Trusting LA British Food Invasion
By Gabriel Buelna

If you’ve driven through Glassell Park in Northeast Los Angeles lately, you’ll notice a new supermarket going up. With a new parking lot and fresh paint, it looks nice. It even has a nice name; the Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market. After surviving the bruising supermarket strikes of a few years back, who could argue with a new supermarket with such a nice name.

Not so fast! Not having heard of Fresh & Easy, I decided to do a bit of research about the new store and found out more than I bargained for. Fresh & Easy is actually a subsidiary of Tesco. For those of you that haven’t heard of Tesco, it’s the third largest food retail company in the world after Wal-Mart. The company is in twelve countries, has 31% of the market share in Britain, with plans to open 100 stores in the United States. Essentially, while the name of the store is Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, its not really a “Neighborhood Market” at all. It’s a multinational corporation selling food. Not necessarily bad, just not a “Neighborhood Market.”

Should Fresh & Easy Sign a Community Benefits Agreement Before Opening? VOTE HERE!

On the face of it, who cares? Good luck to Fresh & Easy and let the free market decide if it survives. As we all know, if costumers don’t like the store, they won’t go back. Simple, right? The only problem with the philosophy is that while we have a free market system, we also have a thing called “Civil Society” that is also free to voice its concerns.

Those of us who supported supermarket workers a few years ago wanted our local stores to remain open; we just wanted workers to receive a fair wage. We wanted access to fresh fruit and vegetables at a fair price, with the understanding that those preparing the food had living wages and adequate insurance. Many of us knew we didn’t want Wal-Mart and the low wages that are associated with it.

The entire discussion about supermarkets in Los Angeles is complex. While we’re a large metropolitan city, a good amount of our urban landscape doesn’t have access to supermarkets. Many working class communities have local stores with more expensive products, which may or may not be of similar quality. For years, communities have pleaded with officials to encourage stores to open in these communities. Pandering to our hopes, Fresh & Easy has promised to do just that. Open new grocery stores in working class neighborhoods that serve fresh, organic produce at reasonable prices. While this sounds great, the company’s history doesn’t necessarily show a willingness to follow through on its promises.

According to an Occidental College report, of the 98 stores identified as future Tesco store sites, only a paltry 10% of the stores are in high poverty, low income areas. The company also plans to depend on a part time workforce and is refusing to meet with community and labor groups about fair wages. Essentially, Tesco and Fresh & Easy want the right to claim high paying jobs and quality foods in working class neighborhoods, without actually doing so.

When pressed, Tesco asks the community to trust it. No, that won’t happen, the vital services and quality of jobs this industry can provide is too important. Will Tesco trust us to pay our groceries later? Of course not.

In order to attempt to guarantee fair wages and quality food, neighborhood groups have requested Tesco meet to discus a Community Benefits Agreement. These agreements are designed to help local communities receive many of the jobs that will be offered and to make sure those jobs pay a fair wage with medical benefits and all the other good stuff. The agreements also nudge Tesco to open more stores in communities they promise to serve. It shouldn’t be a big deal for Tesco to simply sit down at the table and say, yes, I will pay a living wage, I will offer medical coverage for workers and their families, I will offer the highest quality food, and I will open supermarkets in working class neighborhoods as promised. These are statements the company has made in public, now put it in writing.

What do you think?

Should Fresh & Easy Sign a Community Benefits Agreement Before Opening? VOTE HERE!

Gabriel Buelna, Ph.D., MSW is Executive Director of Plaza Community Services in East Los Angeles and a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at Cal State Northridge. You can visit his blog at http://gabrielbuelna.blogspot.com/

If you would like permission to re-print article, please e-mail gbuelna@sbcglobal.net

Columbus and Indian Skin-Lightening Cream
By Gabriel Buelna

This past week marked the 515th anniversary of the arrival of Christopher Columbus to the Western Hemisphere. Columbus is a historically divisive figure. Some view him as a great explorer, searching for new routes to India and bringing riches to the Old World. Others hold him responsible for the destruction of societies by introducing racially based systems where skin color determined everything. With memories of Columbus long gone from my mind, it was not until a news story about an Indian skin-lightening cream that I was inspired to write about him.

A few weeks back, I saw a news story about Indian Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan selling a skin-lightening cream called Fair and Handsome. The commercial revolves around a young man with dark skin who's having difficulty attracting girls. After some coaxing, the young man agrees to the skin-lightening treatment. Upon completing the treatment, the actor becomes lighter and suddenly attracts girls. The commercial ends with everyone smiling.

Read and Watch BBC News Story HERE

After watching the commercial, I was shocked, in disbelief and overall dismayed. It reminded me of the Twilight Zone episode where aliens arrived on earth and had a book called To Serve Man. Except it wasn't a book to help humans, it was a cook book. The Bollywood commercial was well made and probably did a good job of selling its product. However, it did so at the expense of an Indian society that lived under British dominance for 500 years and only recently became independent.

While nations in years past could act independently and with little outside scrutiny of how they treated their populations, that era is over. India can not consider itself part of the modern world and want a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council and allow products such as Fair and Handsome to flourish. The irony is that the Indian government should not exercise its powers to take this commercial and product from the shelves of New Delhi supermarkets. Indian civil society has the responsibility to police itself and send the message that this sort of product is not acceptable.

While the British colonized India, not Spain, the results are the same. Former British and Spanish colonies for hundreds of years suffered under systems where skin color determined your fate. Weird names such as Zambo and Mulato defined racial mixtures with the ultimate akin color being pure European white. The Indian Fair and Handsome skin-lightening cream plays on Indian historical racial fears and reminds us of our own pre-Civil Rights era that with every passing day becomes a long ago, sometimes forgotten memory.

So why do we care about an Indian skin-lightening cream? After centuries of our own racially divisive systems, the Indian product reminds us that while the world economy has become efficient and indeed flat, our world social systems are still centuries behind and outdated. The sad reality in America and societies throughout the world is that skin color still matters significantly. While the subject is taboo and no one will admit it, the news article about an Indian skin-lightening cream is a good opportunity for each of us to contemplate our own hypocrisies and indoctrinated racism. Columbus would probably not believe his birthday would be used as a day to reflect on our biases in the hopes of reigning in centuries of racial intolerance.

Gabriel Buelna, Ph.D., MSW is Executive Director of Plaza Community Services in East Los Angeles and a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at Cal State Northridge. You can visit his blog at http://simplesend.com/simple/t.asp?S=264&ID=13953&NL=3130&N=19056&SI=1678047&URL=http%3a%2f%2fgabrielbuelna%2eblogspot%2ecom%2f

If you would like permission to re-print article, please e-mail gbuelna@sbcglobal.net

LAUSD-Public Service or Sacrifice?

LAUSD-Public Service or Sacrifice?
Decision Affects Education Reform Across State and Nation for Years

By Gabriel Buelna

Los Angeles School Board members earn $26,000 per year – on a part time basis. Each School Board member, charged with the responsibility of preparing our children for the future, makes $25 per hour if they work 20 hours per week. If a Board member works a 40 hour week, which many do, they earn $12.50 per hour. This past March 6th, voters in Los Angeles finally said enough is enough. Angelinos selected Measure L as the vehicle to increase the salaries of the School Board members. Voters sent a message that a $6.2 billion operating budget and over $18 billion in construction of new schools was too large for a part-time board. Pursuant to Measure L and the demands of voters, The Charter Measure L Compensation Review Committee was formed to create a reasonable salary structure for LAUSD Board members as full-time employees. The Charter Measure L Compensation Review Committee failed.

As a father of three LAUSD daughters, like many, I voted for Measure L without doing much research. I simply wanted my children to have better schools and I wanted to make sure the School Board would represent children and parents, not special interests. Therefore, I was honored to be appointed by Los Angeles City Councilmember Eric Garcetti to the Compensation Review Committee. Once appointed to the Committee, I was chosen to Chair the Committee. I have witnessed first hand how the Compensation Review Committee failed to provide an adequate salary for Board members and have effectively nullified the voters’ mandate of March 6th.

For two months, the committee listened to testimony about the duties of School Board members. We listed to former School Board member and current Los Angeles City Councilmember Jose Huizar describe the importance of meeting with parents, youth and community members about schools. Former School Board President Genethia Hayes described the need for a full-time Board to tackle the bureaucracy at LAUSD. She described constituents demanding to speak with her, principles, nonprofit organizations wanting and demanding her attention. She described representing LAUSD local, regionally and nationally on education issues. Councilmember Huizar and Ms. Hayes described the School Board member’s job as one that was much more than full-time.

The Committee made two salary decisions – one for full-time Board members and one for part-time Board members. The Committee decided that Board members who elected to remain part time would continue to receive $25,000 annually. I agreed to this amount as this action was being taken in the middle of an election cycle. In a startling move, however, the Committee prohibited School Board members from earning any outside income. After reviewing data and listening to testimony about creating a full time position for School Board member, the Committee, with my dissent, agreed to tie the full time salary of School Board members to a nine month LAUSD teacher salary of $46,000. Here, again, School Board members are not allowed to earn any outside income.

The Committee’s decision was made without a single member of the public present. No public input on the matter was considered. In fact, the biggest loser in this entire process is the public. Voters elected for an initiative that would guarantee full-time work and full-time pay for Board members. The public did not and does not want outlandish wages for public officials. The Los Angeles Unified School District has salaries ranging from $20,000 to $300,000 per year. During the Compensation Committee’s meetings, the highest recommendation for School Board members’ salaries was between $60,000 and $90,000. This amount is sufficient to have Board members work full time without the need for outside income, but not high enough to draw individuals based on salary alone.

The decision to keep part-time Board members at $25,000 and full-time Board members at $46,000 ensures that only wealthy communities will have adequate representation on the School Board. Potential candidates from working class communities will not be able to become Board members because they cannot feed their families on $46,000 per year. The Compensation Committee has ensured that the only individuals serving on the School Board are those wealthy enough to serve in spite of the Compensation Committee’s salary caps. The Compensation Committee has disenfranchised thousands of low to moderate income parents and children who will not be represented by people like themselves. The Compensation Committee has warped the Los Angeles School Board into a place where only the wealthy can survive.

As a citizen, I have never before advocated for higher salaries for elected officials. As the Chair of the Charter Measure L Compensation Review Committee, however, the evidence was before me – and all Committee members. The evidence presented clearly indicated that a full-time, sufficient salary structure was needed for Board members, but the Committee ignored the evidence as well as the voters.

In the end, the Committee left behind a broken legacy that both alienates parents and children based on income and fails to provide School Board members with the financial resources to serve on the Board without unjust financial harm. The inability of the Charter Measure L Compensation Review Committee to fix this self inflicted wound ensures that being a LAUSD Board member is a public sacrifice, not a service. While some may view this as simply a Los Angeles issue, the lack of forethought by this Committee will only mean school boards’ across the state and nation will only be able to give education a part time focus. How can this be right?

Gabriel Buelna, Ph.D., MSW was the Chair of the Measure L Compensation Review Committee. He is also Executive Director of Plaza Community Services in East Los Angeles and a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at Cal State Northridge. You can visit his blog at http://gabrielbuelna.blogspot.com/

If you would like permission to re-print article, please e-mail gbuelna@sbcglobal.net

Investment Not Resentment for Undocumented

By Gabriel Buelna

While Republicans want high walls and cameras and Democrats want amnesty, the final immigration reform will have to be a moderate approach that will likely include both heavy border security and legalization with fines. The debate currently roaring is focused on two extremes: Conservatives want to create as much pain as possible for immigrants and their families for “breaking the rules” and stepping to the “front of the line”; while liberals want a complete amnesty that might be a political impossibility. In part, the debate has stagnated with the same rhetoric on each side and neither side wanting to compromise. It’s time for a new approach.

As the Executive Director of a nonprofit in East Los Angeles that services an immigrant population, I see the realities of the undocumented. It is a known fact that immigrants in general face higher levels of poverty than the general population, but the realities of the undocumented go beyond abject poverty. Many toil in below minimum wage jobs, with employers sometimes threatening to call immigration or withhold pay. While some would argue this is the price for better wages and a better life, this price is too high.

In addition to living in substandard conditions in pursuit of the “American Dream”, undocumented children, families and adults lack connection with their communities for fear they might be found out. This fear deters them from connecting with many of the social institutions that could help them. While some join local social clubs, churches or unions, most do not. The fear of their status ties many to their homes and limits their ability to garner resources. Essentially, being undocumented leads to financial, social, and emotional isolation. Immigration reform has the potential to eliminate this isolation and create a genuine connection between immigrants and their communities. However, with the current proposed immigration reform, eliminating isolation could prove very difficult. The proposed reform, in its current form, serves to unduly tax undocumented immigrants who already spend too much time away from their families at jobs that are far below living wage.

As currently envisioned, individual immigrants and families would pay between $5,000 and $15,000 for legalization. Already earning less than any other group in the country, this amount will devastate many families. Income that might have been used to pay for medical care and housing would have to go to pay for legalization. Make no mistake, undocumented immigrants are willing to pay these proposed fines. Any undocumented immigrant will tell you that they would go hungry to save enough money to become legal residents. Many of these immigrants have risked life and limb to come to the United States, they will certainly spend great sums of money to stay. As a matter of public policy, however, our government should not gauge the validity of taxation merely by people’s willingness to pay it.

While the political reality is that immigrants will likely need to pay a price for legalization, what should this price look like? I propose that the current bill be amended to give the option to have this “fine” paid through community service. Such a system has greater potential to create investment, not resentment. The bill might include the creation of regional Immigrant Community Service Banks that would connect the undocumented population to pre-approved nonprofits. The Banks would work in conjunction with nonprofits to have undocumented immigrants work a specified number of hours doing a variety of activities that benefit the community. The Immigrant Community Service Banks would become a clearing house for immigrants needing to fulfill community service hours and for nonprofits in search of volunteers to assist in carrying out good in the community. The benefits of such collaboration would yield longer lasting and more tangible returns than any monetary fine imposed on this country’s undocumented population.

As citizens, we need to be aware that there is a population of 12 million people that have been isolated as the result of their undocumented status. These 12 million people consist of families with children ranging from infants to teenagers, female heads of households subsisting on single incomes, and undocumented children living in this country with relatives – hoping someday to be reunited with their parents. Creating systems where children, teenagers and those in extreme poverty would not have to be financially punished would not only demonstrate compassion, but could create a societal paradigm shift where immigrants are seen as vested members of the community worthy of respect and protection.

This country changed the lives of million with the legalization process of 1987. It gave a home to people like my wife who, because of the legalization process, was able to go to college. Today she holds a Masters degree in Social Work, is a licensed therapist, and helps head the Salvation Army Social Services Department, one of the largest social services providers in LA County. This opportunity might have been lost with today’s proposed reform; a loss not only to her personally, but certainly to our community- and if I may add - to myself because I met her in college. Let’s not shut the door on others who like her could only enhance our communities.

Finally, creating systems where immigrants could volunteer and develop a stake in their communities would be smart for a country looking to reestablish its credibility both domestically and internationally.

What do you think?

Gabriel Buelna, Ph.D., MSW is Executive Director of Plaza Community Center in East Los Angeles and a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at Cal State Northridge. You can visit his blog at http://gabrielbuelna.blogspot.com/

Pope Excommunicates Mexicans
By Gabriel Buelna

While Americans focused on misconduct by police during May Day events last week, the abortion debate erupted in Mexico, causing a roar throughout Latin America and the Vatican. Threatened by the legalization of first trimester abortions by the Mexico City assembly, Pope Benedict XVI sent a message that legalizing abortion of any kind will not be tolerated. Mexican bishops, led by the comments of the pope, threatened to excommunicate sympathizers. Not since the days of the Mexican revolution has a religious issue so seriously threatened the delicate balance between the Catholic Church and the Mexican government.

Mexico has long been a bastion of Catholicism complete with the traditional conservatism and obedience. The breaking of ranks in the form of Mexico City's pro-abortion legislation was not taken well by the Vatican. While the announcement was shocking to some, it should not have come as a surprise. The relationship between the Mexican State and the Catholic Church has been tenuous since the creation of the Mexican Constitution in 1917. For over 70 years, the clergy were stripped of real-estate, the right to vote and an array of laws intended to eliminate any role of the Church within Mexican society. Catholics even rebelled against the government in the bloody Cristero War of 1926 that lasted for three years and left 90,000 dead.

It was only in 1992 that Mexico restored its official relationship with the Church, granting legal status to all religious groups, providing limited property rights, and eliminating restrictions on the number of priests in the country. The Church experienced revitalization as the political power of Mexico's elite Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) began to wane. In hindsight, it's not surprising the Church decided to lash out at this point in history. Mexican President Felipe Calderon is the first modern president to publicly worship and show any type of public spirituality; thus, providing some political cover to the Church.

While the Mexican Catholic Church has regained some of its role in the country's public life, it should move forward with caution. The Mexico oftoday is not the Mexico of the 19th century, where the entire population lived in poverty, was illiterate, and no political pluralism existed. Mexico today has legalized civil unions in several states and voting rights are somewhat respected. As the confidence and awareness of individual rights develops in Mexico, the Church is mistaken to believe it can dictate it's will as it did in the past.

In a public letter to citizens, Mexican bishops have said doctors and nurses who perform abortions and politicians who supported the legalization would be excommunicated. With an estimated 200,000 illegal abortions and 100 deaths per year, the Church's strategy is destined to backfire. Elected officials, media and citizens throughout Mexico have begun to question the heavy hand of the Vatican as interfering in internal politics.

Abortion critics have stated legalizing abortion would lead to a moral decline throughout Mexico. The problem with this argument is that Mexico has seen tremendous moral decline in the last two decades not from changes in social laws, but from its economic deterioration that has led millions of families to dissolve and emigrate to the United States. Case in point, last week the Mexican government reported that since 2000, they have lost more Mexican citizens to emigration (577,000 a year), than to deaths (495,000 a year). To comment on moral decay in the face of these numbers shows a complete disconnection with reality.

While 88% of Mexico remains Catholic, membership worldwide continues to decline by one percent each year. Despite the fact that Latin America is home to half the world's Catholics, the outlook is not positive. In Brazil alone, the percentage of Catholics fell from 83% in 1991 to 67% in 2007. The debate over abortion in Mexico and eventually throughout Latin America can be a healthy discussion for the Church. Nobody expects the Catholic Church to accept abortion. Who would want to be part of a church that is so whimsical about its teachings? What Latin America demands is a Catholic Church willing to accept that its membership has different relationships with governments and that public health concerns are important.

This past weekend, my older daughter received her First Holy Communion. I am proud she is part of an institution that is doing good things throughout the world with its educational system, charities and ministries. What nobody likes is to be threatened with excommunication for disagreeing with the Church. If the goal is to reduce or eliminate abortions, the Church will need to create the social networks to reach the women who need help when they are faced with an unwanted pregnancy, whatever their choice might be in terms of abortion. The 200,000 Mexican women a year that receive illegal and dangerous abortions need to know that their Church can provide guidance and support without repercussions.

What do you think?

Gabriel Buelna, PhD, MSW is Executive Director of Plaza Community Center in East Los Angeles and a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at Cal State Northridge. You can visit his blog at http://gabrielbuelna.blogspot.com/

NOTE: If you are a member of the media and would like to re-print this article, please e-mail gbuelna@sbcglobal.net

Mexican Billionaires Cause Immigration
By Gabriel Buelna

As the son of Mexican immigrants and avid observer of everything Mexican, I noticed last week that Forbes magazine announced that Mexican telecom magnate Carlos Slim Helu had overtaken Warren Buffet as the world’s second richest man at $53 billion. The richest man on the planet is still Microsoft’s Bill Gates at $56 billion. In a country with a per capita income of less than $6,800 a year and with half the population living in poverty, the question is whether this is good or bad for Mexico and begs the question. “Why we should care in the United States.”

To put Slim’s earnings in perspective, his $53 billion is equivalent to roughly 7% of Mexico’s annual economic output. His empire includes an airline, a cigarette company, music, internet service, mobile phone service and telephone giant Telmex. The latter was bought from the Mexican government in 1990 by a group of investors led by Slim. The purchase was made during the tenure of former Mexican President Carlos Salinas De Gortari, whose term ended with Mexico’s largest currency devaluation, the loss of millions of jobs and Gortari’s self imposed exile in Ireland. Essentially, the company was bought under dubious circumstances.
To put Telmex’s grip on the Mexican economy in perspective, nine of ten landlines in the country are under its control, with its influence now reaching throughout Latin America with 100 million subscribers. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Mexicans pay some of the highest phone rates in the world with a notoriously low quality of service.

So why should we care here in the United States about Carlos Slim, his billions and high Mexican phone prices? It is not Mr. Slim’s billions we should be concerned about. In fact, if Mexico’s billionaires were creating new products and jobs, I would admire them. The fact is, billionaires like Slim hold back economic growth, by choking off small and medium sized business, with their control and protection by government. According to the Small Business Administration, small business accounts for 52 percent of all U.S. workers. In Mexico, small and medium sized businesses don’t have an opportunity to succeed because companies like Telmex control the government levers, choking off any small business threatening their monopolies.

Each year, millions of Mexicans are forced to immigrate to the United States. Suffering through dangerous, humiliating circumstances, simply to work and send money back to their families. Once here, Mexican and other Latin American are extremely hard working and entrepreneurial, creating jobs throughout the economy. Under the right circumstances, this business energy could be occurring in Mexico or whichever home country they arrive from.

Slim is quoted as saying that "Poverty isn't solved with donations" and noted that jobs are created by growing businesses and not by hand outs. I do believe Mr. Slim is correct, creating and nurturing Mexico’s small and medium sized business would create the millions of jobs it needs. For Mexicans to be dynamically participate in their own economy, fair opportunities with adequate government support must be given. Until this happens, we will continue to see immigration and poverty.

During the same news cycle as Slim’s dubious honor was released, Mexican President Felipe Calderon signed a law eliminating prison sentences for libel or defamation. While I am shocked such laws even exist protecting Mexican officials, I applaud Calderon for moving toward eliminating barriers to Mexican democracy. For Calderon, signing such laws is easy compared to the heroic steps he will need to take if he intends to reduce poverty in Mexico by eliminating the monopolies and characters controlling it. He will need to break up Mexico’s monopolies and invest in government monitoring to assure competitiveness continues throughout the Mexican economy.

Democracy is not simply about voting, it’s about creating institutions that keep the economy and all aspects of life moving forward in a rhythm. While Mr. Slim is not alone in his monopolistic tendencies, he is an example of the Mexican mindset of holding down the masses for the benefit of an extreme few. The next time a Mexican businessperson makes the top ten richest persons in the world, I do wish it would be for creating new software, products or services that all Mexicans are proud of. Just as Mexico has come a long way in creating transparent elections, it to can help create an environment where Mexicans can feel free to grow and prosper and not feel obligated to immigrate to the United States. When they do visit the United States, the trip should be for pleasure and not painful.

What do you think?

Gabriel Buelna, PhD, MSW is Executive Director of Plaza Community Center in East Los Angeles and a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at Cal State Northridge. You can visit his blog at http://gabrielbuelna.blogspot.com/

NOTE: If you are a member of the media and would like to re-print this article, please e-mail gbuelna@sbcglobal.net

Please read great article on Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez

http://www.nydailynews.com/latino/2007/04/11/2007-04-11_vaya_con_dios_alberto_gonzales.html

Slim nears Gates on world-richest list

Carlos Slim nearing Bill Gates is not positive for Mexico in general and the Mexican people in particular. With phone bills some of the highest in the world, Carlos Slim has done more to cause poverty and immigration to the United States than any other institution within Mexico. His earnings are embarrassing and not positive news for Mexico.

What Mexico should do is breakup TELMEX and other monopolies and allow Mexican entrepreneurs and investors to flourish . This would create the millions of jobs Mexico needs for its citizens not to have to immigrate.

Read article here

Gingrich Takes Latino Asset
by Gabriel Buelna

I almost fell out of my chair when I heard former House Speaker Newt Gingrich state children should speak English and not “the language of the ghetto.” Gingrich said this to reinforce his point that bilingual education should be abolished in the United States. Gingrich even appeared on television speaking Spanish in an attempt to quell the storm brewing around his comments. While discussion and disagreement about language and how children should learn English is valid, Gingrich’s attempt to stem bilingual education by describing Spanish as “ghetto” is a blatant attempt to demoralize a significant portion of this country’s residents. Dubbing Spanish, or any other non-English language, as “ghetto” is tantamount to economic oppression.

As the architect of the 1994 Republican Congressional takeover, Gingrich coordinated Republican campaigns and taught Republicans techniques to manipulate the media in order to take control of Congress. Gingrich is savvy in the use of the media as a political tool and when he came up with his ghetto language platform, he knew exactly what he was doing. He knew that by offending Latino sensibilities, he would gain ground among the core of the Republican Party, especially in early primary states. Gingrich’s speech was designed to use Latinos to test his political platform to assist him in deciding whether to make a run for the presidency.

Gingrich, like former California Governor Pete Wilson has probably caused Latinos to reflect on our role in American society and how it might change. Wilson’s anti-immigrant policies led millions of Latinos to fear their legal status and thus immediately apply for citizenship. Gingrich’s comments will not go away in a day, week or month, but will be entrenched in the Latino mind, because they hit a nerve. The core discussion left by the comment is how Latinos view the use of language and what it means to us.

Those of us with children understand the dilemma. As first generation Latinos, my wife and I speak to our children in Spanish. However, they speak and read perfect English and interact with friends in both languages. Essentially, they live in a bilingual world that includes watching the novela La Fea and the cartoon Handy Manny. We designed it this way because we both know the personal and professional benefits that being bilingual brings.

The professional implications of being bilingual in our economy are simple. You either speak Spanish or you don’t move forward in certain sectors. From travel and entertainment to construction and manufacturing, speaking Spanish is mandatory in a globalized economy. As international commerce continues to grow in breadth and speed, the ability to communicate in multiple languages is not a luxury, but a necessity. If Gingrich had wanted to be helpful, he would have acknowledged this reality and urged Latinos to increase English proficiency, while maintaining Spanish. To advocate for speaking one language instead of maintaining bilingualism not only stratifies our society in a caste-like manner, but also disenfranchises those who would have an increased skill-set by maintaining their bilingualism. The effect of Gingrich’s plan was to simultaneously ostracize large segments of our society and to decrease their future earning power by eradicating a highly sought after skill.

While I’ve never heard Latinos regret learning English, I have heard them regret not being taught Spanish. I’ve even heard non-Latinos regret their parents not teaching them Spanish and have encountered non-Latinos teaching their children Spanish. There is no need to defend learning English. Most countries in the world have their populations learning English in one way or another. The world has become smaller due to rapid communication and multilingualism, yet Mr. Gingrich has framed bilingualism among Latinos not as an asset, but as a liability.

Gingrich’s comments come from a generation that saw limited global competition. Ten years ago, no nation challenged the economic superiority of the United States. China and India were mere footnotes in trade. Realities are now different and in order to compete globally, linguistic diversity of every kind will need to be a priority. Every demographer knows Latino children of today will be the workforce of tomorrow. Mr. Gingrich may rationalize that he is not going to get the Latino vote anyway, so it is fair to use them as some bizarre litmus test for the Republican machine. Not only is this not fair, it is divisive and short-sighted.

The past eighteen months have seen nationwide debates on immigration and immigration reform. Progress in these debates will only be made when true understanding is desired by both sides of the issue. Mr. Gingrich does not speak from a position of understanding, let alone authority, and his comments have permeated the Latino community making them more resistant to Republican attempts at dialogue. It is time to make progress in absolving this country’s ambivalence towards immigration and this progress needs to be rooted in a sincere, open-minded approach to the issue. We need not fear diversity, but embrace it as part of our national strategy.

What do you think?

Gabriel Buelna, PhD, MSW is Executive Director of Plaza Community Center in East Los Angeles and a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at Cal State Northridge.

Note: If you would like to re-print article or post on your website, please e-mail me at gbuelna@sbcglobal.net

Alberto Gonzalez Plays Latino Card

by Gabriel Buelna

If there’s one thing we can count on in Washington, it’s that Republicans and Democrats don’t get along. That’s why it was surprising the Senate, by a vote of 94-2 vote, passed a bill taking away the Attorney General’s power to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. For the Attorney General, this was a major reduction in his authority, but why should we care? Well, the 94-2 vote was a vote of no confidence, sending the message that Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez’s current legal post should end with his resignation or his termination.

Last week, Mr. Gonzalez spoke of adversity in his life. In his six years with the Bush administration, Mr. Gonzalez has rarely spoken of issues of race and rarely acknowledged being Latino. Now, in his moment of political crisis, he is consistently raising his ethnicity on a regular basis. In doing this, Mr. Gonzalez is saying, “Please don’t fire me, I’m Latino.” He even used the key word “adversity” to hammer his point home. This attempt to play the Latino Card was so blatant and egregious that Comedy Central paid homage to Mr. Gonzalez’s ploy be basing an entire skit on it. The burning question here is whether race is a contributing factor to the Attorney General’s predicament. No, race was not a factor. It was not a factor with O.J. and is not a factor with A.G.

What is sad about the situation is that Mr. Gonzalez should be someone Latino children and families throughout the United States and Latin America feel proud of. He’s been a successful attorney who built a relationship of trust with the President of the United States. He honored his heritage by keeping his name “Alberto” instead of changing it to “Albert” or “Al.” He’s from Southern Texas with the accent to prove it. He could have been a living role model for Latinos on a national and international level. Instead, Alberto Gonzalez has become a caricature of himself – a fading reflection of what he could have been. As the father of three Mexican-American girls, ages four, six and eight, I used to point to the television and say, see you can be a lawyer and a leader like Mr. Gonzalez. I no longer say this to my children.

Mr. Gonzalez could have overcome this challenge by speaking with Senators and admitting a mistake. The reality is that we like to crucify politicians in one breath and forgive them in the next in this country. If the Attorney General had quickly confessed his wrongdoing and the measures taken to ensure that such missteps would not occur again, the U.S. attorney firing scandal would never have become a scandal. It would have been a forgotten, month-old sound bite. Instead, the wrongdoing has grown into a full-blown national drama. Throughout, Mr. Gonzalez has failed to accept responsibility, believing on some level that the President will swoop in at the last second and save him from the gnashing teeth of non-partisan justice. In believing this, Mr. Gonzalez has not grasped that he is the Attorney General of the United States and not the personal attorney for President Bush.

As Mr. Gonzalez waits for the President to save him, he is discounting the fact that President Bush needs a few days of press where it’s not about him. With Democrats in control of Congress, the War in Iraq going badly, and home sales at their worst levels in seven years, Mr. Gonzalez will need to resign or be fired. Mr. Gonzalez being fired will be the coverage the President needs to show he is firmly at the helm of his administration and is not afraid to clean house when necessary. Mr. Gonzalez will never get that he’s a tool of the Bush administration. Mr. Gonzalez will not understand this and will miss the opportunity to resign believing until the end that he is President Bush’s friend. In politics, Mr. Gonzalez, nobody is your friend.

Mr. Gonzalez’s legacy will be that of opportunities lost. He could have helped broker an immigration accord or challenged the overall Latino community to improve its graduation rates, increase volunteerism, or generally take a stand on something. The only positive aspect of this debacle is that Latinos know Latinos can reach the position of Attorney General. We will have to wait until the next Latino Attorney General of the United States to discover the good that can come from having a Latino fill the post. Next time, I hope that being Latino is as important in choosing a candidate for the position as it is to Alberto Gonzalez as he tries to save his position.

What do you think?

Gabriel Buelna, Ph.D., M.S.W., is Executive Director of Plaza Community Center in East Los Angeles, a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at California State University, Northridge, and appears regularly on TV-KMEX-Channel 34 Univision Los Angeles and Telemundo 52.

To receive articles on regular basis or respond to this article, please visit http://www.gabrielbuelna.com/. You can also e-mail me directly at gbuelna@sbcglobal.net.

Article will also be available soon on http://www.latinola.com/.

My son Staff Sergeant Cristofer de la Peña

by Abelardo de la Peña

Hola:

My son Staff Sergeant Cristofer de la Peña is assigned to C Company 27 Brigage Support Battalion in Mosul, Iraq, as a medic.

His company is heading up a humanitarian effort to help the people of Iraq. The project, ³Soldiers Helping Those In Need-Iraq², is a blanket drive, in conjunction with blankets.com with an overall goal of 2000 donated blankets by the end of May.

As the father of a soldier in the 27 BSB, I wanted to let you know about the drive and give you an opportunity to be a part of this project by spreading the word to friends and family.

For those of you who aren¹t computer savvy, don¹t worry the process is quite easy. Simply log onto blankets.com and click on the ³Donations² icon (top right of the page). After this, click on the ³Soldier¹s Helping Those In Need-Iraq² icon.

From this page you will be able to submit your orders for donating blankets. Each blanket is $8.50 to donate, which includes the price of shipping to Iraq. Please remember that you are not just donating a blanket, you are giving warmth and love to somebody that is truly less fortunate than you.

In a few months a convoy will be rolling off the Forward Operating Base Marez to deliver the donated blankets, toys, and other goods to people who have absolutely nothing. I believe that with your help and the support of other great Americans back home, they will be able to reach above and beyond their initial goal of 2000 blankets.

Please forward to family, friends and colleagues.
¡Gracias!

- Abelardo

Brazil Embarrasses Bush
by Gabriel Buelna

With daily American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan increasing, most Americans seem to have forgotten about Latin America. President George Bush has. After seven years in the White House, Bush attempted to make up for lost time by undertaking a whirlwind tour of Latin America, with special emphasis given to Brazil. Touted as a tour of the region to illustrate America’s commitment, the trip actually had a dual focus of developing a strategic relationship with Brazil, focusing on the biofuel ethanol, and attempting to counterbalance the increased influence of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. In the end, the tour backfired with a reduction in American influence in Latin America and a substantial increase in Brazilian influence among the nations south of the U.S. border.

Comment on this blog below

The cast of characters in this Bush induced drama includes Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (Lula) of Brazil and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Lula helped found the Brazilian Workers' party and has been jailed for his views several times. Elected in 2002, Lula’s victory marked the first civilian to civilian transfer of power since 1962. After orchestrating a failed 1992 coup d'état against former President Carlos Andrés Pérez, Chavez went on to win the presidency in 1999 and has been subsequently reelected twice.

While Lula and Chavez share similar ideologies, their strategies have differed sharply with regard to how they govern and their relationship with the United States. Chavez has continuously focused on his Fifth Republic Movement, seized private property, threatened to nationalize others and remained the proverbial thorn in the side of the United States. Conversely, Lula has focused on increasing Brazil’s economy by increasing trade, creating jobs and creating a middle ground approach to its relationship with the United States.

Brazil’s economic and political power derives from the decision in the 1960’s by its military dictatorship to move toward biofuels such as ethanol and become independent of oil. Since then, the country moved to the point where it produced 4.23 billion barrels of biofuel per year in 2005, compared to United States’ production of only 3.9 million barrels. Both India and China combined produced only 1.5 million barrels of biofuels the same year.

Bush’s trip finished in Mexico, where President Felipe Calderon waits for an immigration accord that has yet to materialize. The biggest winner of Bush’s Latin America journey is Lula of Brazil who emerged as the elder statesman, promoting a Brazilian product designed in laboratories as a viable alternative to fossil fuel. Lula’s message to Bush focused on developing strategies that would increase environmentally friendly exports, create jobs, and remain capable of replication throughout the developing world. Brazil didn’t ask for hand outs, only that the tariff on biofuels be reduced. Rebuffed by Bush, Lula offered a new way for Latin America, while our president reached no accord, and only motivated millions of protesters throughout his tour.

In the end, the new Lula way or the Lula Doctrine for economic development and diplomacy with the United States appears to have replaced the 184 year old Monroe Doctrine of complete American dominance. The Monroe Doctrine was the embodiment of the United States’ warning to the European nations to stay out of Latin America. The political and military might of the United States made enforcing the doctrine simple. Today, our country does not have the military resources or the will to continue the model. We’re dependent on others for our fuel and our capital to run our economy. Lula did not embarrass Bush by insulting him or taunting him like Chavez; instead he embarrassed Bush by heralding in a new, sophisticated, and sustainable era of Latin American independence, while simultaneously extending an olive branch. The leftist and ex-Communist caught everyone by surprise.

Comment on this blog below

So why does this matter to you? In the 1980’s, the United States represented two percent of the population, while using fifty percent of all resources. At the time, the Soviet Union existed, with China and India a mere blip on the global economic radar. Over the past twenty or so years, the Soviet Union disintegrated, while China and India experienced economic explosions predicated not merely on trade, but on the application of technical expertise.

During this same time period, Latin America was largely ignored. Economies in Latin America waxed and waned, but the Brazilian economy has remained relatively stable due to its possession of a significant agricultural, manufacturing, mining, and service sectors. The introduction of the Real in 1994 is considered a major success in Brazil’s economic history and the outlook of Brazil’s economy is almost always referred being extremely positive. As the United States stopped paying attention to the region, the United States lost control. How this loss of control will affect the world has yet to be seen. Clearly, there is no destabilization of Latin America. What we do know is that this is the end of a sort of extended Colonialism in Latin America. Bush’s tour marked the end the historical perceptual occupation of Latin America by the United States. As economies become the newest weapons of choice, it is clear that the U.S. is not the only one with an arsenal or the knowledge of how to develop one.

The victory of Lula brings one more observation to mind. While the political left has been winning throughout the region and world, Lula and Chavez offer different leadership styles. One views the militaristic model of Che Guevara as its source and the other has chosen development and democracy. How these choices will ultimately shake out, I don’t know. I just know the world changed, American dominance has once again been reduced and the world we knew in the eighties and early nineties no longer exists anywhere.

What do you think?

Gabriel Buelna, Ph.D., M.S.W., is Executive Director of Plaza Community Center in East Los Angeles, a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at California State University, Northridge, and appears regularly on TV-KMEX-Channel 34 Univision Los Angeles and Telemundo 52.

This article is also published on http://www.latinola.com/. I highly recommend LatinoLa for interesting events and articles on everything Latino in Los Angeles.

If you have a job announcement you would like us to advertise through this column, please e-mail gbuelna@plazacc.org.

Bill O’Reilly’s Peeping Toms

By Gabriel Buelna

I confess, I sometimes watch The O’Reilly Factor. While I know O’Reilly is obnoxious, watching him is like watching a car chase on television: entertaining at times, but with the distinct possibility of bloody consequences.

A week or so ago, O’Reilly interviewed conservative commentator Linda Chavez about a proposed law that would force landlords to check the immigration status of renters. Chavez didn’t agree with the legislation, citing inconvenience to landlords. O’Reilly asked Chavez if she agreed that the attacks on New York and Washington could have been prevented if Americans had observed their neighbors before 9/11. Chavez disagreed and reminded O’Reilly that the terrorists had visas and thus had arrived legally. The most interesting aspect of the exchange was O’Reilly’s vehement connection between the undocumented and terrorism. It reminded me of President Bush continually citing terrorism as justification for the war in Iraq.

Listening to their conversation brought flashbacks of the early 1990s. Most of us in our thirties and older remember those dark ages, the ugliest being in 1994 when Proposition 187 was approved by California voters, eliminating access for the undocumented to schools, hospitals, and most other government services. If not for the courts, Prop 187 would be California law, with devastating effects for children and other vulnerable populations. The worst part of the initiative, however, was the word suspect. Provisions of Prop 187 would have mandated teachers, nurses, and other public servants to turn in suspected undocumented immigrants or face consequences.

Fast forward to 2007. O’Reilly’s exchange with Chavez reminded me of small towns such as Escondido, Calif., and Hazleton, Pa., which have proposed or enacted laws forcing landlords to check the immigration status of tenants or be subject to fines. O’Reilly’s comments also called to mind conservative students in universities throughout the country who organized “Catch an Immigrant” days.

While many thought Proposition 187 was a dead-and-buried footnote in history, it’s not. Some Escondido residents even claim the undocumented are bringing leprosy to their town. (You remember leprosy from the Bible.) Next they’ll be blaming the undocumented for global warming.

I could argue that students are simply immature and that conservative talk show hosts hate immigrants, but that’s too easy. The move to make immigration into an appalling game of hide-and-go-seek, either by students or local city councils, can only lead to tragedy. Someone will be suspected of being undocumented and will get hurt. At that point, the O’Reilly car chase will end up at some tragic intersection of misguided policy and hatred. I’m not willing to take that chance.

The irony of O’Reilly and his supporters is that there is one place where I support citizens being vigilant when it comes to the undocumented. Last week I attended a meeting to end human trafficking hosted by a joint taskforce composed of the Los Angeles Police Department and various community organizations. For two hours I was educated on the horrors of human trafficking and its 17,000 victims nationwide. The reality that thousands are literally enslaved in the United States should be an issue for O’Reilly and friends. These are the victims we should focus on saving right now.

The past week marked the anniversary of the infamous 1964 Bloody Sunday, when civil rights marchers on the Selma to Montgomery March were attacked by police for promoting civil rights. Today, we see some small cities attempting to retrench civil rights by scapegoating the undocumented to protect their “way of life.” Such terms should ring familiar to those acquainted with the civil rights fight.

What O’Reilly and his allies cannot answer is who will be asked for their papers. Will skin color be a determining factor? Will language, sombrero size—what? Or perhaps I can’t eat beans or carne asada anymore! Will landlords be afraid of renting to Latinos and Asians for fear of accepting fake immigration papers? Are these proposed policies the modern equivalent of the poll tax and literacy exams of the Jim Crow era?

The intent of Bill O’Reilly and his supporters is to force all Americans to be their Peeping Toms. The difference is that we have the opportunity and an obligation to speak out and stop their voyeurism.

What do you think?

Gabriel Buelna, Ph.D., M.S.W., is Executive Director of Plaza Community Center in East Los Angeles, a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at California State University, Northridge, and appears regularly on TV-KMEX-Channel 34 Univision Los Angeles and Telemundo 52.

To recieve articles on regular basis, please visit http://www.gabrielbuelna.com/ or e-mail Gabriel directly at gbuelna@sbcglobal.net.

Obama Connects LA Neighborhoods and Continents
by Gabriel Buelna

This past Saturday, U.S. Senator Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States. Not since Jesse Jackson’s 1984 presidential run has an African American had a real chance of inspiring a generation—and winning. I wasn’t old enough to vote in 1984, but I clearly remember the chant “RUN JESSE RUN, RUN JESSE RUN” at the Democratic National Convention that year. Unlike Jesse Jackson’s candidacy, however, Obama’s support stretches across many traditional boundaries, including barriers of class and ethnicity. Obama’s candidacy is clearly an opportunity for us all.

As I write this article, inter-ethnic violence between African American and Latino youth and gangs in L.A. is causing our local leaders to take another look at relations between these communities. Gangs have created an atmosphere of fear and distrust throughout our vast and diverse neighborhoods. As I watched Obama deliver his announcement speech on the Internet, I couldn’t help but imagine how his presidency could alter the way we see differences between African Americans and Latinos. I then caught myself pigeon-holing Senator Obama as African American. You may say: He is, isn’t he? He is; but he’s also the son of a Kenyan father and a white mother. He grew up in Hawaii and spent part of his youth in Indonesia. Not your normal American upbringing, African American or otherwise.

The senator’s background is multiracial and intercontinental. He was the editor of Harvard Law Review, and after law school he worked as a community organizer with local churches in Chicago. His background shows a willingness to bridge ethnic and party lines without undue attention to traditional political rules.

While some might question his foreign policy credentials, I would remind them that Obama is about the same age as President Kennedy when he stared down Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in 1964 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And the general dissatisfaction the American people have with the current administration’s foreign policy shows that even extensive experience does not guarantee success.

Obama’s unique background leads me to believe that he is uniquely poised to develop pioneering policies for Africa and Latin America. Some of you may ask: Who cares about Africa or Latin America, and why do they matter to African Americans and Latinos here and now? From a selfish perspective, it is in America’s own economic interest to ensure that Africa and Latin America develop stable economies with growing middle classes.

In Africa, the average income is $671 per year, with 36.2 percent of the mostly rural population living on less than $1 per day. Senator Obama understands this disparity. According to his official website, the senator’s father “grew up herding goats with his own father, who was a domestic servant to the British.” Most African nations have been independent from European rule for less than fifty years. During that time, rebel leaders have become dictators, and AIDS has become the biggest human killer other than famine and war.

Latin America has a somewhat higher standard of living, but many of its 548 million people also live in poverty. Even with one of the largest oil reserves in the world, Mexico cannot create the one million jobs a year it needs for its young population. Venezuela, a member of OPEC with one of the world’s largest oil reserves, has an inflation rate of 25 percent and does not have enough chicken or milk for its citizens. Central America also struggles to develop its economies while dealing with increased gang violence, mostly generated from American deportees and the remnants of violence brought on by decades of American-sponsored wars.

Obama could offer new thinking regarding the relationships the United States has with Africa and Latin America. He could encourage further economic development in those regions instead of dependence on American foreign aid and family remittances. While the senator only has two years of experience in the Senate, the reality of our world’s problems requires fresh energy and a desire to redefine foreign and domestic policies. Perhaps this vision scares many Americans because of a historic reluctance to view our world beyond European eyes. I urge the other presidential candidates to have the same kind of vibrant and dynamic vision the senator has.

During Senator Obama’s campaign, a clearly defined foreign policy for Africa and Latin America could inspire the voters he needs to win. It is my hope that talking about these issues can lead American families to expect cooperation among their leaders and thus encourage harmony in our neighborhoods. This is a hope that may or may not turn out to be a reality. It is also my hope that Obama can move us toward a new outlook on democracy in our country. The pioneering spirit of America just may be in the hands of a Kenyan-American with an international spirit and American interests at heart.

As Obama begins his march to the White House, I encourage him to give voice to and draft a bridge-building process between African Americans and Latinos. Building such bridges will also help Senator Obama build his better union.

What do you think?

Gabriel Buelna, Ph.D., M.S.W., is Executive Director of Plaza Community Center in East Los Angeles, a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at California State University, Northridge, and appears regularly on TV-KMEX-Channel 34 Univision Los Angeles.

Trump’s Latino-less Apprentice

Trump’s Latino-less Apprentice
By Gabriel Buelna

I admit it: I have probably seen every episode of The Apprentice. The show is exciting, taking a group of individuals from diverse backgrounds and making them compete for the position of apprentice to billionaire Donald Trump. It’s basically a good opportunity for a few aspiring entrepreneurs and business people that lets the rest of us enjoy some entertaining on-screen back stabbing and manipulation. Fun, right?

Imagine, then, my excitement when I learned that this season The Apprentice was going to be based in Los Angeles. I was thrilled that the diversity and excitement of my great city would be part of the show. Armed with Doritos and a cold 7up, I sat down to watch the first episode with great anticipation. As each of the 18 candidates was revealed, however, I was horrified to see that not one of them was Latino.

How could the show be hosted in Los Angeles County where, of approximately 10 million people, 47 percent are Latino and not have a Latino contestant? I then thought, Do Latinos even watch the show? Then I remembered the show is advertised on the napkin dispenser at my favorite El Pollo Loco in Boyle Heights. I realized that The Apprentice was being marketed heavily in our Latino communities, yet the show does not include any Latinos. As disappointed as I was, I thought, “Does it matter?” The answer is simple: It matters a lot!

Frankly, it should not worry only Latinos that not a single Apprentice contestant is Latino; it should worry the nation as a whole. Even with the popularity of L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and with Latinos represented at the highest levels of local, state and federal governments, business and education, questions of equity still abound. While the rest of the world is pumping out engineers and scientists, the education Latinos are forced to accept is the worst of the worst.

Yet there is no field that does not have Latinos. Historically, even under difficult educational and neighborhood circumstances, our Latino communities have produced outstanding leaders, such as Hector Ruiz, President and CEO of AMD, a giant in microprocessors and rival to Intel as well as Alejandro González Iñárritu, recipient of the 2006 Golden Globe for best picture in the drama category for his work in Babel. Given the opportunity, Latinos compete and win.

Latino youth are as intelligent as other youth. Today’s generation of Latinos will be the heart of America’s future economy. Yet The Apprentice chose not to acknowledge these capabilities or the overwhelming presence of Latinos in Los Angeles by not choosing any for the sixth season of the show. Looking back through the six seasons of The Apprentice, I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked. Of the 106 candidates that have been on the show, only two have been Latino. Season two had a Portuguese woman who lasted a few weeks, and season five had a Cuban attorney who lasted two weeks.

Latinos represent .019 percent of all candidates on The Apprentice; the Latino population in the United States is 12.5 percent. Latinos represent 0.0 percent of contestants on the Los Angeles season of The Apprentice, though 47 percent of Los Angeles residents are Latino. Clearly, The Apprentice is not concerned with creating a show that is representative of the wide range of people capable of becoming the next apprentice, particularly if those capable people are Latinos. The Apprentice is, however, worried about having a marketing presence in the L.A. Latino community.

So why are there no Latinos on The Apprentice? In general, East Coast media and business leaders do not view Latinos as having a national presence, but rather a regional one. Latinos are still portrayed as newcomers with a limited history in the United States and thus not part of any national conversation. It is not my place to educate Mr. Trump or any media or business elite, however. It is their job to understand the markets that include Latinos. My only responsibility is to point out a deficiency in a show that I enjoy watching. Give Latinos a chance to be “fired” or “hired,” Mr. Trump. Then let the viewers judge whether or not they got a fair opportunity.

As citizens responsible for exposing our youth to positive role models, we have the responsibility to speak out when something is wrong. And in this situation, silence is tantamount to consent. Mr. Trump might argue that it is his show and that we live in a free market. Of course we do; yet that market also includes ideas—ideas that require scrutiny when our gut says they are wrong.

Latinos cannot be idle when a show such as The Apprentice has a collaborative of capable individuals devoid of Latinos. Inaction only serves to create and perpetuate an atmosphere of inferiority. The Latino community must demand inclusion and make every effort to make diverse opinions heard. No, I am not calling for a boycott of the show—just a discussion about what inclusion means.

In an era where U.S. Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have real, precedent-setting opportunities to become President of the United States, the era of a limited Latino media presence needs to end. Television shows such as The Apprentice just remind me that while some things have changed, some things remain the same.

What do you think?

Gabriel Buelna, Ph.D., M.S.W., is Executive Director of Plaza Community Center in East Los Angeles, a faculty member at California State University, Northridge, and appears regularly on TV-KMEX-Channel 34 Univision Los Angeles.