Hispanic USA
By Ilan Stavans
http://www.prospect.org/print/V4/15/stavans-i.html
(adapted)


It is a complex fate to be an American, James Baldwin used to say (quoting Henry James). "America's history," Baldwin wrote, "her aspirations, her peculiar triumphs, her even more peculiar defeats, and her position in the world--yesterday and today--are all so profoundly and stubbornly unique that the very word 'America' remains a new, almost completely undefined and extremely controversial proper noun."
More than two decades after Baldwin wrote these words in Nobody Knows My Name, the rise of multiculturalism, which perceives the melting pot as a soup of diverse and at times incompatible backgrounds, has made the meaning of America even more elusive and abstract.
Of course, Baldwin was talking about America the nation; but America is also a vast continent. From Alaska to Argentina, from Rio de Janeiro to East Los Angeles, the geography Christopher Columbus mistakenly encountered in 1492 and Amerigo Vespucci baptized a few years later is also a linguistic and cultural multiplicity. Thus the Spanish-origin populations in the United States are twice American: as children of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and as citizens of the so-called New World. Often mistakenly perceived as the newest wave of immigrants, as second-class citizens assuming their place at the bottom of the social hierarchy, they have been in the territories north of the Rio Grande even before the Pilgrims of the Mayflower. With the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty signed in 1848, in which Generalissimo Antonio López de Santa Ana gave away almost two-thirds of Mexico to the United States, many of them, unexpectedly, even unwillingly, became part of an Anglo-Saxon, English-speaking reality--twice Americans, once in spite of themselves.
In the last decade, several books on the Hispanic experience--describing a pilgrimage from silence to voice--have considered those issues at the heart of Hispanic identity and history. Is Spanish, Hispanics' true lingua franca, the only unifying factor of a group with a diversity of roots (Caribbean, Mexican, Central and South American, Iberian, and so on)? Is the Hispanic immigrant experience different from those of earlier immigrants? How do Hispanics understand the complexities of what it means to be American?
Though perhaps it is premature to say definitively, due to insufficient statistics and the fact that Hispanic immigration has not yet peaked, Hispanic assimilation does seem to be proceeding differently from that of other immigrants. The Hispanics appear to be taking longer to learn English and to adapt to customary behavioral patterns. (Only 14.5 percent of native Cuban-American households use English alone, as do 25 percent of Puerto Rican households and 30 percent of Mexican-American households.) They are less likely to identify with the collective symbols of American culture. Poverty, drug addiction, out-of-wedlock childbirth, and crime linger despite their strong work ethic and impulse for self-improvement and social mobility. Political disinterest is high (and according to some, insurmountable). In short, Hispanics appear to be building a nation within a nation: they remain loyal to their ancestry and refuse to become like everybody else.
Their idiosyncracy has given rise to a number of political controversies: how to build a strong Hispanic political coalition and increase political participation; how to reconcile the push for bilingual education in public schools and the "English only" countermovement; how to incorporate the relevance of the black immigration experience into the debate over affirmative action and government entitlements. How these questions are resolved will profoundly shape not only the future of Hispanic America but also the future of America. Increasingly, it looks as if an old Mexican legend augurs the truth. The myth claims that, unable to battle invaders through military means, the citizens of Latin America will fight back by slowly infiltrating the soul of the enemy. That is, we are witnessing the Hispanization of the United States and not the Americanization of Hispanics.



WHO ARE THE HISPANICS?
Contrary to the picture often painted by the media and politicians, this minority group is not a unity but a sum of parts. Of the 22,254,059 U.S. Hispanics (according to the 1990 census), the Chicanos are the largest subgroup: 13.3 million, compared with 2.2 million Puerto Ricans, 1 million Cubans, 2.8 million South and Central Americans, and 1.4 million other Hispanics. Chicanos, also referred to as Pochos, La Raza, Mexican-Americans, or simply Mexicanos, have produced a rich and voluminous literature and complex urban and rural cultures. Yet among Hispanics, they still suffer from the highest dropout rate, the highest unemployment rate, and one of the lowest income levels per family. They are concentrated in the Southwest, which many believe to be the mythical Aztlán, where the Aztecs, a nomadic tribe, first lived before moving in 1325 to Tenochtitlán, now Mexico City. Chicanos have a strong political awareness that reached its apex during the civil rights era and a sense of belonging to the land, as is evident in their pictorial art, their popular ballads known as corridos, as well as their folklore and letters (Rudolfo A. Anaya's classic novel Bless Me Ultima, for example).
According to 1990 Census Bureau figures, Cuban-Americans are the best educated and well off. They have the lowest unemployment rate (5.8 percent) and the highest income per capita ($33,500). They live mainly in New Jersey and Florida, the latter a bastion of political and cultural resistance to dictatorial Cuban regimes since the early nineteenth century.
Puerto Ricans, also known as Boricuas, rank lowest on the economic scale (30.4 percent of families live in poverty), even below the Central Americans who began to seek asylum in southern states in the 1980s and are slowly adapting socially and linguistically. While Puerto Rico's commonwealth status automatically confers U.S. citizenship but not the right to vote in presidential elections, assimilation into the mainstream has proven elusive.
Like Puerto Ricans, expatriate Dominicans have chosen New York City as their capital in exile. After the repressive Trujillo regime fell in 1961, social chaos and economic uncertainty prevailed and a wave of Dominicans emigrated to the United States. Many of them have prospered in a short period of time, without government support. One other subgroup, made of Salvadorans, Nicaraguans, and other Central and South Americans, rank high in per capita income ($29,300), in spite of a 6.2 percent unemployment rate.

THE NAME GAME
A war of words currently raging among the Hispanic community is a microcosm of the struggle to define a common identity. Like many issues that divide the community, the debate over the designation "Hispanic" or "Latino" has ideological, historical, cultural overtones.
While the terms seem interchangeable, an attentive ear will detect the difference. Hispanic, generally preferred by conservatives, is commonly used when discussing demographics, education, urban development, or health policy. Latino is generally preferred by liberals and is more often than not applied to artists, musicians, and movie stars. The government uses Hispanic to describe the heterogeneous ethnic and cultural minority with ancestors across the Rio Grande and in the Caribbean archipelago. But the majority of citizens of that region acknowledge Latin America as the correct English designation.
During the 1940s and 1950s and even earlier, "Spanish" was the term preferred by English speakers when describing those who had emigrated from the Iberian peninsula or from below the U.S. southern border. (Ricardo Montalban was Spanish, as was Desi Arnaz and Celia Cruz, even if one was Mexican and the others Cuban.)
Earl Shorris notes in Latinos that as Chicanos, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Dominicans in the U.S. became an important political force, the term Hispanic was appropriated by government statisticians and speechwriters. The media also started using the term to define the entire Spanish-speaking group as a race and culture. The ambiguity of Hispanic became evident at once. The term has been used as one of a number of ethnic categorizations--including Caucasian, Asian, and black--even though an individual can be Hispanic and black or Hispanic and caucasian. The reference does not denote race. Yet the mischief was done. Anglos began using Hispanic as a weapon, a means of widespread stereotyping. Like Spanish before it, Hispanic squeezes the multifaceted cultures of Latin America--with links to African, Arabic, and Jewish cultures--into a narrow corridor based solely on linguistic heritage.
The term Latino became a sign of rebellion. Among intellectuals and artists, it is fast becoming the norm, primarily because it emerged from the Spanish-speaking group. In the mid-nineteenth century, a group of educated Chileans in Paris suggested the name l'Amérique latine. The term eventually won favor over Spanish America. A sense of homogeneity came from a global embrace of Roman constitutional law and the identity shared through the Romance languages. Simón Bolívar believed the term helped unify the entire Southern hemisphere. Much later, in the late 1930s and early 1940s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Good Neighbor Policy embraced and promoted the designation as well.
Yet Latino too has had its detractors. Historians like Pedro Henríquez Ureña from the Dominican Republic have questioned what is truly Latin about the region. If anything, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Cuba, Nicaragua, and other nations in the Americas are closer to Spanish, Portuguese, and perhaps even Anglo-Saxon cultures. Today in urban centers like Los Angeles, Miami and New York, the Spanish-language media has gravitated toward the term "Hispano." (Note that they avoid using hispánico, which is the correct Spanish word but one silently dismissed as too pedantic, too academic, too Iberian.) Yet even in these cities, the distinction between Hispanic and Latino is artificial and difficult to sustain: the New York City newspaper El Diario/La Prensa, for instance, calls itself the champion of Hispanics; Impacto, a sensationalist national publication, is subtitled "The Latin News." (As for myself, Hispanic seems a more accurate and convincing term and thus I'll stick with it.)
The name game may be a necessary growing pain of an emerging minority. It is the struggle to forge an identity among others--those outside its ethnic and cultural boundaries. But it also points to an internal struggle: the coming together of many diverse cultures under one rubric and one identity. Of course, there is ambivalence. To resolve the issue is to impose a universal identity--and imposition equals repression.
Given the cultural heterogeneity of Hispanics, defining them as a political collectivity becomes more and more problematic. Latino Voices, through intelligently crafted statistics, claims that while Hispanics of all subgroups feel a strong love for the U.S., the participation in pan-ethnic organizations is fairly low (6.5 percent among Chicanos, 4.1 percent among Puerto Ricans, and 3.5 percent among Cubans). And although a handful of political leaders symbolize unity, the minority has trouble seeing itself as a homogeneous political force. The majority of Hispanics are registered Democrats. They supported Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and Bill Clinton.
During the 1980s, very few among this minority won seats in Congress and the Senate. Latinos and the Political System, a collection of essays by researchers and specialists on demography and ideology, offers this explanation: first-generation Hispanics hesitate to be politically active because of their background as citizens of undemocratic, often repressive South American and Caribbean nations; they come to the U.S. with a view of leaders as corrupt, abusive, hypocritical. Their involvement in the U.S. political system, consequently, is the result of a slow process of trust, courage, and compromise.
Political participation among Hispanics is also lower than in other immigrant groups because so many of them are illegal and thus unable to vote. But as César Chávez and the United Farm Workers showed in the 1960s, Hispanics can be motivated in the interest of La Causa--the political struggle. As their collective power grows and new forces join the political arena, Hispanics will likely find their political voice. The sleeping giant can (and will soon) awaken.
Once engaged, they are likely to be divided into liberals and conservatives according to their place of origin: as past voting performances show, Cubans lean toward the right, Puerto Ricans and Chicanos to the left. And as made clear in two issues of Report on the Americas, the publication by North American Congress on Latin America, cultural fault lines further unsettle the Hispanic coalition. Different traditions, folklore, and national histories mean that a Chicano in San Antonio has more in common with an Anglo from the region than with a Cuban in New Jersey. Individual political leaders are thus only representatives of a minority within the minority.

[…]

LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT
The word "English" is found nowhere in the U.S. constitution, nor in any subsequent amendment. The issue of codifying a national tongue never even came up at the federal convention in Philadelphia in 1787. In fact, after the Mexican-American War, when California, New Mexico and other territories were ceded to the United States, politicians north and south of the Rio Grande agreed that Spanish, together with English, would become the language of government in the newly acquired lands: not one but two tongues. The promise was left unfulfilled and language rights for Spanish speakers, then a slight majority in the region, were totally ignored.
Facing what V.S. Naipaul calls an "overcrowded barracoon"of new Spanish-speaking immigrants, mainly children and adolescents from Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean, the U.S. government in the 1960s and beyond had to find ways to make them continue their schooling while encouraging them to become American citizens. They were confronted with a difficult choice. Should the schools cease to teach history or mathematics to Spanish-speaking students until they learn to speak English? Or should formal education be pursued in the native tongue? In the end, the answer was to accept Spanish as an ad hoc language, at least until students were able to learn English properly.
Advocates of bilingual education claimed that after a single generation, the Latin American and Caribbean newcomers would leave Spanish in the past and would see English as their present and future language. Detractors, on the other hand, argued that each generation of new immigrants would expect to use Spanish at school and, consequently, Cervantes' tongue would become an "unofficial official" language in the classroom and the country as a whole. Today we know the latter group was right: Spanish has not ceased to exist. On the contrary, through the promotion of a formal education that requires it in school, it has solidified its roots north of the Rio Grande.
The bilingual education movement started in 1960, in Dade County, Florida, where public schools were unexpectedly inundated with Cuban immigrants escaping Fidel Castro. Mainly because they were sure to return to their home island, these new exiles wanted their kids to be taught in Spanish. Consequently, they fought for "intelligent" laws allowing kids to be taught both languages in publics schools. Thus bilingual education was not the result of poor academic performance by Hispanic children but an attempt to remain loyal to ethnic roots.
By the mid-1970s and during the 1980s, the program had expanded to states like Texas, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, and its scope was truly enormous. Schools could apply for federal funds to implement the bilingual method, but because of legal intricacies and as a result of political battles by astute leaders, government money given to them for other educational purposes was often contingent on the implementation of Spanish courses. The irony was clear. At some point, the state not only favored but compelled schools to develop bilingual education programs, thus granting Hispanic culture a legitimate academic status no other immigrant group ever had before.
Congress passed the Bilingual Education Act in 1968 and, seven years later, the Bilingual Voting Rights Amendment. In 1981 the English Language Amendment, promoted by the English only movement, was introduced in Congress. Not yet law, the amendment and the issues surrounding it divide the nation. According to the vigilant, English is fading away because of the overwhelming number of newcomers incapable of learning the language at the speed of previous minorities--even though, according to James Crawford, Hispanics and Asians are learning it faster than any time before. Unity, the English-only advocates argue, has been replaced by chaotic multiplicity: each minority is now an isolated, autonomous group, and the entire country has become not a whole but a sum of belligerent, mutually exclusive parts. Consequently, they say, the U.S. is slowly dismembering. Multiculturalists, on the other hand, argue that our racial reality today is unlike that of any period in the past, that Eurocentrism is to be replaced by a truly global culture, and that bilingualism should be welcomed insofar as it helps the assimilation process.
The argument put forth by the guardians of English follows five easily understood points: 1) English has been Americans' strongest common bond, the "social glue" that holds the nation together; 2) linguistic diversity inevitably leads to political disunity; 3) state-sponsored bilingual services remove incentives to learning English and keep immigrants out of the mainstream; 4) the hegemony of English in the U.S. is threatened by swelling populations of minority-language speakers; and 5) ethnic conflict will endure unless strong measures are taken to reinforce unilingualism.
Among Hispanics, the most outspoken critic of bilingual education is Richard Rodriguez, an editor of Pacific News Service in San Francisco. Born in Sacramento, California, in 1947, he has become one of the foremost Chicano intellectuals. A decade ago he published his first book, Hunger of Memory: The Autobiography of Richard Rodriguez, detailing how he rose from his humble origins to become a Berkeley graduate student researching a dissertation on John Milton at the British Museum. While composed of five autonomous essays, the volume is an engagingly uniform analysis of the writer's journey from anonymity to celebrity. An accomplished stylist with a prose at once mathematically built and deeply felt, he believes that by allowing Spanish-speaking students to use their native tongue, government will incite in them a sense of duality, an identity conflict. Rodriguez is proof of how bilingual education creates an abyss in the student's individual identity. His spoken Spanish is poor; his sophisticated English is outstanding. He considers himself an American of Mexican descent and argues that bilingual education drove him away from his parents and made him a divided man.
Minority quotas, in his opinion, are unfair and undemocratic simply because, as in the jungle, the ablest should prevail (get a job, a fellowship, a college acceptance, and so on). Obviously, this conservative agenda has turned him into an agent provocateur of sorts. Yet his book has become something of a minor American classic. It is required reading in many universities and high schools, where teachers use it to ignite debate around the issues of assimilation and English acquisition.
An illuminating if convoluted study of the entire phenomenon of bilingual education, Hold Your Tongue: Bilingualism and the Politics of "English Only" by the Washington-based journalist James Crawford, examines in great detail the plight of Asians, Greeks, native Americans, and Hispanics in states such as Arizona, California, Florida and New Mexico. Crawford offers a bewildering portrait of the nation's present linguistic reality. Careful not to encourage the creation of a new tower of Babel, Crawford speaks in favor of bilingualism with the condition that everybody learns to speaks English in order to communicate with their neighbors. He argues that denying non-English-speaking immigrants important rights and services is simply unacceptable. Unilingualism is not our true and only hope of managing diversity without disintegration. He is right. In today's fragmented world, of course, it is hard not to be an advocate of multilingualism. Rather than banning or stigmatizing the languages of immigrants and native-born Americans, we should treat them as resources that could benefit the country both culturally and economically. If adopted, English as "official" language of the U.S. must be used in government papers and offices, which means it will jeopardize a wide range of rights and services available to non-English speakers. Furthermore, it is certain to spread fear among newcomers. In fact, one might already argue the English-only movement is a blunt attack against free speech and a showcase of America's xenophobia.

THE AMERICAN NIGHTMARE
No doubt the American Dream has not yet fully opened its arms to Hispanics. Guillermo Gómez-Peña, a performance artist and one of the most outspoken Chicano intellectuals, a native Mexican and now a citizen of California, has persuasively verbalized this type of "life in the hyphen." The following quote is from his essay Documented/Undocumented: "My generation grew up. . . . creating and de-creating myths. We went to Cuba in search of political illumination, to Spain to visit the crazy grandmother and to the U.S. in search of the instantaneous musico-sexual Paradise. We found nothing. Our dreams wound up getting caught in the webs of the border. Our generation belongs to the world's biggest floating population: the weary travelers, the dislocated, those of us who left because we didn't fit anymore, those of us who still haven't arrived because we don't know where to arrive at, or because we can't go back anymore. Our deepest generational emotion is that of loss, which comes from our having left."
Gómez-Peña is right, but there is something more: the loss he talks about will ultimately become an asset. To lose a country, a language, a self, can also mean to reinvent yourself in another linguistic and social milieu. Hispanics in the United States are dual citizens doing just that. Frontier dwellers, they are at once a branch of Latin America in the United States and one of this nation's most dynamic minorities.
Multiculturalism has opened the door to an irreversible transformation. Hispanics' arrival in Washington, where several have prominent roles in the administration, is a heartening sign of change. Non-Hispanics need to recognize this transformation--not to combat it, but to cope with it and even benefit from it. They need to learn about their Hispanic neighbors, their cultural and political roots, their struggles and aspirations. For as the Mexican myth foretold, Hispanics are transforming America from within through a historic revenge--yesterday's victim, tomorrow's conquerors.

Ilan Stavans
Copyright © 1993 by The American Prospect, Inc. Preferred Citation: Ilan Stavans, "Hispanic USA," The American Prospect vol. 4 no. 15, September 21, 1993 . This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author. Direct questions about permissions to permissions@prospect.org.

 

 

La contribución hispana al desarrollo de Estados Unidos
http://www.terra.com/redirect/google/actualidad.htm


Apenas hay referencias en los libros de historia de Estados Unidos a la extensa contribución española al desarrollo de este país. Lo malo es que tampoco en los libros de texto españoles se destaca lo suficiente la huella hispana en la historia de Norteamérica.
Conviene, por ello, repasar la magnitud del pasado español en Estados Unidos que es hoy bien patente en buena parte del país.
En 1512, Ponce de León fue el primero que puso los pies en el actual territorio de Estados Unidos al explorar la Florida.
Vázquez Ayllon en 1526 fue el primero en establecer un poblado, Miguel de Guadalupe, en lo que es hoy día Carolina del Sur. Dos años más tarde, en 1528, Pánfilo de Narváez desembarcó cerca de Tampa, y exploró la península floridiana.

EL ESCLAVO ESTEBANILLO
De los cuatro supervivientes de la que resultó ser una expedición desastrosa ( los primeros europeos en cruzar el país a pie de costa a costa durante siete años), uno, Alvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, publicó en España, en 1542, "Naufragios", donde informa y detalla la vida, las costumbres, la organización tribual, grupos étnicos, creencias religiosas, etc. de los indios sureños por primera vez en la historia.
El otro, llamado Estebanillo, negro esclavo, aprendió varias lenguas indígenas y, cuando los cuatro llegaron a California y luego a México, Fray Marcos de Niza lo integró a su expedición exploradora, en 1539, como guía e intérprete y contribuyó a lograr el descubrimiento y exploración de los actuales estados de Nuevo México y Arizona.
En 1539 Hernando de Soto fue nombrado primer gobernador de la Florida. Cerca de su actual capital, Tallahassee, celebró las primeras Navidades en la historia del país. Exploró de 1539 a 1543 Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana y el noroeste de Texas. Descubrió el río Mississippi, y en él fue enterrado cuando murió.
En 1540 Francisco Vázquez de Coronado con Fray Marcos de Niza llegó a las imaginarias Siete Ciudades, de techos de oro, así llamadas por un error óptico de los expedicionarios, y descubrieron el Gran Cañón del Colorado.
Tres años más tarde, 1543, Juan Rodríguez Carrillo, exploró las costas de Oregon, y su piloto, Ferrelo, alcanzó el paralelo 44 ( estado de Washington).
En 1559 Tristán de Luna organizó una expedición a la Florida, y en 1560 Fray Francisco de Pareja estableció la primera iglesia del país donde más tarde se fundaría San Agustín, el 8 de setiembre de 1565, por el almirante Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, convirtiéndose por ello en la ciudad más antigua de la Unión.

EL PRIMER MATRIMONIO EN EE.UU., FUE ENTRE ESPAÑOLES
El 4 de julio de 1598 contrajeron matrimonio Vicente Solano y María Vicente. Este es el primer enlace que está registrado en los archivos nacionales de Estados Unidos.
En 1598, Juan de Oñate conquistó Nuevo México y fundó la segunda ciudad más antigua de la nación, San Gabriel de los Españoles, hoy Chamita, al norte de Santa Fe.
En ese mismo año, Sebastián Vizcaino viajó por el norte de California. En 1602 se llevó a cabo el primer proceso judicial en San Agustín. En 1605 Juan de Oñate fundó la ciudad de Santa Fe, que es la capital más antigua de un estado, y en 1706 se fundó la ciudad de Albuquerque.
En 1717 el padre Quirino terminó su labor pastoral en Arizona. En 1769 Fray Junípero Serra estableció San Diego de Alcalá, la primera de las 21 misiones que dejó fundadas en California hasta su muerte en 1784.
En 1775 Bruno de Heceta descubrió el río Columbus, que él llamó San Roque. En 1769 Gaspar de Portola descubrió la bahía de San Francisco, y en 1781 Felipe de Neve fundó la ciudad de Los Ángeles. Cinco años más tarde, 1786, se fundaba Santa Bárbara y otras cuatro misiones.
En 1792 Fidalgo y Alcalá Galiano y Valdés exploraron las costas de Columbia y Alaska. Entre 1817 y 1823 se fundaron la misión de San Gabriel Arcángel, en California, y la de San Francisco Solano, en Sonoma.

EL SÍMBOLO DEL DÓLAR, TAMBIÉN ESPAÑOL
En 1775, el Congreso Continental, a propuesta de Thomas Jefferson, rechazó la libra esterlina y adoptó el "dólar español", como la unidad monetaria legal básica. El signo del dólar ($) se tomó de las columnas del escudo imperial de armas español con el lema "Plus Ultra".
En 1777 España le ofreció al general francés La Fayette el uso del puerto de Pasajes, Guipúzcoa (País Vasco, al norte de España), así como la fragata Victoria, ya que Francia le había negado la autorización para unirse a las tropas de Washington.
España trató de interceder con Inglaterra bajo la condición de que le concediera la independencia a Estados Unidos. Inglaterra no aceptó la propuesta. En1779 España declaró la guerra a Inglaterra. El gobierno inglés le ofreció al español que si no intervenía en el conflicto con los rebeldes de su colonia norteamericana, le devolvería Gibraltar y la Florida, y le concedería derechos para pescar en New-foundland. España no aceptó la oferta.
El rey Carlos III concedió al gobierno independentista una ayuda de 5 millones de dólares, como primera contribución a la guerra separatista de Inglaterra.
En 1779, Bernardo Gálvez, gobernador de Louisiana, derrotó a los ingleses y tomó Baton Rouge y Saumure, y dos años después, 1781, ocupaba, por rendición, Mobile y Pensacola, haciendo prisioneros al almirante Chester y al general Campbell junto con 10,000 soldados, lo que debilitó substancialmente el empuje militar inglés contra las tropas de Washington.
En 1781 el gobernador de Cuba abrió, por orden de España, una subscripción en La Habana para ayudar a Washington, consiguiendo reunir de la sociedad cubana 1.5 millones de libras esterlinas, armas, uniformes, ropa y tropas que salieron en 12 barcos poco antes de la decisiva batalla de Yorktown que puso final a la guerra.
Después de Yorktown, Inglaterra trató de reorganizar sus fuerzas en las Bahamas, pero una escuadra española derrotó a la inglesa del almirante Maxwell y ocupó la isla.
Como punto final a la contribución de España al desarrollo de los Estados Unidos de América del Norte, se impone mencionar la enorme importancia y ventaja que tuvieron los emigrantes estadounidenses cuando en el siglo XIX encontraron durante su desplazamiento hacia el oeste, carreteras, pueblos y ciudades, guías, cosechas de granos, cultivos agrícolas de todo tipo, enormes cantidades de ganado vacuno, caballar, bovino, porcino y animales domésticos de todas clases, vinos, frutas, arroz, etc.
Y…la mayoría de las tribus indias estaban ya españolizadas y cristianizadas. Sin esta contribución el "Go West" del siglo XIX hubiera sido extremadamente dificultoso, lento, sangriento, y por lo tanto muy distinto del que fue para los nuevos colonos anglosajones, en su mayoría.
Luis Gómez y Amador/EFE Reportajes

 

 

Población hispana de EE.UU. roza los 40 millones en 2003
WWW.TERRA.COM


Estados Unidos tenía en julio de 2003 39,9 millones de hispanos, la principal minoría y el grupo de mayor crecimiento del país, que aumentó en un 13 por ciento desde abril de 2000, según informó la Oficina del Censo.
14/jun/2004.- En ese período de 39 meses, el número de latinos en este país se incrementó en 4.592 millones de personas, lo que significa una tasa de crecimiento cuatro veces superior a la media de la población de EEUU.
El Censo de 2000 situó la población hispana estadounidense en 35.305 millones, lo que significa que en los últimos tres años la población latina ha aumentado a un ritmo de algo más de 1,5 millones al año.
Durante el período de 39 meses investigado por esa institución el crecimiento demográfico en general de Estados Unidos fue de 3 por ciento, con lo que este país alcanzó una población total de 290,8 millones de personas.
Los datos del Censo indican que la amplia corriente de inmigrantes hispanos y asiáticos que cobró impulso en la década de los 90, siguió la misma tendencia al alza a principios de la actual década a pesar de la recesión económica y de los atentados del 11 de septiembre de 2001.
Otro factor del aumento demográfico entre esa minoría es el hecho de que los latinos de EEUU, que pueden ser de cualquier raza, tienen un alto índice de nacimientos en comparación con otros grupos de la población.
La Oficina del Censo asegura en su informe de hoy que los blancos no hispanos continúan siendo el mayor grupo de población, con 197,3 millones de personas, y un crecimiento del 0,9 por ciento en el período 2000-2003.
Las proyecciones del Censo difundidas en los primeros meses de 2004 muestran que la población blanca no hispana podría reducirse hasta quedar igualada al conjunto de las demás minorías para el año 2050.
Organizaciones que promueven el voto de los hispanos en las elecciones del 2 de noviembre próximo aseguraron que las revelaciones demográficas publicadas hoy confirman que los latinos están consolidando su fuerza política y económica en EEUU, y que en el futuro cercano tendrán un enorme poder de decisión.

Terra/EFE

Población hispana casi se triplicará en EE.UU. para el 2050
http://www.terra.com.pr/actualidad/articulo/html/act173195.htm

La población hispana casi se triplicará en el 2050 en Estados Unidos, lo que significa que uno de cada cuatro estadounidenses pertenecerá a esta etnia, según un informe de la Oficina de Censo.

18/Mar/2004.- La oficina del Censo de Estados Unidos estimó que la población total norteamericana aumentará en un 49 por ciento entre el 2000 y el 2050 para llegar a 419.9 millones. Esto significa 20 millones por encima de los cálculos anteriores realizados a principios del 2000.
Sin embargo, la población hispana, que puede ser de cualquier raza, aumentará en un 188 por ciento, y pasará de alrededor de 36 millones en la actualidad a 102.6 millones de personas en el 2050, debido a la inmigración y una tasa mayor de natalidad.
En tanto, los inmigrantes de origen asiático tendrán un crecimiento superior al de los hispanos, un 213 por ciento, pero la cantidad total en el 2050 será menor: 33.4 millones.
Dichos aumentos prometen cambiar la cara de Estados Unidos, ya que aunque la población tradicionalmente blanca -no de origen hispano- mantendrá su mayoría, será por un margen menor del 50,1 por ciento en el 2050, frente a un 70 por ciento actualmente.
El Censo también elevó su estimación de la cantidad de inmigrantes que ingresarán en Estados Unidos, tanto legal como ilegalmente.
Según estimaciones anteriores, Estados Unidos incorporaría 912.000 inmigrantes al año entre el 2000 y el 2025, y 984.000 entre el 2025 y el 2050. Los nuevos cálculos indican la inmigración neta en 996.000 y 1.097.000 para dichos períodos, respectivamente.
Estados Unidos ya vive un intenso debate sobre la asimilación de inmigrantes, tras el anuncio de una iniciativa del presidente George W. Bush para facilitar la obtención de una visa temporal para los trabajadores extranjeros.
Pero los expertos advierten que es difícil anticipar el impacto de la oleada de millones de nuevos inmigrantes hispanos, muchos de los cuales mantienen su idioma de origen y prefieren los canales de televisión en español.

OLA INMIGRATORIA DIFERENTE
Roberto Suro, del Centro Hispano Pew, dijo que "realmente no sabemos cómo se identificarán los descendientes de inmigrantes en tres o cuatro generaciones."
La identidad hispana "no es transmitida genéticamente," como la racial. Otros indicadores revelan que los hispanos sí se están integrando a la cultura estadounidense y citan el creciente uso del inglés como idioma preferido de los hispanos más jóvenes y la alta incidencia de matrimonios entre hispanos con otros sectores de la población.
Otros expertos creen que la actual ola migratoria hispana es diferente de cualquier otra por su tamaño y por el hecho de que los hispanos suelen concentrarse en algunas zonas geográficas, como los estados de California y Texas.
El gobierno estadounidense, por su parte, asegura que está haciendo esfuerzos para asimilar a los nuevos inmigrantes.
Un nuevo programa entrega materiales informativos a los inmigrantes legales cuando ingresan en el país y cuando se postulan para la ciudadanía norteamericana, informó Dan Kane, portavoz de la Oficina de Servicios de Inmigración, creada el año pasado para asistir a los inmigrantes.
La idea es entregar a las personas "las herramientas que necesitarán para entender los principios constitucionales estadounidenses, así como para desarrollar la lealtad hacia el Estado norteamericano y participar activamente en las instituciones cívicas locales," dijo Kane.

La nueva Ola
http://www.terra.com/redirect/google/actualidad.htm

Es cierto que la inmigración en este país no es nueva. Los hispanos aquí tienen raíces de más de 40 años y suman ya varias generaciones las que aprendieron a hablar en dos idiomas. Sin embargo, si volvemos atrás a las estadísticas, encontramos que el gran aumento de población hispana ya no proviene de los países tradicionalmente arraigados a los americanos, si no de América del Sur. Las crisis económicas, políticas y sociales de países como Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela y Argentina, han llevado a que un porcentaje alarmante de personas se agolpen en las embajadas norteamericanas de dichos países para solicitar una visa. El perfil de inmigrante ahora es distinto. En este caso son profesionales exitosos en sus respectivos países, que llevan una vida cómoda con ingresos muy favorables y una agitada vida social. Sin embargo, se ven en la necesidad de salir de su patria porque no encuentran garantías para establecer un hogar y plantearse un futuro. En el caso de Colombia, la violencia de la guerrilla y los paramilitares han impulsado a miles de colombianos a dejar su país. En los últimos tres años, entre 200.000 y 300.000 personas emigraron a Estados Unidos, la gran mayoría de ellos profesionales de clases medias y medias-altas. Según cifras oficiales del Censo, en los últimos diez años ha aumentado la población colombiana en este país en más de un 60%. De seguir propagándose el éxodo, la gente más preparada de los países latinoamericanos que están en crisis seguirá optando por Estados Unidos a la hora de plantearse un futuro profesional que les permita crear empresas, generar empleo y formar una familia. Una situación que a la comunidad de hispanos en este país beneficiaría, incluso para formar una fuerte y promisoria fuerza política, pero los países latinoamericanos serían despojados de sus mejores hijos. Lo cierto del caso es que para bien o mal, los hispanos están por todos lados en Estados Unidos. Y en estos momentos donde las cifras hablan por sí solas, se presenta una muy buena oportunidad no sólo para examinar la situación actual de la comunidad hispana, si no también para replantear su papel en el futuro de la nación. Un papel que a juzgar por los datos del Censo - en donde se afirma que el 35% de los hispanos tienen 18 años o menos y que la edad promedio de los latinos es de 25,9% contra un 35,3% en la población general-, será definitivo y determinante en el mañana de la primera potencia del mundo.

 

Mas informacion:
http://www.mequieroir.com/migracion/migracion_porque.phtml