Why Cubans typically vote Republican

Someone asked the question at Babalu: Why do Cubans typically vote Republican?

To me, the reasoning has to do with context.

Amanda, my fiancee, is Jewish. Her family consists of very liberal Democrats. My Cuban family members are all very conservative Republicans.

When Amanda and I first started seeing each other years ago, concerns were brought up on both sides about the potential of conflict resulting from the extreme differences in political thought... until I broke it down to both sides of the family: the choice of our political affiliations stem from our cultural and historical backgrounds. Jews have witnessed and suffered the dangers of extreme right-wing philosophy (fascism), so they lean left. Cubans have witnessed and suffered the dangers of extreme left-wing philosophy (communism), so they lean right.

Kept in this context, it's hard to invalidate either side's arguments and softens disagreements as matters of perspective instead of simply right and wrong.

Another poster at Babalu, PilotAl, had this succint response to the question:

[...] [T]he huge Cuban migration to this country in the first 15 to 20 years after the infamous revolution was for the most part, politically motivated. My parents did not come here for better jobs or to be able to have the luxuries that are unheard of in a third world country. Cuba's standard of living before the revolution was on par with most of the modern world. My parents, and the hundreds of thousands with them, came here to be free. After the revolution, the middle class, along with the rich and powerful were persecuted. The revolution wanted everyone equal; equally poor and desperate.

Therefore, the mass exodus began. And who are the people arriving in Miami? The vast majority of them are, like my parents, middle class, educated, hard working families. Here is where the Cuban immigrant story differs from most other Latin American immigrant stories. The majority of the people arriving in this country from Cuba during that time arrived here looking for freedom and individuality. They did not come to the US looking for free food, shelter and health care. In other words, they were not economic immigrants. They came here looking for the freedom. They fled a system in Cuba that dictated to them where they worked, how much they made, what and how much they could eat and where they could or couldn't live. All the while their children were being brainwashed and indoctrinated in school to believe that only the government can give you life. Not yourself, not your family, only the government.

Now, the democratic party here in the US has always enjoyed the voting support of those who are enrolled in social programs such as the welfare system. And, to keep this large voting block happy, they have historically voted to continue increasing funding and enlarging the welfare rolls of this country in an effort to expand their voter base. [...] Cuban immigrants on the other hand, for the most part were not interested in government hand outs. All they wanted was the freedom to work where they wanted, open their own business[es] if they wanted and live wherever they wanted. History shows that these people were successful in obtaining that goal. [...]

So why do Cuban immigrants tend to be republicans? The answer might be simpler than you think. Cubans that fled the oppressive communist dictatorship have seen first hand the harm that big government, with large social programs can do to its people, the social structure of their families and the economy. It is not to say that the democratic party wants to install the same system in the US (although there are a few that would if they could), but the leftist leanings of the democrats make those who lived under a leftist dictatorship cringe. Have the republicans done great things for Cuba and its people? That is simply not the case. But their core principals are quite similar to that of the Cuban immigrants that arrived in this country. So when you only have two choices in party affiliation and one of them shares a lot of the leftist ideals of your enemy, where do you think you would end up? [...]

Since moving to LA, I've found that my Republican stance (albeit a very moderate, centrist one) on issues confuses people who are used to Hispanics and other minorities to be neatly grouped as Democrats. The core difference is simple: Cubans are political exiles, not immigrants.

US at War with Diversity

Let's call it like it is, shall we?

These laws nationalizing the English language are not about the cost to print additional forms at the DMV, or to ensure that everyone know what the word STOP means. These laws come from a fear of an evolving U.S. demographic. These laws are rooted in concerns in a shifting of political and economic power in this country.

These laws are about telling other people how to live their lives, and keeping the majority free from the aural discomfort of an unfamiliar tongue - and I sincerely hope that these laws face the same fate of every "English-as-our-national-language-law" that came before it.

But that isn't to say that I don't think people should learn English in this country. There is a certain level of understanding of basic English that is required in order to function within our borders, and those who refuse to learn English do so to their detriment.

Those who choose to not learn English will be limited in the level of education they can attain, limited in their level of professional success, limited in their income, their ability to attain public office, their ability to travel within our borders.

Years ago, my grandparents came to this country with established lives, and thus, know just enough English to get by when necessary. They wanted to learn English well (Cubans are both the most likely Hispanic demographic in the US to learn English and to maintain Spanish as a primary language in their household), and made earnest attempts to, but the realities of life continued to get in the way - raising children, running a business, assisting other family. They are hard working, honest, law-abiding, tax-paying, citizens of this country who positively influence their community. Are they any less American because they primarily speak Spanish?

Chew on this hypothetical: Say this law is passed and all government documents were only made available in English. If an unforeseen catastrophe would befall my grandparents and cause them to turn to their government for assistance, would that mean that a trailer-park-dwelling, never-held-a-job-for-more-than-a-week, high-school-dropout, drug-abusing, deadbeat who knows English would be more deserving of government help than my upstanding grandparents?

An extreme example, true, but one that is not at all unlikely. It points to discrepancies that could amount to discrimination. What about US residents who are part of the proposed guest worker program? Further limiting their options while in this country, on top of being able to be deported at the say-so of their employer, turns them into nothing more than indentured servants.

Citizenship exams, like the ones my grandparents took, require the applicant to answer questions regarding American history and laws in English, as well as recite the Pledge of Allegiance. This is fine. In fact, I'm very happy that this is a requirement for citizenship. But for English to be overtly declared the official language and the nation's "common and unifying" tongue, crosses a line on what this country was founded: a unifying and malleable culture whose ability to evolve is paramount to its ability to thrive.

The legislators can fight their windmills, but the fact remains: declaring a national language won't change what this country is - a mosaic spotted with wide-ranging cultures, each contributing to the fabric of society in its own unique way - and the Spanish-speaking spots on that mosaic will continue to steadily grow.

Instead of passing these pointless and impractical laws, perhaps it's time to invest in some Spanish classes.

Sería prudente, ¿no?

Immigration & Ted Ken's Speech

In late March, Ted Kennedy, spoke to the Senate in response to the immigration protests. Pleased he wasn't driving a car, I took the time to listen to what he had to say. I agree that building a physical wall is an archaic "19th century solution to a 21st century problem." (To misquote Allen Iverson: "Walls, people. We're talking about building walls... Walls!") But mostly I found his solution vague and velvet-gloved - particularly with his referral to illegal immigrants as "undocumented workers." It basically seemed to me a ploy to get the workers' votes (and he proposes to end the "system of exploitation"). As ridiculous as it would be to fence ourselves, opening up ourselves too much would be dangerous.

We must find a solution somewhere between deportation and amnesty. As a child of immigrants (though the more correct term would be refugees), I cannot support our country being completely closed off to offering sanctuary and opportunity to those that need them. This was how this country was founded only a little over 200 years ago.

However, the world is a much more dangerous place today than it was in the 1700's. Back then, the most one evil man could do was target handfuls of people at a time with primitive and unreliable explosives. Today, in the age of nuclear and biological weapons, one man can wreak catastrophic damage in the hundreds of thousands. So it is essential to our safety that we are more careful with who enters our country.

Beyond that, there are also numerous resources that are being consumed by these individuals who obviously do not pay taxes. And, of course, there is the matter of jobs being taken by illegal immigrants - which, since those are usually the lowest-paying roles that would otherwise be filled by junior high students or completely out-sourced to another country, I find that to be the weakest of the arguments. Still, illegal immigrants are a strain to our economy.

Ultimately, our government needs to help the Mexican people (and others we share this hemisphere with) help themselves. If they can find opportunities in their own home, then fewer people would feel the need to leave. There is a real reason people risk everything, including their lives, to make a home in the United States. I mean, we're not talking about building a wall along our border with Canada, are we? These immigrants are, in large part, not criminals. Many of them are simply hard-working people hoping to earn a better life for themselves and their families.

How can we balance inclusive idealism with the realities of our world today? I don't have the answers, but I hope that the men and women we vote for can come up with some better ones.

Anyway, today I was cruising the 'net as I usually do, jumping from sports sites to political blogs, when I came across a blog on The Political Pit Bull regarding that Kennedy speech. I continued past the initial blog and began reading the comments when I came across this response from a reader named "Zack":

I have never heard of anyone who is sooo out of touch with the reality. These undocumented workers are nothing less than lawbreakers in the first place. It doesn't make any sense to me how they could be allowed to become the citizens of the US after how they broke the law. I served in the US military to defend this country from enemies foreign and domestic. Illegal immigrants are lawbreakers and enemies of the state and they should not be pardoned by amnesty but deported to their countries for breaking the law. It doesn't matter how they contribute to the economy, justice must be served and borders protected and sealed and people punished by breaking the law. If a soldier breaks a law he is guilty then he must be punished because the honor and prestige of the Army is at stake. The same principle applies here. These people who broke the law are not being punished but are forgiven and justice is being ignored for the sake of Latino vote? I don't care about the vote of Latinos because the majority of them never really cared about the United States. Would you really say they cared about the US when they go on protests and demonstrations by waving their Mexican and other flags. It disgusts me to see how politicians ignore the truth and just let these lawbreakers get away with their treacherous actions. And what did these soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan die for? For this great county of the United States to be invaded by illegals???

First, I have to respect this guy for serving our country. His courage is not lost on me. And clearly we share some opinions... but I'm sure you see why I had to respond:

Zack, I agree that calling the illegal immigrants "undocumented workers" implies a paperwork oversight and attempts to disguise the overt law-breaking seemingly for votes. Actually, I agreed with much of what you said - up until you grouped all "Latinos" together as people who do not care for this country and do not contribute.

Hispanics are as different as people from Auburn and San Francisco - or better still people from Boston and New Zealand. To lump a group of people together simply shows ignorance to global diversity. The illegal immigrants who break the law by entering this country are not representative of all Spanish-speakers. Ted Kennedy is obviously not representative of all English-speaking white Americans, is he? (And he's from the SAME country.) So please don't muddy your argument by tainting it with bigoted remarks. That's as counterproductive as the protesters burning American flags.

I'm looking forward to his response.

Here's more on my thoughts on the immigration debate, the words hispanic and latino, and the differences among cultures (specifically as it relates to hollywood, but the argument applies).

Illegal Immigrants Suffer Holocaust?!?

I live in LA. Recently, the host of a local spanglish radio station here had a guest who is some sort of leader/organizer of the recent immigration protests. The two were discussing more the attire and locations of the protests than the actual reasons behind it. As most shows do, they opened up the airwaves for callers.

So the first caller, in all his pomp and ignorance, said this (paraphrased to correct poor English): "What's happening to us Latinos now is exactly what happened to the Jews in Germany. We are being treated in this country like the Jews were being treated by the Nazis."

A steady stream of expletives rocketed out of my mouth. How could this idiot dare compare the current treatment of "Latinos" to the torture and murder of millions of Jews?

If a Mexican illegally enters this country and is caught, what happens? Are they stripped naked, branded, and starved? Are they experimented on and tortured? Are they killed?

No. They're sent back from whence they came.

That's it.

Okay, occasionally the authorities may rough them up. And even if they aren't caught, they may be met with racism and prejudice and likely be paid the lowest of wages to perform the lowest of tasks (which has as much or more to do with education, skill-set, and language as it does with the legal right to work). I sympathize and agree that it's not pleasant at all. But it IS better than life in their previous home (as evidenced in the continued departure from said home); and it is nothing - NOTHING - like the suffering of the Holocaust.

So when that ignorant fool spewed that nonsense on the air, I wanted to just, among other unsavory things I'd rather not mention, make him watch Schindler's List a few times (since reading is probably out of the question for that guy).

I held my tongue in hopes that the host would step in and call out the idiot, put him in his place. That maybe the protest organizer, with her apparent "expertise" in social injustices, would set the record straight. But they didn't. The host thanked him for calling and for his insight and perspective. He thanked him.

I guess I should have known better.

Some more protest stupidity from Val at Babalu (per usual, I couldn't have said it better myself):

I hadn't wanted to cover this subject here on Babalu for fear of opening up a great big ole can of worms, but I feel I have to clarify a few things regarding the recent protests by "latinos" or "hispanics" throughout the US.

First, there is no such thing as a "latino" race. There is no such thing as an "hispanic" race. Both terms are contrived and used solely for census purposes. There is no such country as "latinolandia" and Hispaniola is technically half of an island in the Caribbean.

[Note: check out my thoughts on the "latino/hispanic" terminology.]

Second, I am not nor will I ever be part of "La Raza." Nor do I agree or support their current protests. Some of you may, but I do not.

Third, I have never and will never, despite having many issues with the government of the United States throughout the years, burn a flag of the United States of America. I am Cuban by birth, American by the grace of God. And a darned proud, dignified, thankful and respectful American.

Fourth, while I certainly sympathize with the Mexican people for their country's economic and social troubles, I refuse to be lumped together as a class or a race simply because we speak a similar language. If Mexicans and Mexican-Americans had wanted my support, then they should have supported the cause of a free and democratic Cuba, instead of the majority and at times the Mexican government having sided with and legitimizing the government of fidel castro.

Fifth, there is a difference between a Cuban living in the United States and a Mexican living in the United States. One is a political refugee and the other is an immigrant, respectively. When Mexicans are being oppressed and have their basic human rights trampeled on by their government as Cubans do, then perhaps my opinion will change, until then, the aforementioned difference stands.

Mexicans and Mexican-Americans may very well have legitimate gripes with the government of the US, but as La Raza, the flags they are burning and flying up-side down below the Mexican flag do not speak for me. I ain't Mexican, I ain't Latino and I ain't Hispanic. I am an American of Cuban descent. And damned proud of it.

Latino Legends - Where's Dihigo?

Well, the votes are in - and the world has shown us how short-sighted they are. Here's the MLB Latino Legends team, as voted by the public and announced during Game 4 of the 2005 World Series:

C: Ivan Rodriguez (Puerto Rico)
1B: Albert Pujols (Dominican Republic)
2B: Rod Carew (Panama)
3B: Edgar Martinez (Puerto Rico)
SS: Alex Rodriguez (Dominican Republic)
OF: Vladimir Guerrero (Dominican Republic), Manny Ramirez (Dominican Republic), Roberto Clemente (Puerto Rico)
SP: Pedro Martinez (Dominican Republic), Juan Marichal (Domincan Republic), Fernando Valenzuela (Mexico)
RP: Mariano Rivera (Panama)

Okay, maybe 'short-sighted' is a bit too strong - you'll get no argument from me that it's a solid team. Choosing the greatest among the great is difficult and rarely worng, no matter the subject. But it's a shame that fans aren't familiar with players from before their lifetimes - that they can't appreciate the rich history of this globally popular sport. Granted, that's what people do: childhood memories of someone rocking a game-winning home run will forever color a person's judgement. But there's so much more to baseball than the last few years!

Albert Pujols is one of the greatest players of our day - but to say he's the greatest Hispanic first baseman at the age of 25? Not yet... Tony Perez and Orlando Cepeda had distinguished careers, and were a couple of the best.

Now, that's not to say that very soon, Pujols won't more than fill that role of greatest to cover the first bag, but you have to look at it this way: if he retired today, will his short yet amazing career get him into the Hall of Fame? Maybe. But I'd rather bestow the honor upon someone who's put in at least 6 or 7 years in the game. Anyway, this example may just be nitpicking, and in a year or two this will likely all be moot.

My primary beef with the list is the exclusion of one person in particular. The exclusion of one of the greatest to ever play, and, according to those who were around at the time, quite possibily the greatest baseball player to have ever lived. Yeah, quite possibly better than Babe Ruth. Better than Willie Mays or Hank Aaron or Ty Cobb or Barry Bonds or A-Rod. Maybe, just maybe, the best ever.

"El Maestro"

He was a superstar pitcher and a superstar slugger who literally played every position on the field. He's the only player to be in the U.S., Mexican, and Cuban Halls of Fame.

And yet, the average person doesn't even know his name.

He was Martin Dihigo, a 6'4" 200-lb righthanded Cuban who was one of the most versatile players of all time. Endowed with great speed and an exceptionally strong arm, Dihigo was a star performer at every position.

"Dihigo was the best all around baseball player I've ever seen," - Baseball Hall of Famer, Buck Leonard.

“Dihigo was one of the greatest I ever saw. He was tremendous hitter, had great power, could hit for an average, everything.” - Baseball Hall of famer, Roy Campanella.

"The greatest player I ever saw was a black man. He's in the Hall of Fame, although not a lot of people have heard of him. His name is Martin Dihigo. I played with him in Santo Domingo in winter ball in 1943. He was the manager. He was the only guy I ever saw who could play all nine positions, run and was a switch hitter. I though I was havin' a pretty good year myself down there and they were walkin' him to get to me." - Baseball Hall of Famer, Johnny Mize.

The Polo Grounds hosted the Negro League's New York Cubans, whose roster included the most versatile player to ever play in the Negro Leagues, Martín Dihigo (#17).

The tall, lanky Cuban-born Dihigo, was a star in many positions. "He was the only guy I ever saw, who could play all nine positions, manage, run and switch-hit." said Johnny Mize, the Hall of Fame first baseman who finished his career with the Yankees and once played for a team Dihigo managed in the Dominican Republic Winter League in 1943.

Known as "El Maestro" in Mexico and "El Immortal" in Cuba, Dihigo began his U.S. career in 1923 as an 18-year-old second baseman for the touring Cuban Stars. After five years, he moved on to the Homestead Grays, and had short stints with the Philadelphia Hilldales, the Baltimore Black Sox, and the New York Cubans.

He was a superb pitcher who dominated on the mound. In fact, Dihigo is credited with the first no-hit, no-run game in Mexican League history when he blanked Nogales, 4-0, in Veracruz, Mexico in 1937. That same year, Dihigo hit .351.

When he wasn't pitching he regularly started in the outfield or infield and batted near or at the clean-up spot.

To appreciate how gifted Dihigo was, in 1938 in the Mexican League his .387 average won the batting title and as a pitcher he was 18-2 with an 0.90 earned run average.

In a classic moment that same year, Dihigo met Satchel Paige in a much-anticipated pitching match-up that has become a Mexican League legend. Paige, hindered by a sore arm and relying on underhand and trick pitches, battled Dihigo for six scoreless innings. In the seventh, Paige's control faltered. After two walks and a single loaded the bases, he threw a wild pitch, giving Dihigo's team the lead. Paige left for a pinch hitter, and his team later tied the game, 1-1. Dihigo took matters into his own hands in the ninth and homered to win the game.

Dihigo was arguably the greatest Cuban ballplayer of all time. His speed, size, and strong throwing arm made him one of the most versatile players in baseball history. During his 30-year career, Dihigo played every position on the field. Sometimes more than one in the same game. Among Cuban-born players, only Cristobal Torriente was considered his peer at the plate.

But in the decades before Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color barrier after World War II, Dihigo could not play in the major leagues. Instead, he played in the Negro leagues, mostly for the New York Cubans (his eventual ticket to Cooperstown) when he wasn't playing in Cuba or elsewhere in Latin America.

Dihigo was described as a tall, fun-loving goofy man. Once, while safely on third base, he screamed at the pitcher, "You balked! You balked!" He continued to holler as he strolled toward home. Everyone stared as if Dihigo had suddenly gone mad. But when he crossed the plate and walked slyly into the dugout, the fans laughed and cheered.

Dihigo played sparingly as player-manager for the New York Cubans in 1945 and continued to play and manage in Cuba and Mexico until the early 1950s, when he returned to Cuba to stay.

Dihigo finished his career winning three Negro League home run crowns and tied Josh Gibson for another. As a pitcher, he racked up more than 200 wins in American and Mexican ball.

Known for his warm, friendly personality, Dihigo was a national hero in his native Cuba, where he served as Minister of Sport in his later years. He was elected posthumously to the American baseball Hall of Fame in 1977. In a poll conducted in the early 1980s among ex-Negro League players and other experts on black baseball, Dihigo gathered votes as best all-time outfielder and third baseman, and was voted to the first team all-time black all-star team as a second baseman.

Dihigo's Stats

He played in the U.S. from 1923 to 1936. After 1936 he played his summer ball in Mexico, except in 1945 when he was the player-manager of the New York Cubans. He reportedly continued to play in the Mexican Leagues until the 1950s, although his statistics are available only through 1947.

Statistics documenting Dihigo's American career exist for 1923-31, 1935-36, and 1945. In those 12 years, Dihigo hit over .300 six times, including .325 in 1926 with a league-leading 11 home runs in 40 games, and .333 in 1935 with a league-leading 9 home runs in 42 games. His overall American statistics show a .295 career batting average and a 6-1 record as a pitcher in 1931.

Dihigo was primarily a pitcher in Latin America, where he was known for his blazing fastball. His Mexican League totals show a lifetime .317 batting average in 10 seasons (1937-44, 1946-47), including a league-leading .387 in 1938. He was 119-57 as a pitcher in Mexico, going 18-2 with a 0.90 ERA in 1938 and 22-7 with a league-leading 2.53 ERA in 1942. He threw the first no-hitter in Mexican League history, and also had no-hitters in Venezuela and Puerto Rico.

Dihigo played for 24 seasons in Cuba (1922-29, 1931-46). The record of his Cuban career is somewhat fragmentary, but for the years which are documented (1922-29, 1931, 1935-46), he hit over .300 nine times, finishing with a lifetime .291 batting average. As a pitcher he was 93-48 in 1935-46.

Statistics exist for one year of play in the Dominican Republic (1937), when Dihigo hit .351.
Combining his Dominican, American, Cuban and Mexican statistics results in a lifetime .302 batting average with 130 home runs (11 seasons worth of home run totals are missing) and a 218-106 (.673) pitching mark. Dihigo often showed his versatility in Negro League competition by playing all nine positions in the course of a single game.

There Is No Substitute

But instead of Martin Dihigo, who did they pick?

At pitcher, Fernando Valenzuela was chosen, who quite honestly had a couple of absolutely astronomical seasons early - nothing short of a phenominal beginning - but he was barely more than pedestrian for the large majority of his career. "Fernandomania" aside, he was just overrated for most of his career.

My Latino Legends Team

There have been some amazing Hispanic players through the years, and to single one out over another is almost an injustice. But I thought I'd do it anyway...

For those players who played more than one position (like Dihigo), I only picked one position.)

C: Ivan Rodriguez (Puerto Rico), Tony Peña (Dominican Republic)
1B: Orlando Cepeda (Puerto Rico), Albert Pujols (Dominican Republic)
2B: Rod Carew (Panama), Roberto Alomar (Puerto Rico)
3B: Edgar Martinez (Puerto Rico), Adrián Beltré (Dominican Republic)
SS: Luis Aparicio (Venezuela), Alex Rodriguez (Dominican Republic)
OF: Roberto Clemente (Puerto Rico), Tony Oliva (Cuba), Cristobal Torriente (Cuba), Vladimir Guerrero (Dominican Republic), Minnie Miñoso (Cuba), Manny Ramirez (Dominican Republic)
SP: Martin Dihigo (Cuba), Dolf Luque (Cuba), Juan Marichal (Domincan Republic), Jose Mendez (Cuba), Dennis Martinez (Nicaragua), Pedro Martinez (Dominican Republic), Luis Tiant (Cuba)
RP: Mariano Rivera (Panama), Guillermo Hernández (RP - Puerto Rico)

Alternates & Future Stars: Bobby Abreu (OF - Venezuela), Armando Benitez (RP - Dominican Republic), Miguel Cabrera (OF - Venezuela), Mike Cuellar (SP - Cuba), Silvio Garcia (SS/SP - Cuba), Lefty Gomez (SP - Mexico), Juan González (OF - Puerto Rico), Luis González (OF - Cuba), Livan Hernandez (SP - Cuba), Orlando Hernandez (SP - Cuba), Alejandro Oms (OF - Cuba), Rafael Palmeiro (1B - Cuba), Camilo Pascual (SP - Cuba), Tony Perez (1B/3B - Cuba), Manny Sanguillen (C - Panama), Lazaro Salazar (OF - Cuba), Johán Santana (SP - Venezuela), Alfonso Soriano (2B - Dominican Republic), Miguel Tejada (SS - Dominican Republic), Fernando Valenzuela (SP - Mexico)

[some excerpts from latinolegends.com & baseballlibrary.com]

Minorities Extra Minor in TV/Movies

The Daily Variety published an article today about how minority and female employment is low in Hollywood, with minority employment deplorably under 10%.

And the gap in pay between white and minority writers is a mean anywhere between $12,000 and $19,000 per script!

But it's pretty obvious that it would be. Just look at the content. I mean, it seems that most shows with Black leads are relegated (segregated?) to land on UPN and there just aren't that many shows with Hispanic leads - you can pretty much name them in one hand). And those shows WITH minority leads usually deal with the fact that they are minorities (except maybe West Wing, though most people don't realize Martin Sheen is Hispanic). It's easy to have Black leads if you're hoping to cater to a predominately Black audience - but where are the minority leads on shows fishing for mass appeal?

Can't we have a show about someone who happens to be Asian instead of a show about a Asian person?

Case in Point: Why couldn't the leads in CSI: Miami, Nip/Tuck, and Invasion be Cuban, instead of just supporting or marginal cast. Cubans are a very large chunk of the city's population - Hispanics make up just under 70% of Miami's population, and something like 65% of those Hispanics are Cuban. Those shows are supposed to take place in Miami. That just seems like Hollywood's too lazy or irresponsible to do any research.

And even those great shows with diverse casts (Lost, House, Grey's Anatomy, 24, Desperate Housewives, Prison Break) have white leads. The minorities pepper the supporting cast. [Note: I watch and enjoy every one of those shows; I'm simply pointing out how even shows with a variety of character cultures and races still rely on whites as the primary leads. Lost and Grey's are two shows that incorporate minorities very well, though none as true primary leads.]

Though there is one show worth mentioning with a diverse cast - both leading and supporting - Over There. They do it right.

Anyway, the trend isn't just superficial; it's not just the actors - it's behind the scenes, too. (Or better said: the trend is true on screen because it's true behind the scenes.)

Here are some excerpts from the article by Dave McNary:

Hollywood's female and minority writers have seen little progress in job opportunities during the past seven years and remain underrepresented, a new Writers Guild of America West report shows. The guild's stats, issued today as part of the first such WGA West report since 1998, show TV employment for women in 2004 at 27%, while minority employment is under 10%; in features, women writers are represented in 18% of jobs, and minority representation is 6%.

"The 2005 Hollywood Writers Report replays a story told many times in previous WGA West reports: Pockets of promise may emerge from time to time, but institutionalized barriers continue to stymie progress on the Hollywood writer diversity front," Hunt wrote in the report.

Hunt also asserted that not only have gains for minority TV writers failed to keep up with an America that's become increasingly diverse, but that those "marginal" gains have come largely on minority-themed sitcoms.

"When these shows have disappeared from the schedule in the past, so did employment opportunities for minority writers," he added. "Minority gains in the film sector have stalled altogether in recent years."

"It is abundantly clear to me that diversity in hiring requires a firm commitment on the part of decisionmakers (TV showrunners as well as TV and film executives) to actively seek out and read the work of writers who are women and people of color," Verrone wrote.

[But not Asians or even Hispanics (the largest minority in the U.S.)???]

"This is not always easy, and it is rarely automatic, but, as a strong and unified guild committed to success for all members, we must insist that all writers be allowed to compete with their peers for development and staffing opportunities and that we are all properly compensated for the work we do as professional writers," he concluded. "When any of our voices are muted, our collective volume is reduced."

Do your research, Hollywood...

Consider the ramifications of a British pub decorated with cut-outs of leprechauns... Or, better yet, if Outback Steak House used the confederate flag as authentic Australian paraphernalia to adorn its walls. I mean, they speak English, right? They're both basically former English colonies...

Or a Thai restaurant with paintings of ninjas. I mean, Asia's Asia, right?

Think how dissimilar people in different states are - compare a white dude from Biloxi with a white dude from Rhode Island, or Brooklyn, or Chicago, or Dallas. Now take that a step further and compare any one of those guys with someone from Toronto or Sydney. Or even Belize.

We're talking different food, music, accents/dialects, styles, appearances, skin tones, cultures. Despite the fact they speak the same language, they are completely different peoples.

So if a movie or TV show had a southerner from Auburn play a DJ from the Bronx, it would immediately feel wrong to its viewers. Or if an Australian played a Bostonian.

What if Fargo still took place in Northern Minnesota but was played by Jamaicans.

Wouldn't quite work, huh?

So what's the point of all this? Simple. Because Hollywood's in LA, Hispanics in TV and movies are constantly being portrayed by Mexicans. And just like natives of Chicago aren't representations of every English-speaking person on the planet, so are Mexican not representations of every Hispanic on Earth.

(And by the way, it's Hispanic. Not Latino or Latin or Spanish or...)

And when I say Hispanics are primarily being portrayed by Mexicans, I'm not talking about the actors, I'm talking about the writing. If you have an actor who looks the part and can play the part but happens to not be that specific ethnicity, that's OK. I mean, that's acting. Plenty of successful actors do this. From Al Pacino playing a Puerto Rican to Antonio Banderas playing a Mexican, to Armand Assante playing a Cuban, to Colin Farrell playing an American, to Brad Pitt playing a Scott.

What I'm talking about is characterization, speech patterns, behavior, skin tones, facial features, neighborhoods, wardrobe, props, food, references, etc. You can have a Honduran play a Puerto Rican, as long as he looks, and acts, and talks like a 'Rican.

In a recent episode of Nip/Tuck (which is supposed to take place in Miami), a former gang-banger wanted a new life away from the street and he wanted to start by removing the tattoos of tears he had on his face. Each 'tear' tattoo (as in 'cry a tear', not 'tear a page') are supposed to represent a kill. This is not a Cuban gang practice. I don't even think it's an East Coast gang practice. This is a West Coast thing. (As a matter of fact, gangs in general, in the way they are depicted in TV and movies, are more a West Coast thing. I lived in Miami all my life and moved to LA about a year and a half ago. The gangs in Miami are more about tagging than about drive-by's.)

Also, the person playing the Cuban in this Nip/Tuck episode (along with his other buddies) all looked Central-American. I say this because he looked indian (as in native, or Aztec). Cubans either look European, black, or somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, the Spaniards pretty much wiped out all native life on the island back when they 'conquered' it. So the fact that this Cuban looked the way he did was wrong for the part. But I can look past that. What I can't look past is that on top of his looks, he was dressed wrong, his history was wrong, his actions were wrong. He spoke about drinking tequila as part of a gang ritual. Tequila is Mexican. Cubans drink rum. I mean the name tequila comes from where it's made in Mexico! Also, he and his fellow gang-bangers dressed in long-sleeve plaid shirts (it's too hot and humid to wear that in Miami), like what you you'd expect to see a Mexican gang in LA wear. And when they were chasing him in the streets, they spoke in thick Mexican accents and called him "Cubano," as if to say that the fact he was Cuban made him different. Let me explain something: Miami is basically Northern Cuba. There are more Cubans in Miami than any other ethnicity. They represent a huge chunk of the population. So even if he were to fall in with a gang of mixed ethnicity, he shouldn't be unique enough in Miami to be known as "Cubano." That's like someone in Connecticut known as "Whitey."

CSI: Miami does this crap all the time. Too many shows and movies do this too often.

Note to screen writers: write what you know. You've heard this in every writing book you've read and every writing class you've taken. Don't think that because you know LA and Mexicans you know Miami and Cubans, or New York and Puerto Ricans - the same way as if you've never left the South, you can't write a story on Canadians. So do your damn research. I know these errors and incorrect stereotypes aren't limited to Hollywood, but Hollywood should hold itself more responsible to their audience. Hispanics represent the largest minority in the United States - and the population is growing. More Spanish is spoken around the world than any other language. Writers (along with the execs that approve this nonsense) will soon be made to look like fools when the audience starts realizing how wrong the material is.

For those of you still confused, here's a quick little guide I put together. Maybe I'll actually make another more detailed post some time:

Caribbean Hispanics (Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Dominicans) eat lots of pork, plantains, and drink rum. They have the music you usually associate with "Spanish Music" (Salsa, Merengue, Cha Cha Cha, Danzon, Guaguanco, Son). Mariachis are Mexican. So are tacos and burritos and tequila. Cubans eat black beans, Puerto Ricans eat red beans, Mexicans eat pinto beans. Cubans have guarapo (sugar cane juice) while Mexicans have horchata (rice drink). Mexicans say vato and orale and ese. Puerto Ricans say nene. Argentineans say vosotros. Panamanians say chucha. Cubans say Que bola, acere and ñooo.

I mean, I can go on and on. While deep down, we Hispanics are brothers, still our differences are vast. Do your research, Hollywood.

-----

Here's an interesting article from the L.A. Times on the subject of the differences within the Hispanic 'community,' Hispanic Heritage Month, and how they (we) "don't need a made-up identity."

It's HISPANIC.

When referring to people of Spanish descent, if you absolutely must group them together, you should refer to them as Hispanic.

Not Spanish - unless they're from Spain.

Not Latin - unless you're trying to group them in with Italians, Greek, Portuguese, French, and Russians.

Not Latino - unless the rest of your sentence is in Spanish, or you yourself are Hispanic (and maybe you're grouping them with other non-spanish-speaking people of Latin-America, such as Brazilians).

And not Chicano - unless they're Mexican. (Chicano comes from the word Mexicano, Spanish for 'Mexican.' The X in Spanish can be pronounced like an 'H' or like a 'Ch.' So Mexicano was shortened to Xicano, and eventually Chicano.)

His·pan·ic
adj.

1. Of or relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America.
2. Of or relating to a Spanish-speaking people or culture.

n.

1. A Spanish-speaking person.
2. A U.S. citizen or resident of Latin-American or Spanish descent.

Simple. Clear. Correct.

Though you should really just be specific: Cuban, Panamanian, Dominican, Venezuelan, Mexican, Colombian, Puerto Rican, Peruvian, Honduran, Chilean, Argentinean... If you want to refer to the region, there's South American, Central American, Caribbean... But ultimately, try not to lump people together unecessarily. Think about how much people from New Zealand and Fargo and Alabama and Boston and Vancouver have in common.

(There are, of course, differing opinions on the subject. Some believe that Hispanic is of Spanish descent but Latino adds Spaniards and Portuguese to the mix. Others believe that Hispanics are white and Latinos are brown. To me, this is ridiculous and almost racist. But as you have just finished reading my take on it, you now know what's up. Many, including these boricuas (Puerto Ricans), tend to agree with me.)