by Leotis Martin
Acquaintance: “So what are you doing in Florence?”
Me: “Spring vacation…I’m studying in Paris.”
A: “Oh, so where are you from in the States?”
Me: “Well, I’m originally from South America, but I grew up in the Bronx…”
A: “Oh, how is that?”
Me: “It’s the Bronx, so all the rumors you’ve heard are definitely true.”
A: “Hah. Well you made it to [insert private institution of higher learning here], right? That means you had to be, like, extra super smart huh?”
I lost count of how many times someone has mentioned some version of that warmly intended but wholly ignorant comment to me. I understand the sincerity of good intentions, but that kind of flattery only reinforces the idea that some individuals have a uniquely misguided understanding of cultures and society. I am lead to believe that this person thinks 1) it must be because of some genetic deviation that I am so smart (partly true) and 2) that smarts automatically signify success. The problem is not the humor in #1, but the dangerous assumption in #2. This assumption proposes that a meritocracy exists where a winning combination of intelligence and an articulated career path eventually level economic and social differences. It incorrectly presumes that a dramatic escape from the implicit temptations and pitfalls of inner-city life defines it as well.
The belief in a meritocracy eclipses the reality that achieving economic and social stability in the United States is still a very difficult task for minority populations, despite the chorus of hope echoing from the recent election. Yes, having a sense of self-awareness, intelligence and purpose helps; but, unfortunately, it cannot overcome the stark inequities of education, health, and wealth minority populations still face. As an immigrant, I have heard the argument that the first-generation (the children born to immigrant parents) tend to fare better than existing minority populations in the U.S. In other words, “native” minorities who do not share the immigrant experience and the associated “protective effects[1]” of cultural insulation do not realize equal levels of achievement. Why is that?
Affirmative action policy was a great progressive leap forward following the Civil Rights movement as a means to account for policies that were inherently and intentionally racist. It was a first step in an experiment to justify that a meritocracy was possible within a historically inequitable system. However, in the past decade, there have been debates over which minority groups deserved affirmative action policies. The reality was that there was no clarification on who should be designated as a recipient[2]. This meant that a policy meant to help historically disenfranchised populations (read: black and Native American) was not being duly preferential at all. Consequently, these policies would be more helpful to newly designated minorities, particularly those with professional experience, thereby eliminating opportunities for U.S. citizens with less economic mobility.
The same irony remains today where those like “the Acquaintance” may notice more first-generation students in institutions of higher learning than native born minorities[3]. But, again, is success a question of the winning combination previously mentioned or more reposed to the vagaries of chance[4]? Whichever explanation you choose, it still suggests something structurally unsound about our institutions. The mythical meritocracy fails to explain why some recent immigrant populations tend to fare better than existing minority populations in the wealthiest country on the planet.
In the U.S., the cultural meme which generally champions those who have made it to the top seem to ignore the fact that there are also scores of individuals for whom survival is prioritized over success. Eventually, for immigrants, the advantage of protective effects wears off[5] and the barriers to mobility created by structural racism do inevitably level the field–with a dangerous downward slope. This slope presents obstacles that affect an individual regardless of origin. Observing exceptional cases of success provides meaty movie material, but they do, unfortunately, distract us from the unsavory issues in our system of institutions.
[1] The observation that certain immigrant populations who retain their mother culture, and reject certain cultural aspects of the host country, tend to fare better socially and economically compared to existing minority populations in the host country (in this instance, the U.S.), see:
Burrington, Lori. “Evaluating the Potential Protective Effects of Immigrant Status and Neighborhood Immigrant Concentration on Adolescent Arrests” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta Marriott Marquis, Atlanta, Georgia, Nov 14, 2007 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p201548_index.html>
[2] “The answers to the why, when, and how questions could not be found in the public record of elected officials in shaping civil rights policy. Instead, the answers had to be teased out of reports and archival document…The story these documents reveal about the way official minorities were designated is one shaped not only by the country’s history of past discrimination but also by the vagaries of chance, historical accident, logical contradiction, and inadvertence. Above all, none of the career civil servants and appointed officials who shaped the outcomes had any awareness that they were sorting out the winners and losers in a process that, by the end of the 20th century, would grant preference in jobs, government contracts, and university admissions to government-designated official minorities, including approximately 26 million immigrants from Latin America and Asia who came to the United States after 1965.”
Graham, Hugh Davis. Collision course: the strange convergence of affirmative action policy and immigration policy in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. p. 134
[3] According to the 2000 census, the following statistics were observed for 18-19 year olds who self-identified by race or origin who were enrolled in college: 36% for Blacks, 28% for Hispanics and 40% for Children of Foreign Born Parents. (I am assuming here that those who identified as either Black or Hispanic did not also identify as a child of a foreign born parent.) http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/ppl-148/tab01.txt
[4] See Footnote 2
[5] On the topic of affirmative action policy, Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson argues that “First-generation Mexican-American and black immigrants should be excluded…[but]their children and later generations should be eligible…in light of the persistence of racial discrimination in America.”
Graham, Collision. p. 133
swirlinc.wordpress.com 
Let me start off by saying that I find this piece to be insightful and like someone commented previously, I hope that the people that need to read this do.
The success stories of immigrant families with first generation sons or daughters who find themselves in college or traveling abroad, for schooling or otherwise are tokenized to some extent. While we applaud those that follow this model and are successful we are also ignoring the actual issue. As was stated, we are only “observing exceptional cases of success” and to be fair there are too many young people and even adults that fear that they cannot make it out of places like the Bronx or the projects in the Lower East Side of Manhattan because they are stigmatized to be less than everyone else because of their race|ethnicity. It is people like this that make up a greater percentage of these populations than those that actually go and graduate from an institution of higher education.
In order to promote or ensure that everyone gets the same opportunities for education, employment etc. we need to take a step back and look at where the problem originates. If structural racism leads to a downward spiral for these minorities what needs to be done to eliminate these structures? We cannot be satisfied with the token African American or Latino young person that makes it to college and expect that everyone within those communities are able to follow the same route. All of these cases are situational and should not be compared to one another but instead there should be a sense of encouragement across the board to help both sides.
@ Kris
It’s the insanity that tokenism provides us that makes me annoyed, but creatively sustained enough to be outraged. The escape from the Bronx motivated most of my goals, but I feel that this passion to be moving upwards (the same energy that founded break dancing and parkour in urban environments) is greatly increasing given the recent political infighting. I mean, we are not taxing the proper individuals (corporations/wealthy) during a deficit and, in turn, some politicians willingly agree that the public (see the elimination of social programs) should bear the future burdens? This confuses me too much….
This is an all too familiar misconception of race and achievement. I am from a small town where the opinions of the locals are far from liberal and beliefs about minorities and immigrants are anything but positive. Fortunately, I can say that I was able to resist internalizing these stereotypes and consider myself to be a fairly racially-conscious person. However, I cannot say the same for my brother, whom I spent some time with over Thanksgiving break. He pretty much epitomized every ignorant comment and belief you spoke of. Despite my disgust and arguing with him trying to get him to realize just how uninformed and ridiculous he was acting he remained stuck in his redneck ways and refused to even listen to the facts I was laying out for him.
It is frustrating and disheartening to me that these misconceptions and stereotypes exist, but even more frustrating that so many people refuse to acknowledge the clear-cut statistics that exist about many minority groups and their subjective experience in the U.S.
I guess I have difficulty understanding whether those who acknowledge academic success are truly being sincere or patronizing. This stems from my experience in NY independent schools where there was a certain exoticism attached to an “articulate minority” (a little less extreme than in public schools in terms of isolation, but the disbelief was more pronounced). I understand that some people are just expressing emotions based on limited cultural interactions, so I guess the key is respecting an acknowledgment as just an observation, with the implication of an insult simply based on the context of the conversation…
Hi,
thanks for the great quality of your blog, every time i come here, i’m amazed.
black hattitude.
I don’t know it you can quite assume that Acquaintance means #1 or #2 actually. I think they might be recognizing all the obstacles a member of a disenfranchised minority would be up against perhaps even including the need to direct most of their skills toward survival versus say gaining acceptance into [insert institution of private learning here.]
Basically, I don’t think that ALL the people expressing this kind of sentiment are trying to articulate that, but perhaps some are. What would be a better way to acknowledge the accomplishment of academic success (specifically academic success, since I definitely agree that’s not the only success to be had!) to someone who had more obstacles to overcome than most people for their degrees that DOESN’T insult the people and the communities that they came from? This is part of a conversation that comes up a lot in my own personal life, so I’m honestly wondering how someone could communicate that.
Hear, hear my friend. I have consistantly argued with people about this issue of the immigrant experience and success versus that of historical minorities in America. The comment “well, I don’t see why people from [insert country] are able to come here and make something of themselves while minorities in America are still struggling. It means one is harder working”. I like to point out that, yes, immigrants from India tend to do better because the people immigrating are doctors, engineers, lawyers, teachers, public administrators. They have an established professional class and educational basis. Compare them to the immigrants from the Sudan or Somalia who aren’t doctors and you see the differences. Now, amplify those differences by years of structural oppression and one might glean the reasons certain minorities struggle.
One comment: some forms of Affirmative Action do define who is to be effective. In the federal government there is something known as the “Indian Preference”. When anyone applies for a job with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or any other agency that deals with Native Americans they are told: Qualified non-Indian applicants will only be considered in the absences of qualified Indian applicants”. This is due to the extra-constitutionality of Native peoples and the fact that Natives are the only ethnicity/group of people mentioned specifically in the constitution.
Amazingly insightful! I am impressed by the eloquence and bravery with which you delivered a message often overlooked. I hope the people who really need to read this … do!
[…] The False Positive « swirlinc.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/the-false-positive – view page – cached Me: “Well, I’m originally from South America, but I grew up in the Bronx…” — From the page […]