Wednesday, March 19, 2008
As a recent transplant from Texas and an American of Mexican decent, I am appalled at the ignorant comments made by some radio personalities and politicians running ads in Jackson regarding the immigration issue. "Pedro" jokes are no less insulting than jokes against African Americans. Unfortunately, though, Mexicans who are here illegally can't defend themselves. Thank God, these same "Billy Bob" imbeciles would not dare to make their racist comments against blacks anymore, but hey, "Mexicans" are fair game.
Will Mississippi ever free itself of its Ku Klux Klan past and racist actions? It appears that will not happen anytime soon, especially when small-minded people turn their hatred and insecurity against the Latino population.
When these same business and community people can convince me that they know people who will pluck chickens for lower than minimum wage and show up every day, then I will shut up. But I know better.
These Mexican people want to earn enough money to feed their families back home and are willing to do work the average "American" would not dare touch. I do think they deserve to work and should have proper paperwork if only to protect them from predatory law enforcement officers and others who abuse them.
Your article ("Immigration: Myth v. Reality," Feb. 21-27, 2008) was the best I have read since moving to Mississippi a year ago. It was well researched, unbiased and exhibited factual information. Bravo for a much-needed article and significant effort to "right the wrongs" that our politicians have promoted with incorrect data and continued fear mongering. Last election cycle the wedge issue was gay marriage; this year it is immigration.
I have given up on The Clarion-Ledger and the other local newspapers. They devote more time to publishing social events for the rich than providing in-depth, hard-hitting articles that better the dialogue on important issues. My newspaper of choice here in Jackson is the Jackson Free Press.
Dr. Lauren Gonzalez
Easy on White Males
Ordinarily I agree with Mr. Earl Ofari Hutchinson. But I take issue with his portrayal of the white male Democratic vote in his piece, "Obama and Male Voters."
His assertion seems to be that white males who have (or will) cast their vote for Obama are doing so because they do not support the notion of a woman holding the highest office in the land or, indeed, any positions of power in government. While I certainly hold open the possibility that this is true for some men, I think a factor that he does not acknowledge in his piece is that for some men—and women, for that matter—it is not that Clinton is a woman that is the issue, but rather which woman she is.
I have always thought it was high time for the U.S. to catch up with the likes of Ireland, which have elected a woman to the highest office in the land; but given the vision, the voting record and the policy stances of Obama, I simply don't think it is this particular woman who should occupy the seat at this time. Does this make men, white men in particular, or the other significant voting block of individuals not acknowledged in Hutchinson's article that aren't voting for Hillary in some states (namely, women) sexist? Does it make Hispanics, Asians or blacks who are voting for Obama perpetrators of reverse-racism for not voting for a white candidate? I think not.
Catch-22s abound in this election. Campaign supporters on both sides are making assumptions, e.g. if a white person doesn't vote for Obama, clearly they are a racist and won't support a black candidate; if a male doesn't vote for Hillary clearly they are a sexist and don't support the idea of a woman as president. A much more helpful perspective is to see that we have two candidates running for office. Study their positions and make your decision accordingly. (Oh, and one just so happens to be a woman, and the other just so happens to be black, and both—in my humble opinion—would be better than what we've had for the past eight years on any policy or area of government).