skip to main |
skip to sidebar
An excerpt from the endorsement statement sent out overnight (h/t: Bilerico):
As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country. Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now, in tough economic times, people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences--and place blame on others not like them . We all know the real culprit -- the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration!
From the New York Times this morning: As the nation’s only Hispanic governor, Mr. Richardson could become a champion for Mr. Obama among Hispanic voters, who have been a key voting bloc for Mrs. Clinton in the primaries thus far. And his endorsement is also notable because he is a friend and admirer of Mrs. Clinton, and was widely viewed as a possible running mate for both her and for Mr. Obama.
That speech earlier in the week which to many of us felt to be courageous, historic and moving - but failed to move many a television, press or online political pundit - seems to have been a catalyst in the New Mexico Governor's endorsement. I assume there might have discussions as to a possible Vice Presidential nod as well even if I don't necessarily see an Obama - Richardson ticket down the line. A note: In his endorsement the Governor calls himself "a Hispanic." Sure, I have people describe themselves as Hispanic or of Hispanic background but I have never heard someone call himself "a" Hispanic. Perhaps it's a regional thing?
Reminds me of a national gathering of Latino LGBT leaders in which levels of tension rose on whether we should describe the community as being Latino or Hispanic with left people evenly divided between Northerner Latinos and Southerner Hispanics (we avoided a civil war by ultimately using both terms). The New York Times might be right. Richardson's endorsements might bring in additional support for Obama from Lati.. - ehem - Hispanic voters in the primaries and caucuses ahead. And that's my hope. But I have a feeling that the impact of the Richardson endorsement will be regional rather than national when it comes to the Latino/Hispanic community, much like his appeal as a presidential candidate to specific Latino communities throughout the United States. In any case, thank you, Bill Richardson.
My good friend Pedro Julio Serrano, who works at the fabu National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, is President of Puerto Rico Para Tod@s and blogs here submitted an OpEd piece to the Los Angeles-based Spanish language newspaper La Opinion on presidential candidate Bill Richardson's "maricon" comment on Don Imus as well as Richardson's most recent declarations that he considers sexual orientation to be a choice during the gay gay gay presidential debate (one of the perks of having been in Colombia was not blogging about the debate since it seems just about every other gay blogger in the United States did already).The OpEd ran in La Opinion, in Spanish, on Wednesday. Graciously, PJ has provided us his own handy translation and since we want to hear other gay Latino views on the issue, we are more than happy to take the liberty of reposting it here for your perusal:La Opinión
Los Angeles, California
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Actions speak louder than words
By Pedro Julio Serrano
When I heard Gov. Bill Richardson utter the word maricón, I almost couldn’t believe it.
As a Latino gay man, I have seen time and time again how this and other hurtful words are used to degrade our identities, our gay identity as well as our Latino identity. As a Latino man, Gov. Richardson should have known better. Now as a presidential candidate, he has to do something about it.
While Richardson has had a great record of supporting rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, the use of the word maricón has profound connotations in our Latino culture. It is used to demean gay people and brings a lot of hurt, not only to gays who are subject to homophobia, but to the people that use the word without remorse. Because harsh words have been used against our Latino identity, we should know better and not use language that is inflammatory, hurtful and hateful. When a person of his stature uses this language, it sends a wrong signal of approval to using these demeaning words.
Gov. Richardson’s record shows that he is not a homophobic man; on the contrary, he has supported LGBT rights during his public career and led efforts in New Mexico to amend its laws to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports civil unions for gay and lesbian couples; he supports the repeal of the discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ military policy; he supports adoption by lesbian and gay couples; he opposes the discriminatory federal amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage. He has spoken for LGBT rights in front of non-gay audiences, something presidential candidates almost never do.
But the fact is that he took the homophobic bait put forth by Don Imus on his radio show and joined him in repeating it. We all make mistakes, and given Gov. Richardson’s record, I’m sure we all would have accepted a sincere apology. Unfortunately, instead of simply saying he was sorry, he offered the lame excuse, “In the Spanish I grew up speaking, the term (maricón) means simply ‘gay,’ not positive or negative…” Come on! Maricón is derogatory no matter what kind of Spanish someone grows up with, and the fact that he’s been a friend to our community makes this kind of dodge even more problematic.
To make things worse, during a forum focused on gay issues in Los Angeles recently, Richardson stumbled while being questioned if homosexuality was a choice. He said “yes, it is a choice.” And when the panelist gave him a chance to redeem himself, he just couldn’t get it straight. Speaking to the media, he continued to back pedal and equivocate about his response for days. It is important to have a great record of supporting our issues; but Richardson must speak out clearly, in front of all audiences, in favor of our humanity.
He has a golden opportunity in his hands, not only to debunk the myth that Latinos are more homophobic than anyone else, but to show that his support of LGBT rights in the past can transported to the platform of a presidential campaign. For instance, he could now start a conversation about homophobia and how hate hurts us all. Especially, when Congress is considering hate crimes legislation and Pres. Bush has threatened to veto it. Richardson could use this moment to show his remorse on his own words and show real leadership on this critical issue at the same time.
We have seen how the White House has been used by two kinds of presidents, one like Bush who might not use inflammatory words like maricón, but have forced gay people onto a second-class citizenship. And one like Clinton who said we were part of his dream but failed to deliver on the promise of equality.
In a time when we have lacked politicians with the moral leadership to stand up against intolerance, discrimination and division in this country, we need leaders who will not stand against hatred and will lift us to a new place — a place where we all count. And we need presidential candidates who will speak to all minorities — those of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, and yes, sexual orientation and gender identity — and tell us that we are part of their mission, treat us with dignity and respect, but most importantly, will act on their promises.
Gov. Richardson has the opportunity to show he really cares, give a loud and clear apology and to use the bully pulpit of the campaign trail to speak openly and clearly in support of equality for LGBT people. He must let us know that in the future, like in his past, he will deliver on the promises of equality for LGBT people.
It’s the only way to do it because in our Latino culture and in this country, actions speak louder than words.
Pedro Julio Serrano is Communications Coordinator for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Previously:
OK, it's official. Utterances of the word "faggot" are sooo 5 minutes ago. Can people please come up with new ways to insult us gays so we can get a bit angrier about it? Hm, actually, I take that back. That wouldn't necessarily be fun but... come on!
Chris Crain, former editor of The Washington Blade and current editor of GayNewsWatch, sent me an alert earlier today about a story he authored along with IN Los Angeles news editor Karen Ocamb ("Richardson sorry for 'maricon' moment") in which they dissect a single on-air live radio utterance of the Spanish word for "faggot" (maricon) by New Mexico governor and presidential candidate Bill Richardson in - drum roll please! - the now canceled "Imus in the Morning" radio show! (Don Imus, of course, was the first in a number of firings and reprimands handed down at radio and television personalities this spring and summer following what could be construed as racist or homophobic language).
The utterance came more than a year ago on March 29, 2006, and, to be fair, Richardson was goaded into it by Imus who was trying to get Richardson to say that an "Imus in the Morning" producer sitting next to him in the studio was a "maricon" for implying that Richardson was not a Latino (video capture here, courtesy of Media Matters).
Here's a transcript of the brief exchange: Imus: "How the hell are ya, governor, listen sir, I apologize for this but Bernard [has been claiming that you're not really Hispanic, that you're just claiming that, so, for some advantage or something, so... ah, you can just answer this 'yes' or 'no' - ah - and that... this will answer that question. Would you agree that Bernard is a maricon"
Governor Bill Richardson on the phone speaking in Spanish: "I believe that Bernardo is indeed a maricon if he says I am not Hispanic...." [laughter in the studio]
Richardson speaking in English: "Was that good enough or what?"
Imus: "Pretty good enough for me"
Richardson: "Alright..."
Imus: "Governor Bill Richardson on the phone."
Bill Richardson, who could be argued has the best record on LGBT issues among all the presidential candidates, reportedly apologized in private to people that questioned his comments then and has released an public apology now that the matter is gaining more attention.
Today, a few influential gay bloggers across the political spectrum have been linking up to the GayNewsWatch article and some are offering commentary. They include Andy at Towleroad, Steve Rothaus of the Miami Herald, Andrew Sullivan, Lane Hudson at Bilerico and at the Huffington Post and Pam at Pam's Houseblend. Chris Crain also has additional thoughts over on his personal blog.
A general consensus emerges:
On the right, Sullivan calls it "a Coulter" moment referring to Ann Coulter's own faggot outbreaks and says that the only reason that Richardson escaped scrutiny from gay groups was the fact that he was a Democrat.
On the left, Hudson calls it "incredibly disappointing" and says "There is no room in this race for any Democrat who harbors any kind of homophobic ideas."
Pam asks "Does going on air with a bigot who eggs on pols to say equally bigoted things means something?" and answers her own question with a "Yes, it does."I guess closest to my feelings about the whole thing is Chris Crain himself who acknowledges admiration for the governor's track record on LGBT issues as he takes him to task for the various semi-apologies Richardson has given in private and in public.
One caveat: I was among the few in the gay blogosphere who was willing to give Isaiah Washington a pass (that is, until he went on Larry King and, like Richardson, claimed that where he grew up the word "faggot" meant "weakness," not necessarily being gay, and that he had no idea that saying it to a cast member would be interpreted as an insult towards gays).
Yes, I get context: There are indeed specific contexts in which the word "maricon" could be used and not be meant as an epithet or insult. But it's clear in this specific context the whole joke was Imus getting Richardson to use "maricon" - a word that most English-speakers would probably immediately recognize as the Spanish language word for "faggot" - specifically as an on-air insult, even if it was in jest. In short, even if has yet to show he is a homophobic man, Richardson did not only engage Imus's very real homophobia but also tacitly let Imus get away with it.
Does it rise to the level of Ann Coulter's viciousness? That's laughable, of course not. Is Richards a homophobe? His track record speaks louder than his brief appearance on Imus.
But I want anyone who gets caught in these sort of thing to show the guts to face up to it, to apologize without "If I offended anybody, I'm sorry" disclaimers or a bullshit line such as "In the Spanish I grew up speaking, the term means simply 'gay,' not positive or negative" and adding the clincher "It has been brought to my attention that the word has a hurtful connotation."
Ask any Mexican-American what the word "maricon" means to them and I am pretty sure they don't need anyone to bring it up to their attention that the word has a hurtful connotation. If Richardson had used the English word "faggot" and said the same thing about it, I'd wonder if he'd been raised in the same building as Isaiah Washington.
As I told Crain, the fact that Richardson said the word is not at all surprising to me. Most Hispanic men have used it at one point or another as ingrained as it is in our culture. Nor does it disappoint me or upsets me. I am a grown man and can hear these kind of words without falling to pieces or tearing my eyes out screaming "WHY OH WHYYYYY!"
If it has legs, people will use the story to raise questions about Richardson's commitment to the LGBT community. I have a feeling people are so burnt-out about these "faggot" flare-ups that there's little room for yet another Isaiah Washington / Ann Coulter / Don Imus moment in English language media or Luis Jimenez / Luisa Fernanda moment in Spanish language media for that matter.
Me? I still think that on LGBT issues, Richardson is among the best of all the current presidential nominees, which is saying a lot when most people's perceptions are that Latinos are generally homophobic.
I wish he had used the "moment" to raise awareness about homophobia in the community instead of giving the usual half-assed apologies that everyone has given as of late. He might do well by forming an LGBT advisory committee, if he doesn't have one. Heck, I might be interested in being part of it.
I do wonder what other gay Latinos might think of the whole thing. If you care to comment, please do.
Update: Karen Ocamb has additional comments at Bilerico.
Clinton's Raza man: Yesterday, Hillary Clinton tapped former National Council of La Raza president Raul Yzaguirre "to co-chair her presidential campaign and lead its outreach to Hispanic voters" according to the Associated Press.Deemed the largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the country, I'm not necessarily sure just what that means. Surely, La Raza has a history of beltway work and probably has a bigger name in the Southern and South West than elsewhere in the United States, but they have little brand recognition or political inroads in Northwestern or Northeastern states. The same, actually, might be said about presidential candidate Bill Richardson, which might speak more to why the Clinton camp hired Yzaguirre than anything else.The anti-immigrant right has always tried to paint La Raza as an extremist threat to the United States and gone as far as mistaken it for the truly crazy California based newspaper La Voz de Aztlan. And I guess if you are truly anti-immigrant, La Raza could be seen that way, but on policy the agency has been pretty middle of the road and sometimes actually conservative, a legacy of Mr. Yzguirre's term as their president. I mean, La Raza was all goo-goo over Alberto Gonzalez when he was nominated to serve as Attorney General so if you are waiting for them to ask for his resignation (which they should as it would probably give La Raza some stature they sometimes lack) don't hold your breath.But I digress, by then Yzaguirre had resigned as president. What sticks with me from his tenure, though, is the agency's lack of interest in working with Latino gay advocacy agencies or advocates on LGBT issues. If it wasn't for Martin Ornelas, then CEO of the National Latino LGBT Organization (LLEGO), La Raza would have probably avoided gay issues all together. As it was, they pretty much always passed the buck to LLEGO anyway. So, in some ways, a disappointing pick by Hillary.Guiliani's 5 de Mayo comes early this year: In the meantime, at least La Raza has credibility and some legislative muscle on certain issues. The DC-based Latino Coalition, on the other hand, hasn't seen a Latino-pandering politician they don't like (whether it's George "macaca" Allen or the esteemed former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Sr., M.D.) or a press release distribution agency that they won't flood. So when it comes to the Coalition the less said the better? Except that of all the presidential candidates they have invited to their annual 2-day Small Business Economic Summit in DC, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the first to confirm his attendance (he'll make an appearance on May 1st).Among their stands, the Coalition supported the more draconian immigration bills surging through the nation's legislative bodies last year by lambasting the McCain-Kennedy bill as "polarizing" and criticized New York Senator Hillary Clinton last year for standing her ground in protecting HIV prevention funds for affected communities in the larger urban centers.Surprisingly the Coalition ended up endorsing Clinton in her Senate re-election bid last year. In the past they have also endorsed IL State Senator Barack Obama. If Guiliani is the only one to show and pander, will he get the nod?
An excerpt from the endorsement statement sent out overnight (h/t: Bilerico):
Posts
