[CIMC-work] material for a local feature

Wed Apr 14 20:54:22 PDT 2004

Don, CIMC,

I agree -- do you want to run with it (get it up on the center panel), Don?

Chris K.

-----Original Message-----
From: donald goldhamer <dhgo at midway.uchicago.edu>
To: IMC-Chicago-Working at lists.indymedia.org
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:39:16 CDT
Subject: [CIMC-work] material for a local feature

This might be part of an important feature about black-latino frictions
being created intentionally...
--Don
                ---------------

From: Zola2642 at aol.com
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:24:39 EDT
Subject: AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTES FOR DRIVERS LICENSES

From: Emile Schepers
RE: THE MARCH 31, 2004 ON HB 4003

ON THE ISSUE OF DRIVERS LICENSES FOR UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS (the bill, which
would have made it possible to get a drivers' license without presenting a
social security number, was defeated 43 Yea, 68 Nay, 6 present, and one
person must have been not present in the chamber, 'cause there are 118
state reps).

There has been much confusion about this, partly fomented by the
Spanish-Language press.  For example, La Raza's hysterical and basically
racist editorial of Friday, April 9, declares any and all cooperation
between Latinos and African Americans to be dead and buried, because "they"
voted against the drivers' license bill, HB 4003.

What is the real sitation?  Here is a quick, rough analysis, and I
apologize if I it contains errors because I did it in a hurry.  And I would
appreciate any corrections, by the way.

There are 18 African-American Representatives in the Illinois House of
Representatives.  The following, all Democrats, voted IN FAVOR of HB 4003:
  Patricia Bailey   6th district
  Anazette Collins, 10
  Marlow Colvin 33
  William Davis 30
  Kenneth Dunkin 5
  Calvin Giles 8
  Connie Howard 34
  Charles Jefferson 67
  Charles Morrow 32
  Arthur Turner 9
  Eddie Washington 60
  Karen Yarborough 7
  Wyvetter Young. 114

The following African-American reps did not support the bill (I don't have
the complete vote in front of me, so I don't recall specifically who voted
"no" and who abstained):
  Monique Davis
  Mary Flowers
  Louvana Jones
  Robin Kelly
  David Miller

So THIRTEEN of the 18 African-Americans SUPPORTED the bill, while five did
not.  That is 72% of the African-Americans IN FAVOR of HB 4003.

Of the six Latinos in the Lower house, five voted "yes" (Acevedo, Aguilar,
Berrios, Delgado, Mendoza, Soto) and one voted no (Chapa La Via).  That is
83% in favor.  And why was it not 100%?

But only 25 of the 94 white state representatives supported the measure.
or about 25%.  72% of the African-Americans supported the bill, not even
100% of the Latinos and only a quarter of the whites, so the
African-Americans are all to blame? This is strange logic.

You can readily see that HB 4003 was defeated, not by the African-Americans
ganging up and stabbing the Latinos in the back, but by the fact that the
more conservative Republican AND DEMOCRATIC WHITE reps by and large did not
move from their opposition, while the margin was reduced by 6 of the 18
African Americans, and 1 of the 6 Latinos, not coming through. This is
disappointing, but not the end of the world, or of the struggle.

ALL this shows is that we still have our work cut out to get support in
areas where there are not large immigrant communities, or not a strong
influence from progressive organized labor, from immigrants rights
organizations, or form minority organizations.  On this specific issue and
the whole immigrants' rights struggle, we can't be "preaching to the
choir", we have to find ways to talk to people who are not with us to begin
with, and win them over.  Work through the churches, unions, civil
organizations, League of Women Voters chapters, small town media of
communication, etc. etc.  A luta continua, as they say in Portuguese.

So how can one conclude from that as La Raza did that Latinos can never
trust the African-American leadership in anything?  Or as they quoted
Susana Mendoza that the "Rainbow Coalition" is for Blacks only?  (Note: the
Senate version of the bill also had the support of most African-American
senators, so what the Hell is Susana talking about?)

There are several possibilities to explain the la Raza editorial, etc,
namely:
 * Stupidity, incompetence, and or lack of journalistic professionalism
 * A hidden political agenda.

The hidden political agenda would be my bet, because I can't believe that
these folks are unable to do simple addition and subtraction.  The late
Rudy Lozano, Sr. used to promote the idea that the secret to moving the
city of Chicago (and beyond) in a consistently progressive direction is to
unite organized labor and the African-American and Latino communities, as
step one. Not to exclude anybody else, but these three forces have to be
lined up and working together as the first condition for advancement.

This was the strategy for electing Harold Washington in 1983 and
re-electing him in 1987, events which greatly helped Latino advancements in
electoral politics and many other things.  E.g. it was Harold Washington,
working as part of this alliance, who first issued the executive order
forbidding Chicago police from asking people for their immigration
information, an early and vital step in the struggle for immigrants' rights
in Chicago.

There are those who would not like to return to the Harold Washington days,
when things were moving forward.  Such people reflexively and automatically
work to create disunity among the three mass pillars of progressive
politics.  Right now, due to the AFL-CIO and organized labor having got on
board the demands of the immigrants' rights movement (and put massive
resources in to the REWARD WORK and IMMIGRANT WORKERS' FREEDOM RIDE
projects), there is an unprecedented level of cooperation between Latino
and labor activists and entities.

I have been following this stuff in Chicago since 1966, and I can assert
that this is so, and it is most gratifying. So some people have an interest
in creating divisions between the Latino and African-Ameican sectors at
this juncture, and they jump on the fact that "only" 72% of the
African-American state reps supported the drivers' license bill to get
friction going between the minorities, failing to notice that 85% of the
non-Latino white state reps voted WRONG on the bill.

Cui bono? Lawyers always ask.  Who benefits from the crime, or the
catastrophe, or whatever? Well, we don't know for sure, but for instance,
in the next mayoral elections (and others) it would help certain people and
harm others if there were unity between African-Americans and Latinos, as
there was in 1983 and 1987, and especially if there was an advanced level
of Black-Latino-labor unity.  It is for sure that Latinos and immigrants do
not benefit from ignorant attacks on the AFrican-American leadership, so
someone else must be thinking of benefiting.  Draw your own conclusions.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?.

I THINK IT IS NECESSARY that the air be cleared about this.  I would urge
that the word be got out to the public in general (in both Spanish and
English language media) about what really happened and about the need for
unity in the continued struggle over this and other issues.
_______________________________________________
Imc-chicago-working mailing list
Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working