Monday Aug 30, 2010 – By
Zettler Clay “African American” has a peculiar application. If we were to take the
literal meaning of the term, it would not only include the 41-42
million people of African descent born in the U.S., but the 100-150
million people born in Central and South America. Not to mention the
Canadians of African descent.
But we don’t say it with literal intentions. We say it referring
specifically to people of African (sometimes mixed with European)
descent born in the U.S. It speaks more to a phenotype than genotype,
and modern publications aimed toward African Americans (as the term is
commonly used) have picked up this racial football and run with it.
One look at a magazine shelf presents part of the picture. Two
listens to a conversation with a Guyanese or Dominican gives another
parcel. Three issues of Essence or Ebony present a
fuller picture: Businesses rarely cater to both African Americans and
African-Latinos. The partnership between the two cultures is sparse.
This is odd, considering the similarities of both groups. There’s no
need to rehash it all here; one would have to be a part of four
generations of Rip Van Winkles to not be aware of the shared origins.
However, both groups share more than similar roots these days. Latinos
and African Americans accounted for more than half of home foreclosures in California between 2006-2009. Both groups have been hit the hardest
by the recession. Even before the recession, Blacks and Latinos felt
similar pains in the workplace. Between 1999 and 2005, the work force in
Silicon Valley’s largest 10 companies (which includes Hewlet-Packard,
Intel and eBay) grew 16 percent. During this span, Hispanic workers declined by 11 percent while Black workers fell by 16 percent.
Perhaps this current shared plight stems more from professional
experience than overt discrimination. Minority groups in America are the
last to develop a footing in Corporate America, therefore their
standing is more tenuous. Combine that with the economic meltdown and
there is potential for a full-fledged catastrophe.
Or opportunity.
In a scriptwriter’s world, these minority groups would join forces
and become a conglomerate in a similar manner to European immigrants
before them. They would devise a plan and take control of the 30 percent
market share potential to create a pool of wealth untapped in the
current system.
But that scriptwriter, if he or she is good, would acknowledge the
inherent conflicts and nuances in both cultures that would make
partnership difficult. Take the story of Evelio Grillo, the Black Cuban
who was acculturated into the Tampa, Florida African American community
in the 1930s. Grillo realized that U.S. Blacks didn’t care much for the
preservation of speaking Spanish or Catholicism—two staples of Latin
culture.
The English-Spanish divide isn’t insignificant. Many Afro-Latinos
acknowledge the same African ancestry as their North American
counterparts, but qualify their culture by citing manners of
communication (Spanish) and aesthetic tastes (hair type, skin type,
facial features). Considering the fact that Latin America and the United
States have not had the friendliest relationship over the years, it’s easy to see why “African Americans” and Black Latino Americans don’t readily embrace each other.
But for Grillo, those differences didn’t override the social ills
(Jim Crow, xenophobia, lack of representation in the corporate and
political world) that both groups faced. He actively represented both
groups and had a “hybrid identity that can’t be torn apart.”
If there was a better time to shed our American exceptionalism
(monopolizing the term “African American”), now is that time. But before
unity ensues, both groups need to fortify a sense of pride in their
African heritage.
Comments Policy