Nationalists seem to thrive on comparison, championing, and disenfranchisement. The whole psychology of the American policy appears to be using some idealized Christian morality to disguise a contradictory attitude towards other nation's resources and their peoples. The interesting aspect of morality is the convenience that American corporations have designed into rules, governing, and terms by which they are asked to behave. The idealistic or romantic idea of America is the hard working, early bird, enduring hardship through their faithful work ethic, getting beat down by bureaucracies, and coming out on top. They tend to leave out the more typical foot in the door, good ole boy, scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, pay to play, big fish eat little fish, resulting in near monopolistic and oligarchical markets. The later is never considered a misbehavior. Its often labeled good business, the nature of the beast. This is what privilege might look like. And America might be some blend of the ideal and the real.
Where it gets complicated for me is the introduction of policies that seem to accentuate the ethnocentric beliefs. What seems unfair on my part is the categorization of America's founders and their descendants into an Anglo category. At some point in history Europeans were griping and slicing the abuse of comforts and preferences of a privileged class. The early European-American migrant tribes were not homogeneous but segregated by traditions, even divided by their preferred understanding of Jesus Christ. What united them was not their morality but their cooperation and communal harmony. This same social interdependence served to protect their foreign lifestyle. They were foreign, vulnerably leaning into indigenous and other foreigners, migrating to be liberated, before their descendants grew to be possessive and colonial.
I now understand how this scenario is playing out in my life. I am the hypocritical, possibly better labeled perplexing, American, the colonized colonizer, and more proximal the assimilating.
The statements that come from this man, inspire me to accept how other people who share his mindset likely see me, despite not being illegal, Mexican, or from a foreign country. I am New Mexican and I inherit aspects of a few different mindsets, traditions, and culture. I look brown, rarely Anglo, and surely at times suspect. Yet I am from a culture that he likely categorizes as Mexican or at least doesn't have the interest in exploring the nuances, compounded by the prejudicial rhetoric. This feels like an injustice. I can finally resolve that it hurts to the point of sadness.
I am not a foreigner in my region, the people who resemble me are often seen as misbehaving, and a large enough portion of Anglo Americans aren't interested in who or how we are unique. I'm visiting these perceptions of me and mi barrios. I wonder how often enough Anglo take the time to understand the subtle differences between their own heritages, foreign qualities, and misbehavior. I am curious about how much the American perplexity for being nationally secure is a way to protect their privilege and ability to live by their own value systems, faith, and mindsets. How much of the desire for security is actually hiding prejudice? How this man speaks about people who are not from his traditions helps me to practice the patience that my traditions require of me.
I remember how passionate and reactive I used to be around racial discussions. I no longer recognize these topics as racial but as prejudicial, preferential, or tribal. I see my Anglo brethren as evolving through their legacies and human experiences. I still believe that many people still respond and function with the concept of race being differentiating and hierarchical. I celebrate that I no longer feel motivated by this foolish facade. So as I start to see other traditions begin or continue to misbehave, I am called to galvanize and calibrate my own wisdom about how to be well behaved in my traditions.
