Well, I have read the book, and I think that it is a little 'much'. Aside from the issues, which I'm not going to argue here, Balderrama and Rodriguez did themselves a serious disservice by injecting an injured tone. They obviously wrote this book from a biased and personally wounded standpoint. There are times when I closed the book because the victimization was so thick. They make excuses for the impropriety of Mexicans in the most ostentatious manner. First by acknowledging the error, then by giving excuse for it or sometimes heralding it. Here are some examples:
(re: Mexican nationalist newspapers sensationalizing the events of the repatriation) "The negative conditions encountered by compatriots who had migrated north was a favorite, ongoing feature in Mexican newspapers. For the nationalist-oriented press, repatriation became a major chapter in the continuing saga of tension and discord between the United States and Mexico. Incidents, no matter how trivial, were described and analyzed in detail. Mexico's leading newspapers ran sensationalized stories on a regular basis...There was never a lack of tragic stories to report as the caravans of sorrow headed south...Some historians have severely criticized the Mexican press for its lack of objectivity in chronicling and reporting the repatriation crisis. Much of the criticism centers specifically on allegations that they did not always distinguish between fact, fiction, and rumor. While there are legitimate grounds for this charge, Mexican press coverage must be assessed and understood in its role as the voice of revolutionary nationalism and the constraints under which it operated....Woe to any newspaper that became overly critical of national policies. "yankee bashing" provided an acceptable way for the press to vent its spleen or displeasure. Criticism notwithstanding, the press performed an invaluable service in keeping the repatriation issue in the public's eye and consciousness."
OK. So, you see the style. If Mexican newspapers did not distinguish between fact, fiction and rumor, then they need to be held accountable. And no amount of hurt feelings changes the poor ethics and bad journalism, no matter what country, no matter the political climate, and there is no excuse for it. If you say that the Mexican newspapers print erroneous information, then it invariably contributed to the negative sentiments about the United States, making it difficult to discern what really happened during the repatriation. When B&R excuse the lack of ethics in their book, they ruin their own credibility. You can't distort the rules of propriety to suit you and your cause. It does not make for a very interesting read. The victimization is so thick in this book at times that I put it down thinking that the Mexican race as a whole, according to B&R are an angelic one whose very wrongdoing is to be blamed on everyone else but the person who committed the wrongdoing. Bad behavior, Mexican, Cambodian or Swiss is bad behavior.
Here are more examples of the B&R tone:
'Apparently, no matter how inane the charges were, it was "open season" on the Mexican family.'
'The raids were sometimes conducted by unscrupulous employers.'
'Mexicans were often accorded rude treatment.'
'There seemed to be an inner undefined desire to savor however briefly, the moment of their fleeting childhood. They (children) made up games with the rows of beets...they chased rabbits or caught butterflies. They still made an attempt to enjoy their stunted youth.'
'Homemade wine and beer enjoyed a ready market as men sought to drown or momentarily forget their sorrows.'
(After Senor Reyna struck a parked police car where the police subsequently arrested him calling him 'you dirty Mexican' and 'you filthy Mexican): 'While being escorted to the police station by three officers, Reyna managed to disarm one of the detectives. he then shot and killed on officer and wounded another before being subdued. During his trial, Rayna expressed no regret or remorse for his action. Rather, he declared that he wished he had killed all three officers for having called him a "dirty and filthy Mexican". And the subsequent text goes on to tell how his actions were heralded by Mexicans. Closing with this B&R exaggeration: 'it was similar to incidents that could be recounted by nearly every Mexican in the United States.'
I don't know about you, but as a writer, I don't think I could make a bold claim like that (the last line of the paragraph above). How could I possibly know if similar incidents could be recounted by every Mexican in the United States? It's bad reporting. This is a non-fiction work, it needs to be accurate, and not wrought with personal sentiment and inflated opinions to sway the reader. I don't care to hear about the writer's opinion on the subject, I just want to hear the facts. I also just read 'Changing Women' (A History of Racial Ethnic Women in Modern America) by Karen Anderson, and her facts were clearly stated without the righteous tone. If women were to do the housework, it was stated unbiasedly, without descriptives that are often not far from ones sounding like this, 'the poor hunched back madre worked her fingers raw.'
It's not a horrible book, but when you read it, just know that you are going to have to contend with personal sentiment and sensationalized reality. In my opinion, B&R follow the examples of the sensational Mexican nationalist way of news reporting. Perhaps that style of telling the facts is cultural.
p.s., I'm black, so I don't need to make excuses for 'anglos'. I bought this book to learn about the facts, and there are plenty of facts, I could have just done without the opinions of the writers.
Peace!
