Interesting questions from the Hemispheric Institute of Performance and Politics

Friday we were commenting on a recent e-mail from the "Hemispheric Institute of Performance and Politics", and it was quite exciting for me to read about their work, and especially the type of quality thinking expressed in the articles and correspondence from its members.

Taking another example from the recent e-mail invitation, this one on the subject of immigration, legality, etc.

"Multiculturalism, Interculturality and Migration

Since the 1980's, many countries in the Americas have constitutionally recognized multiculturality, ethnic diversity and differential forms of citizenship while others, like the United States, have moved in the opposite direction. During this same period, diverse forms of violence, forced displacement and migration have intensified both within and across national boundaries. How do these phenomena alter and refine notions of citizenship and belonging? What cultural transformations do they bring with them? How can intercultural dialogue be framed in light of struggles for social justice? What debates emerge about place and territory, about the right to land as a cultural right?"

As regards..."How do these phenomena alter and refine notions of citizenship...and belonging"

Yesterday night I was chatting with a friend, one who I had not seen, talked to, in years. We grew together and studied together thru school, thru college: same fraternity, mutual friends, social environment, etc. So, quite close in many aspects. Yet, when I was responding to his question of "what do you do?", and I explained the work we do @ GALEO and some basic concepts in and around the immigration issue, his response was along the lines of justifying the posture of Latinos (that is, 'citizen' Latinos, or 'legal' Latinos) that reject immigrants, immigration work, assistance to immigrants, etc., based on the immigrant "illegality", on their "taking away what is rightfully ours", on their not having contributed to the 'source', etc. I heard a strong "we vs. them", a "I and we, belong - they do not", a blindness to their presence, the comfort of being 'within the rule of law', a resistance to cultural influences other than the ones "they" themselves (the 'legal ones') bring to the areas they work in and live in, in exchange for doing whatever it takes to belong: social circles, civic participation, professional groups...etc., etc.

If basic human understanding of the plight of immigrants - who sacrifice so much in exchange for 'life' (whatever that is...only they who are searching know...) - is absent in these minds and hearts; if there is no sense of compassion, and therefore little possibility of 'sharing' a space in a nameless, faceless city or urban or suburban area, how can there be talk of "christianity", of its values, of the "raw and tough" positions Christianity professes? Is there a disconnect here? Are we talking "Sunday-afternoon-couch-christianity" here?

One logic may be then that...immigration is great (illegal, that is). It strengthens the bonds between those who think like this! It promotes national unity! The belonging, 'gang' effect, is in! It is a group formation dynamic where 'my sense of belonging' is initially challenged (by the presence of the 'illegal' aliens') and the defensive response ends in a sense of fairness and unity of those who fear the most 'the other' within them! And with it, there is a deep sense, repressed maybe, of action: of doing "something".

Does it escalate to violence in the name of defense, then? Is it a possibility? Well, of course it is! Of course it can escalate...it has!

The question in the e-mail from HIPP continues with the term..."forced displacement", above. Here in the U. S., in the land of liberty, and the land of respect for individual rights, and the rule of law. "Nah! It can not be! We wouldn't do such a thing!", seems to be a response most likely to be heard from many 'rule of law lovers' facing these tough questions. But it will only take a quick moment to wiki "Trail of Tears" to come up with a most revealing and significant historical event. One event under the rule of law. An interesting quote from that time..."We as Choctaws rather chose to suffer and be free, than live under the degrading influence of laws, which our voice could not be heard in their formation.” —-George W. Harkins, George W. Harkins to the American People [4]. And for those that chose to stay..."The Choctaws who chose to remain in newly formed Mississippi were subject to legal conflict, harassment, and intimidation. The Choctaws "have had our habitations torn down and burned, our fences destroyed, cattle turned into our fields and we ourselves have been scourged, manacled, fettered and otherwise personally abused, until by such treatment some of our best men have died."[9] Check out...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

I think it is best to continue asking these questions, these tough questions. So that the reality of the past is not re - lived. So that present day blissful ignorance is confronted as what it is, ignorance, and it is converted to knowledge, to growth, to some sort of wisdom. Before that ignorance acts out in violence.

Thank you HIPP, for a great e-mail.

Link: http://www.hemisphericinstitute.org/eng/index.html