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

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/

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

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

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.