SWAP MEETS AND FLEA MARKETS
Tents improvised with fabrics, vans unloading stuff, thumping boxes from the tailgate of the trucks to the tables, loud music, and people everywhere eating and yelling. There is a woman with a red dress in high heels, every man looking at her, hundreds of people around you, babies crying, improvised tents selling all kinds of food, but nothing like the smell of Juanita’s enchiladas, rolling out tortillas by hand. The chicken enchilada is delicious, the chicken is moist and tender, and the hot chili sauce, which must have five ingredients in it, has incredible depth of flavor, the cheese melting with the heat, mmm. The cafe gets crowded all the time.
Swap meets or flea markets feature second hand items and discontinued goods. They are special places that give buyers the same expectation: saving money. What I AM looking for and am sure to find are T-shirts. This place is a gold mine for that; all sorts of different colors, every size imaginable and cheap prices.
Flea markets on the West Coast are very popular. The Rose Bowl Flea Market is held on the second Sunday of every month. It’s considered the “largest of its kind”, with more than 2500 vendors. It even charges different levels of admission prices: $8“regular admission”, $10 ”express admission” before 9am, and $20 “VIP admission” before 7 am.
There isn’t anything that they don’t have. Go ahead, think of something and I am pretty sure you will find it: gold fish, fake plants, music, hair care products, furniture, CD’s, games, movies, clothes, shoes, lamps, office supplies, kitchen accessories, cosmetics, antiques and collectibles, books, woodcrafts, restaurants and much, much more. Everyone I come in contact with, like other shoppers, is friendly and courteous; people like me are there to shop. It’s chaos, but I say to myself, “nothing will interfere with my shopping day”. One of my favorite places sells hair care products. When I first walk in, I smell the exquisite fragrances, sports, flowery, all in different bottles and containers with their fantastic names and labels.
You can, of course, always find your knockoff Nike, Adidas, Converse and Vans shoes. Christian Dior, Louis Vuitton, and D&G knockoffs are common as well. There is no customer service whatsoever (they do not need it, I suppose). Cash is your bargaining power; the more cash you carry the better bargaining power you have. Need $2 hair grease? How about a $15 flat iron? Nike in an assortment of colors, spandex tops or bottoms, belts, coats, you name it and this place sells the imitation. Vendors sell scarves for a dollar, tennis shoes for $10.
The flea market turns out to be a great experience and I will definitely be going back. At the flea market you come into contact with all walks of life. Understanding differences in cultures helps to blend in. It is not just the price that attracts shoppers to swap meets; there is also the comfort level. Unlike the stuffy department stores, a swap meet has a welcoming attitude. The people are friendly and they don’t care about your social status or background; it is just business and having fun. There is no dress code or social status; you simply come as you are and look for a good time. You can enjoy a weekend of shopping and travel with free parking and the indoor markets are protected from the weather, so you don’t have to be worried about that.
The Rose Bowl Flea Market is well worth a visit, but come prepared to haggle and be at least reasonably sure that you know what you want and how much it is worth.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
STUDENT WRITING: Autobiographical Writing by Ruben Rivera
MY WORST MISDEED
When I was 10 years old, I had a very stressful and terrible experience. It was a summer afternoon after I got home from my school on a very common and ordinary day. Ricardo, my best friend at that time, arrived at my home as always. “What do you want to do this afternoon?” he asked. I answered, “Whatever you want. We have the whole afternoon to play and have fun. If you want, we can invite Manuel.” He agreed and we went to Manuel’s house in order to invite him to play “Guanini.” We knocked on the door, but his mother opened it. She told us that Manuel couldn’t play that afternoon. We thanked her, and when we turned to leave the house, we saw on the floor a huge burlap sack that our neighbors used to play a Mexican sack race. My friend and I looked at each other and wordlessly we took it. Ricardo told me, “It is going to be good for something!”
Suddenly, when we were walking toward the street, a spotted cat approached us. It started to rub itself on our legs. Ricardo told me, “Hey Nono, I have a good idea. We should put the cat inside the burlap sack in order to scare it. Maybe the cat will become angry like a lion.” I agreed, and we threw it inside the sack. Immediately the cat started to meow loudly. It became very angry, furious, and moved around violently. We could see its sharp claws piercing the sack. We hadn’t expected this and we couldn’t open the sack because we had a lot of fear. If we liberated the cat, it might attack us. We decided to run toward a vacant lot at the back of our neighborhood since the cat was making a lot of weird and strange noises. Once we were there, Ricardo said, “What do you think we need to do?” I replied: “We need to make a knot at the top of the sack, leave it and run away.” But Ricardo felt afraid, and said, “If I open the sack to make a knot, maybe the cat could jump out.” We looked at each other and we agreed to hit it against the brick wall in order to make it unconscious. Ricardo battered it several times until the cat stopped making noises. We opened the sack but the cat was still alive! “Oh my God”!
The cat got out of the sack and walked with difficulty, but it meowed like a monster. My friend said, “We need to do something. We must kill it; if we do not, it will look for revenge.” Once again I agreed with Ricardo and we started to throw stones and huge rocks at it. We saw the cat’s eyes come out of its head. It was horrible and disgusting. The cat died; NO, we killed the cat!
I am not at all proud of what we did. I felt and still feel embarrassment and sadness because it was a very repulsive act that we perpetrated. The experience is something that I have never been able to forget. Even today, every time that I remember this experience, I feel bad.
When I was 10 years old, I had a very stressful and terrible experience. It was a summer afternoon after I got home from my school on a very common and ordinary day. Ricardo, my best friend at that time, arrived at my home as always. “What do you want to do this afternoon?” he asked. I answered, “Whatever you want. We have the whole afternoon to play and have fun. If you want, we can invite Manuel.” He agreed and we went to Manuel’s house in order to invite him to play “Guanini.” We knocked on the door, but his mother opened it. She told us that Manuel couldn’t play that afternoon. We thanked her, and when we turned to leave the house, we saw on the floor a huge burlap sack that our neighbors used to play a Mexican sack race. My friend and I looked at each other and wordlessly we took it. Ricardo told me, “It is going to be good for something!”
Suddenly, when we were walking toward the street, a spotted cat approached us. It started to rub itself on our legs. Ricardo told me, “Hey Nono, I have a good idea. We should put the cat inside the burlap sack in order to scare it. Maybe the cat will become angry like a lion.” I agreed, and we threw it inside the sack. Immediately the cat started to meow loudly. It became very angry, furious, and moved around violently. We could see its sharp claws piercing the sack. We hadn’t expected this and we couldn’t open the sack because we had a lot of fear. If we liberated the cat, it might attack us. We decided to run toward a vacant lot at the back of our neighborhood since the cat was making a lot of weird and strange noises. Once we were there, Ricardo said, “What do you think we need to do?” I replied: “We need to make a knot at the top of the sack, leave it and run away.” But Ricardo felt afraid, and said, “If I open the sack to make a knot, maybe the cat could jump out.” We looked at each other and we agreed to hit it against the brick wall in order to make it unconscious. Ricardo battered it several times until the cat stopped making noises. We opened the sack but the cat was still alive! “Oh my God”!
The cat got out of the sack and walked with difficulty, but it meowed like a monster. My friend said, “We need to do something. We must kill it; if we do not, it will look for revenge.” Once again I agreed with Ricardo and we started to throw stones and huge rocks at it. We saw the cat’s eyes come out of its head. It was horrible and disgusting. The cat died; NO, we killed the cat!
I am not at all proud of what we did. I felt and still feel embarrassment and sadness because it was a very repulsive act that we perpetrated. The experience is something that I have never been able to forget. Even today, every time that I remember this experience, I feel bad.
Monday, February 7, 2011
EVALUATION WRITING: Book Review of Jorge Castaneda's "Ex-Mex: From Migrants to Immigrants" by JM
In Ex Mex, Jorge Castañeda, former Mexican Foreign Minister and current Professor of Politics and Latin American Studies at New York University, explains in a most effective way not only the one hundred year history of emigration from Mexico to the United States, but also the Mexican viewpoint on the many controversial issues surrounding the immigration debate today. One of the main issues is also the main thesis of the book: traditional Mexican circular migrants (those entering and leaving the country on a more or less regular basis) have become immigrants. The view that so many Mexicans living abroad is a sign of failed economic policies in Mexico or that the country’s government is to blame does not even begin to get to the roots of the issue. Obviously, there are multiple causes of migration and Castañeda not only addresses these in depth, but also provides plausible solutions for the immigration problem which would require concrete action on the part of both countries.
Mexicans have been crossing the border for more than a century, legally in many cases. Legend has it that emigration began in 1894 when Mexicans from Chihuahua were brought in to break a strike in a railroad car plant, but it probably began earlier with the construction of the railroads at the end of the 19th century. For decades, most Mexican migrants in the U.S. originated in the rural areas of the states of Jalisco, Guanajuato, Michoacán, and Zacatecas. They were mainly agricultural workers and Castañeda provides us with an excellent explanation of Mexico’s tradition of seasonal labor migration and the concept of “circularity.” From 1976 onwards, emigration increased sharply due to the various economic crises in Mexico as well as to economic expansion in the U.S. which brought an increased demand for cheap labor, both exacerbated by NAFTA which made it increasingly difficult – if not impossible – for Mexican farmers to compete with those in the U.S.
By the 1980s, immigration trends had changed. There were migrants from Hidalgo, Morelos, Oaxaca, Guerrero, Puebla, and Chiapas. More and more women also began to leave or to accompany their partners, and the new migrants were slightly more educated than before. They were also more urban and were sending more money home to Mexico. Many of them – some 1.3 million - became legal under the amnesty program of 1986. Today, the PEW Hispanic center estimates illegal Mexican immigration at about 500,000 per year. And the law that must be obeyed and respected? Mexico and the United States have a long-standing and complex history of labor exchange. The way Mexicans see it, the U.S. laws and “rules” keep changing; one day Mexicans are authorized, the next prohibited; the rules allow and even encourage immigration, and everyone knows that migrants deported by the Border Patrol will soon be back. The Juarez newspaper “Norte” reported on February 11, 2008, that 80% of deportees were repeat “offenders” and according to Rodolfo Rubio, a migration expert, all of them said they would try to cross to the U.S. again. However, he also said that 75% of those entering the U.S. are “novatos” – first time entrants – who have no plans to return to Mexico, which corroborates what Castañeda claims with reference to circularity. What has become obvious is that when there is a booming economy, immigration is a good thing; when there is economic contraction, it is a bad thing. Even Alan Greenspan agrees with this: “immigration, if we choose to expand it, could also lessen the decline of labor force growth in the United States.”
Even though the overall total of Mexican migration to the U.S. has been relatively stable for a long time, the share of legal and illegal migration and whether the migrants stay or not has varied greatly. For example, after the Bracero Program ended, numerical limitations were placed on permanent legal immigration from Mexico which resulted in a sharp rise in undocumented migration. According to Castañeda, today “legal immigration and contract labor migration are growing modestly, and while deportations are climbing, apprehensions are falling.” What is more important though is the fact that increased enforcement along the border is in effect ending circulation and therefore the undocumented population is increasing rapidly. And this is Castañeda’s point: seasonal migrants are becoming permanent settlers, i.e. immigrants.
I think that one of the most important points Castañeda makes is that Mexicans perform stoop labor (harvests, gardens, etc.) and that these activities survive because of the low wages the workers receive. If the U.S. farmers were to mechanize or to pay the high salaries Americans would require, they would most likely go out of business as they would not be able to compete with Mexican or other foreign farm products. Therefore, non-tradable goods and services would survive – at high prices - but tradable goods and services would not. One of the ironies Castañeda points out is that if the U.S. wants free trade, capital “must flow to Mexico to take advantage of lower wages…. but if wages are low enough to attract capital, they are also low enough to drive emigration.” Tamar Jacoby, associate of the Manhattan Institute, points out a fact many of us should think about: “The question is whether we want to import more produce from abroad, or more workers from abroad to pick our produce.”
The results of NAFTA were unexpected for both proponents and opponents: it neither deterred, reduced, or eliminated legal or illegal migration, nor did it create or stimulate it. Castañeda believes that all viewpoints and debates on immigration must, first and foremost, take into consideration its history. What changed the basic parameters of emigration were the U.S. immigration reforms that began in 1996 when public benefits were limited and border control went into high gear, forcing the emigrants to try their luck in the desert and other dangerous places. This, in turn, also altered the smuggling trade; organized crime became rampant as huge sums of money were to be made. Due to the Clinton administration’s policies which made crossing the border more difficult, people began to stay in the U.S. instead of going back home, and they began to take their families. They also began to spread out all through the country and as they took jobs in industry, services, etc. they were no longer seasonal which is another reason they stayed; i.e. they were becoming immigrants. The consequences of the Clinton administration’s measures were unforeseen but they did force both the United States and Mexico to approach migration from a different angle. Mexico’s then President Vicente Fox called for major changes, and even though I am certainly no fan of his, many of them made a lot of sense. They included making legal visas and legal status more available, cracking down on criminal smuggling crossings, building a viable border region, and targeting development initiatives to areas with a high out-migration.
Over the years, there have been many plans and attempts to solve immigration problems and issues and Jorge Castañeda, during his time as Foreign Minister, was involved in many of them. From my personal point of view, many of these attempts were well thought out and could have provided excellent results. However, as we see so often when politics is involved, most of them came to nothing. What Castañeda makes very clear though is that any deal must necessarily involve the Mexicans already in the U.S. as well as the flow question - those who will continue to migrate north. There are of course many pros and cons to the guest worker issue. Some of the cons are the ‘danger’ of creating a permanent underclass, the possibility of guest workers remaining in the country, rejection of anything that remotely sounds like amnesty, etc. However, there seem to be many more pros: evidence shows that most of those let in went home because of the ‘guarantee’ of being let back in.
9/11 changed many things and the immigration issue was one of them. People began to think of immigration as a security issue and Bush was no longer willing to negotiate the agreement previously in the pipeline. Even so, a great deal of progress had been made and a series of questions had been defined. One of the most important of these was whether there could be a guest worker program without some form of mass legalization, regularization, or amnesty. Of course, this implies a myriad of other questions to which there are no cut and dried answers. Castañeda believes that in order for there to be any kind of agreement, Mexico must cooperate with the United States and the United States must address both amnesty and guest workers. It is impractical to expect illegal workers to come forward, register, and leave the country with the promise that they can come back after years of waiting. However, most Mexicans would rather not leave their own country and giving them a provisional alternative is a good option.
Politically, the issue is also very controversial. The bitter immigration debate and controversy over responsibilities and solutions continues unabated in both countries. Castañeda claims that in the United States the ideological right does not like immigration, but the business community does. On the left, African American leaders believe that Mexicans compete for jobs with blacks, “driving down wages and working conditions because of their ‘illegal’ nature” although experts from Wharton School say this is not so. Castañeda argues that cheap Mexican labor has actually saved the U.S. “by making it more competitive in the face of the Chinese – and to a lesser extent Indian – onslaught.” The American political system has tolerated illegal immigration so as not to eliminate protectionist barriers “that would undoubtedly obliterate many activities – agricultural, meatpacking, and others – by transferring them abroad.” Of course, politically, especially in this election year, immigration is a hot issue. Latinos make up between 9% and 10% of the electorate, the biggest percentage in history. They may also prove to be of decisive importance in states such as Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, and Nevada.
Many immigrants have become legal, one way or another, after many years of illegality. They have now extended throughout the U.S. and are helping those that have come to join them, legally or illegally. For example, there are more than 700,000 Mexicans in New York, two thirds of whom come from the Mixteca region which is traditionally migratory. Castañeda divides today’s emigration into three groups: the traditional states for all emigrants, i.e. California, New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey, and Illinois; second tier states which is where the immigrants go some time after arriving in the U.S. such as North Carolina, Georgia, Washington, and Massachusetts; and, for the last decade or so, third tier states such as South Dakota, Delaware, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Indiana. He says that the current dispersion is “almost beyond belief.” The immigrants have begun to create their own businesses; they are, on the whole, hard-working and honest people but the immigration situation in the U.S. is becoming increasingly difficult for those without papers. Because of new laws which sanction employers for hiring undocumented workers, and the recent Texas and New Mexico “No Pass” and “Lockdown” operations (Diario de Juarez, March 10, 2008) which go after undocumented entrants and jail them for up to 180 days in order to dissuade them from trying again, these employers are becoming wary of hiring Mexicans, legal or illegal, and the Mexicans are becoming more and more afraid of being found out and deported.
It has become common to see articles in the Ciudad Juarez newspapers about mass deportations that separate families, and even more so about Mexicans returning to their country voluntarily in order to prevent this from happening. On February 17, 2008, the Diario de Cd. Juarez reported that Mexicans were increasingly the victims of aggressions and race profiling in Arizona. The paper quoted Harry Garewal, President of the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, as saying that this aggression was only directed against Mexicans and those that look Mexican; not Peruvians, Asians, or African Americans. In the same article, Alfredo Gutierrez, an activist, stated that the atmosphere has become decidedly hostile and that he and other activists are availing themselves of radio programs to warn Mexican immigrants to remove bumper stickers featuring the Virgin of Guadalupe, not to hang rosaries from the rear view mirrors, to refrain from using large speakers in their vehicles, and to keep a low profile so as to avoid being harassed.
So what solutions does Castañeda offer? First of all, he is a staunch believer in shared responsibility. To him, any meaningful immigration agreement must part from that principle which would demand from Mexico concrete actions and international commitment, something it is not used to. Mexico can no longer afford to pretend that the issue is solely American and it must develop and enforce its migration laws and policies with respect to human rights. Then, Castañeda believes that if enough guest worker permits are provided, Mexico could “deter, dissuade, or discourage” the flow of illegal workers. Shared responsibility would also mean that Mexico would have to actively promote the return of these workers and be involved in the running of the program. This would reestablish circularity which would go a long way towards resolving the problem. Castañeda talks about three main and essential ingredients for an immigration agreement: what it is that Mexico has to do to limit undocumented migration, that Mexico must discourage illegal crossings, and that Mexico must be involved in and be partly responsible for the Temporary Worker Program.
So how can this be done? Castañeda goes into some of the quick fixes and the reasons these would not work, e.g. fencing off the border, deporting all the illegal workers already in the U.S., etc. He then offers four basic solutions which are, in my opinion, well thought out and make a lot of sense for both countries even though they would require them to make sacrifices. First, there must be mass amnesty for undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. This is a deal breaker for many politicians and citizens and the main reason the debate is currently stalled, but it is one of few alternatives that makes sense; as Castañeda has often said: “You try and adapt the law to reality and not reality to the law.” This legalization would have to be simple, fast, and generalized and could not exclude the recently arrived as this would create family divisions, document forgery, and the like.
Second, there must be a temporary worker program for future newcomers and a clear incentive for them to return to Mexico and exit the program. Mexico would also have to commit to preserving these workers’ Mexican citizenship, thereby restoring circularity. There would have to be a path to citizenship for temporary workers who want to stay but this would be discouraged by both countries. The amount of guest or temporary worker permits should be “as close as possible to the total of those who currently migrate without authorization” and workers should be able to move throughout the labor market with these permits. Third, Mexico, and possibly also the U.S., must provide economic resources to areas from which most Mexicans emigrate. On Mexico’s part, there would have to be clear policies for job creation, education, and professional training. Castañeda states that for sufficient economic growth to occur in Mexico there must be dramatic improvements in the establishment of the rule of law, in infrastructure, and in the educational system. It goes without saying that this would require a great deal of money. Fourth, a sensible border security program must be enacted that benefits both countries. Mexico would have to apply the law and not allow anyone out of the country without complying with the proper procedures, stopping unlawful departures at the source – the sending communities. These measures would have to include rewards for staying and penalties for leaving. Mexico would also have to commit to securing its southern border and Central and South Americans would become part of the program and would be “partly deterred from migrating by Mexico, the point of entry.” On the other hand, the U.S. would also have to enforce its laws as well as its labor standards and antidiscrimination clauses. Employers would be responsible for checking the authenticity of documents as well as for compliance with legal stipulations concerning housing, salaries, overtime, etc.
Obviously, there is no such thing as a perfect plan or arrangement. However, as a conclusion, I think it would be very fitting to quote Castañeda (page 60) when he says that Americans should think about what it means that Mexicans are becoming immigrants: “Do they (the Americans) prefer Mexicans to come and stay, or to come and go, or to have the best of both worlds: some settling down and contributing to American life as they gradually become….. Americans, and some commuting between the two countries, but remaining Mexican.”
Mexicans have been crossing the border for more than a century, legally in many cases. Legend has it that emigration began in 1894 when Mexicans from Chihuahua were brought in to break a strike in a railroad car plant, but it probably began earlier with the construction of the railroads at the end of the 19th century. For decades, most Mexican migrants in the U.S. originated in the rural areas of the states of Jalisco, Guanajuato, Michoacán, and Zacatecas. They were mainly agricultural workers and Castañeda provides us with an excellent explanation of Mexico’s tradition of seasonal labor migration and the concept of “circularity.” From 1976 onwards, emigration increased sharply due to the various economic crises in Mexico as well as to economic expansion in the U.S. which brought an increased demand for cheap labor, both exacerbated by NAFTA which made it increasingly difficult – if not impossible – for Mexican farmers to compete with those in the U.S.
By the 1980s, immigration trends had changed. There were migrants from Hidalgo, Morelos, Oaxaca, Guerrero, Puebla, and Chiapas. More and more women also began to leave or to accompany their partners, and the new migrants were slightly more educated than before. They were also more urban and were sending more money home to Mexico. Many of them – some 1.3 million - became legal under the amnesty program of 1986. Today, the PEW Hispanic center estimates illegal Mexican immigration at about 500,000 per year. And the law that must be obeyed and respected? Mexico and the United States have a long-standing and complex history of labor exchange. The way Mexicans see it, the U.S. laws and “rules” keep changing; one day Mexicans are authorized, the next prohibited; the rules allow and even encourage immigration, and everyone knows that migrants deported by the Border Patrol will soon be back. The Juarez newspaper “Norte” reported on February 11, 2008, that 80% of deportees were repeat “offenders” and according to Rodolfo Rubio, a migration expert, all of them said they would try to cross to the U.S. again. However, he also said that 75% of those entering the U.S. are “novatos” – first time entrants – who have no plans to return to Mexico, which corroborates what Castañeda claims with reference to circularity. What has become obvious is that when there is a booming economy, immigration is a good thing; when there is economic contraction, it is a bad thing. Even Alan Greenspan agrees with this: “immigration, if we choose to expand it, could also lessen the decline of labor force growth in the United States.”
Even though the overall total of Mexican migration to the U.S. has been relatively stable for a long time, the share of legal and illegal migration and whether the migrants stay or not has varied greatly. For example, after the Bracero Program ended, numerical limitations were placed on permanent legal immigration from Mexico which resulted in a sharp rise in undocumented migration. According to Castañeda, today “legal immigration and contract labor migration are growing modestly, and while deportations are climbing, apprehensions are falling.” What is more important though is the fact that increased enforcement along the border is in effect ending circulation and therefore the undocumented population is increasing rapidly. And this is Castañeda’s point: seasonal migrants are becoming permanent settlers, i.e. immigrants.
I think that one of the most important points Castañeda makes is that Mexicans perform stoop labor (harvests, gardens, etc.) and that these activities survive because of the low wages the workers receive. If the U.S. farmers were to mechanize or to pay the high salaries Americans would require, they would most likely go out of business as they would not be able to compete with Mexican or other foreign farm products. Therefore, non-tradable goods and services would survive – at high prices - but tradable goods and services would not. One of the ironies Castañeda points out is that if the U.S. wants free trade, capital “must flow to Mexico to take advantage of lower wages…. but if wages are low enough to attract capital, they are also low enough to drive emigration.” Tamar Jacoby, associate of the Manhattan Institute, points out a fact many of us should think about: “The question is whether we want to import more produce from abroad, or more workers from abroad to pick our produce.”
The results of NAFTA were unexpected for both proponents and opponents: it neither deterred, reduced, or eliminated legal or illegal migration, nor did it create or stimulate it. Castañeda believes that all viewpoints and debates on immigration must, first and foremost, take into consideration its history. What changed the basic parameters of emigration were the U.S. immigration reforms that began in 1996 when public benefits were limited and border control went into high gear, forcing the emigrants to try their luck in the desert and other dangerous places. This, in turn, also altered the smuggling trade; organized crime became rampant as huge sums of money were to be made. Due to the Clinton administration’s policies which made crossing the border more difficult, people began to stay in the U.S. instead of going back home, and they began to take their families. They also began to spread out all through the country and as they took jobs in industry, services, etc. they were no longer seasonal which is another reason they stayed; i.e. they were becoming immigrants. The consequences of the Clinton administration’s measures were unforeseen but they did force both the United States and Mexico to approach migration from a different angle. Mexico’s then President Vicente Fox called for major changes, and even though I am certainly no fan of his, many of them made a lot of sense. They included making legal visas and legal status more available, cracking down on criminal smuggling crossings, building a viable border region, and targeting development initiatives to areas with a high out-migration.
Over the years, there have been many plans and attempts to solve immigration problems and issues and Jorge Castañeda, during his time as Foreign Minister, was involved in many of them. From my personal point of view, many of these attempts were well thought out and could have provided excellent results. However, as we see so often when politics is involved, most of them came to nothing. What Castañeda makes very clear though is that any deal must necessarily involve the Mexicans already in the U.S. as well as the flow question - those who will continue to migrate north. There are of course many pros and cons to the guest worker issue. Some of the cons are the ‘danger’ of creating a permanent underclass, the possibility of guest workers remaining in the country, rejection of anything that remotely sounds like amnesty, etc. However, there seem to be many more pros: evidence shows that most of those let in went home because of the ‘guarantee’ of being let back in.
9/11 changed many things and the immigration issue was one of them. People began to think of immigration as a security issue and Bush was no longer willing to negotiate the agreement previously in the pipeline. Even so, a great deal of progress had been made and a series of questions had been defined. One of the most important of these was whether there could be a guest worker program without some form of mass legalization, regularization, or amnesty. Of course, this implies a myriad of other questions to which there are no cut and dried answers. Castañeda believes that in order for there to be any kind of agreement, Mexico must cooperate with the United States and the United States must address both amnesty and guest workers. It is impractical to expect illegal workers to come forward, register, and leave the country with the promise that they can come back after years of waiting. However, most Mexicans would rather not leave their own country and giving them a provisional alternative is a good option.
Politically, the issue is also very controversial. The bitter immigration debate and controversy over responsibilities and solutions continues unabated in both countries. Castañeda claims that in the United States the ideological right does not like immigration, but the business community does. On the left, African American leaders believe that Mexicans compete for jobs with blacks, “driving down wages and working conditions because of their ‘illegal’ nature” although experts from Wharton School say this is not so. Castañeda argues that cheap Mexican labor has actually saved the U.S. “by making it more competitive in the face of the Chinese – and to a lesser extent Indian – onslaught.” The American political system has tolerated illegal immigration so as not to eliminate protectionist barriers “that would undoubtedly obliterate many activities – agricultural, meatpacking, and others – by transferring them abroad.” Of course, politically, especially in this election year, immigration is a hot issue. Latinos make up between 9% and 10% of the electorate, the biggest percentage in history. They may also prove to be of decisive importance in states such as Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, and Nevada.
Many immigrants have become legal, one way or another, after many years of illegality. They have now extended throughout the U.S. and are helping those that have come to join them, legally or illegally. For example, there are more than 700,000 Mexicans in New York, two thirds of whom come from the Mixteca region which is traditionally migratory. Castañeda divides today’s emigration into three groups: the traditional states for all emigrants, i.e. California, New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey, and Illinois; second tier states which is where the immigrants go some time after arriving in the U.S. such as North Carolina, Georgia, Washington, and Massachusetts; and, for the last decade or so, third tier states such as South Dakota, Delaware, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Indiana. He says that the current dispersion is “almost beyond belief.” The immigrants have begun to create their own businesses; they are, on the whole, hard-working and honest people but the immigration situation in the U.S. is becoming increasingly difficult for those without papers. Because of new laws which sanction employers for hiring undocumented workers, and the recent Texas and New Mexico “No Pass” and “Lockdown” operations (Diario de Juarez, March 10, 2008) which go after undocumented entrants and jail them for up to 180 days in order to dissuade them from trying again, these employers are becoming wary of hiring Mexicans, legal or illegal, and the Mexicans are becoming more and more afraid of being found out and deported.
It has become common to see articles in the Ciudad Juarez newspapers about mass deportations that separate families, and even more so about Mexicans returning to their country voluntarily in order to prevent this from happening. On February 17, 2008, the Diario de Cd. Juarez reported that Mexicans were increasingly the victims of aggressions and race profiling in Arizona. The paper quoted Harry Garewal, President of the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, as saying that this aggression was only directed against Mexicans and those that look Mexican; not Peruvians, Asians, or African Americans. In the same article, Alfredo Gutierrez, an activist, stated that the atmosphere has become decidedly hostile and that he and other activists are availing themselves of radio programs to warn Mexican immigrants to remove bumper stickers featuring the Virgin of Guadalupe, not to hang rosaries from the rear view mirrors, to refrain from using large speakers in their vehicles, and to keep a low profile so as to avoid being harassed.
So what solutions does Castañeda offer? First of all, he is a staunch believer in shared responsibility. To him, any meaningful immigration agreement must part from that principle which would demand from Mexico concrete actions and international commitment, something it is not used to. Mexico can no longer afford to pretend that the issue is solely American and it must develop and enforce its migration laws and policies with respect to human rights. Then, Castañeda believes that if enough guest worker permits are provided, Mexico could “deter, dissuade, or discourage” the flow of illegal workers. Shared responsibility would also mean that Mexico would have to actively promote the return of these workers and be involved in the running of the program. This would reestablish circularity which would go a long way towards resolving the problem. Castañeda talks about three main and essential ingredients for an immigration agreement: what it is that Mexico has to do to limit undocumented migration, that Mexico must discourage illegal crossings, and that Mexico must be involved in and be partly responsible for the Temporary Worker Program.
So how can this be done? Castañeda goes into some of the quick fixes and the reasons these would not work, e.g. fencing off the border, deporting all the illegal workers already in the U.S., etc. He then offers four basic solutions which are, in my opinion, well thought out and make a lot of sense for both countries even though they would require them to make sacrifices. First, there must be mass amnesty for undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. This is a deal breaker for many politicians and citizens and the main reason the debate is currently stalled, but it is one of few alternatives that makes sense; as Castañeda has often said: “You try and adapt the law to reality and not reality to the law.” This legalization would have to be simple, fast, and generalized and could not exclude the recently arrived as this would create family divisions, document forgery, and the like.
Second, there must be a temporary worker program for future newcomers and a clear incentive for them to return to Mexico and exit the program. Mexico would also have to commit to preserving these workers’ Mexican citizenship, thereby restoring circularity. There would have to be a path to citizenship for temporary workers who want to stay but this would be discouraged by both countries. The amount of guest or temporary worker permits should be “as close as possible to the total of those who currently migrate without authorization” and workers should be able to move throughout the labor market with these permits. Third, Mexico, and possibly also the U.S., must provide economic resources to areas from which most Mexicans emigrate. On Mexico’s part, there would have to be clear policies for job creation, education, and professional training. Castañeda states that for sufficient economic growth to occur in Mexico there must be dramatic improvements in the establishment of the rule of law, in infrastructure, and in the educational system. It goes without saying that this would require a great deal of money. Fourth, a sensible border security program must be enacted that benefits both countries. Mexico would have to apply the law and not allow anyone out of the country without complying with the proper procedures, stopping unlawful departures at the source – the sending communities. These measures would have to include rewards for staying and penalties for leaving. Mexico would also have to commit to securing its southern border and Central and South Americans would become part of the program and would be “partly deterred from migrating by Mexico, the point of entry.” On the other hand, the U.S. would also have to enforce its laws as well as its labor standards and antidiscrimination clauses. Employers would be responsible for checking the authenticity of documents as well as for compliance with legal stipulations concerning housing, salaries, overtime, etc.
Obviously, there is no such thing as a perfect plan or arrangement. However, as a conclusion, I think it would be very fitting to quote Castañeda (page 60) when he says that Americans should think about what it means that Mexicans are becoming immigrants: “Do they (the Americans) prefer Mexicans to come and stay, or to come and go, or to have the best of both worlds: some settling down and contributing to American life as they gradually become….. Americans, and some commuting between the two countries, but remaining Mexican.”
EVALUATION WRITING: Book Review of Luis Alberto Urrea's "The Devil's Highway" by JM
I got my copy of “The Devil’s Highway” through trusty Amazon and had finished reading it two evenings later. This is one book I don’t think anyone can put down, whether they are familiar with the U.S. / Mexican border or not. A few of the details might be a bit off the mark but this certainly doesn’t detract from the story and what it is meant to convey. The Devil’s Highway, written by Luis Alberto Urrea, reminds us, in case we have forgotten, that for many centuries immigration has been and still is a matter of life and death for many people around the world. This is the true story of 26 men who crossed the border on May 19 of 2001 and got lost in the Arizona desert: the Yuma 14 or Wellton 26. Five days later, fourteen of them had died, twelve survived.
The story begins with a general history of the region and in particular that of the Devil’s Highway, some of the most remote and undeveloped desert in the United States. Urrea’s vivid descriptions of the area’s physical characteristics, the heat, the true history and the myths are very compelling. At the beginning of the book, he also draws some interesting parallels: in the 1880’s a very large number of Chinese went from Mexico to the U.S. to work on the railroads because of the higher wages and the availability of jobs. “Americans panicked at the ‘yellowing’ of America. A force known as the Mounted Chinese Exclusionary Police took to the dusty wasteland. They chased the ‘coolies’ and deported them.”
The trip of the 26 Mexican men into the desert is meticulously chronicled from beginning to end. It starts in Veracruz, the home state of the majority of them. Veracruz had been very prosperous for quite some time. As little as fifteen to twenty years ago, immigration issues there still consisted of illegals from Central and even South America coming into the country for low-paying jobs. Then, mostly due to the collapse of coffee prices and its resulting downward spiral,
Veracruzanos were looking north for well paying work. This created a perfect opportunity for those willing to profit from other people’s misery: the ruthless recruitment of workers willing to risk their lives to be able to support their families and their transportation to the United States. This became big business involving lots of people: the recruiters in the home states, the loan sharks who offered to finance the desperate would-be immigrants for a stiff price, the transportation crews, the “guides”, the coyotes or polleros, the people running safe houses, the bus drivers, etc., etc.; where there is a demand, the supply is not far behind.
Enter Don Moi, (short for Moises – imagine the irony!) and the rest of the Cercas mafia. Here is where the story becomes intensely personal. The “walkers”- those who cross the border and the desert on foot so as not to pay the additional cost of a ride to the recruiters and coyotes – are described in vivid detail and thus come alive for the reader. But so do Don Moi, the recruiter who fills potential clients’ minds with stories of how easy it is to cross the border and be within easy grasp of the “American Dream”, his boss Chespiro the loan shark who lends money at a 15% monthly compounded rate, El Negro, “dreaded enforcer and manipulator of Sonoita”, his driver El Moreno, in charge of immigrant transport to the launching pad, and then the “guias” who take the immigrants from there into the desert. The reader gets to know all of them intimately. Urrea brings alive every one of the 26 walkers as complex characters. He describes their families, the circumstances that lead them to embark on the journey, and their humble aspirations once they get to the U.S. – work hard until they have enough money to go back home and put up a small business, repair their homes, or build on an extra room. He describes the Border Patrol in such a way that you feel you have spent time with them; you know what their vehicles look like on the inside, you know what it is like to find illegal entrants in the desert, you know what their days are all about, you can feel the heat.
Once Don Moi arrived in Sonoita with the walkers after a very long bus ride, Jesus Lopez Ramos - code name Mendez - and his two partners took over. “The leader of the Wellton 26 group was a nineteen-year- old boy from Guadalajara.” He had been recruited easily; he was poor, alone, looking for a better life, and willing to take risks. To Mendez, being a coyote was cool, macho.
He had money, was part of a gang, carried a cell phone, had a girl, and had dangerous people looking out for him. After some minimal “training” in Sonoita, Mendez and two other minor coyotes were put in charge of the group.
Things went wrong from the start. They got to the drop-off point too early and, instead of waiting until the customary time, started walking – and drinking their water. The plants “began to tear at their arms and legs.” As they crossed the drags (made by a bundle of tires pulled by a truck which “irons” the sand into a smooth surface), one of the polleros brushed away their tracks, a sign easily identified by the Border Patrol. At Blue Bird, Mendez took a wrong turn. He decided to stick to the high country to avoid the Border Patrol and started to get lost; “The highway’s right over the hills” he kept saying, but it wasn’t. The group veered into the Growler Mountains and tried to climb over the peaks several times. They lost sight of the Ajo lights and stumbled around walking 40 miles without getting anywhere. Here things go from bad to worse.
I think one of the most horrifying parts of the book is the description of “the six known stages of heat death, or hyperthermia… Heat Stress, Heat Fatigue, Heat Syncope, Heat Cramps, Heat Exhaustion, and Heat Stroke” (p. 120). It is brutally graphic and we suffer with the walkers, whom we have come to know, through each stage. By Sunday, only one day after the group had started out, some of them had run out of water and what water they had was hot. They were all in dire straits; “Reymundo’s black pants had become a torture device, cooking his legs when he was exposed to the light.” “There was no thinking evident, no reasoning process at all. Mendez walked and his herd followed. They were now going in the exact opposite direction that they had come.”
At this point, Santos, one of the polleros, told Mendez that he wanted to go back but Mendez refused. After some arguing back and forth three to five men joined Santos and started back. They were never found. Those who followed Mendez had been walking now for thirty hours with only a short break the night before. They arrived at the Granite Mountains. They were out of water. Here Urrea again gives us a more intimate look at the different members of the group;
Jose de Jesus Rodriguez, Enrique Landeros, Reyno Hernandez, Lorenzo Ortiz, Reymundo Barreda, 56, and his son Reymundo Jr. 15, Nahum Landa, Jose Antonio Bautista, his nephew, Julian Malaga… He describes how each one of the men obtained the money for the journey, how they were faring at this point in time: “even Mendez knew they were all going to die”. He told them they were “doomed unless he went to get help for them.” After relieving them of what money they had left, Mendez took off with Lauro. When the group realized they were not coming back, they began “to succumb to the heat, to fall apart into disparate groups, and to die.”
Urrea’s narrative detail leaves no doubt as to what happened next. One of the mysteries of the story is that the walkers set a fire so that the Border Patrol, an airplane, or anyone, would find them but no one did. This is where they realized that there was no hope. And it is here where Urrea starts giving the actual GPS coordinates of where each of them was found, alive or dead. The way the author tells this part of the story paints a vivid picture of death in the desert: “when Reymundo died and slid from his father’s arms, his father lurched away into the desert, away from the trees, crying out in despair. Some of the men said he took the American money he had saved for their trip and tore it into small bits…. He threw himself into the sunlight” and died.
Border agent Mike F. saw them on Wednesday as he was cutting the Vidrios Drag and “within ten minutes of finding the lost men, the Migra was already fully engaged in rescue.” Rita Vargas, the Mexican consul in Calexico, played a key role in getting the dead identified and flown back to their home states. Mendez was identified as the head pollero; “he knew his life was already over. He was only nineteen…” He went to jail in Phoenix. The living told their stories and a full scale hunt for the Cercas gang went into effect. Many of them were caught. The survivors were rewarded with immunity in trade for their testimony.
The hardship, the anguish, the horror as we watch them die are all told with compassion and this story shows us all, on both sides of the border, the true face of the undocumented, the international crime organizations involved in people smuggling, and those who try to keep them from crossing the border.
Last year, some 550 Mexican migrants died attempting to cross into the United States. During the three previous years, another 1,500 died. The patrolling of the border is becoming more intense all the time and the migrants choose ever more dangerous routes through the desert with all the inherent risks. Most of the Mexicans who died last year did so from hunger, thirst, and exposure to the relentless sun. Others drowned in the Rio Grande or suffocated in trucks.
Every year, some half million Mexicans successfully cross into the United States despite the fact that anti-immigrant sentiments in the U.S. are becoming worse. More walls and fences are being erected along the line, the number of raids is increasing, and more states are preparing laws which limit the rights of undocumented workers and their health care and education. Many of the presidential candidates have spoken out in favor of stricter immigration laws and have let the public know that they are not planning to legalize undocumented migrants. There is a lot of controversy and debate over whether the immigrants are good or bad for the U.S. economy, but it seems that most sources believe that their impact is positive. In the meantime, the Mexican authorities have not been entirely ineffective. In November, they announced that two more consulates would open in the U.S., which brings the total to 52 (Norte de Ciudad Juarez newspaper). All consulates will strengthen their legal teams in order to assist immigrants. There will be campaigns in the U.S. media to improve the image of the immigrants and on the Mexican side of the border help centers will be set up to assist deported migrants.
The deaths of the Yuma 14 received tremendous media attention but only because of their number. But death on the border is an everyday occurrence and it should be the cause of outrage for the governments and citizens of all countries involved. The endless discussion about the pros and cons of illegal immigration and new laws is quite pointless; it is a given that people will go wherever there is a possibility for them to be better off. But we would all be better off if immigration were accepted as a fact of life and treated as such – by channeling it effectively. Immigration is not just a Mexican / U.S. border problem; it is a global problem and has always been, historically speaking.
The story begins with a general history of the region and in particular that of the Devil’s Highway, some of the most remote and undeveloped desert in the United States. Urrea’s vivid descriptions of the area’s physical characteristics, the heat, the true history and the myths are very compelling. At the beginning of the book, he also draws some interesting parallels: in the 1880’s a very large number of Chinese went from Mexico to the U.S. to work on the railroads because of the higher wages and the availability of jobs. “Americans panicked at the ‘yellowing’ of America. A force known as the Mounted Chinese Exclusionary Police took to the dusty wasteland. They chased the ‘coolies’ and deported them.”
The trip of the 26 Mexican men into the desert is meticulously chronicled from beginning to end. It starts in Veracruz, the home state of the majority of them. Veracruz had been very prosperous for quite some time. As little as fifteen to twenty years ago, immigration issues there still consisted of illegals from Central and even South America coming into the country for low-paying jobs. Then, mostly due to the collapse of coffee prices and its resulting downward spiral,
Veracruzanos were looking north for well paying work. This created a perfect opportunity for those willing to profit from other people’s misery: the ruthless recruitment of workers willing to risk their lives to be able to support their families and their transportation to the United States. This became big business involving lots of people: the recruiters in the home states, the loan sharks who offered to finance the desperate would-be immigrants for a stiff price, the transportation crews, the “guides”, the coyotes or polleros, the people running safe houses, the bus drivers, etc., etc.; where there is a demand, the supply is not far behind.
Enter Don Moi, (short for Moises – imagine the irony!) and the rest of the Cercas mafia. Here is where the story becomes intensely personal. The “walkers”- those who cross the border and the desert on foot so as not to pay the additional cost of a ride to the recruiters and coyotes – are described in vivid detail and thus come alive for the reader. But so do Don Moi, the recruiter who fills potential clients’ minds with stories of how easy it is to cross the border and be within easy grasp of the “American Dream”, his boss Chespiro the loan shark who lends money at a 15% monthly compounded rate, El Negro, “dreaded enforcer and manipulator of Sonoita”, his driver El Moreno, in charge of immigrant transport to the launching pad, and then the “guias” who take the immigrants from there into the desert. The reader gets to know all of them intimately. Urrea brings alive every one of the 26 walkers as complex characters. He describes their families, the circumstances that lead them to embark on the journey, and their humble aspirations once they get to the U.S. – work hard until they have enough money to go back home and put up a small business, repair their homes, or build on an extra room. He describes the Border Patrol in such a way that you feel you have spent time with them; you know what their vehicles look like on the inside, you know what it is like to find illegal entrants in the desert, you know what their days are all about, you can feel the heat.
Once Don Moi arrived in Sonoita with the walkers after a very long bus ride, Jesus Lopez Ramos - code name Mendez - and his two partners took over. “The leader of the Wellton 26 group was a nineteen-year- old boy from Guadalajara.” He had been recruited easily; he was poor, alone, looking for a better life, and willing to take risks. To Mendez, being a coyote was cool, macho.
He had money, was part of a gang, carried a cell phone, had a girl, and had dangerous people looking out for him. After some minimal “training” in Sonoita, Mendez and two other minor coyotes were put in charge of the group.
Things went wrong from the start. They got to the drop-off point too early and, instead of waiting until the customary time, started walking – and drinking their water. The plants “began to tear at their arms and legs.” As they crossed the drags (made by a bundle of tires pulled by a truck which “irons” the sand into a smooth surface), one of the polleros brushed away their tracks, a sign easily identified by the Border Patrol. At Blue Bird, Mendez took a wrong turn. He decided to stick to the high country to avoid the Border Patrol and started to get lost; “The highway’s right over the hills” he kept saying, but it wasn’t. The group veered into the Growler Mountains and tried to climb over the peaks several times. They lost sight of the Ajo lights and stumbled around walking 40 miles without getting anywhere. Here things go from bad to worse.
I think one of the most horrifying parts of the book is the description of “the six known stages of heat death, or hyperthermia… Heat Stress, Heat Fatigue, Heat Syncope, Heat Cramps, Heat Exhaustion, and Heat Stroke” (p. 120). It is brutally graphic and we suffer with the walkers, whom we have come to know, through each stage. By Sunday, only one day after the group had started out, some of them had run out of water and what water they had was hot. They were all in dire straits; “Reymundo’s black pants had become a torture device, cooking his legs when he was exposed to the light.” “There was no thinking evident, no reasoning process at all. Mendez walked and his herd followed. They were now going in the exact opposite direction that they had come.”
At this point, Santos, one of the polleros, told Mendez that he wanted to go back but Mendez refused. After some arguing back and forth three to five men joined Santos and started back. They were never found. Those who followed Mendez had been walking now for thirty hours with only a short break the night before. They arrived at the Granite Mountains. They were out of water. Here Urrea again gives us a more intimate look at the different members of the group;
Jose de Jesus Rodriguez, Enrique Landeros, Reyno Hernandez, Lorenzo Ortiz, Reymundo Barreda, 56, and his son Reymundo Jr. 15, Nahum Landa, Jose Antonio Bautista, his nephew, Julian Malaga… He describes how each one of the men obtained the money for the journey, how they were faring at this point in time: “even Mendez knew they were all going to die”. He told them they were “doomed unless he went to get help for them.” After relieving them of what money they had left, Mendez took off with Lauro. When the group realized they were not coming back, they began “to succumb to the heat, to fall apart into disparate groups, and to die.”
Urrea’s narrative detail leaves no doubt as to what happened next. One of the mysteries of the story is that the walkers set a fire so that the Border Patrol, an airplane, or anyone, would find them but no one did. This is where they realized that there was no hope. And it is here where Urrea starts giving the actual GPS coordinates of where each of them was found, alive or dead. The way the author tells this part of the story paints a vivid picture of death in the desert: “when Reymundo died and slid from his father’s arms, his father lurched away into the desert, away from the trees, crying out in despair. Some of the men said he took the American money he had saved for their trip and tore it into small bits…. He threw himself into the sunlight” and died.
Border agent Mike F. saw them on Wednesday as he was cutting the Vidrios Drag and “within ten minutes of finding the lost men, the Migra was already fully engaged in rescue.” Rita Vargas, the Mexican consul in Calexico, played a key role in getting the dead identified and flown back to their home states. Mendez was identified as the head pollero; “he knew his life was already over. He was only nineteen…” He went to jail in Phoenix. The living told their stories and a full scale hunt for the Cercas gang went into effect. Many of them were caught. The survivors were rewarded with immunity in trade for their testimony.
The hardship, the anguish, the horror as we watch them die are all told with compassion and this story shows us all, on both sides of the border, the true face of the undocumented, the international crime organizations involved in people smuggling, and those who try to keep them from crossing the border.
Last year, some 550 Mexican migrants died attempting to cross into the United States. During the three previous years, another 1,500 died. The patrolling of the border is becoming more intense all the time and the migrants choose ever more dangerous routes through the desert with all the inherent risks. Most of the Mexicans who died last year did so from hunger, thirst, and exposure to the relentless sun. Others drowned in the Rio Grande or suffocated in trucks.
Every year, some half million Mexicans successfully cross into the United States despite the fact that anti-immigrant sentiments in the U.S. are becoming worse. More walls and fences are being erected along the line, the number of raids is increasing, and more states are preparing laws which limit the rights of undocumented workers and their health care and education. Many of the presidential candidates have spoken out in favor of stricter immigration laws and have let the public know that they are not planning to legalize undocumented migrants. There is a lot of controversy and debate over whether the immigrants are good or bad for the U.S. economy, but it seems that most sources believe that their impact is positive. In the meantime, the Mexican authorities have not been entirely ineffective. In November, they announced that two more consulates would open in the U.S., which brings the total to 52 (Norte de Ciudad Juarez newspaper). All consulates will strengthen their legal teams in order to assist immigrants. There will be campaigns in the U.S. media to improve the image of the immigrants and on the Mexican side of the border help centers will be set up to assist deported migrants.
The deaths of the Yuma 14 received tremendous media attention but only because of their number. But death on the border is an everyday occurrence and it should be the cause of outrage for the governments and citizens of all countries involved. The endless discussion about the pros and cons of illegal immigration and new laws is quite pointless; it is a given that people will go wherever there is a possibility for them to be better off. But we would all be better off if immigration were accepted as a fact of life and treated as such – by channeling it effectively. Immigration is not just a Mexican / U.S. border problem; it is a global problem and has always been, historically speaking.
REFLECTION WRITING: "Correct" or "Standard" English by JM
As a teacher in Mexico, teaching content and English to native Spanish speakers who lived in their own Spanish speaking country, I often wondered how important it really was for my students to speak English ‘correctly’ – in other words, attain standard cognitive academic language proficiency. For those students who were headed to universities in the United States or other foreign countries, there was no denying that this was important. After all, all U.S. universities require their students to write in standard, academic, structurally and grammatically correct English. Most schools have writing centers where students who are not familiar with such basic writing skills as the ‘five-paragraph-essay’ and standard writing conventions can go for help. The greater majority of the students at the institution where I worked would need those skills, but what about those that were not headed for foreign lands? What about those that would go to university in Mexico and join the workforce – well before they had finished their studies? What they needed most of all was to speak fluent English as soon as possible – their job and promotion possibilities often depended on it. But even in their case, most people would agree that educational success and increased social and career options often depend on competence in standard English. Once they joined the workforce, they would have to write reports, be able to communicate with their boss, people at the home office and other colleagues abroad, and attend meetings – all in English.
In both these cases, though, this language learning and development was easier said than done. Learning the English language in a non-English speaking country is much harder and more time consuming than learning it in an English-speaking country. Once the students have mastered the very basics – verb conjugation and tenses, pronouns, adjectives, noun clauses, etc., – they come up against aspects of culture which are fundamental but can be rather subtle. Though often confounding, these aspects are important to grasp if they want to function effectively in the cultural context, especially that of the workplace. When one learns a new language, one must learn a new culture and this is a complex process.
Many of my high school students spoke fluent English but their use of the language could also be considered non-standard. They had picked up their language skills from television and movies, or they had learned it from family members in the United States or after having attended several years of school abroad. Their language was full of slang and the latest youth vocabulary and expressions, and they cursed as a matter of course – without realizing what they were actually saying. These students often did not know what was appropriate in different situations. So what, if anything, should we do about this as teachers?
I believe that the answer to this is that we must make our students aware of different registers and that there is a time and a place for everything. It is very important that we teach our students to value, appreciate and learn other accents, be aware of other varieties or registers of the languages they study, and learn about cultural differences in the way people say and do things in order to successfully communicate and empathize with many people of diverse backgrounds. Today’s English language is spoken as a first language in many countries of the world, and all of them may have developed one or more ‘national standards’ of pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary. Moreover, English has become the most widely used second language and is therefore also subject to alteration by non-native speakers.
It is a fact that in the United States many students who speak nonstandard varieties of English fail to acquire standard English and therefore fall behind at school. On the other hand, many students who do acquire standard English reject their home language and their cultural heritage. This only highlights the fact that standard English should be taught from a cultural perspective and focus on both communication and language structure. It is very important for students to learn about situational language requirements while at the same time preserving their ‘indigenous’ linguistic system.
There are many things that can be done to help students cope with language issues. First of all, we must help them develop a positive attitude towards their first language and the language varieties in their immediate environment. They should also be made aware of the fact that when an idea is translated into another language or dialect, it may have a different meaning or intention. This awareness will help the students to recognize particular situational communication requirements and determine what is appropriate in different situations. Students will soon see for themselves that no dialect is better than another and that standards can vary widely. On the other hand, they will also understand that misunderstandings among people with different dialects or languages are common and can unwittingly cause negative judgments and prejudice.
The more we know about the languages, dialects, home cultures, and traditions of our students, the more we are able to enter their world and adjust our teaching to meet their needs. Dialects are present in everyone’s speech, no matter where one is located or which cultural group one belongs to. Teachers need to be knowledgeable in the area of language arts in order to better help their students and if they have students from many different linguistic, cultural or social backgrounds, they need to understand how to design the classroom language environment so as to optimize language and literacy learning and to avoid linguistic obstacles to content area learning. Teachers need to know how language figures in academic learning and to recognize that all students need instructional support to acquire the forms and structures associated with it. The most effective way to help learners is often explicit teaching of language structures and uses. No matter what subject we are teaching, a focus on language is very important.
Teachers should, of course, emphasize Standard English if they want to prepare their students for university in the United States or other countries abroad. But there is nothing wrong with including reference to different dialects and vernaculars that the students may be exposed to in their lives and teaching them that all cultures, languages and varieties of those languages are valuable and worthy of respect. The more we know about language and culture, the better prepared we will be to be effective communicators and better citizens of the world.
At the same time, we must not lose sight of the fact that it has become increasingly important for us to find different means to teach students about ways of thinking other than those of their own community. Our schools operate learning platforms which, in effect, are giant online libraries. They have opened the world to more and more people and it is therefore no longer acceptable, in this world of electronic proximity, to ignore the views of other cultures. It is language which bridges cultural differences because language is the heart and soul of a culture. It is an undeniable fact that people who speak more than one language will have more career opportunities, and it is our duty to provide our students with these opportunities. The need for speakers of other languages is increasing by leaps and bounds. But let us not forget that knowing how to conjugate verbs is not as important as teaching students to respect, appreciate, and understand individual differences.
In both these cases, though, this language learning and development was easier said than done. Learning the English language in a non-English speaking country is much harder and more time consuming than learning it in an English-speaking country. Once the students have mastered the very basics – verb conjugation and tenses, pronouns, adjectives, noun clauses, etc., – they come up against aspects of culture which are fundamental but can be rather subtle. Though often confounding, these aspects are important to grasp if they want to function effectively in the cultural context, especially that of the workplace. When one learns a new language, one must learn a new culture and this is a complex process.
Many of my high school students spoke fluent English but their use of the language could also be considered non-standard. They had picked up their language skills from television and movies, or they had learned it from family members in the United States or after having attended several years of school abroad. Their language was full of slang and the latest youth vocabulary and expressions, and they cursed as a matter of course – without realizing what they were actually saying. These students often did not know what was appropriate in different situations. So what, if anything, should we do about this as teachers?
I believe that the answer to this is that we must make our students aware of different registers and that there is a time and a place for everything. It is very important that we teach our students to value, appreciate and learn other accents, be aware of other varieties or registers of the languages they study, and learn about cultural differences in the way people say and do things in order to successfully communicate and empathize with many people of diverse backgrounds. Today’s English language is spoken as a first language in many countries of the world, and all of them may have developed one or more ‘national standards’ of pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary. Moreover, English has become the most widely used second language and is therefore also subject to alteration by non-native speakers.
It is a fact that in the United States many students who speak nonstandard varieties of English fail to acquire standard English and therefore fall behind at school. On the other hand, many students who do acquire standard English reject their home language and their cultural heritage. This only highlights the fact that standard English should be taught from a cultural perspective and focus on both communication and language structure. It is very important for students to learn about situational language requirements while at the same time preserving their ‘indigenous’ linguistic system.
There are many things that can be done to help students cope with language issues. First of all, we must help them develop a positive attitude towards their first language and the language varieties in their immediate environment. They should also be made aware of the fact that when an idea is translated into another language or dialect, it may have a different meaning or intention. This awareness will help the students to recognize particular situational communication requirements and determine what is appropriate in different situations. Students will soon see for themselves that no dialect is better than another and that standards can vary widely. On the other hand, they will also understand that misunderstandings among people with different dialects or languages are common and can unwittingly cause negative judgments and prejudice.
The more we know about the languages, dialects, home cultures, and traditions of our students, the more we are able to enter their world and adjust our teaching to meet their needs. Dialects are present in everyone’s speech, no matter where one is located or which cultural group one belongs to. Teachers need to be knowledgeable in the area of language arts in order to better help their students and if they have students from many different linguistic, cultural or social backgrounds, they need to understand how to design the classroom language environment so as to optimize language and literacy learning and to avoid linguistic obstacles to content area learning. Teachers need to know how language figures in academic learning and to recognize that all students need instructional support to acquire the forms and structures associated with it. The most effective way to help learners is often explicit teaching of language structures and uses. No matter what subject we are teaching, a focus on language is very important.
Teachers should, of course, emphasize Standard English if they want to prepare their students for university in the United States or other countries abroad. But there is nothing wrong with including reference to different dialects and vernaculars that the students may be exposed to in their lives and teaching them that all cultures, languages and varieties of those languages are valuable and worthy of respect. The more we know about language and culture, the better prepared we will be to be effective communicators and better citizens of the world.
At the same time, we must not lose sight of the fact that it has become increasingly important for us to find different means to teach students about ways of thinking other than those of their own community. Our schools operate learning platforms which, in effect, are giant online libraries. They have opened the world to more and more people and it is therefore no longer acceptable, in this world of electronic proximity, to ignore the views of other cultures. It is language which bridges cultural differences because language is the heart and soul of a culture. It is an undeniable fact that people who speak more than one language will have more career opportunities, and it is our duty to provide our students with these opportunities. The need for speakers of other languages is increasing by leaps and bounds. But let us not forget that knowing how to conjugate verbs is not as important as teaching students to respect, appreciate, and understand individual differences.
REFLECTION WRITING: Assessment and Learning by JM
Thoughts on Student Evaluation by JM
Assessment can improve learning in many ways. However, it can also hinder learning. In order to know how well students are learning and how effectively teachers are teaching, we need many types of assessment and, needless to say, it all needs to be effectively used. I don’t think we knew even a fraction of what is known now about assessment during my own distant school years, and what I most remember about it is that tests were scary, threats were rampant, and knowledge was soon forgotten. In other words, I doubt very much it was used to improve and support learning, and if it was, it certainly didn’t seem so to the students. Of course, it could, and should have been used for that purpose because when it is not, it is pointless. Exception: the multiplication tables were drilled into me by means of threats and punishments and I can still recite them (in Dutch) today!
I think one of the best ways to assess students’ learning is through observation of the students while they are learning. If a teacher can gather frequent feedback, he/she can learn a great deal about how students learn and how they respond to different teaching approaches and techniques. Having studied (and been certified in) Problem Based Learning and Collaborative Learning, I have found that these two methods embody very effective ways to assess students and allow for changes and adjustments in the program as one goes along in accordance with student response. There are many different subjects that are particularly suited for PBL teaching and I have often found myself refocusing my teaching to make sure that students are learning what I want them to learn and that they remember what they have learned long after they have left school. I believe that the refocusing also makes for more efficient and effective teaching which, in turn, helps the students themselves become more effective, self-assessing, and self-directed learners (one of the main goals of PBL and CL).
In order for assessment to improve learning, teachers as well as students must be empowered to improve the quality of learning. Learning should be student-centered (as in PBL and CL) but teacher-directed. The individual teacher should decide what and how to assess but the students need to actively participate so that they can develop their self-assessment skills and be more motivated. There should be both formative and summative assessment and the type of assessment used, for example, in a Cultures of the World class, should be different from that used in a Business English class. Assessment should be ongoing and include frequent feedback so that students know where they stand and what to do in order to improve. In addition, the feedback should be systematic but also flexible, i.e., depending on the particular student. As teachers, I think we should continually ask ourselves “What exactly am I trying to teach and how can I make sure the students actually learn the skills and knowledge I want them to have?”
Assessment can improve learning in many ways. However, it can also hinder learning. In order to know how well students are learning and how effectively teachers are teaching, we need many types of assessment and, needless to say, it all needs to be effectively used. I don’t think we knew even a fraction of what is known now about assessment during my own distant school years, and what I most remember about it is that tests were scary, threats were rampant, and knowledge was soon forgotten. In other words, I doubt very much it was used to improve and support learning, and if it was, it certainly didn’t seem so to the students. Of course, it could, and should have been used for that purpose because when it is not, it is pointless. Exception: the multiplication tables were drilled into me by means of threats and punishments and I can still recite them (in Dutch) today!
I think one of the best ways to assess students’ learning is through observation of the students while they are learning. If a teacher can gather frequent feedback, he/she can learn a great deal about how students learn and how they respond to different teaching approaches and techniques. Having studied (and been certified in) Problem Based Learning and Collaborative Learning, I have found that these two methods embody very effective ways to assess students and allow for changes and adjustments in the program as one goes along in accordance with student response. There are many different subjects that are particularly suited for PBL teaching and I have often found myself refocusing my teaching to make sure that students are learning what I want them to learn and that they remember what they have learned long after they have left school. I believe that the refocusing also makes for more efficient and effective teaching which, in turn, helps the students themselves become more effective, self-assessing, and self-directed learners (one of the main goals of PBL and CL).
In order for assessment to improve learning, teachers as well as students must be empowered to improve the quality of learning. Learning should be student-centered (as in PBL and CL) but teacher-directed. The individual teacher should decide what and how to assess but the students need to actively participate so that they can develop their self-assessment skills and be more motivated. There should be both formative and summative assessment and the type of assessment used, for example, in a Cultures of the World class, should be different from that used in a Business English class. Assessment should be ongoing and include frequent feedback so that students know where they stand and what to do in order to improve. In addition, the feedback should be systematic but also flexible, i.e., depending on the particular student. As teachers, I think we should continually ask ourselves “What exactly am I trying to teach and how can I make sure the students actually learn the skills and knowledge I want them to have?”
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
OBSERVATION WRITING: Mexican Economics by JM
MEXICAN ECONOMICS 101 ON THE BORDER
Mexico’s economy is inexorably tied to the U.S. economy. This impacts the border positively because of speed to market (for instance, if you go into Best Buy and configure your computer, the most likely thing is that if it’s an HP, Acer, or Gateway, it is manufactured in Mexico in one of the many plants on the border that manufacture computers), reduced transportation costs, and the fact that both a skilled and unskilled work force make manufacture in Mexico very attractive to U.S. manufacturers. Contrary to popular belief and some recent movies such as Bordertown starring Jennifer Lopez, the maquilas employ cutting edge technologies and the latest personnel management systems. For instance, I have worked on a free lance basis with Cordis, Lexmark, and some others and have observed first hand over many years that they are socially very attuned to the wellbeing of their employees, providing financial assistance for acquiring housing, subsidizing transportation costs, and the purchase of basic food stuffs. They have the best working conditions in the country and encourage their employees to take special courses and training programs in addition to paying for secondary school studies, undergraduate studies, and master degrees. The greatest opportunities for advancement come about by working in the maquilas, companies that are producing world class products and components mainly for export to the United States.
Another very important fact is that remittances from Mexican immigrants to Mexico help alleviate the poverty level of their families. This is a very strong incentive to migrate for those living in extreme poverty – often subsistence farmers of indigenous ethnicity. The money migrants send home commonly exceeds locally generated income. And that is the least of it: it should be absolutely unacceptable for the Mexican government that some $20 billion per year in remittances from immigrant workers just about equals the country’s income from oil exports and is so far beyond revenue from tourism it isn’t even funny.
Extreme poverty in Mexico is due to unequal land distribution, subsistence farming on small parcels, lack of rural infrastructure to distribute products, lack of competitiveness in the production of basic crops, competition from imports of subsidized American producers of products like corn, beans, and sorghum , poor transportation and irrigation networks, etc. Result: farmers look for better opportunities elsewhere. There is no denying that Mexico is a poor country, that enormous amounts of land are not suitable for modern agriculture and that others have eroded and produce less because they were exploited inadequately; that agriculture today does not produce enough basic products to feed the population even at its most indispensable level. The country’s dependence increases because of hunger: the country that invented corn is importing corn.
Why is the Mexican government unable to create economic opportunity for its people when it has the potential to become a huge job creator? It is easy to lay the blame on either side of the border, but isn’t it possible that if the U.S. had done what the wealthier countries in Europe did before opening the labor market - investing billions of dollars in the development of the economies of its poorer members – the immigration situation would not be what it is today? As for Mexico, as mentioned before, it has a major job creation problem. For instance, between 1994 and 2002, around six million people entered the Mexican work force and yet only four million new jobs were created during the same period, leaving over two million people without employment. If you were one of those two million, what options would you have? You go north to the border cities or you seek to cross over to the United States. Mexico has oil, a good work force, endless coastline, proximity to the United States, etc. etc. So what’s the problem? First and foremost, access to capital is deplorable. And as for oil, Pemex, a monopoly, is the prime example of inefficient management. And the banks? Try to get a loan! Even though this has gotten easier – one can now get a loan for a new car whereas before one either paid cash for the car or didn’t get one – it is still far more expensive than in the U.S. For instance, the interest would be 14% or more and I think the down payment required would be a whopping 25% to 50%!
The good news? Presumably, the number of young people yearly entering the workforce is expected to have been cut by half between 1996 and 2010 which means it is now a little easier to integrate a larger proportion of the workforce into formal employment. This presumably translates into fewer Mexicans emigrating. However, the incentives to emigrate are still there; it is only the number that may diminish. So, we’re just about back to square one: as long as the jobs are not created, the poverty is not alleviated, and as long as the opportunity is there in the U.S., immigration will continue, no matter what obstacles are put in the way of the immigrants.
Mexico’s economy is inexorably tied to the U.S. economy. This impacts the border positively because of speed to market (for instance, if you go into Best Buy and configure your computer, the most likely thing is that if it’s an HP, Acer, or Gateway, it is manufactured in Mexico in one of the many plants on the border that manufacture computers), reduced transportation costs, and the fact that both a skilled and unskilled work force make manufacture in Mexico very attractive to U.S. manufacturers. Contrary to popular belief and some recent movies such as Bordertown starring Jennifer Lopez, the maquilas employ cutting edge technologies and the latest personnel management systems. For instance, I have worked on a free lance basis with Cordis, Lexmark, and some others and have observed first hand over many years that they are socially very attuned to the wellbeing of their employees, providing financial assistance for acquiring housing, subsidizing transportation costs, and the purchase of basic food stuffs. They have the best working conditions in the country and encourage their employees to take special courses and training programs in addition to paying for secondary school studies, undergraduate studies, and master degrees. The greatest opportunities for advancement come about by working in the maquilas, companies that are producing world class products and components mainly for export to the United States.
Another very important fact is that remittances from Mexican immigrants to Mexico help alleviate the poverty level of their families. This is a very strong incentive to migrate for those living in extreme poverty – often subsistence farmers of indigenous ethnicity. The money migrants send home commonly exceeds locally generated income. And that is the least of it: it should be absolutely unacceptable for the Mexican government that some $20 billion per year in remittances from immigrant workers just about equals the country’s income from oil exports and is so far beyond revenue from tourism it isn’t even funny.
Extreme poverty in Mexico is due to unequal land distribution, subsistence farming on small parcels, lack of rural infrastructure to distribute products, lack of competitiveness in the production of basic crops, competition from imports of subsidized American producers of products like corn, beans, and sorghum , poor transportation and irrigation networks, etc. Result: farmers look for better opportunities elsewhere. There is no denying that Mexico is a poor country, that enormous amounts of land are not suitable for modern agriculture and that others have eroded and produce less because they were exploited inadequately; that agriculture today does not produce enough basic products to feed the population even at its most indispensable level. The country’s dependence increases because of hunger: the country that invented corn is importing corn.
Why is the Mexican government unable to create economic opportunity for its people when it has the potential to become a huge job creator? It is easy to lay the blame on either side of the border, but isn’t it possible that if the U.S. had done what the wealthier countries in Europe did before opening the labor market - investing billions of dollars in the development of the economies of its poorer members – the immigration situation would not be what it is today? As for Mexico, as mentioned before, it has a major job creation problem. For instance, between 1994 and 2002, around six million people entered the Mexican work force and yet only four million new jobs were created during the same period, leaving over two million people without employment. If you were one of those two million, what options would you have? You go north to the border cities or you seek to cross over to the United States. Mexico has oil, a good work force, endless coastline, proximity to the United States, etc. etc. So what’s the problem? First and foremost, access to capital is deplorable. And as for oil, Pemex, a monopoly, is the prime example of inefficient management. And the banks? Try to get a loan! Even though this has gotten easier – one can now get a loan for a new car whereas before one either paid cash for the car or didn’t get one – it is still far more expensive than in the U.S. For instance, the interest would be 14% or more and I think the down payment required would be a whopping 25% to 50%!
The good news? Presumably, the number of young people yearly entering the workforce is expected to have been cut by half between 1996 and 2010 which means it is now a little easier to integrate a larger proportion of the workforce into formal employment. This presumably translates into fewer Mexicans emigrating. However, the incentives to emigrate are still there; it is only the number that may diminish. So, we’re just about back to square one: as long as the jobs are not created, the poverty is not alleviated, and as long as the opportunity is there in the U.S., immigration will continue, no matter what obstacles are put in the way of the immigrants.
OBSERVATION WRITING: RARAMURI / SPANISH BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN NORTHERN MEXICO BY JM
RARAMURI / SPANISH BILINGUAL EDUCATION
Bilingual/Bicultural Programs for Indigenous Populations
There is an obvious close correlation between the number of years of formal schooling of the economically active population and their incomes; the effect of poverty varies in accordance with the level of schooling. Even though education has improved by leaps and bounds in Mexico, we cannot deny that we are living in a society with a very low average in years of schooling which is exacerbated by the also inferior quality of that education in public schools. Migration is therefore a source of survival for millions of Mexicans with little education and it has become the face of poverty. The “sending” areas typically lose their best people from a human capital point of view and the productive capacity of those sending areas is thereby reduced in the long run.
It is overwhelmingly clear that in an era of information and knowledge, high quality formal schooling is an inescapable requirement of productivity and international economic competitiveness. As mentioned above, there are many communities in the different states in Mexico that are traditionally “migrant”, i.e. their inhabitants have a long-standing tradition of going to the United States and working there at least temporarily in order to make money for themselves and their families. In these towns, the school drop-out rates are very high. Of course, this is not due only to emigration – it is also because the students and their families do not have the money to continue in school, the home language is one other than Spanish (one of the many indigenous languages spoken in this country), their academic achievement is inadequate because they lack encouragement and support at home, they are not motivated to continue studying because their friends have jobs and are making money, etc. For many of the young people in these places, going to the United States is far more attractive than staying home. In addition, there is the intergenerational poverty transmission phenomenon which makes the children of parents without schooling follow in their footsteps. These kids have few options: work to support the family, become delinquents, or study. In the majority of cases, they choose one of the first two.
The many indigenous migrants that come to Ciudad Juarez, Mexico – whether with the intention to cross the border or to make a new and ‘better’ life for themselves here - have helped to create a unique community. According to the INEGI (National Institute of Geographic Statistics), 42 Indian dialects are spoken in Juarez. One of the most common is Tarahumara, and most Rarámuri (used interchangeably with Tarahumara) children that go to school speak Tarahumara at home and Spanish at school and with each other. The INEGI reports some 16,000 indigenous bilingual speakers in the city. Carlyn James, who heads up the State Tarahumara Agency, says that it is very important to the Tarahumara to stay close to their roots. For the women it is difficult to stop wearing their traditional dresses and many do not. However, the men have to forget about wearing the tagora (white loincloth) if they do not want to be ridiculed by others when they go to work. It is sad to see that many Juarez citizens do not consider the Tarahumara an asset to cherish and neither do they seem to appreciate the way the Rarámuri try to hold on to their culture and traditions.
To most Mexicans, the Indians do not speak languages, they speak dialects; they do not have art, they have crafts; they do not have spirituality, they have superstitions. It is a common belief in Mexico that indigenous languages cannot be written. But the more than 60 languages and well over 300 dialects spoken by the different ethnic groups of this country have their own composition systems, literary creation, narration, stylistic elements, and versification. They are so rich that it is a real shame they continue to be associated with ignorance and backwardness. I believe that this mentality would change dramatically if at least some of the study of the predominant indigenous languages in each region of the country were compulsory for all Mexican students, be it Purépecha in Michoacán, Totonaco , Huasteco, or Náhuatl in Veracruz, or Rarámuri in Chihuahua
Schools as such are not part of the Tarahumara culture; they are foreign to the communities, an imposed culture. Even today, this creates contradictions and confusion. The study of the native language is not compulsory and even today there are cases in which schools prohibit the use of the native language. The Rarámuri have no formal institutions of education for their children. Knowledge and culture are transmitted by the family and the society and both parents and the community authorities are responsible for the education of their youngsters. However, the parents, and older brothers and sisters, are the principal educators with regards to culture, trades, and the skills needed in daily life.
In the schools established by different religious groups and the government – state and federal - improvisation with regards to teachers and materials persist. The contradictions between school education and home education have resulted in the loss of traditional community and cultural values, lack of possibilities to continue the studies, and massive emigration to the cities by young men who become low-paid construction workers. These are some of the negative effects of submitting students to the teaching of a language and a culture different from their own without the benefits of a proper bilingual program. Most Tarahumara schools do not fulfill the needs of the students and the teachers that do have the profile required by the Education Ministry often do not have the cultural profile needed by the community. Most Rarámuri elders believe that schools are alienating the children from the Rarámuri culture because at school these children learn a different way of life and they forget what their ancestors have taught them. However, here I would like to mention that a large percentage of the indigenous population is bilingual or trilingual; for example, Rarámuri-Spanish, Odami or Tepehúan-Spanish; or Rarámuri-Odami or Tepehúan and Spanish.
IN THE CITY:
To find out about the educational issues I went to see a bilingual primary school located on the road to Casas Grandes and another one on the outskirts of the city on the slopes of the mountain. Both schools are simple block buildings with smooth cement floors and the students have desks and a ceiling fan which keeps them relatively comfortable. A lot of Tarahumaras live around the schools in “paracaidista” settlements. This means they built their (mostly one room) houses on land that is privately owned without permission and knowing that they might be run off. However, each settlement has its own Governor (settlement elder) and traditional community organization. The school teachers at one of the settlements have children from two different grades in one classroom and grades go from Kindergarten through fifth grade. Most of the Rarámuri parents will consent to sending their children to school only on the condition that they learn Spanish; they are not really much interested in whatever else they learn. For example, one of the Tarahumara I spoke to was the Governor’s wife who had no idea if her children had passed to the next grade and who was only aware of the fact that they learn Spanish, reading, and writing. Tarahumara children are mostly left to their own devices and discipline as we know it is virtually non-existent. If a child wants to leave the classroom in the middle of a class, he/she does so and nothing is said. Teachers do not know how many children there actually are in a class. Sometimes there are 30, sometimes 20. The best policy for them is not to say anything because if they do, most likely that child will not be back. The fact that the parents are not very involved in their children’s education is, of course, understandable because of their circumstances – they would not know what their children should learn in the city but do know that they need to speak Spanish. As for assessment, at the two above-mentioned Rarámuri settlements, the teacher decides unilaterally whether a student is ready for the next grade. This is in part due to the fact that the standards set by the Education Ministry cannot be enforced in these schools because of the cultural differences.
For most children, it is very difficult to learn to read and write in a language they do not know without the support of the first language. Most of them speak the same Tarahumara dialect at home, but, if they were born in the city, they do not know how to read or write it. However, inexplicably, at the school I visited, children only have a few planned classes per week in Tarahumara, though it is obvious they need much more than that (see some of their work in my photographs). A few of the teachers are Rarámuris themselves and are from different towns in the Chihuahua Sierra. They wear traditional dresses – home-made wide skirts and ruffled blouses – so as to show their pride in their roots and to instill in their students a desire to “defend the customs of their tribes.” One would think that this would be reason enough for them to teach the children in Rarámuri, but they obviously do not know about the benefit this would have and the harm that is done to children who are made to understand that the mainstream culture is “better.” Both schools attend to mestizos and Indians who live in the area. The children learn songs in Spanish and in Rarámuri and participate in traditional Sierra Tarahumara games.
Krashen (1996) believes that conflicting views toward bilingual education are due to several factors. Opposition to bilingual education is most pronounced when an extreme view (only native language instruction) of bilingual education is presented. The parents are very much aware that their children need to speak Spanish in the city in order to survive. When parents are asked about using both languages or are asked about bilingual education in general, responses are much more positive. The reactions from parents depend very much on demographics (gender, length of residency in the city, income, and education), Spanish language proficiency, home language use, and attitudes toward bilingual education. Raramuri is the predominant language spoken in the greater majority of the homes, while both languages are spoken in only a few of the homes. None of the families speak only Spanish at home. Raramuri is the most commonly spoken language of the young children and Spanish is the major language of older children. Most children speak both languages; however, their parents, especially the women, do not. Most parents feel that if children are not proficient in Spanish, they prefer a bilingual classroom to a Spanish only environment but even if their children are proficient in both Spanish and Rarámuri, they would still prefer a bilingual setting to a Spanish only one. Most parents seem to be afraid their children will lose their culture, values, traditions, and customs unless they return to the Sierra, which for most of them is impossible. They believe that the only way for them not to lose their children is to maintain their culture and language and at the same time they know that losing them is almost inevitable.
Program Model and Curriculum Model: There is no specific program model and neither is there a curriculum model. Each Rarámuri teacher does what they think best and it is obvious they have little or no knowledge of the theory and methodology of bilingual education. They loosely follow the Education Ministry’s program adapting their teaching to the particular circumstances. Their main concern is that their students learn to speak, read, and write Spanish. That said, in general the students are taught in both languages – side by side – when necessary (see student work in pictures). Children acquire Spanish from the time they are very small as a survival language. The children I spoke to (see pictures) were all fluent bilinguals which is the norm. An interesting fact is that they even spoke Spanish to each other except when they were fighting. Arguments were in staccato Rarámuri!
According to the INEGI, there are some 140,000 Indians in the State of Chihuahua and the number is increasing. Though the largest community in Juarez is that of the Rarámuris and the Tepehuanes, contrary to popular belief, the most used dialect is Náhuatl, followed by Tarahumara and Chinanteca (spoken by people from Oaxaca). Among the Indians that have come here from different parts of the country there are Pimas, Rarámuris, Tepehuanes, and Guarojíos. Of these, only the Tarahumara have kept their principal traditions; most others soon lose them after they arrive in the city. Among the 42 languages are Chinanteca, Tarahumara, Mixteca, Zapoteca, Popoluca, Huave, Huichol, Náhuatl, Mazahua, Otomí, Pima, Tzoltzil, Mazateco and Maya. This diversity of languages makes bilingual education very difficult as it is impossible to find qualified teachers that speak those languages. Most bilingual schools in the State, therefore, are Tarahumara.
STATEWIDE:
The “Secretaría de Educación Pública” (SEP -State educational department) and the “Instituto Nacional Indigenista” (National Indian Institute) are only now making a serious attempt to prevent further decline of native languages and cultures. They are implementing new pilot bilingual /bicultural programs in order to educate indigenous children living in the Sierra Tarahumara. Because of the attention these programs are getting, they are often better than those in the cities. The curriculum is supposed to be developed on the basis of the cultural and linguistic characteristics of the Tarahumara. However, even though there is an official federal policy with regards to bilingual/bicultural education, this does not mean that this type of education is widely available and neither does it mean that it is effective. Good schools are few and far between. The SEP published an official report called “Fundamentos para la Modernización de la Educación Indígena” (Foundations for the Modernization of Indigenous Education) which contains the general goals of the program. These are:
1. At the end of six years, children will be fluent in all four skills in two languages: they will be able to understand, speak, read and write in both Spanish and their mother tongue. By doing so the indigenous languages of Mexico will be rescued, preserved and developed.
2. A writing system for the Indian languages should be promoted.
3. Indian languages should be used as a subject and a medium of instruction - the old practices of teaching literacy have proved to be ineffective.
It is obvious that these goals are rather inadequate not to mention vague and do not take into account the myriad of additional issues that exist with regard to bilingual and biliterate education. As expected, the programs could not be related to all the indigenous groups in Mexico and have for the most part failed. However, it is not all bad news; in the last couple of decades, the Mexican educational system has slowly become more decentralized and this has given state educational departments more control over local schools. Administrators and educators in the area of indigenous education see this as a positive trend. They can now provide initial, basic educational services to indigenous communities as well as teacher training. It is now also possible to assess the needs of each local and indigenous group and design programs accordingly. This is still done in a kind of helter-skelter way, but it is improving steadily. For example, the aforementioned bilingual/ bicultural programs for indigenous populations of the Sierra Tarahumara developed and put into place by the Coordinación Estatal de la Tarahumara are now in their fourth year of implementation. Concerted efforts have been made to overcome the difficulties this implementation carries with it. Relevant cultural contents have been included in the curriculum and the Tarahumara language is, at least theoretically, employed throughout the pre-school year and the first three grades.
A standardized form of the Tarahumara language has been developed to overcome the difficulty of the various dialects and this has also allowed for the development of materials in Tarahumara. This has helped, but it has also added to the difficulties. The standardization is not understood by the Tarahumara populations who, due to their fragmentation, prefer to use their own dialect and are sometimes not even aware of the fact that other dialects exist. The languages are oral and, generally speaking, community members do not feel the need to know how to write. It is therefore advisable – as we have seen in many of our BLED courses – to introduce the study of the Spanish language gradually emphasizing the functional verbal expressions of both languages. Unfortunately, this is still more the exception than the rule.
There is also now a basic written vocabulary which contains the different varieties, and teacher training courses have been provided for indigenous teachers and non-Tarahumara teachers working in the school systems in indigenous communities in the Sierra. I found an article which mentioned that “in order to reverse the low prestige of the use of the Tarahumara language in class, as well as the stigma attached to bilingual teachers, indigenous bilingual teachers now receive a higher salary than the monolingual Spanish teachers.” The programs that have been successful and that are more culturally relevant have made indigenous parents more comfortable about sending their children to school and when the teacher is also Tarahumara, this is even more so. However, there are still many problems to solve and the programs have a long way to go. The number of bilingual teachers is far too limited to cover the actual need, and it is uncertain to what extent the bilingual/bicultural program is being implemented by individual teachers. An in-depth study of teachers' attitudes and practices in the classroom would be necessary to define the impact of the program on the education of the Tarahumara student.
The Tarahumara of the Sierra face intense encroachment by the majority society. In order to maintain their language and culture, genuine bilingual/bicultural programs are a must, but they must not be seen as the sole solution. The language must be strengthened in daily family and social life and the Rarámuris must be given the opportunity to be economically self-sufficient and independent from outside society. I do not want to sound jaded, but this, as we all know, is utopia in Mexico. Taking small steps and having minor successes is more realistic.
“Chabochi” is what he Tarahumara call the white men and ‘mestizos’ of the cities, outside society. But they themselves are fast becoming Chabochi and few actually maintain their traditions once they live in the cities, no matter how hard they try. Even though there is the occasional Tarahumara university graduate who goes back to the Sierra to transmit his/her knowledge, this is not enough by a long shot and in reality most schools in the cities as well as in the Sierra are, as Enrique Servin, a researcher from Juarez, calls them “Chabochi factories.” The children enter monolingual in Tarahumara and leave monolingual in Spanish. Mexican poet Carlos Montemayor has said that Mexico cannot be considered a multicultural country without the continued use of and contact with indigenous languages. The teaching of these languages must begin in elementary school or even before and produce truly literate citizens who understand their rich cultural heritage in their own mother tongues. Let us not forget that the Tarahumaras have an absolute right to preserve their social values and traditions, even in the twenty-first century and even in this global world.
I found one true success story with regards to bilingual education in Uringuitiro, Municipio de Los Reyes, in Michoacan. Having found this one, I am hoping that means there are many more. Even though my analysis concerns the Tarahumara, I do want to include this story as an example of what can be done when there is a real interest in the education of the people. I obtained the information from an article written by Jaime Marquez in the Universal newspaper of October 13, 2006 and did a quick web search to corroborate the information. The Benito Juarez School in Uringuitiro went from being a “punishment” school for new teachers to a national model for the teaching of indigenous languages in Mexico. Its methodology is unique and can be summed up as the formation of “coordinated bilinguals.” In this poverty stricken, dusty town, the official language is Purépecha, and it is not until the third grade that children begin to learn Spanish by means of a method which is now the model for the teaching of native languages on an international level. Everardo Cano Flores is the principal of the Benito Juarez indigenous school in Uringuitiro, 220 kilometers west of Morelia in the Meseta Purépecha. “This is a true bilingual school,” he says, “Spanish is the second language because here the mother tongue is Purépecha.” According to some experts, over 60 Amerindian languages are spoken in Mexico and there are over 350 dialects with an enormous diversity of grammatical structures.
However, there is no intercultural bilingual education to speak of due to the fact that in practice there is really no educational model to teach these languages. According to a study done by the Instituto Científico de Culturas Indígenas – ICCI – (Scientific Institute of Indigenous Cultures), this would require “coordinated bilingual” teachers, i.e., teachers who can understand, speak, read, and write the indigenous language as well as the Spanish language and who are, in addition, educated and trained to teach these skills to the Indians. In Uringuitiro there are eight such qualified bilingual teachers who live in and are part of the community and who begin – in the first and second grade - by teaching the children – in Purépecha – about subjects related to their community; planting and harvesting, music, celebrations, weddings, food, the environment, plants, and animals. Once the children are in the third grade, parallel instruction is initiated in Spanish.
In the third and fourth grade, children learn to read and write in Purépecha as well as in Spanish. Every day, the children – 100 in Uringuitiro and 80 in San Isidro – speak and write in Spanish for one hour and the rest of their class time they speak their mother tongue. One of the classrooms contains 10 computers with Uantakua (language) software which is based on an intercultural bilingual support webpage elaborated by the Purépecha children and which includes elements of their choice in their own language. The method also involves the parents who learn, teach, and transmit to their children their knowledge of daily life in their own language.
The method of teaching indigenous languages employed in the primary schools of Uringuitiro and the neighboring village of San Isidro has become an alternative didactic proposal that has attracted the attention of bilingual teaching experts from the United States to Chile, Canada, and Brazil. In addition, the principal of the San Isidro school, Gerardo Alonso Méndez, was invited to Bolivia to present a paper on the results of this method, and teachers from both schools have often been invited to teach workshops on the application of the system in the states of Oaxaca, Chiapas, and Yucatán. Despite the lack of money, materials, infrastructure, etc., the teachers have accomplished what many thought would be impossible, not only as far as academic results are concerned, but also in regards to the children’s self confidence and self esteem. In these two towns, there is no place for discrimination and stigmatization of indigenous languages. When the children finish the sixth grade, they are “coordinated bilinguals” because they speak, understand, write, and read both Purépecha and Spanish.
Bilingual/Bicultural Programs for Indigenous Populations
There is an obvious close correlation between the number of years of formal schooling of the economically active population and their incomes; the effect of poverty varies in accordance with the level of schooling. Even though education has improved by leaps and bounds in Mexico, we cannot deny that we are living in a society with a very low average in years of schooling which is exacerbated by the also inferior quality of that education in public schools. Migration is therefore a source of survival for millions of Mexicans with little education and it has become the face of poverty. The “sending” areas typically lose their best people from a human capital point of view and the productive capacity of those sending areas is thereby reduced in the long run.
It is overwhelmingly clear that in an era of information and knowledge, high quality formal schooling is an inescapable requirement of productivity and international economic competitiveness. As mentioned above, there are many communities in the different states in Mexico that are traditionally “migrant”, i.e. their inhabitants have a long-standing tradition of going to the United States and working there at least temporarily in order to make money for themselves and their families. In these towns, the school drop-out rates are very high. Of course, this is not due only to emigration – it is also because the students and their families do not have the money to continue in school, the home language is one other than Spanish (one of the many indigenous languages spoken in this country), their academic achievement is inadequate because they lack encouragement and support at home, they are not motivated to continue studying because their friends have jobs and are making money, etc. For many of the young people in these places, going to the United States is far more attractive than staying home. In addition, there is the intergenerational poverty transmission phenomenon which makes the children of parents without schooling follow in their footsteps. These kids have few options: work to support the family, become delinquents, or study. In the majority of cases, they choose one of the first two.
The many indigenous migrants that come to Ciudad Juarez, Mexico – whether with the intention to cross the border or to make a new and ‘better’ life for themselves here - have helped to create a unique community. According to the INEGI (National Institute of Geographic Statistics), 42 Indian dialects are spoken in Juarez. One of the most common is Tarahumara, and most Rarámuri (used interchangeably with Tarahumara) children that go to school speak Tarahumara at home and Spanish at school and with each other. The INEGI reports some 16,000 indigenous bilingual speakers in the city. Carlyn James, who heads up the State Tarahumara Agency, says that it is very important to the Tarahumara to stay close to their roots. For the women it is difficult to stop wearing their traditional dresses and many do not. However, the men have to forget about wearing the tagora (white loincloth) if they do not want to be ridiculed by others when they go to work. It is sad to see that many Juarez citizens do not consider the Tarahumara an asset to cherish and neither do they seem to appreciate the way the Rarámuri try to hold on to their culture and traditions.
To most Mexicans, the Indians do not speak languages, they speak dialects; they do not have art, they have crafts; they do not have spirituality, they have superstitions. It is a common belief in Mexico that indigenous languages cannot be written. But the more than 60 languages and well over 300 dialects spoken by the different ethnic groups of this country have their own composition systems, literary creation, narration, stylistic elements, and versification. They are so rich that it is a real shame they continue to be associated with ignorance and backwardness. I believe that this mentality would change dramatically if at least some of the study of the predominant indigenous languages in each region of the country were compulsory for all Mexican students, be it Purépecha in Michoacán, Totonaco , Huasteco, or Náhuatl in Veracruz, or Rarámuri in Chihuahua
Schools as such are not part of the Tarahumara culture; they are foreign to the communities, an imposed culture. Even today, this creates contradictions and confusion. The study of the native language is not compulsory and even today there are cases in which schools prohibit the use of the native language. The Rarámuri have no formal institutions of education for their children. Knowledge and culture are transmitted by the family and the society and both parents and the community authorities are responsible for the education of their youngsters. However, the parents, and older brothers and sisters, are the principal educators with regards to culture, trades, and the skills needed in daily life.
In the schools established by different religious groups and the government – state and federal - improvisation with regards to teachers and materials persist. The contradictions between school education and home education have resulted in the loss of traditional community and cultural values, lack of possibilities to continue the studies, and massive emigration to the cities by young men who become low-paid construction workers. These are some of the negative effects of submitting students to the teaching of a language and a culture different from their own without the benefits of a proper bilingual program. Most Tarahumara schools do not fulfill the needs of the students and the teachers that do have the profile required by the Education Ministry often do not have the cultural profile needed by the community. Most Rarámuri elders believe that schools are alienating the children from the Rarámuri culture because at school these children learn a different way of life and they forget what their ancestors have taught them. However, here I would like to mention that a large percentage of the indigenous population is bilingual or trilingual; for example, Rarámuri-Spanish, Odami or Tepehúan-Spanish; or Rarámuri-Odami or Tepehúan and Spanish.
IN THE CITY:
To find out about the educational issues I went to see a bilingual primary school located on the road to Casas Grandes and another one on the outskirts of the city on the slopes of the mountain. Both schools are simple block buildings with smooth cement floors and the students have desks and a ceiling fan which keeps them relatively comfortable. A lot of Tarahumaras live around the schools in “paracaidista” settlements. This means they built their (mostly one room) houses on land that is privately owned without permission and knowing that they might be run off. However, each settlement has its own Governor (settlement elder) and traditional community organization. The school teachers at one of the settlements have children from two different grades in one classroom and grades go from Kindergarten through fifth grade. Most of the Rarámuri parents will consent to sending their children to school only on the condition that they learn Spanish; they are not really much interested in whatever else they learn. For example, one of the Tarahumara I spoke to was the Governor’s wife who had no idea if her children had passed to the next grade and who was only aware of the fact that they learn Spanish, reading, and writing. Tarahumara children are mostly left to their own devices and discipline as we know it is virtually non-existent. If a child wants to leave the classroom in the middle of a class, he/she does so and nothing is said. Teachers do not know how many children there actually are in a class. Sometimes there are 30, sometimes 20. The best policy for them is not to say anything because if they do, most likely that child will not be back. The fact that the parents are not very involved in their children’s education is, of course, understandable because of their circumstances – they would not know what their children should learn in the city but do know that they need to speak Spanish. As for assessment, at the two above-mentioned Rarámuri settlements, the teacher decides unilaterally whether a student is ready for the next grade. This is in part due to the fact that the standards set by the Education Ministry cannot be enforced in these schools because of the cultural differences.
For most children, it is very difficult to learn to read and write in a language they do not know without the support of the first language. Most of them speak the same Tarahumara dialect at home, but, if they were born in the city, they do not know how to read or write it. However, inexplicably, at the school I visited, children only have a few planned classes per week in Tarahumara, though it is obvious they need much more than that (see some of their work in my photographs). A few of the teachers are Rarámuris themselves and are from different towns in the Chihuahua Sierra. They wear traditional dresses – home-made wide skirts and ruffled blouses – so as to show their pride in their roots and to instill in their students a desire to “defend the customs of their tribes.” One would think that this would be reason enough for them to teach the children in Rarámuri, but they obviously do not know about the benefit this would have and the harm that is done to children who are made to understand that the mainstream culture is “better.” Both schools attend to mestizos and Indians who live in the area. The children learn songs in Spanish and in Rarámuri and participate in traditional Sierra Tarahumara games.
Krashen (1996) believes that conflicting views toward bilingual education are due to several factors. Opposition to bilingual education is most pronounced when an extreme view (only native language instruction) of bilingual education is presented. The parents are very much aware that their children need to speak Spanish in the city in order to survive. When parents are asked about using both languages or are asked about bilingual education in general, responses are much more positive. The reactions from parents depend very much on demographics (gender, length of residency in the city, income, and education), Spanish language proficiency, home language use, and attitudes toward bilingual education. Raramuri is the predominant language spoken in the greater majority of the homes, while both languages are spoken in only a few of the homes. None of the families speak only Spanish at home. Raramuri is the most commonly spoken language of the young children and Spanish is the major language of older children. Most children speak both languages; however, their parents, especially the women, do not. Most parents feel that if children are not proficient in Spanish, they prefer a bilingual classroom to a Spanish only environment but even if their children are proficient in both Spanish and Rarámuri, they would still prefer a bilingual setting to a Spanish only one. Most parents seem to be afraid their children will lose their culture, values, traditions, and customs unless they return to the Sierra, which for most of them is impossible. They believe that the only way for them not to lose their children is to maintain their culture and language and at the same time they know that losing them is almost inevitable.
Program Model and Curriculum Model: There is no specific program model and neither is there a curriculum model. Each Rarámuri teacher does what they think best and it is obvious they have little or no knowledge of the theory and methodology of bilingual education. They loosely follow the Education Ministry’s program adapting their teaching to the particular circumstances. Their main concern is that their students learn to speak, read, and write Spanish. That said, in general the students are taught in both languages – side by side – when necessary (see student work in pictures). Children acquire Spanish from the time they are very small as a survival language. The children I spoke to (see pictures) were all fluent bilinguals which is the norm. An interesting fact is that they even spoke Spanish to each other except when they were fighting. Arguments were in staccato Rarámuri!
According to the INEGI, there are some 140,000 Indians in the State of Chihuahua and the number is increasing. Though the largest community in Juarez is that of the Rarámuris and the Tepehuanes, contrary to popular belief, the most used dialect is Náhuatl, followed by Tarahumara and Chinanteca (spoken by people from Oaxaca). Among the Indians that have come here from different parts of the country there are Pimas, Rarámuris, Tepehuanes, and Guarojíos. Of these, only the Tarahumara have kept their principal traditions; most others soon lose them after they arrive in the city. Among the 42 languages are Chinanteca, Tarahumara, Mixteca, Zapoteca, Popoluca, Huave, Huichol, Náhuatl, Mazahua, Otomí, Pima, Tzoltzil, Mazateco and Maya. This diversity of languages makes bilingual education very difficult as it is impossible to find qualified teachers that speak those languages. Most bilingual schools in the State, therefore, are Tarahumara.
STATEWIDE:
The “Secretaría de Educación Pública” (SEP -State educational department) and the “Instituto Nacional Indigenista” (National Indian Institute) are only now making a serious attempt to prevent further decline of native languages and cultures. They are implementing new pilot bilingual /bicultural programs in order to educate indigenous children living in the Sierra Tarahumara. Because of the attention these programs are getting, they are often better than those in the cities. The curriculum is supposed to be developed on the basis of the cultural and linguistic characteristics of the Tarahumara. However, even though there is an official federal policy with regards to bilingual/bicultural education, this does not mean that this type of education is widely available and neither does it mean that it is effective. Good schools are few and far between. The SEP published an official report called “Fundamentos para la Modernización de la Educación Indígena” (Foundations for the Modernization of Indigenous Education) which contains the general goals of the program. These are:
1. At the end of six years, children will be fluent in all four skills in two languages: they will be able to understand, speak, read and write in both Spanish and their mother tongue. By doing so the indigenous languages of Mexico will be rescued, preserved and developed.
2. A writing system for the Indian languages should be promoted.
3. Indian languages should be used as a subject and a medium of instruction - the old practices of teaching literacy have proved to be ineffective.
It is obvious that these goals are rather inadequate not to mention vague and do not take into account the myriad of additional issues that exist with regard to bilingual and biliterate education. As expected, the programs could not be related to all the indigenous groups in Mexico and have for the most part failed. However, it is not all bad news; in the last couple of decades, the Mexican educational system has slowly become more decentralized and this has given state educational departments more control over local schools. Administrators and educators in the area of indigenous education see this as a positive trend. They can now provide initial, basic educational services to indigenous communities as well as teacher training. It is now also possible to assess the needs of each local and indigenous group and design programs accordingly. This is still done in a kind of helter-skelter way, but it is improving steadily. For example, the aforementioned bilingual/ bicultural programs for indigenous populations of the Sierra Tarahumara developed and put into place by the Coordinación Estatal de la Tarahumara are now in their fourth year of implementation. Concerted efforts have been made to overcome the difficulties this implementation carries with it. Relevant cultural contents have been included in the curriculum and the Tarahumara language is, at least theoretically, employed throughout the pre-school year and the first three grades.
A standardized form of the Tarahumara language has been developed to overcome the difficulty of the various dialects and this has also allowed for the development of materials in Tarahumara. This has helped, but it has also added to the difficulties. The standardization is not understood by the Tarahumara populations who, due to their fragmentation, prefer to use their own dialect and are sometimes not even aware of the fact that other dialects exist. The languages are oral and, generally speaking, community members do not feel the need to know how to write. It is therefore advisable – as we have seen in many of our BLED courses – to introduce the study of the Spanish language gradually emphasizing the functional verbal expressions of both languages. Unfortunately, this is still more the exception than the rule.
There is also now a basic written vocabulary which contains the different varieties, and teacher training courses have been provided for indigenous teachers and non-Tarahumara teachers working in the school systems in indigenous communities in the Sierra. I found an article which mentioned that “in order to reverse the low prestige of the use of the Tarahumara language in class, as well as the stigma attached to bilingual teachers, indigenous bilingual teachers now receive a higher salary than the monolingual Spanish teachers.” The programs that have been successful and that are more culturally relevant have made indigenous parents more comfortable about sending their children to school and when the teacher is also Tarahumara, this is even more so. However, there are still many problems to solve and the programs have a long way to go. The number of bilingual teachers is far too limited to cover the actual need, and it is uncertain to what extent the bilingual/bicultural program is being implemented by individual teachers. An in-depth study of teachers' attitudes and practices in the classroom would be necessary to define the impact of the program on the education of the Tarahumara student.
The Tarahumara of the Sierra face intense encroachment by the majority society. In order to maintain their language and culture, genuine bilingual/bicultural programs are a must, but they must not be seen as the sole solution. The language must be strengthened in daily family and social life and the Rarámuris must be given the opportunity to be economically self-sufficient and independent from outside society. I do not want to sound jaded, but this, as we all know, is utopia in Mexico. Taking small steps and having minor successes is more realistic.
“Chabochi” is what he Tarahumara call the white men and ‘mestizos’ of the cities, outside society. But they themselves are fast becoming Chabochi and few actually maintain their traditions once they live in the cities, no matter how hard they try. Even though there is the occasional Tarahumara university graduate who goes back to the Sierra to transmit his/her knowledge, this is not enough by a long shot and in reality most schools in the cities as well as in the Sierra are, as Enrique Servin, a researcher from Juarez, calls them “Chabochi factories.” The children enter monolingual in Tarahumara and leave monolingual in Spanish. Mexican poet Carlos Montemayor has said that Mexico cannot be considered a multicultural country without the continued use of and contact with indigenous languages. The teaching of these languages must begin in elementary school or even before and produce truly literate citizens who understand their rich cultural heritage in their own mother tongues. Let us not forget that the Tarahumaras have an absolute right to preserve their social values and traditions, even in the twenty-first century and even in this global world.
I found one true success story with regards to bilingual education in Uringuitiro, Municipio de Los Reyes, in Michoacan. Having found this one, I am hoping that means there are many more. Even though my analysis concerns the Tarahumara, I do want to include this story as an example of what can be done when there is a real interest in the education of the people. I obtained the information from an article written by Jaime Marquez in the Universal newspaper of October 13, 2006 and did a quick web search to corroborate the information. The Benito Juarez School in Uringuitiro went from being a “punishment” school for new teachers to a national model for the teaching of indigenous languages in Mexico. Its methodology is unique and can be summed up as the formation of “coordinated bilinguals.” In this poverty stricken, dusty town, the official language is Purépecha, and it is not until the third grade that children begin to learn Spanish by means of a method which is now the model for the teaching of native languages on an international level. Everardo Cano Flores is the principal of the Benito Juarez indigenous school in Uringuitiro, 220 kilometers west of Morelia in the Meseta Purépecha. “This is a true bilingual school,” he says, “Spanish is the second language because here the mother tongue is Purépecha.” According to some experts, over 60 Amerindian languages are spoken in Mexico and there are over 350 dialects with an enormous diversity of grammatical structures.
However, there is no intercultural bilingual education to speak of due to the fact that in practice there is really no educational model to teach these languages. According to a study done by the Instituto Científico de Culturas Indígenas – ICCI – (Scientific Institute of Indigenous Cultures), this would require “coordinated bilingual” teachers, i.e., teachers who can understand, speak, read, and write the indigenous language as well as the Spanish language and who are, in addition, educated and trained to teach these skills to the Indians. In Uringuitiro there are eight such qualified bilingual teachers who live in and are part of the community and who begin – in the first and second grade - by teaching the children – in Purépecha – about subjects related to their community; planting and harvesting, music, celebrations, weddings, food, the environment, plants, and animals. Once the children are in the third grade, parallel instruction is initiated in Spanish.
In the third and fourth grade, children learn to read and write in Purépecha as well as in Spanish. Every day, the children – 100 in Uringuitiro and 80 in San Isidro – speak and write in Spanish for one hour and the rest of their class time they speak their mother tongue. One of the classrooms contains 10 computers with Uantakua (language) software which is based on an intercultural bilingual support webpage elaborated by the Purépecha children and which includes elements of their choice in their own language. The method also involves the parents who learn, teach, and transmit to their children their knowledge of daily life in their own language.
The method of teaching indigenous languages employed in the primary schools of Uringuitiro and the neighboring village of San Isidro has become an alternative didactic proposal that has attracted the attention of bilingual teaching experts from the United States to Chile, Canada, and Brazil. In addition, the principal of the San Isidro school, Gerardo Alonso Méndez, was invited to Bolivia to present a paper on the results of this method, and teachers from both schools have often been invited to teach workshops on the application of the system in the states of Oaxaca, Chiapas, and Yucatán. Despite the lack of money, materials, infrastructure, etc., the teachers have accomplished what many thought would be impossible, not only as far as academic results are concerned, but also in regards to the children’s self confidence and self esteem. In these two towns, there is no place for discrimination and stigmatization of indigenous languages. When the children finish the sixth grade, they are “coordinated bilinguals” because they speak, understand, write, and read both Purépecha and Spanish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)