In The Community
I am always shocked when I hear someone say they’re not a feminist or even say that the feminist movement is this crazy new world ideology. It isn't a "trend" or something that is done to be "edgy."
The feminist movement is fighting for human lives and for the rights that we should all have when we’re born.
Events like the overturning of Roe v. Wade are more than enough proof of that. If a human being losing autonomy over their own body doesn't alarm you, I don't know what will.
In simple terms, feminism advocates for equality between men and women in all aspects of life. The concept has gotten lost for many that choose to not educate themselves on the subject and not only believe, but also spread the false notion that feminism is fighting for the superiority of one gender.
The feminist movement is not an attack on men, far from it. Feminism views all people as human beings deserving of a quality life as it fights against social injustices prevalent in our society.
There's nothing out of this world about the feminist movement; after all, one would think that there’s no reason for one gender to be lesser than the other in our society when we are all humans. But our world was built upon patriarchy, and men have been the ones in positions of power for far too long.
And yes, the movement is flawed, mainly where it concerns women of color and non-cisgender women. Women of color, queer, and trans women fight for more than just gender equality, and we can't be truly equal if we solve one issue but not the others.
The effect of poverty, racism, systematic oppression, and homophobia on women of color is also why the concept of intersectionality in feminism was introduced. Coined in 1989 by Kimberlé Crenshaw, she introduces the concept as "a prism for seeing the way in which various forms of inequality often operate together and exacerbate each other." When different forms of discrimination overlap, we can't just ignore one for the other, because if we do no equality has been achieved.
The feedoms and struggles of women in the U.S. look different for women in other countries. We need feminism because young girls and women are still fighting for fundamental human rights in many parts of the world.
In most countries in Latin America, for example, abortion is still heavily penalized, and reproductive rights for women are practically nonexistent. With some of the highest poverty rates in the world, access to contraception and sex education is not a given.
Femicide prevails across the world. About 66,000 women and girls are violently killed annually, accounting for approximately 17 percent of all victims of intentional homicides. A report published in 2016 by the Small Arms Survey, showed that "among 25 countries with the highest rates of femicide in the world, 14 are from Latin America and the Caribbean."
El Salvador and Honduras stand out with rates of more than ten female homicides per 100,000 women. The level of violence affecting women in El Salvador and Honduras exceeds the combined rate of male and female homicides in some of the 40 countries with the highest murder rates in the world, such as Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Tanzania.
Body autonomy and violence are just a few of the issues in the fight for equality. Phrases like, "I'm not one of those crazy feminists" or "women aren't oppressed," need to be used as teachable moments rather than just brushed off casually as just another knock on women. The more we destigmatize the word, the more we can actually achieve understanding from those who are willing to listen and learn.
Originally published in The Latino Newsletter–reprinted with permission.
Opinion for The Latino Newsletter.
The Republican Party campaigned for power by threatening to rip the lives of 20 million people from the fabric of this country. As horrifying a premise as it is, this act of political depravity has happened before.
Beginning in the 1930s, an estimated 1 million people —Mexican Americans and Mexican nationals— were expelled from this country. Following the Great Depression, Mexicans were targeted and scapegoated for taking jobs from “real” Americans and exploiting social welfare resources. The Hoover administration, scrambling to stay in power, gave cities and states authority as to how they would rid themselves of these “undesirables.” The smears used against this demographic have embedded themselves into the historic and now daily discourse of immigration.
In Los Angeles and the state of California, individuals, including families with children, were raided and rounded up through door-to-door knocking, threats, intimidation, withdrawal of social welfare benefits, and collusion with the Mexican government. A conservative estimate suggests that 600,000 of those people were U.S. citizens. That is right, 600,000 people who had the legal right to live in this country were thrown out or “expatriated.”
- YouTubeyoutu.be
The incoming Trump administration and its nativist allies clearly got their ideas from our little-known, forgotten history. There were few if any, concrete repercussions to Hoover’s action or that of the following FDR administration. There has been no federal acknowledgment and certainly no reparations. Only the devastation of families and communities.
To this very day, we as a nation remain troubled and confused by who is a “real” American. From the inception of our country, we’ve created and sustained outrageous “immigration policies.” Indigenous Native Americans were labeled “domestic foreigners” and didn’t have the right to vote until 100 years ago. In 1923, the Supreme Court ruled that “the intention of the Founding Fathers was to ‘confer the privilege of citizenship upon the class of persons they knew as white.’”
Citizenship and whiteness are still closely linked in the minds of many, which is precisely why there’s a fence on the southern border and not the northern border. Nobody tends to be worried about a “mass invasion” from the north.
This is all about skin color.
At California State University, Long Beach (CSULB), I teach this history, along with other hidden histories, to future elementary teachers. We reflect on how often K-12 education has omitted the United States-led crimes of the past. I teach these topics not because I am unpatriotic but precisely because I want to build a better country through the teaching of difficult truths.
The only way to plan for a better country in the future is to acknowledge our past, not the fairy tale creation myth, not the white-washed propaganda, but our actual history, with all its blood and sinew.
It is challenging to imagine the catastrophic damage to the lives of people who were removed and those who remained. How can we recognize what is not there? What does it take to notice the missing, the invisible, and the irretrievable?
And how dare we consider doing this again?
In 2018, after years of teaching about expatriation, I began writing Dispossessed, a novel about the 1930s mass expulsion of Mexican Americans and Mexican nationals.
Months after I started the book, the U.S. government began separating families at the border.Our unvarnished history forces us to confront the present. Slander and scapegoating persist, fueled by white racial identity politics and nativism. Project 2025 threatens to denaturalize U.S. citizens.
My novel traces the life of one boy separated from his family during the 1930s expulsion. The Republican Party seeks to return us to an era where Brown U.S. citizens were abandoned by their own country.
The connection is chilling, real, and undeniable.
- Immigrating to Forced Assimilation: At What Cost? ›
- Expat If You’re an American in Latin America, Immigrant If You’re a Latino in the U.S. ›
Originally published in The Latino Newsletter–reprinted with permission.
As the 2024 election season unfolds, the Latino Election Project from The Latino Newsletter and New England Public Media features the work of student producers Ian Burger, Halima Mohamed, and Evanni Santos with support from Donyel Le’Noir Felton. The team is reporting on election cycle stories through the lens of the Latino community in western Massachusetts.
This is part five of a five-part series. The entire series is here.
SPRINGFIELD, MA — National exit polls revealed that Donald Trump achieved historic support among Latino voters, securing 45% of their votes—a level not reached by a Republican candidate since George W. Bush in 2004. In western Massachusetts cities like Holyoke and Springfield, where Latinos make up nearly half the population, preliminary results showed a noticeable shift toward Republican candidates.
To understand these voting trends, local Latina and Latino leaders shared their perspectives.
Xiomara DeLobato, vice president and chief of staff at the Economic Development Council of Western Massachusetts, wasn’t surprised by Trump’s support among Latino men, attributing it in part to cultural factors.
“That ingrained cultural machismo that we see a lot in the Latino community—it’s not a secret,” she said. “That misogyny that is very ingrained in our culture as a whole, right? All of Latin America, all of our countries in our heritage, it is, we're talking like centuries old.”
Holyoke Mayor Joshua Garcia saw Trump’s appeal as partly rooted in shared conservative values among many Latinos, alongside broader frustrations felt nationwide.
“The conservative ideas and values that most Latino cultures uphold on important issues that we all debate about across the country. And I think there's just a combination of factors that weighed in to why we saw what we saw,” he said.
Garcia also emphasized that national election outcomes shouldn’t overshadow local unity.
“It's frustrating because we all work so hard to foster unity, to foster collaboration, around our city,” he said. “And I just urge everybody not to let these results and other noise distract us from who we are as people, as human beings and what we have built together here.”
Springfield City Councilor Jose Delgado, who has observed a shift toward conservatism among Latinos, was similarly unsurprised by the election results.
“We all have different kinds of ideologies. And that’s something that I’ve noticed for a while,” Delgado said. “And I think that really played out in this election. You take Massachusetts aside, right? We’re kind of in our own little bubble. It’s obviously a blue state, but when I started reading some of the stuff that I was hearing from Latinos who are voting in Southern states, the stats showed that more and more are starting to lean right. Or more conservative.”
DeLobato also highlighted the economy as a major influence on voter behavior.
“We feel the impact to our purse,” she said, noting that many associated these economic concerns with the Biden-Harris administration, “when it’s a tax plan and economic plan that was inherited from the former administration.”
The team also spoke with voters in Springfield’s predominantly Latino North End, where economic issues were top of mind. While some voiced concerns about the economy, that didn’t necessarily translate into Republican support.
Ana Fontanez, who voted for Harris, said in Spanish that “Kamala is a Democrat, and Democrats have always supported the poor and the humble.”
“They support us because we’re in a country where we want to move forward and look to the future,” she added.
Jose Matias, another Springfield voter, explained his support for Harris over Trump, citing Trump’s treatment of Puerto Rico.
“The only ones that are going for Trump are unfortunately the Latinos that think they’re going to get money from him, which is not going to happen,” he said. “But after the comedian that roasted Puerto Rico, we definitely jumped on and said, you know what, screw him. And we’re definitely going to go with Harris.”
One thing is certain: the 2024 election highlights the diversity within the Latino electorate. Latinos are not a monolith. They are increasingly independent and prepared to hold both parties accountable.
Voces latinas reflexionan sobre los resultados de 2024
Las encuestas de salida nacionales revelan un apoyo histórico a Donald Trump entre votantes latinos, alcanzando el 45% de sus votos, un nivel que un candidato republicano no obtenía desde George W. Bush en 2004. En ciudades del oeste de Massachusetts como Holyoke y Springfield, donde los latinos representan casi la mitad de la población, los resultados preliminares muestran un cambio notable hacia los candidatos republicanos.
Para entender estas tendencias de votación, líderes latinos y latinas locales comparten sus perspectivas.
Xiomara DeLobato, vicepresidenta y jefa de gabinete del Consejo de Desarrollo Económico del Oeste de Massachusetts, no está sorprendida por el apoyo de los hombres latinos a Trump, atribuyéndolo en parte a factores culturales.
“Ese machismo cultural que vemos mucho en la comunidad latina, no es un secreto”, comenta. “Esa misoginia está muy integrada en nuestra cultura en general. Toda América Latina, todos nuestros países y nuestra herencia, estamos hablando de algo que tiene siglos de antigüedad”.
El alcalde de Holyoke, Joshua García, percibe el apoyo a Trump como reflejo de los valores conservadores que muchos latinos comparten, junto con frustraciones a nivel nacional.
“Las ideas y valores conservadores, que la mayoría de las culturas latinas sostienen en temas importantes que todos debatimos en el país. Y creo que es una combinación de factores que influyeron en lo que vimos”, dice García.
García también enfatiza que los resultados nacionales no deberían opacar la unidad local.
“Es frustrante porque todos trabajamos muy duro para fomentar la unidad y la colaboración en nuestra ciudad”, explica. “Les pido a todos que no dejemos que estos resultados nos distraigan de lo que somos como personas, como seres humanos y de lo que hemos construido juntos aquí”.
El concejal de Springfield, José Delgado, quien ve a más latinos inclinarse hacia ideas conservadoras, no se sorprende por los resultados de las elecciones.
“Todos tenemos diferentes tipos de ideologías. Y eso es algo que he notado desde hace tiempo”, comenta Delgado. “Creo que realmente se reflejó en esta elección. Dejando a un lado a Massachusetts, estamos en nuestra propia burbuja. Es obvio que es un estado azul, pero cuando comencé a leer y escuchar de los latinos que están votando en los estados del sur, las estadísticas mostraban que cada vez más empiezan a inclinarse hacia la derecha o más conservadores.”
De Lobato también destaca la economía como una influencia importante en las elecciones.
“Sentimos el impacto en nuestros bolsillos,” dice, señalando que muchos asociaban estas preocupaciones económicas con la administración de Biden-Harris, “aunque es un plan tributario y económico que fue heredado de la administración anterior.”
El equipo también habla con votantes en el vecindario predominantemente latino de North End en Springfield, donde las preocupaciones económicas ocupan un lugar destacado. Aunque algunos expresaron inquietudes sobre la economía, esto no necesariamente se traduce en apoyo a los republicanos.
Ana Fontanez, quien votó por Harris, dice: “Kamala es demócrata y siempre los demócratas están a favor de los pobres y de los más humildes”.
“Nos apoyan, porque estamos en un país donde queremos seguir adelante y mirar hacia el futuro”, añade.
Otro votante de Springfield, José Matías, explica su apoyo a Harris sobre Trump, citando el trato de Trump a Puerto Rico.
“Los únicos que están con Trump son, desafortunadamente, los latinos que piensan que van a obtener dinero de él, lo cual no va a suceder”, comenta. “Pero después de la forma en que trató a Puerto Rico, definitivamente dijimos, ya sabes qué, no gracias. Y definitivamente vamos a apoyar a Harris”.
Lo que queda claro es que la elección de 2024 confirma la diversidad dentro del electorado latino. Los latinos no son un sector homogéneo. Son cada vez más independientes y están listos para exigir responsabilidad a ambos partidos.
Ésta es la quinta y última entrega de una serie de cinco partesEl Proyecto Electoral Latino.
- Immigrating to Forced Assimilation: At What Cost? ›
- 5 Latina Activists Disrupting the Political Status Quo ›
