IMPRESSIONS OF THE LOS ANGELES GRAN MARCHA

In Van Nuys, where I work, on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, we watched a nearly
flag-free, spontaneous immigrant rights high school walkout take over Van
Nuys Boulevard, not far from where the same students later shut down the 405
freeway.  This was only one of many grass roots high school walkouts
throughout southern California, and it came on the heels of the largest
demonstration ever in LA, 500,000 people marching on Broadway in downtown
Los Angeles on Saturday, March 25.   Based on my impressions, the Gran
Marcha was dramatically different than a much smaller anti-Iraq war march
held in Hollywood on March 18.  Consider the differences.

The anti-Iraq war march was really an effort of left-liberal organizations,
mainly the Peace Center (United for Peace and Justice), ANSWER, and the
World Can't Wait, all in turn created by left-leaning parties, to reach out
to the Democratic Party, but with virtually no success.  Other than Jackie
Goldberg, soon leaving the California State Assembly, the only other
governmental representatives at the anti-war march were hundreds of cops and
parking enforcement officers.  Likewise, the unions, churches, ethnic
organizations, and non-profits – all the base of the Democratic Party and
organizers of the immigrant rights marches – were absent.  Other than
Pacifica, the media was also a no show.

In contrast, the immigrant right march was not just enormous and spirited.
It was also successfully organized from the top down by the Spanish language
corporate media, the Catholic church, unions, non-profits, and elected
officials who ignored the anti-war march.  In fact, the lead speaker was Los
Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, an ambitious Democratic Party leader.
The organizers not only got an amazing turnout, but kept the demonstrators
to a tight political message:  US patriotism and opposition to harsh
anti-immigrant legislation adopted in 2005 by the House of Representatives
(HR 4437).

Furthermore, even though those who attended the march held progressive
concerns  - rights for working people – the march itself was by no means
progressive.  In fact, it actually struck me as a fairly conservative
march.  Imagine if the left had organized an alternative immigrant rights
march.  It would have been totally multi-ethnic.  The themes would have been
"workers have no borders" and "unity between immigrants and citizens."  The
political program would have been a simple, straightforward formulation:
national borders should become as open for workers as they already are for
employers and investors.  There also would have been substantial opposition
to the Iraq War and its domestic blowback, in particular the post 9-11
crackdown on immigrants from Islamic countries.

None of this could be found at March 25.  This march was entirely different,
reflecting the political outlook and economic concerns of its corporate and
establishment organizers.  It had four defining features:

1.  Totally segregated.  The Gran Marcha was at least 99 percent Latino,
with no other immigrant groups (Koreans, Chinese, Iranian, Armenian, etc.)
visible, even though they all attended the 1995 march against anti-immigrant
Proposition 187.  The picket signs, banners, tee-shirts and chants, all
furnished to marchers by the organizers, were predominantly  Spanish, with
scattered English.  Other immigrant languages were never seen or heard.

2.  Totally patriotic.  US flags were everywhere.  In fact, I have never
seen so many US flags in my entire life, much less at a protest march!  The
flag waving did not just happen; the organizers handed out US flags en
masse.  Furthermore, I don't believe they promoted the US flag just to
offset anti-immigrant yahoos calling for mass deportations and a wall on the
Mexican border.  Flag-waving has been part of US immigrant absorption policy
since WW I.  Developing loyalty to the flag is critical to politically
resocializing immigrants to emotionally support US patriotism.  In the
current period, this is critical and means support for US foreign and
military policy.  In other words, support for the Iraq war, including
military enlistments into what is often dubbed the Green Card Army.

3.    Totally nationalistic.  In addition to the hundreds of thousands of US
flags passed out  to the marchers, many also brought or bought Mexican
flags.  Likewise, many of the chants and speeches touted Mexican or Latino
nationalism.  The latter is quite an irony, too, since the new pan-ethnic
categories of Latino and Hispanic were developed in the Nixon White House!
They don't even exist outside the United States.

4.   Totally on-message.  The entire march, like parallel marches in other
US cities, was  devoted to opposition to HR 4437, which makes illegal
immigrants felons.  Less oppressive legislation was barely mentioned, such
as that proposed by President Bush and Senators Specter, McCain, and
Kennedy.  Their alternatives revive the old Bracero program by legally
admitting immigrants into the US to work or join the military.  And, as
mentioned above, the march's picket signs, banners, and tee-shirts contained
no references to progressive pro-immigrant themes:  the elimination of
borders, opposition to the Iraq War or to cutbacks, or unity between
immigrants and citizens.

Tentative conclusion:  The impulse of those hundreds of thousands who took
to the streets  -- improving their working situation -- is laudable, but
their ranks need to be bolstered by the other immigrant groups in Los
Angeles, as well as by U.S. citizens.  We are all in the same boat and
should not be artificially separated by imposed ethnic or legal categories.
The march's patriotic and nationalistic themes also should be countered by
opposition to a Green Card Army and US foreign policy.  After all, if it
were not for US policies in Latin America -- in particular support for
despotic regimes, the Contras, and NAFTA –  the ranks of Saturday's march
would have been much thinner.  Finally, we should oppose overt attacks on
immigrants, whether they are perpetrated by vigilantes like the Minutemen or
the Federal government after 9-11.  These issues should be linked to, not
severed from, the current immigration debates.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to