SF and Immigration Thoughts

I want to be very careful today, because I'm referencing a conversation with a public person. While I'll do everything I can to conceal the identity of this lady, just in case someone figures it out I want to say explicitly that I have nothing but respect for her, and have never heard a bad thing about her. In all ways I assume she is competent, intelligent, and kind. I just think that she is very wrong about something, and that that blind spot is illustrative of a core human problem.
##
Recently conversing casually about racial images in Steven King's "The Stand," a lady professional in the SF field spoke in his defense, claiming that his lack of black characters could be explained by his lack of contact with black people in New England. Fine. The next question was why, then, when he DID have black folks, they were 90% demon, 10% angel, with nothing in-between. This turned into what I thought was an interesting conversation about images in the SF field, and why there were so few Asians or Blacks.

Her position: disadvantaged minorities had more survival-oriented issues in mind. That seems reasonable for, let's say, a reduction in statistical representation within the field (say, from 10% to 5%?) in the case of blacks, but hardly explains Asians, who actually earn about 10% more than whites per capita. She questioned whether SF was actually common in Asian culture, citing the fact that most Japanese SF books she'd seen were translations of American books. I offered that I couldn't speak to percentages of Japanese novels that were speculative, but that Manga, Anime, and Japanese film were filled with SF images, and I'd be quite surprised if their novels didn't explore this as well.

My basic contention was that you saw very little non-white SF because of the same human tendencies we've discussed here: a "10% disconnect" toward anything that doesn't resemble "yours" that influences readers, writers, artists, and editors. She objected to this stringently, saying that images on covers have no influence on purchasing, "either you are attracted to these ideas, or you are not."

I have to admit to being slightly astonished by this reply, as it would seem to go against everything I believe about human psychology, everything known in the advertising industry, and everything I've heard from countless people over the years. Blacks got more excited about Tennis when they saw Tiger Woods. Black women got more interested in science and science fiction when they saw Nichelle Nicoles. Whites got more interested in Rap when they saw Eminem (let's not talk about Vanilla Ice, shall we?) Women for DECADES told me, or interviewers that seeing women as astronauts, politicians, scientists or whatever increased their interest in those fields. That seeing no women on S.F. books wasn't their problem...but seeing images of women who carried themselves with dignity and power, as well as images that went beyond "mere" sexualization or victimhood, opened their hearts and minds to the field.

That women editors coming into the field made it easier for women writers, in a positive spiral that has led to some of the most important and popular work in the field. That men, despite having wives, daughters, and mothers that they loved, either excluded them or created disempowered images that were simply not attractive. I listened to this for decades, and it matched what I had heard from blacks about the field.

They weren't there. When they were there in films, they died (usually protecting white people). Or were in that monster-or-saint dichotomy. That images of non-whites as heros just didn't make it past the editors often, and when they did, the race was changed on the book covers. I have heard these stories from literally every single non-white writer I've ever spoken to...(the last five years or so there seems to be a bit of change here...thank God!)

This all seems pretty obvious to me. Human beings like to reinforce the images that will improve their own chances for survival and reproduction, and to see themselves in their entertainment. Not that as a "spice" they might not like to step outside themselves, but not as meat-and-potatoes. We don't believe something is possible until we see someone do it, and the more that person resembles us, the easier it it. Same with interest in entertainment: if someone like "us" is involved, it's just more fun.

What was disappointing is that I've been down this road before. For some reason, I hope/think that white females, who have experienced oppression, will be more sensitive. Or at the very least won't fall back on the exact same arguments I used to hear white males use: women aren't interested in SF (or math, or politics) not because they have been excluded, but because, well, there's something different about women. Couldn't possibly be that men, as a group, will try to confine powerful images to their own group.

Here's what I think: white women are no more likely to be sensitive to racial prejudice than black men are to be sensitive to sexism. I know there are issues I don't see or understand (which isn't the same as "issues concerning which I will have disagreements with feminists") and I was raised by and around women, more than 50% of the people in my phone book are women, most of my friends are women, I raised a daughter, love both my wife and ex-wife, and speak with a genuine, real honest to God woman hundreds of times a day. I also discuss women's issues with T almost every day. And despite all this, I KNOW that there are things I don't see. How much more so for a white female who would be lucky to have 1/10th my experience with "the other"? It's surprising any of us get along with anyone.

But this is part of what has disenchanted me with the field: the (in my mind) totally misplaced confidence that somehow SF is more open-minded racially than society at large. But then, when one points out the paucity of images, characters, writers, readers, editors or whatever, why, it can't be the fact that human beings, as a group, will tend to exclude others and reinforce whatever validates makes their own existence. My guess is that this lady went through a process very similar to my own: feeling like an outsider, finding a genre and community that proclaimed (and on the surface seemed to be) free of bigotry, that accepts human beings on the basis of their intellect and creativity.

And there, for years--I found a home. And it was only with the greatest of discomfort that I slowly began to realize that there SF fans and editors and writers seriously needed to believe that Aliens somehow represented (blacks) or that any time a character wasn't specifically described, why maybe THAT was a black person..!

Of course, I never heard a woman suggest that Aliens represented strong, capable women, or that every time a character wasn't described naked there wasn't the chance that was actually a woman...
Because human minds don't work that way. I doubt they ever have. Or will. Is that sad? I don't know. What I do know is that when I realized (or concluded) that SF had these tendencies and that folks like me were swimming upstream (just as women believed they were swimming against the tide in a world of male editors) I had the choice of either thinking this some kind of prejudice that was exclusive to whites...or that it was something wrong with black people (that was certainly a possibility, and the very fact that I entertained the notion made me a racial traitor in some circles). I concluded that it was most likely due to universal human tendencies.

At least...that answer allowed me to look at the world with the greatest amount of love, forgiveness, and understanding. And that was critical to me, because the opposite belief seemed to increase fear, anger, and a sense of "separateness" from others. Ultimately, I understand that my automatic search for the ways we're all the same cannot be allowed to devolve to dogma. Hopefully, that is always a starting point only...there are differences in individuals and groups, but the natural human tendency is to leap to the conclusion that differences in the current status or behavior of human beings is a result of innate tendencies rather than environmental factors. It seems to me that deliberate resistance to this tendency is a little like "leaning into the wind" and results in a posture in proper perpendicularity to the earth--balanced in the middle as opposed to leaning one way or the other.
##
I can't think of a current arena that strains this way of looking at the world more than the immigration debate. I tend to lean more toward the conservative side than the liberal on this one. Would I if Mexicans were blacks? I sure hope so, but can't be sure. When I hear naturalized Mexicans discuss the need for conservative policies I tend to think that they are thinking the way I would in that situation...but how the hell can I be sure?
What I do know is that there is a few core conundrums here:
1) Unlike racial profiling on the basis of crime statistics, the problem of immigration along our southern borders really does deal almost exclusively with people who look a particular way, and speak a specific language. Even profiling on the basis of religion (say, Islam) isn't as specific, because Muslims have a somewhat wider spread of racial identity: some are white, some black, some Asian, and most some mixture of the three. Which means that if you cannot racially profile, you probably cannot stop people from flooding across the border.
2) There is nothing particularly "bad" in a moral sense about Mexicans coming here. It's just migration, and animals do it all the time. Europeans did it, to the detriment of the Native Americans. And you would do it too, if you were on the wrong side of the line. America has spent a hundred years using the most sophisticated advertising, cinematic, television or whatever technology to say "we're the best! Life is best here! Nothing else comes close!" No sin in this. But try to tell me with a straight face that ANYONE, any group of people (or animals for that matter) wouldn't cross a river to get that life that is supposed to be so infinitely better? Come on. But as I said before...the demonizing is common because it "stirs up the troops" and without such stirring up...well, you "lose."
And is there something to "lose"? Opinions vary, but my sense is that any country has the right to determine who enters and who does not. I always disliked Americans who believed they could behave as anything other than polite guests in foreign lands, or that they didn't have to play by local rules. It is not racist of me to judge foreigners in the same fashion.
3) What of racism? Well, it is inevitable. That 10% aversion thing...well, I'll stand by it. But while I would expect most racists to be on the anti-illegal side of the question, I would think that the vast majority of anti-illegals aren't reacting from a racist perspective. Somewhat xenophobic, perhaps, but again any state...or organism...reacts to the introduction of foreign particles or persons. The social equivalent of an immune system response. And countries have reacted the EXACT same way when the flood of "neighbors" looked exactly like them. Racism isn't a necessary element. That said, it seems unlikely as hell that the new laws in Arizona won't be misused. It would be straining human nature to expect that. Good, decent Mexican-American citizens are going to get caught up in this. Blood will flow. This isn't going to be pretty.
4) It is also inevitable that this turn into a political football. The rabble-rousing approach works just great, especially in a political climate as asinine as this one. The rather transparent "Obstruct everything the Democrats do, then blame them for not getting anything done" tactic is gonna be mirrored by similar cut-throat maneuvers on the Left. Attributing everything to racism has a nice chilling effect...while simultaneously degrading the value of the charge, making real racism easier to conceal. Nice "twofer" for white liberals, don't you think? No, I don't think this stuff is conscious. With an election year coming up, this could turn as vicious as anything America has seen since the 60's.
5) Are illegals, per capita, more likely to engage in criminal behavior? Well...I'd say yes. After all, they are ALREADY engaged in a law-breaking behavior, just by violating our laws. Add to that the poverty that likely drove them from their land. Poverty is a well-known stimulant for criminal behavior, both by increasing the lure of easy gain, and decreasing belief in the legitimacy of legal strictures. So it is legitimate to make this argument. The problem is that pesky civil rights thingie...
6) Worst of all, there is no simple answer, even if you DID want draconian measures. What do you do? Incarcerate millions? Too expensive and cruel. Deport them? Ah...and what exactly keeps them from just coming back? Make it so painful (by allowing the most radical of the anti-illegal groups to have sway. Inevitably, there will be "incidents" and "accidents" and acts of violence that are officially "disapproved of." We know that game) that they don't want to come here? Beatings and murder would do it. Of course, then Americans would be far less safe traveling south of the border, and we don't like that much, do we? Build walls? I have to admit to sympathy to this--it doesn't stop traffic, but it does slow it down. Stop manipulation of the language with which the debate is waged? Note the terms "undocumented," as if these people had just, well, missplaced their papers, or forgotten to renew a driver's license as I did in Seattle. I was "undocumented." They are here illegally.
It could be that the only solution with a chance of success is the "path to citizenship" approach--back of the line, pay a fine, back taxes. Note how opponents to this approach call it "Amnesty," when that term means "a general pardon for offenses." Paying fines is not a pardon. It is a selection of punishment--but if incarceration and/or deportation aren't effective, what is the choice? Honestly, I'm interested in suggestions.
6) How do I balance my sense that America has the right to decide who enters? The fact that without racial profiling it will be almost impossible to enforce that decision? But that that very racial profiling will damage the structure of our country. That old line from Germany about "when they came for the Jews I didn't object..." comes to mind. Creeping totalitarianism is a very real thing, and it disturbs me that the people who think Government is this great risk seem willing to give police the power to search and seizure under...questionable circumstances, circumstances that would seem to give legitimacy to some pretty unpleasant basic human tendencies. Wow. This one is just awful.
7) It also wouldn't be honest to leave the "reconquista' thing alone. Most human beings aren't particularly political...but many are. And do I think that Mexicans aren't as likely to sit around, drink Cerveza, and talk about taking the country back? Probably about the same as blacks in the 60's talking about "The Revolution" except they actually have the numbers to have an impact. Is this sedition? If formalized, yes. But it doesn't have to be formalized to impact political and economic process. Americans joke about dominating the world--whether it is economically or militarily. It is natural to try to do this, and pretending otherwise is simply dishonest. On the other hand, it would be social suicide not to resist it. And the easiest way to resist it is by stirring up the base...which deals in black and white, not shades of gray. And some members of that base will push things a little too far, leading to violent incident, more fear, and easier crack-down...
##
How do you guys see this? I think the solution would be a combination of fences, deportations, and a path to citizenship for those who can play by the rules. Pain on one hand, and pleasure on the other. Reform drug and economic policies to reduce the amount of our negative contributions to life in South and Central America. I see no techniques that are effective that aren't also dangerous to our civil liberties--so police actions will have to be carefully monitored.

That racial profiling thing. Damn. I can only think that, ultimately, some difference will have to be made between profiling for crimes within a population and profiling to extract aliens from among a camouflage of citizens. While such laws would inevitably be loathed by some, at least our population can vote on them in an above-board fashion. Will they be of greatest disadvantage to Latinos? I see no way to avoid that conclusion. And therefore whatever laws enacted would have to be formulated so that, under other circumstances, equal discomfort falls upon whites, blacks, men, women, whatever. I don't know how to do that, or even if it makes real sense. As I said, this one is a real ball-breaker. with no easy answers at all. Unless someone out there is smart enough to have one?