The Los Angeles Times has their annual Festival of Books. This year, of course, the discussion panels are being held online. That's my favorite part of the book festival. This was the 6th panel discussion I watched. This panel discussion was called, "Seeking Freedom: Race, Gender, and Citizenship." Per YouTube, here's the introduction to the discussion:
Who gets to be citizens in the Land of the Free? In a wide-ranging conversation, a panel of experts in law, history, and social work will discuss historical and contemporary obstacles faced by marginalized communities in the U.S. as well as the paths towards freedom and empowerment. The panel features USC Professors Sam Erman, Ariela Gross, and Kristen Zaleski moderated by History Professor Alaina Morgan.
The following are my notes from the panel discussion:
Sam Erman - Law Professor at USC
His book is about Puerto Rico. How did oldest democracy (U.S.) have the oldest colony (Puerto Rico). Puerto Rico became a colony after the 1898 war with Spain. Three decades before 1898, annexation came to a hard stop. The Civil War slowed down empire. There was a requirement that all folks in the US had to become citizens (other than Native Americans) and all territories would eventually become states.
Shifted slowly from that philosophy to colony. Driven by racism as there was the view of treating colonies like children. Eventually, Puerto Ricans were given citizenship. Now more Puerto Ricans in the US versus the island. The island is still considered foreign and unincorporated, lacking voting rights in the US.
How were people using citizenship in Puerto Rico? Citizenship meant that Puerto Rico would eventually become a state. Others thought that not being a citizen was an insult and so was an equality issue. Finally, some felt that being citizens was a way to get the United States government to prevent the corruption of the island elites.
US also annexed the island of Philippines. Politicians -- due to racism -- didn't want to make them part of the US. Courts used strange terms to allow the growth of the US empire. They used terms like non-citizen national, unincorporated territory. The US wants to become an empire, but still adhere to the constitution and democratic ideas.
The Constitution has taken on the mythology of timeliness, but laws change all the time. A major source of change is the rest of the world. The Constitution changes as outside sources use it to make their arguments.
My thoughts: He previous was at the LA Times Festival of Books, talking about the same book. So I didn't really get anything new from his discussion. Though adding Puerto Rico as a state would impact how difficult it would be from Republicans to ever gain control of the Senate, I think we should make them a state -- perhaps in 2032. I say 2032, because there will be another census in 2030 and seats from the House of Representatives can be allocated to the new state. If not, then they should be made their own country.
Ariela Gross - John B. and Alice R. Sharp Professor of Law and History at USC
Her book starts in the 16th century. It tells the story of how enslaved people took advantage of legal loop holes to gain freedom. The book is a legal history. By the 1860s, free people of color in Havana could be part of life, but whiteness and citizenship was still linked together in Louisiana and Virginia so even a free black was not part of social life. The right to become free in Cuba was never tied to race, which wasn't true in the US.
Expansion of freedom in United States differed from Cuba. Legal and customs explains differences. Intertwining of freedom and slavery in the US is still being dealt with. Black churches were shut down in Virginia as well as a fight for personal land.
There is the idea that the US is Black or White while Latin America is a more racially mixed society. Though that might be true, but there is still racism in the law in the United States. Blacks were trying to gain the right to vote and serve on a jury.
How did enslaved people take advantage of legal loop holes in law? Those who wrote the law couldn't imagine that laws would be use in specific manners. After the Revolution, Virginia wrote laws such as not letting outside slaves come into the state. The penalty is emancipation of the slave. Slaves gained their freedom due to being brought in from other states. The law was actually written to create a monopoly situation in the state, not to be used as a way to free slaves.
When you widen lens, plantation slave laws were similar across the Americas. Ideology of white supremacy was similar across Americas. Did find important differences. There was a flow of ideas between places. When Louisiana changed hands from French to Spanish, the new governor came from Havana. He brought a militia of free men of color to spread the news to New Orleans about new laws.
Law of freedom led to anti-Black racism in the law post-Civil War. Black codes, immigration restrictions, deportations laws. Restrictions placed on people based on race versus status. We are still trying to break the connection between whiteness and citizenship.
My thoughts: The Virginia law is something I believe I learned in my high school history class, but had long forgotten. Rather interesting use of the law.
Kristen Zaleski - Clinical Associate Professor in Social Work at USC
A co-editor of "Women's Journey to Empowerment in the 21st Century." The book looked at 14 countries. The book looks into how they see suppression in their world. How women are disproportionately impacted by suppression. Also, climate change impacts women in Ghana disproportionately.
Looks at college sexual assault across the globe.
The book looks to de-colonize the knowledge we have.
Women are impacted by institutional neglect, social media and free choice, political gender equity, and the shape of interpersonal violence.
In China, the LGBTQ community does not have the same rights as the rest of the country. in the Philippines, social justice activists are arrested.
Sexual violence has many ambiguities. For example, child marriage. Each state has to make decisions on children under the age of 18. Majority of states, including California, allows minors to get married. You can make the decision with parent consent. This is a form of gender based violence as it mainly happens to girls who are forced into marriage. Happens in all different communities in the US.
Every story matters: refugees, asylum seekers. We need a balance of viewpoints and lived experiences and consider those just as important as mine.
Racism is in all of us. Have to work hard to learn. Need to make a commitment to anti-racism work.
My thoughts: I am skeptical of this anti-racism talk. If I have time, one of these days I'll need to read both the arguments for and against.
No comments:
Post a Comment