New attitude is necessary, ethical step toward social accountability

Hernández is a an associate professor of Spanish at
UCLA.

By Guillermo E. Hernández

The words “recognition,” “reparations”
and “redress” bring to fore the issue of the rightful
restitution for past damages. The issue is whether damage inflicted
in the past to a group is transferred to their descendants and,
therefore, must be corrected. This position is relatively new.

In the past, similar offenses deserved serious discussion only
as historical debates of losers and winners. Genocide,
discrimination, racism, gender inequity and ethnic profiling were,
at best, lamented, denounced or attacked but not considered
problems that require retroactive compensation.

We are facing, therefore, a novel issue that carries significant
implications to our conceptions of history and the moral, ethical
and legal responsibilities of authorities and governments.

People of Mexican descent and other Latinos in this country
illustrate how a population and their descendants may carry in
their daily lives the negative practices of yesterday. Three
aspects ““ language, image and labor ““ suffice to
illustrate how a group’s social, cultural and economic
existence is molded by past detrimental practices.

First, there is the issue of language. In September of 1919 the
South campus of the University of California ““ UCLA ““
opened its doors. The offerings in the Spanish department were
limited, with only a few courses available from a few professors. A
significant departmental requirement stipulated that students must
“pronounce correctly” and that “Castilian
pronunciation is the standard norm.”

  Illustration by JASON CHEN/Daily Bruin Senior Staff

In retrospect it is clear that such a statement represented a
code with clear linguistic implications for Spanish native speakers
whose proficiency would not conform to the European variety of the
language. It would be tantamount to specifying to students in a
university in Kansas or Texas that British pronunciation would be
the standard norm.

It is unlikely that many Spanish-speaking students registered at
UCLA during these early years. But more serious was the effect on
second-language speakers, trained and graduated from the
department, who acquired attitudes toward language that would
linger for decades to come.

One can only wonder how many teachers and professors of Spanish
subjected their native-speaking students to humiliation for using
the language they had learned at home.

Furthermore, other professionals ““ lawyers, doctors,
governmental officials and so forth ““ would adopt negative
attitudes toward the Mexican standard norm of Spanish spoken in
California. Today we know that such views are linguistically and
pedagogically untenable, yet they continue to influence many
individuals who consider themselves educated.

Should the cost of this linguistic loss and damage to the
Chicano and Latino community be recognized, redressed and
repaired?

The second aspect of past injustices concerns image. During the
late ’20s and early ’30s of the 20th century, the
Hollywood industry produced a number of films with stereotypical
representations of Mexicans. These portrayals reached such
derogatory standards, moving Mexican authorities to place holds on
many films too offensive to show in Mexico.

Mexican-Americans in this country, however, had no such
recourse. The three basic stereotypical roles were those of the
bloodthirsty bandit, the hot-blooded Latina and the submissive
fool. These constructions were not gratuitous.

The portrayal of the Mexican population in terms of moral evil
or ridicule had the fundamental purpose of affirming the role of
the conqueror and scorning its previous historical opponent. Such
representations continue today and influence even well-intentioned
outsiders, as poet José Montoya ironically describes those who
profit from the poverty of Chicanos:

“Do-gooders who understand

Us ““ or rather an image of

Us ““ decomposed and rearranged

Between eyepiece and lens.”

Should the cost of this damaging representation of the Chicano
and Latino community be recognized, redressed and repaired?

The third aspect of past detrimental practices that must be
addressed concerns labor. There are significant economic
consequences to these public perceptions of Chicanos and Latinos.
Perhaps a most damaging result has been the barriers posed to
education.

In the last 30 years, most advances made in the education of
Chicanos and Latinos have come from the community as spirited
students, teachers and their allies have battled the opposition of
intransigent academics and administrators. In spite of Chicano
contributions during wars and in the building of the economic
infrastructure of California, their presence is practically
non-existent in key positions within the public and the private
sectors.

For too long a defacto segregation has relegated Chicanos and
Latinos to rural areas or to urban barrios without appropriate
attention. The “Plan of Delano,” a document created by
the farm workers movement headed by Cesar Chavez, declares (point
4.):

“We have suffered unnumbered ills and crimes in the name
of the Law of the Land. Our men, women, and children have suffered
not only the basic brutality of stoop labor, and the most obvious
injustices of the system; they have also suffered the desperation
of knowing that the system caters to the greed of callous men and
not to our needs….

“They have imposed hunger on us, and now we hunger for
justice. We draw our strength from the very despair in which we
have been forced to live.”

Should the cost of this damaging economic injustice to the
Chicano and Latino community be recognized, redressed and
repaired?

The debate in this regard has been distracted by questions of
the legitimacy of beneficiaries, the deserving amounts and the
soundness of performing such corrective historical measures. More
important, however, is to consider the significance of holding
states and social groups, and their leaders, responsible for the
consequences of their actions.

This new perspective proposed in the formula recognition,
redress, and reparation puts forward the notion that whenever a
group’s social identity, standing and future prospects are
compromised by the past actions of others, there must be an
appropriate change in attitudes and actions to address such costs.
That is, rather than lamenting the status quo as an inherently
irreversible condition, we must all address social justice in the
realm of the possible.

It is a view that posits us at a new era when humanity may
aspire to live in a world where the principle of social
accountability replaces the facile acceptance of inequity.
Accepting this historical responsibility is a necessary moral and
ethical first step.

Only then will we be prepared to bring the legal, business and
social implementation of this new humanism.