An interview with Iván Román, NAHJ's executive director
Posted June 23, 2008
 |
As a black Puerto Rican who serves an organization of more than 2,300 Hispanic journalists, Iván Román is in a unique position to evaluate how tensions between African Americans and Latinos are covered in the presidential campaign.
Currently the executive director for the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, Román has written extensively for newspapers in the mainland United States and Puerto Rico. In this interview from April, Roman talks with the Maynard Institute about how Latinos are affected by discussions of race in the media.
What do you think of the issue of brown and black relations as it's been covered in the media?
What we see in the coverage of the campaign just reflects the lack of sophistication that the media has about this problem. We look at Latinos as a monolith, which they are not, which then lead to overly sweeping cases which are just not true.
There have been many cases in which black candidates have won with substantial support from Latinos - elections throughout the Southwest and in California and in the Northeast.
The fact that many Latinos [preferred] Hillary Clinton - they [were] not supporting Hillary Clinton because her opponent is a black man, they [were] supporting Hillary Clinton for many different reasons. But not as a rejection [of Barack] Obama.
Now, when I criticize overgeneralization, I am also making one. Just like there are whites who will not vote for a black candidate, there may be Latinos who won't vote for a black candidate because of the particular personal experiences with blacks. But that doesn't mean that Latinos as a group will not support a black candidate.
The relationship between Latinos and African Americans in this country is very regional in nature, and local.
In the Northeast, there's been a lot of experience and coalition building, where Latinos were predominantly puertoriqueños until recently, as opposed to maybe in Florida, where there is a big divide between Cubans and African Americans, although that has been changing to some extent in the last 10 years or so.
Do you agree there is a brown-black divide?
In the United States we are obsessed with putting everything [into] these racial boxes. For Latinos, race is not the most important issue, and people should make sure they understand that. As long as we keep trying to [put] ... issues into these boxes that the U.S. has forced us to be in, there's always going to be misinterpretation about people's motives.
I remember when they were talking about the caucuses in Nevada and the SIEU was backing Obama, and then they were showing video of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton going the casinos, Hillary and Bill saying 'hi' to these young Latinas who were there as concierges or housekeepers. I thought to myself, those women are going to vote Hillary. There's no reason for them to vote for Obama because she's a woman. They feel that it's about time that a woman represent them there and have a woman's priority in Washington.
What about the role of Afro-Latinos, both in coverage, but also in these communities in Miami and New York?
The role of Afro-Latinos is very important. It really depends on the identification that certain Afro-Latinos have with different parts of their identity. There are Afro-Latinos who, for them, their culture and the fact that they're Latino is more important to them race. There are others for whom race is a key factor.
For many of us, outside of the U.S., this wouldn't be an issue, because nobody asks us to pick one over the other, and this country asks us to pick one or the other all of the time.
Just like for women, we [were] asking black women, constantly, which is more important for you? Why should you [have gone] with Hillary as opposed to Obama and have to choose between the two? And they've had to, and they say that it's a hard decision.
For Afro-Latinos, we are asked to do the same thing. It's just as valid for Afro-Latinos to feel more culturally grounded regardless of the color of the skin, than racially. But in this country, race is the driving force for a lot of people.
If you had a Latino in the race who was a commanding candidate and you had an Obama, we'd be in the same situation. If you had a [Latino] woman and you're a black Latina, forget it. You'd be hit three ways.
Do you think these issues on the campaign have been good for black-brown relations?
Unfortunately, in this country we usually don't know how to talk about race. Or we talk about it in very simplistic manner. It has helped to bring the discussion forward. Unfortunately, you have things such as the Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright [issue]. I think that even brought up ways in which people who are not of the black-church experience could learn more about what the black church means to the African American community historically in this country.
What's tragic about that seems, however, that instantly there was a lot of punditry. What can reporting do to actually take these situations and move the dialogue forward?
Well, that's what it is: reporting instead of people speaking off the cuff about much of this stuff. Some pundits know what they're talking about, and others don't. And we've seen that with this campaign big time, where even you have black pundits that are talking a bunch of crap and really don't know how to explain to people what is behind this.
Reporting, to me, is where it's at. Actually report what does the black church mean to these communities. What does it mean to history? How was it that the black church really was a mechanism for African Americans to survive these situations they were in? That's what I think a lot of people can identify with if it's explained to them properly. Unfortunately, it's hard to do in those 30-second sound bites that they ask pundits to do. Even academics who study this kind of thing, they may not know how to exactly teach in a sound-bite-type format, which is what you see on cable television these days.
It's really in reporting; that's where it lies. Not to be afraid, but put a lot of these things into context.
Where have you seen good reporting on this issue, black-brown divide?
I haven't seen that much stuff that's really getting down to it. You're setting out to write a story about the black-brown divide, understanding that there's a divide because of race as opposed to there's a black-brown divide over this, but it's really not about whether Obama is black or not.
But you're already approaching it with that point, so that everything you do conforms to that viewpoint: You're voting for Hillary because of this and they're not voting for Obama, therefore there's a black brown divide. Well, they can be for whoever their candidate is, and that doesn't mean there's a divide.
[Was] there a white-black divide because more whites [were] voting for Edwards and Hillary than they were for Obama? Why are we even approaching it in this way? Why are we even assuming that there shouldn't be a divide? Why are we assuming that they need to be voting for the same people? That to me is the fundamental question.
How is race different in Latin America?
In Latin America, many of us are [brought up] being racist against some of elements of our own identity. And we go through a whole bunch of denial. When those attitudes try to conform to the boxes in this country, it becomes even worse.
[The Latinos] who have lived in this country for a while understand racism and discrimination in this country. They tend to be people who might tend to identify more closely with Obama. Those who have come here more recently, they don't understand the concept of race and racism in this country. They're more concerned with getting jobs and employment. They may not care [about] this whole Rev. Jeremiah Wright stuff, they may be like, 'Who cares? So what? I care about the health care. I care about jobs.'
To me coverage of race in this country has always been frustrating because it's always about the boxes. And I understand for African Americans that is the definition and African Americans are defined first by their race in this country. Latinos, that's not the case.
Do you consider yourself an Afro-Latino or a puertoriqueño?
Afro-Latino is one of those U.S. constructs, because in Puerto Rico, I am Puerto Rican regardless of what we look like. So the Afro-Latino thing is to fit the particular construction in the U.S and as a recognition to deal the with particular racism issues in Latin America, which is important, and that I understand. So I am puertoriqueño first. But, yeah, I am Afro-Latino.
That is a term that is used to conglomerate black Latin Americans, and that can be Panamanians, Dominicans, Peruvians, a whole bunch of groups together. In Latin America, you wouldn't be grouped together unless you're forming a political group around that, which some people are starting to do. In this country, that is the way to identify that group who are not African American, not English-speaking Caribbean, but who are from Latin America, who are of African [descent].
In [our] respective country of origin, you don't speak about Afro-Latino at all. You speak about your nationality. Your nationality includes your African descendants. In Puerto Rico, we're all taught that we're Spaniards, African and native Taíno. I don't necessarily have to break that apart, and I never do unless I am challenged to do so, and that's what happens in this country when we're challenged to do so.
But there is still discrimination in these countries. You still have white elites and large numbers darker-skinned poor people. Is it really all that different?
Racism and discrimination in Latin America is very complex. When you don't recognize that there could be discrimination based on your race, because everybody is part of that race, it leads to a denial that is hard to break.
I remember specifically that the federal courts in Puerto Rico … I was writing a story about one of the first lawsuits ever filed alleging discrimination based on race. The difficulty with that is that there was no way to measure specifically the discrimination, because in Puerto Rico you don't keep statistics ever about race. There's none of that in Puerto Rico at all, so it becomes hard to make the case. And it becomes even harder to make the case when you have a population that believes that they are a part of everything.
That's why to me, the brown-black divide is really a political thing more than anything else. Because it's really Latinos or African Americans, as groups, [who] will fight over power and influence, and not about their attitudes about race.
How do you think journalists have handled this?
I listen to some of the commentary about the campaign and it just aggravates the hell out of me. I really don't know which way to take the discussion in a way that's manageable in the time frame you have. They may do it in a quirky fashion, but it's something.
But I do think that African Americans need to understand or not assume that Latinos need to be for Obama because he's black, because of what it means for minorities in this country. That is not a very constructive way of looking at it. And also I think that Latinos need to understand the importance of an Obama candidacy for a lot of African Americans, because I think that Latinos don't have a clue.
We don't have a clue what the legacy of racism and discrimination in this country has meant and still means for African Americans. So that's the divide I think needs to be addressed. Not over who's voting for who.
And I also think that African Americans need to understand the history of Mexicans in this country who were here before anyone else.
The good thing is that the campaign is bringing up some of these questions. If Obama weren't running, we wouldn't be asking some of these questions.
Related links and web sites:
Brazilians see themselves in mixed-race Obama - Rueters
News and views by and about black Latinos
A Web site chronicling the black experience in the Americas.
Blacktino New Network (BNN)
An African-American, Afro-Latino and Latino news portal
Caoba
Revista para la mujer afrolatina
to top of page