we got from Latino in America was a traditional college survey course. The program touched on many topics, many of them requiring more in depth research. Is it up to CNN and Soledad O'Brien to this? I think, in part, yes!  But it is also up to us.

 

 

I grow frustrated when documentaries highlight people from the East or West Coast only. How about Kansas City, Dallas or Chicago?
 
The U.S. Public very much needs a program on Hispanic Contributions - starting when the U.S. was founded in 1776. Hispanic military contributions to North America need to be included in all history books.
 
I along wiith all Hispanic Americans who attended school in the U.S.should be allowed to have pride in our ancestors. But how is this possible, if no one taught us of the Hispanic contributions.

 

From what I saw briefly, it had good aspect and bad. The bad was interviewing so-called leaders like Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Monica Garcia of the LAUSD as genuine Chicano leaders when the Mayor is a confirmed vendido and so is Monica.

 

Monica did not rise to leadership as a result of her struggle in the Chicano movement but as virture of working for the previous Chicano School Board member, Jose Huizar. She has done nothing to improve education for Latinos in L.A. other than privitizing education. In fact, Chicano students turned their back on her at a graduation and she retailated by suspending the student body president.

 

I am concerned about the overemphasis on "immigrants", many of us are not recent arrivals to the U.S. and have a long history in the U.S. I am a second generation Chicano and in the 1960-1980, we were the majority of Latinos.

 

I guess if they do a story, that CNN had ignored about the beating of the Mexican in Penn. It is good as well as the segment on the racist asshole Arapio.

 

1. Did "Latino in America" accurately represent the realities of the Latino population in this country today? NO, it did not accurately represent the realities of the Latino population because it only spoke about children with problems (suicide, teen pregnancies, gangs, drop outs, etc). It did not talk about the children that graduate from high school and that some are valedictorians and because they do not have documentation they cannot pursue higher education.

2. What were the most positive contributions of this documentary? This documentary only exposed the reality of some people from the Latino population.

3. What were its most negative aspects? The confirmation of stereotypes and they did not explain the history about immigration laws that currently make people ?illegal?. For example, Cubans can become legal because of legislation passed by Cuban-American legislators. This same legislation does not apply to other immigrants.

4. What images or images of the Latino community do you think this series projected to the non-Latino American public? Again, it talked about the very poor and the very rich and famous. It did not talk about the ?educated? Latino. When someone spoke about Latinos, they were chosen because they were ?movie stars?. They did not talk to ?scholars? in the field.

5. Did you find the series' focus on personal profiles, especially its examinations of the problems faced by young Latinas, effective? It was not effective because they did not talk about how to solve the issues.

6. Did the series adequately look at issues beyond that of individuals to examine the role of social structures and institutions in affecting Latino realities? No, it did not examine the role of the system oppressing the Latino population.

7. Were all significant segments of the Latino population (national origin groups, age and gender groups, social classes, etc.) adequately represented in the series? No, not all segments of the Latino population were represented.

8. Should CNN follow-up with another documentary on Latinos? What or why not? Yes, but bring in the picture the ?scholars?. Real people doing research in the Latino population who are very few? but they are out there.

9. If CNN produces another documentary on Latinos, what issues do you feel they need to cover? We as a nation, we must address the situation of Latino children who are in the schools (not performing at grade level). These children were born in this country, they are our future. And, we need to address the legal situation of children that after they graduate from high school, they cannot go to college because of their immigration status.

Sorry I could not comment on the CNN series "Latino in America."  I watched the first evening, but was unable to see the second part.  What I did see was a mixed bag. 
Overall, I liked the first portion even though there were things that needed to be captured better, or explained. While watching it, I wondered what it would be like for several of us, like my good friends Chris Garcia and Refugio Rochin, to watch it together. I also thought how helpful it would be to have someone like Professor Chon Noriega at UCLA comment on the project.
   
The above brings me to an interesting suggestion. What would it take for a major foundation to bring together an audience of fifteen or twenty prominent Latino writers and scholars to sit together, see the complete series and then comment about their impressions to Soledad and her colleagues responsible for putting together the program?
Because of his scholarship and expertise in the media, Chon Noriega would be ideal as a convener and moderator for such a gathering. 
The outcomes of the discussion could be distilled into a a brief report from which abstracts and short summaries could be disseminated by publication in Latino newsletters, journals and magazines, many of which are affiliated with national Latino organizations. 

There are other possibilities, such as distributing the outcomes to PBS, Univision, other Latino media and the national networks.

I would be willing to contribute funds for such a project if NiLP decided to take the lead.

I decided to boycot the damn thing.

My take on the documentary is disappointment. I don't understand how Ms. O'Brien didn't find it relevant to spend much more time describing the Puerto Rican experience and its impact. I am a New Yorican and that life is sadly understated also.

 

I thank you for the opportunity to continue to learn more about myself, my people and people like (and unlike) me.  Dios te bendiga!

I have not seen the program. However, in response to question 9, I offer this:

 

CNN should do an investigative report on how Lou Dobbs and Time Warner senior management have been able to propagate falsehoods, lies and distortions about Hispanics with impunity; how the Latino community's leaders have allowed this to continue (it took Imus one or two days to fall), even when the attitudes such behaviors engender have been shown to result in intimidation, beatings and death.

 

# # #

 

National Institute for Latino Policy (NiLP)

101 Ave of the Americas

New York, NY 10013-1943