Amor Temprano en la Mañana

I woke up this morning to the sounds of my mother's stereo on, tuned into Amor 93.1 fm in New York City. She listens to their morning show, "Amor Temprano en la Mañana." Since the type of music the station plays does not form a part of my musical palate, the morning program becomes part of "the background." Today I soon learned otherwise. The morning host, an Argentine, repeatedly kept ridiculing the ways that Salvadorans speak Spanish. The first time I heard this level of mimicry, I must admit, I found it a bit funny. But the man kept up his mockery for the rest of the morning, and I no longer found it amusing. The more I thought about it, the more vexing it became, and I called the radio program to voice my concerns. The woman just said "thank you" when I finished, but I am still dissatisfied. Why should Salvadorans be interpreted as an inarticulate, helpless mass? This reading certainly allows for others to appropriate Salvadorans and represent them in any pejorative way, since they, presumably, cannot speak for––or defend––themselves in the United States.

I tried to send the show the email pasted below, but I kept receiving the following automated response from their server:
"Failed to deliver to 'info@931amor.com'
LOCAL module(account info@931amor.com) reports:
account is full (quota exceeded)"

Small as this medium may be, I wish to record this dissonant moment of "Latinidad."

To Whom It May Concern:

I became aware of your morning program, "Amor Temprano en la Mañana," through my mother's listening practices. I do not listen to U.S. radio programs that, for the most part, seemingly cater to a non-English speaking––if not recently arrived immigrant Latin American––community. Indeed, your program seems to diverge from others in that your hosts have the tendency to often "throw" in English words in your dialogue, and that is, despite its cosmetic surface, fairly refreshing.

I have been quite appalled, however, by the problematic way in which Salvadorans are represented in your show, and that is, as the ultimate punchline through unending linguistic mockery. As a "Latino" program, one would think that you'd respect and value all Latin Americans equally, not select a group so that they stand in for the continuous, as one would say colloquially, "knee-slap." (In mentioning the word "selection," I do wonder what your reasons are for "cherry picking" Salvadorans in this way. Do you "read" all Salvadorans as an uneducated, lumpenproletariat mass? This would be rather paradoxical, given that many Latina and Latino migrants are already socially, economically, and politically disenfranchised in the United States.)

My mother tells me this form of Salvadoran ridicule is part of your morning repertoire, and I immediately asked her, quite naturally, why she would listen to a show where we, as Salvadorans, are insulted on a daily basis. In effect, you are constructing Salvadorans as buffoons and linguistically awkward subjects. How, I further asked myself, can one even dream of Latino "unity" in the United States, when this show reproduces a cycle in which Salvadorans and by extension, Central Americans, are positioned, proverbially speaking, as the armpit of Latin America?

I think you owe, at the very least, the Central American community in the NY metropolitan area an apology, and stop such an unfitting way by which to represent Salvadorans.


Cordially,

British Shorthair Kittens

When we adopted our cat, Theo, we were told that there was a possibility that he was mixed with the British Shorthair breed, given the seeming compass-roundness of his face. Theo also appears to have some of their characteristics: he is gentle, loving, and affectionate, yet reserved; possesses deft hunting skills and is a big eater; and often lets out tiny squeaks for meows. . . And yet this post is not so much about Theo, but about his long-distance cousins below, shall we say.

From the American Library Association store: the I read banned books tote. Awesome!

Early Voting

North Carolina, like Indiana, is holding its primary on 6 May 2008, but given that I will be out of the state by that time, I voted early this past Saturday. The "One Stop No Excuse Early Voting," as it is called here, proved quicker and effective. Otherwise, I would have had to request, by snail mail, an absentee ballot, wait for it to be delivered by regular post, and then find a set of witnesses to confirm my vote. As of this writing, political pundits, of course, continue to emphasize that Hillary Clinton is, for all intents and purposes, a dead political subject. It certainly looks that way. I'm not going to reveal for whom I voted (it's a secret ballot, after all). Suffice to say that I'll support whoever wins the Democratic nomination. Still, I can't help but feel completely vexed when hearing political pundits (mostly male) attack Senator Clinton in such unpleasant––hateful, even––tone. Last week I saw former California State Senator Tom Hayden, of 1960s notoriety (think SDS and the "Chicago Seven"), speak at Duke. He referred to Senator Clinton, essentially, as a man. (But no one really mentions how effete, or femme, Obama appears at times. How will that fare with McCain?)

This is my exigent quibble with the Clinton/Obama binary, as discussed in public discourse: What exactly makes Obama "postrace"? And why can't Clinton be "postgender"? Clinton seems to "transcend" gender only when others replace her female organ with a phallus. Watching these primaries unfold thrusts the spectator into hearing the most misogynistic remarks. This type of pejorative observations against women are given a place in popular discourse in ways that racist comments are not. I was particularly struck by this article from the Wall Street Journal last month (cf., Jonathan Kaufman and Carol Hymowitz, "At the Barricades in the Gender Wars: Clinton's Women Supporters Fear Her Bid Unleashed a Sexist Backlash," 29 March 2008). Put simply: there are serious ramifications in the "cubicle world" for female Clinton supporters. Apparently, they keep silent as businessmen bond in their "objective" support for Obama, uttering their disdain, in impolite terms, for Clinton. These are the same male colleagues who are also responsible for making the decisions on the pay increases for women. This type of focus has yet to be covered by the likes of, for instance, the New York Times. The WSJ reporters found that Clinton's

«campaign has also prompted slurs and inflammatory language that many women thought had been banished from public discourse. Some women worry that regardless of how the election turns out, the resistance to Sen. Clinton may embolden some men to resist women's efforts to share power with them in business, politics and elsewhere.»

The story was on the front page of the WSJ, and I only discovered the article by accident, since I don't subscribe to the newspaper. Luckily, the coffee shop where I get my morning buzz sells it, and I was able to think about these WSJ figures, among them:

(1) In 2007, women earned median weekly wages of 80.2 cents for every dollar earned by men, down from 80.8 cents in 2006 and 81 cents in 2005, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic.

(2) At the nation's largest 500 companies, women account for 50% of managers, but hold just 15.4% of senior executive jobs, down from 16.4% in 2005, according to a survey by Catalyst, the New York research firm and women's advocacy group. Almost three-quarters of these senior women are in jobs that rarely lead to the corner office. The number of senior women in "line" jobs that involve running a business, with responsibility for profits and losses, dropped to 27.5% last year from 29% in 2005, according to Catalyst.

(3) At U.S. law firms, women accounted for 17.9% of partners in 2006, up from 14.2% of partners 1996, according to the directory of legal employers compiled by the National Association for Law Placement, even though women received 48% of law degrees granted in 2006 and 43.5% in 1996.

I wondered (and still do) what a Clinton speech on gender inequality would sound like. (Can she afford to make one?) In what direction would such a speech take us? Why isn't Obama asked on––or better yet, why doesn't he convincingly speak––on other marginalities that are equivalent to the category of race?

On another note, I am also distressed by the "intimacy" with which white Obama supporters readily approach me, as though my "of color" status immediately signifies a vote for the Senator from Illinois. As this post illustrates, I have other concerns that are not exclusively limited to ethnoracial lines. I find his message for "change" so vacuous (what will "change" really look like when "President Obama" serves his term?), and his appropriation of "sí se puede" so problematic. And yet, I know, I know: these comments on Obama seem so insignificant when faced with the prospect of a McCain presidency.

BUZZ

... And why am I a tad surprised that Winter of Starbucking fame has linked to this Unlettered City post? Excellent "vanity Googling" skills in the "Starbucks Everywhere" site. I suppose my element of surprise comes from the qualifier "BUZZ!!! (some good, some bad, but publicity is publicity)" for my analysis, which includes, of course, other individuals. I don't know if my interpretation of this documentary is necessarily buzz or publicity. It was intended as just that: a reading very much outside the parameters of "buzz" or "publicity." My commentary was by no means conceived, and written, in an effort to join the gratuitous economy of "noise" on the web, which prompted me to think of the following: What kinds of thoughts are reduced to buzz? Who wants to be an "unintended buzzer"?

Meet The Voice of Dora the Explorer

. . . and a link to today's focus on NPR's "In Character" series on Dora the Explorer.

The Politics of Pluperfection

I went to see a talk yesterday afternoon by Patrica J. Williams, James L. Dohr Professor of Law at Columbia University. Her lecture, "The Politics of Pluperfection," was part of the Provost's Lecture Series 2007–08: On Being Human at Duke University. I first read Williams as an undergrad. Her work on critical race theory greatly influenced me at the time, particularly The Alchemy of Race and Rights (Harvard University Press, 1992). A few years later, I also read The Rooster's Egg (Harvard University Press, 1995), of which I own an autographed copy, and proceeded to skim through Seeing a Color-Blind Future (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1998). These days, I occasionally read her columns in The Nation, though I must say that yesterday I had a wonderful surprise in terms of the interdisciplinary and incisive directions of Williams's work. In a proverbial nutshell: Williams talked about our contemporary eugenics movement (e.g., the demand for Ivy League eggs and human reproduction, cosmetic surgery, the search for DNA ancestral origins, and projects of exclusion based on one's medical records since these seemingly point to "inherent inequalities") is pointing to a new civil rights movement, one where "the human" is being judged not by race, or skin color, or the content of one's character, but by health. This intersection of new technologies and approaches to better one's social self (or "personhood") and their links to categories of race and ethnicity fascinated me. To this, of course, we can also add the ways in which genetic alterations are being offered in the world market. How are these "types" of differences grasped and "processed"? Through these technological turns and directions, the question that still resonates for me is: Who is a legal person?