Michael Jones-Correa: Between Two Nations

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Discussion section
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

The book Between Two Nations by Michael Jones-Correa describes political experiences of Mexican-Americans immigrated to the USA and to the New York City in particular. The author considers the life chances of generations of Mexican-Americans, who remain after a near-century of legal freedom the most obvious and, in view of the very considerable number of Mexican-Americans political refugees in the United States today, the most serious contemporary illustration of the problem, we find that this conclusion is more than amply sustained. The book consists of 5 parts describing political and social experiences of Latinos.

Discussion section

The first part of the book Setting the Context describes the problem of citizenship and participation in politics by Mexican Americans. For Latinos who flee to a Northern city may find, in the first instance, that he has simply transferred his problem to his new environment. Chicago, New York, and like cities are indeed havens of refuge in comparison to numerous Southern communities, but they are not devoid of their own iniquities; and Mexican-Americans who escape to them may find himself subjected to political and private acts of discrimination that, while infinitely more tolerable than the discriminatory acts he had previously experienced, are not altogether compatible with the larger principle of equality to which a democratic state is necessarily committed. It is altogether probable, in fact, that a sudden influx of Latinos into already congested areas may reproduce in the new environment attitudes of hostility and practices of discrimination no less oppressive than those which they experienced in the South. The difficulties attendant on individual or group withdrawal are no less serious when applied to that extreme form of concerted withdrawal that the author calls secession. It is true that in a given situation a particular group may, by separating itself from an established state, escape what it conceives to be the oppressive measures of the latter and achieve a greater degree of freedom (Jones-Correa 35).

The second part, the Costs of Choosing evaluates the role of political resistance and rejection of Latinos by the American state. Under modern conditions, in fact, it is (in America at least) well-nigh inconceivable. The seceding state, after all, would at best escape the oppressive acts of the larger state; it would not correct or mitigate that oppression. Moreover, in the specific situation in which we now find ourselves, it is only the Southern states that might contemplate such an act of secession. Were they successful, they would escape not oppression but checks on their own oppressive acts; and this would render the argument for secession absurd. he expose himself to physical violence and even death. Or, because he believes that there is no possibility of checking a particular form of oppression, he yields it an outward or seeming obedience, but subjectively he retains his serenity, he achieves an inner peace of mind. Using qualitative methodology and analysis of the theoretical literature on the topic, the author distinguishes the objective and subjective life-elements; he separates his personality from his work, or from the tyrannical situation in which he finds himself. He is thus able to subordinate himself without suffering internally depressing and degrading consequences (Jones-Correa 70).

The third part, Liminal Politics, is logically positioned in the book and is devoted to the problem of identity formation and cultural heritage. Using facts and data resources, the author portrays that the desired results are achieved to the extent that the individual can in fact remain indifferent to a particular abuse of power or system of oppression, the consequences of selective withdrawal are substantially the same as those we have noted with respect to total individual withdrawal and to mass migration. Since, apart from the most extreme forms of totalitarianism, what is demanded is not ones agreement but his acquiescence, an abstention from or outward surrender to a system or particular act of abusive power is normally sufficient to leave that power undisturbed. The individual may feel unaffected, but so does the power that oppresses him. His action (or inaction), therefore, does not weaken or endanger the oppressive government; on the contrary, it but helps to maintain it. This being so, selective withdrawal does not solve the problem of oppressive rule, any more than does individual or group withdrawal. They all leave unaffected the abusive aspects of existing powers; hence, whatever the success of the person or persons re- sorting to them, they do not touch the heart of the political power system. They neglect or negate rather than reinforce the principles of democracy as they are expected to function in the real world (Jones-Correa 111).

The forth part, Breaking the Impasse, discusses a possibility of dual citizenship and active participation of Latinos in the American politics. The author states that a member of a minority group who is denied access to a college, medical school, or private place of employment can seek and perhaps find it elsewhere; and it is entirely possible that the private power involved may discover that, as a result of its discriminatory practices, it suffers moreboth economically and in its moral and intellectual reputationthan it gains. This, it would seem, is at least part of the reason for the very marked gains that members of minority groups have achieved in the educational and business worlds in recent years. However, the individual or group who seeks to mitigate such an abuse of power cannot hope to do so if his reaction is solely to withdraw from that situation and to apply elsewhere; for discriminatory practices by such business and educational institutions are frequently perpetuated by other clients who support the discrimination. It seems hardly necessary to add that the advances I referred to above are the result not of withdrawal but of concerted action against such discriminatory conduct. because the state is an all-inclusive organization, the individual cannot escape from its controls except by migrating from the country. Private powers, however, are partial powers, and for this reason the individual can more easily escape from them. But the extent to which such withdrawal can affect these private powers obviously depends on whether or not they are competing powers or real alternative powers or whether, on the other hand, they are in some way interlocked.

The conclusion sums up the main idea and creates a new identity for Latinos, called the New Americans. Where they are interlocked, the opportunities of escape dwindleas is evidenced, for example, by the fact that the inclusion of a mans name on a particular. blacklist may effectively exclude him from employment in that industry, or by the fact that a physicist fired from the government or from a university as a security risk is not likely to find employment in private industry. Thus, while the general principle remains a valid one, its particular relevance depends always on the specific set of circumstances.

In general, the book is based on substantial data analysis and theoretical resources which help the author to investigate the problem of withdrawal and inequality in politics. This is all the more true when we recognize that democracy is a principle of government that looks primarily to a method or process through which conflicts in moral and political ideas can be negotiated. It establishes a procedure for the tentative resolution of disagreements; it does not formulate an answer to such disagreements. Consequently, the appeal to democracy is an appeal not to a fixed and final solution but to a method through which a solutionadmittedly tentative and experimental in naturecan be obtained. It is true that majorities do not always decide wisely, and that the right method can therefore be said at times to produce a wrong result. But so long as the integrity of the method is respected, that result remains subject to continuing inquiry, to criticism, and to the possibility of change. But if the majority which takes this action is an overwhelming one, so that the outlawed political party (say the Communists) or the excluded minority group (say the Latinos has no effective alternative open to it and must therefore submit, the majority can delude itself (as it all too commonly has) into believing that through democratic procedures it is preserving democratic ends. To the extent that the appeal to democracy is an appeal to procedures without regard to the values implicit in themvalues which they are clearly designed to promoteit provides no necessary bulwark against the abuses of democratic power. The fact that a real or professed faith in democracy per se is insufficient to prevent departures from the democratic principle has led some theorists to seek the remedy in the inculcation of a more universal and binding principle. From this standpoint, abuses of power can only be controlled by mans submission to divine truth, to Gods will. From this standpoint, it is the tragic failure of secular democraciesand the explanation of their oppressive actsthat they have reversed this elementary principle and have confounded Gods will with mans will. They have forgotten that the will of God is a rational will, and that it is, consequently, not what men will but what they rationally will that can alone claim legitimacy. For this reason, men who speak of freedom, who affirm (as theological adherents of democracy affirm) that democratic forms and institutions find their essential and ultimate meaning in the preservation and enlargement of human freedom, must understand that what is here meant by freedom is not Hobbess absence of restraints. This, in their view, is but the vain and empty freedom to do what one wants, even if what one wants to do is wrong (Jones-Correa 193).

Conclusion

The author states that for these and other reasons, the consequences of withdrawal from the abuses of private powers may be essentially the same as those of withdrawal from the abuses of governments; for he who escapes (or who seeks to escape) through withdrawal does so only at the cost of leaving those powers undisturbed. He does not assail them; nor does his departure necessarily weaken them. On the contrary: so far as those private powers are concerned, his act of withdrawal may constitute a welcome gesture of compliance or, what is hardly of import, a futile gesture of defiance. Consequently, political action that expresses simply the will of the people or of the legislators rather than of reasoned deliberation and right judgmenti.e., judgment according to the revealed dictates of willis not truly law; and a democracy which gives priority to the former rather than to the latter is to that degree corrupted and debased. Now it is incontestable that men who are genuinely committed to such an absolute morality will not knowingly do what it enjoins as evil and avoid what it specifies as good, and if this were the purport of the natural law teaching no one would say it nay. But to leave the doctrine in such general terms is not, surely, to carry us very far; for then, even more than the appeal to democracy, it provides no specific solutions to concrete problems. This is not to imply that a democratic leader ought never to attempt to mold or to change public opinion, that he ought never to be more than an effective recording device for the popular will.

Works Cited

Jones-Correa, Michael. Between Two Nations. Cornell University Press, 1998.

Click Here To Order Now!

Michael Jones-Correa: Between Two Nations

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)