Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 07:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Interview With Juan Gonzalez


The Progressive
June 20, 2000  

 Juan Gonzalez is an award-winning columnist with the
New York Daily News. Born in Ponce,
 Puerto Rico, he grew up in a New York City housing
project and studied at Columbia
 University, where he got involved in the 1968 student
strike. 

 "When I was studying at Columbia," he told me, "one
of the great halls was named after one of
 the big sugar barons who owned South Puerto Rico
Sugar Company."

 A founding member of the Young Lords, a Puerto Rican
activist group, Gonzalez later served as
 president of the National Congress for Puerto Rican
Rights. Along with his daily newspaper
 column, he writes regularly for the magazine In These
Times. And for the past four years, he has
 been a twice-weekly co-host on Pacifica Radio's
Democracy Now. 

 "Juan sees the world through the lens of an insider
and outsider," says Amy Goodman, the daily
 host of the program. "He brings a depth of national
and international experience to the program."

 Gonzalez is the author of Roll Down Your Window:
Stories from a Forgotten America
 (Verso, 1995) and Harvest of Empire: A History of
Latinos in America (Viking, 2000).

 In Harvest of Empire, I was particularly struck by a
passage about his public school experience
 in New York. "Most of us became products of a
sink-or-swim public school philosophy," he
 wrote, "immersed in English-language instruction from
our first day in class and actively
 discouraged from retaining our native tongue. 'Your
name isn't Juan,' the young teacher told me
 in first grade at P.S. 87 in East Harlem. 'In this
country it's John. Shall I call you John?' Confused
 and afraid, but sensing this as some fateful
decision, I timidly said no. But most children could
not
 summon the courage, so school officials routinely
anglicized their names. Though I had spoken
 only Spanish before I entered kindergarten, the
teachers were amazed at how quickly I mastered
 English. From then on, each time a new child from
Puerto Rico was placed in any of my classes,
 the teachers would sit him beside me so I could
interpret the lessons. Bewildered, terrified, and
 ashamed, the new kids grappled with my clumsy
attempts to decipher the teacher's strange
 words. Inevitably, when the school year ended, they
were forced to repeat the grade, sometimes
 more than once, all because they hadn't mastered
English. Even now, forty years later, the faces
 of those children are still fresh in my mind. They
make today's debates on bilingual education so
 much more poignant, and the current push toward total
English immersion so much more
 frightening."

 Gonzalez was named one of the nation's 100 most
influential Hispanics by Hispanic Business
 and has received a lifetime achievement award from
the Hispanic Academy of Media Arts and
 Sciences.

 I caught up with him in Boulder on a sunny Friday
morning during his national book tour for
 Harvest of Empire. He was at the Tattered Cover
bookstore in Denver the previous night, and
 as soon as we finished, he was off to Breckenridge in
the high Rockies for yet another event.

  

 Tell me more about the faces of those schoolchildren
that are still fresh in your mind.

 Juan Gonzalez: I never forget the fear that these
children had being in a country where they
 didn't understand anything that was going on in
school, and yet somehow they were grappling to
 learn subject matter. I believe that the whole
question of the learning of a new language depends
 to a great degree on how young you are when you begin
the process. Since I was a Spanish
 speaker when I entered kindergarten, I really began
to learn English from the very beginning and
 was able to dominate the language fairly rapidly. You
take children who come in when they've
 already spent four years in school in the Dominican
Republic or Venezuela--or worse, when they
 come in as teenagers--at that point the mastery of
another language becomes a far more difficult
 and psychologically taxing process. You're not only
learning to speak another language; you're
 learning to think one, too.

 Q: I grew up on East 87th Street in New York, not too
many blocks from your old
 neighborhood. My parents were immigrants from
Armenia. When my mother used to
 speak to me in Armenian in the street in front of my
friends, the American kids, I
 wanted to crawl into the nearest sewer, feeling this
enormous shame.

 Gonzalez: That is the classic immigrant experience
that is repeated over and over in the U.S.
 My wife, who comes from the Dominican Republic, is a
Spanish-language teacher in a New
 York high school. She finds the kids who most resist
learning Spanish are the Latinos. To them,
 Spanish is a negative--second-class. It pains her.
She says she has to do much more counseling
 of the Latino children just to get them interested in
being able to study Spanish as a foreign
 language. But Spanish is not a foreign language in
the U.S. The annexation of the Mexicans to
 the Southwest and the Puerto Ricans meant that those
groups did not come to the U.S. The U.S.
 came to them and made them citizens, speaking their
own language in their original territories.

 Q: What do you think of bilingual education?

 Gonzalez: I think bilingual transitional education is
a good idea. I don't think it's the
 responsibility of the public schools to maintain
another language or culture, but I do think it is
 their responsibility to provide enough transitional
education so that people don't fall back in other
 subjects. The important thing is that in those parts
of the U.S. like South Texas or California or
 New York where you have huge Latino populations
everybody should learn Spanish--the
 English population as well as the Spanish-speaking
population--and break out of monolingual
 ghettoes. Then you will have more cultural
understanding.

 Q: There are thirty million Latinos in the U.S., a
very fast-growing population. What
 are the political implications of that?

 Gonzalez: In another fifty years, one out of every
four people in the country will be Latino. By
 2100, it could be half the population. If something
is not done to raise the economic level of
 Latin America, everyone is going to keep coming. The
implication is that the entire social and
 cultural fabric of the U.S. is going to go through a
transformation. 

 So you have a choice. Either you raise the economic
level of Latin America so that more people
 will want to stay in their own country, or you accept
the fact that the U.S. itself, like the old
 Roman Empire, will be changed from within by the very
people it conquered.

 Q: What are you trying to do in Harvest of Empire?

 Gonzalez: I talk about the whole process of
Americanization or lack of Americanization by
 Latinos, and what has happened psychologically as
well as socially on this assimilation road.

 Q: You write, "In this country, meanwhile, few
children in the public schools, including
 Puerto Rican children, are taught anything about
Puerto Rico except for its
 geographical location and the fact that it 'belongs'
to the U.S."

 Gonzalez: I am perpetually amazed at the lack of
basic knowledge that most Americans have
 about Puerto Rico. Even to the point of whether
Puerto Ricans are foreigners or Americans. I
 was just asked recently by someone when I was doing a
reading in Texas whether Puerto Ricans
 had to have passports to enter the U.S. Puerto
Ricans, without asking for it, were all made
 American citizens by a declaration of Congress in
1917, the Jones Act. In fact, the House of
 Delegates of Puerto Rico, the only elected Puerto
Rican representatives at the time, unanimously
 rejected the citizenship and told Congress they
didn't want it. Yet Congress imposed it anyway.
 Since that time, Puerto Ricans travel back and forth
without a passport, as if moving from one
 state of the Union to another.

 Q: You say Puerto Ricans "are in a different position
from Italians or Swedes or Poles.
 Our homeland is invaded and permanently occupied, its
patriots persecuted and jailed
 by the very country to which we migrated."

 Gonzalez: There was a recent Congressional hearing
over Puerto Rico. Louis Freeh, the head
 of the FBI, apologized to Congressman [José] Serrano,
Democrat of New York, for the role the
 Bureau played in its notorious COINTELPRO activities,
which repressed the independence
 movement by creating divisions and disruptions.

 Q: Technically speaking, the island is a
commonwealth. What does that mean?

 Gonzalez: A commonwealth is a fancy word that doesn't
have anything like the implications of
 the British Commonwealth. The various countries that
were formerly colonies of Britain and are
 part of the British Commonwealth have their own
separate national sovereignty, their own
 representation in international bodies, and their own
independent existence. Puerto Rico's
 commonwealth is different. Puerto Ricans are able to
vote for local officials to run their local
 government, but the local government is subservient
to, and must abide by, the laws that are
 passed by Congress. Whenever Congress wants to change
a Puerto Rican law, it has the right to
 do so. Whenever Congress wants to ignore a Puerto
Rican law, it has the right to do so. There's
 currently a big battle because the Puerto Rican
constitution abolished the death penalty. Federal
 law has reinstituted the death penalty. That directly
conflicts with the Puerto Rico constitution. In
 all of those conflict areas, federal law supersedes
Puerto Rican law. That's one way that Puerto
 Rico remains under the control of Congress. 

 The citizenship of Puerto Ricans is not a citizenship
of birth; it is a citizenship of law. Congress
 has granted citizenship to Puerto Ricans, and if
Congress decides in the future that everyone
 born in Puerto Rico from 2001 on is not a U.S.
citizen, they can do that. I was born in Ponce,
 Puerto Rico. I'm a U.S. citizen but I could never be
elected President, and neither could anyone
 else born in Puerto Rico, because the Constitution
requires that you must have been born in the
 U.S. to be President. On the one hand, there is a
citizenship. On the other hand, it is a
 second-class citizenship. Puerto Ricans do not vote
for President. They don't elect any voting
 members to the Senate or the House.

 Q: I'm interested that you cite Frantz Fanon's
Wretched of the Earth, which talks about
 the internalizing of colonial ideas.

 Gonzalez: I think the Puerto Rican experience is the
one which is closest to what Fanon was
 talking about. This extends not only to language, but
to all the things that language is a
 transmission belt for: the historical memories of a
people, and their sense of themselves. Fanon
 wrote, "Colonialism is not satisfied merely with
holding a people in its grip and emptying the
 native's brain of all form and content. By a kind of
perverted logic, it turns to the past of the
 oppressed people, and distorts, disfigures, and
destroys it. . . . The effect consciously sought by
 colonialism [is] to drive into the natives' heads the
idea that if the settlers were to leave, they
 would at once fall back into barbarism, degradation,
and bestiality." 

 This sense of the psychological effect of
colonialism--what many years ago when I was in the
 Young Lords we used to call the "colonial
mentality"--exists among Puerto Ricans. Many Puerto
 Ricans, for instance, throughout the 1950s and 1960s
would say, if Puerto Rico were to be an
 independent country, it would starve. It would not be
able to survive without the U.S. Where did
 this concept come from? It came from the U.S., from
those who administered the Puerto Rican
 colony throughout the early 1900s. For the first
fifty years of the century Puerto Ricans did not
 even have their own governors. There were American
governors appointed by the President that
 administered the colony. All the major figures of the
Puerto Rican cabinet were Americans. It
 was not until 1948 that Puerto Ricans elected their
own governor, even though he was still
 limited in power. But there was always this sense
that Puerto Rico was powerless to function as
 a sovereign or independent country. It didn't have
the resources or the capacity to be able to
 function. 

 Surprisingly, there must be at least a dozen
countries in the Caribbean that are far smaller than
 Puerto Rico and with less population and fewer
resources that have managed quite well to
 survive as independent countries. But the Puerto
Rican doesn't believe, for the most part, that the
 island could function as an independent nation.

 Q: A lot of the resistance in Puerto Rico since the
1898 U.S. takeover has manifested
 itself in music and literature. Why is that?

 Gonzalez: Puerto Rico was a colony of Spain for 400
years. Ever since 1898 it has been a
 colony of the U.S. So for 500 years Puerto Rican
society has been ruled or administered by a
 foreign nation. That doesn't mean that a Puerto Rican
nation doesn't exist. It just has never gotten
 its own political sovereignty. As a result, what has
happened is that culture and language have
 become the vehicles by which Puerto Ricans express
their nationality. The ability of Puerto
 Ricans to maintain a separate cultural
identity--whether in music, poetry, theater, or
art--has
 been an important part of national consciousness.
It's almost as if people compensated in the
 cultural arena for what they lacked in the political
arena. Today, more than one-third of all
 Puerto Ricans live outside of Puerto Rico, within the
U.S. Those Puerto Ricans who moved to
 the U.S. or who were raised here have a dual identity
as both part of the American experience
 as well as part of the Puerto Rican experience. So
you have a whole host of writers, poets,
 musicians who have developed their art within the
U.S. but still see Puerto Rico as the
 fountainhead of their identity.

 Q: What is your sense of the independence movement on
the island today? And won't
 Congress be reluctant to integrate a large
Spanish-speaking community into the U.S. if
 Puerto Rico becomes a state?

 Gonzalez: I happen to be of the belief that Puerto
Rico will never become a state of the U.S.

 Q: Why not?

 Gonzalez: Because it is a separate nation. Puerto
Ricans and Americans know that. Virtually
 every state that was admitted into the Union had at
that time either a majority white settler
 population or a large plurality white settler
population. Puerto Rico has been a territory of the
 U.S. for 100 years. After 100 years, the number of
white Americans living in Puerto Rico
 doesn't even pass 3 or 4 percent. Because it is an
island, because it is not a contiguous territory,
 and because unlike Hawaii it has a huge population,
the island has basically stayed as a
 Spanish-speaking Latin American population. 

 The admission of Puerto Rico into the U.S. would
change the character of the American nation
 more dramatically than has ever happened in the past.
All the Republicans in Congress
 understand that, and even many of the Democrats.
That's why they're saying, before you
 become a state you've got to agree that the official
language will be English. Puerto Ricans are
 saying, no, we don't want to give up our language. We
would like to have co-equal official
 languages. 

 Another reason I don't think Puerto Rico will become
a state is it's so big. Its admission into the
 Union would instantly raise to a higher point of
importance the question of the District of
 Columbia. African Americans will say, if you're going
to admit Puerto Rico as a state, why leave
 the District of Columbia out? The last things the
Republicans want are two states coming in that
 would have such huge, poor, non-white, and probably
Democratic populations. Puerto Rico
 right now has a greater population than twenty-four
states in the Union.

 Still, as a longtime supporter of independence, I
have to recognize certain realities. The bulk of
 the people in Puerto Rico have been voting in these
beauty contest referenda either for statehood
 or for commonwealth. Independence continues to remain
a choice of 4 to 5 percent of the voting
 public.

 Q: What's the answer then?

 Gonzalez: Acquiring a colony is a lot easier than
divesting yourself of it, just as getting married is
 a lot easier than getting divorced. In the divorce
process that must occur between the U.S. and
 Puerto Rico, both sides must get something. I think
that the real solution to the dilemma of the
 Puerto Rico-U.S. relationship is something that's
called free association, which is recognized by
 the U.N. as a form of decolonization. The U.N.
recognizes three forms of decolonization:
 annexation into the colonial territories, which is
statehood; independence; and free association.
 Free association is a status where the colonial
nation is recognized as a sovereign state and is
 able to exercise international relations, negotiate
its own trade treaties, have a seat in the U.N.,
 and be recognized as a separate nation. However, it
chooses to be in a voluntary association
 with its former colonial master, sometimes having
dual citizenship, but maintaining an ongoing
 relationship. 

 So I think that eventually this will be the solution
that will meet the needs of all sides. Puerto Rico
 will be able to keep its language and its culture,
have a relationship with the U.S., continue to
 have the travel back and forth, but not have the
animosity that has existed because of its
 second-class citizenship. 

 In Congress, they argue that's not in the
Constitution. That's what amendments are for. There
are
 twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution. And if
it requires an amendment to the
 Constitution to finally give Puerto Rico a status
both Americans and Puerto Ricans can live with,
 why not do it?

  

====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/


     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---