The Welcoming and Betrayal of a Post Racial Society - Opposite or Same Gender Attraction & Racism...

I’ll start by making a somewhat satirical statement about race in our current society: I hereby classify this suggested post-racial society as “Color-blind”; that not one of us sees color, or at least we shouldn’t. WE are all human beings. I do not see a person for their race; therefore, I see them as a PERSON. Right…

This is accurate in that one may see another as a person. Of course. But something else is completely inaccurate in this statement and it is that one does not notice the race of another specific individual, or shouldn’t. In reality, a person is not seen, rather a person of COLOR is always acknowledged; whether you like to or not, this always happens.

The truth is that race is a vivid and explicit theme, you will see race because you cannot avoid it, again whether you like to or not. After race is registered into the mental faculties it is then processed and channeled through to realize and express specific emotions or feelings about ones race through a filtering of the discourses or messages that society has carefully installed into you to address other messages about a racial character. In other words, society will tell you what to think about ones race when you see someone who is of a non-white race—how to react to them, how to treat them, what to say to them…etc…

To be honest with you, it’s because white is normal. It’s okay. In fact, it’s so AWESOME that people all around the globe strive to be white—please note the sarcasm because that’s important. Parents all over the globe are overjoyed when their son or daughter has “advanced the race” by breeding with a white person, because their grand-babies receive those ‘AWESOMELY’ normal but highly prized attributes: blue or green eyes, blonde STRAIGHT—hair if you’re lucky—and that awesome white, but not pale skin. If not, well then you’re the Black sheep…literally.

You may think otherwise. It’s okay. For you, especially if you’re white, you’re thinking I—me the author—am dwelling on the past. I’m picking a fight or advancing a reverse racist cause with no real purpose, just to receive reaction and looking for an argument that has no merit because us ‘colored folk’ receive all the benefits of today anyway. Sometimes I wish you were right, but none of this is even close to true.

Firstly, the fact that you’re upset and want, no…NEED, to challenge this only indicates what I state, white is normalized and you can’t help but claim that such is not true because I’m being RACIST, and because there is no such thing as race…dang it, we are all humans and why don’t I just look at the world that way!

I can admit to carrying racist prejudices, that’s because we all do. I’m not being racist to you—if you’re white—because this one individual act does not account for a system-wide approach that pins an entire people down that are not white. This is called racism. There’s a bigger picture involved. You also probably think that race does not, should not exist, or be a factor in this conversation…but the fact that you’re upset implies the contrary.

You can’t help but challenge what I’m telling you, that whiteness is normalized, because all of a sudden you’re not normal anymore! You’re different…? (drag that out…and then pause)…

----

I’ll ask several of my white straight guy friends or white Lesbian friends, about a woman we see passing by or hanging out at certain spot. Why have I pointed her out? She’s attractive, and I’m inquiring about whether or not the person I’m with agrees--mind you, most of these people believe that we have superseded race in America or feel that they are not racist at all.

What does this have to do with anything I’m writing about? Everything…

So I inquire, and oftentimes to my personal shock—but mostly not really—they’ll totally disagree or act disgusted and say: “I’m not about Asian girls…Black girls…Hispanic girls...Poly girls…”

Really…?

Hold up. Do you see what just happened? Rewind.

There is no such thing as race right? And if there’s no such thing as race, we don’t necessarily judge because of race or we shouldn’t because that’s wrong? We don’t turn away or permit entry into our circle of love based on race? Particularly in relationships to each other?...Right?

So why would a non-white girl not be your “thing”? Why can't I just look at a woman for her beauty and simply be attracted to her regardless for her race? Better yet, because I believe in and acknowledge race, I notice that there is a contextually designed beauty to every female body of every race and I consider that in my account of what makes someone attractive. Therefore I find many different women from many different races to be beautiful, because they do not have to LOOK white or carry caucasian features to be considered attractive. They’re gorgeous in their own right. 

BY THE WAY...

Just to be clear, the same thing happens when you flip gender roles. The same occurs with the various interpretations of sexuality and who someone would be attracted to. It becomes complicated with gender and sexuality and really needs more discussion by itself, but I won't stress because I'm speaking to a particular experience; nevertheless, those issues do need attention as well...  

My friends who say these things are not outright racists. In fact, it’s hard to kind of find hardcore racists nowadays. There just average people leading average lives. Good folks actually. This doesn’t change their racism.

I have literally dated a girl from every race and ethnicity, and each one I have found beautiful according to my appreciation of beauty within a racialized context. I didn’t like a Black girl because she looked white, light-skinned or portrayed white facial bone structures. I liked her because she was Black; because there’s a lot more to Black besides the amount of melanin contained in your dermis (layers of skin), because there is something incredibly rich and fresh in Black skin, kinky hair or full lips. I won’t go into detail for each racial group because it’s unnecessary. I’ll leave your hopeful appreciation of diversity to the rest. By the way, this doesn’t mean that white isn’t beautiful, because it very much is—that’s been normalized—but so is everything else!

In the end, I married a beautiful Afro Latina who I would say looks Mulatta (mix between White and Black) but carries mostly Black African physical and cultural attributes. Yes I was attracted to her physically, but I was also attracted to the cultural aspect of who she was. I envied her strength as a Black woman; I saw power in the knowledge she could pass down to our children; I loved the way she danced to our Spanish and Yoruba songs, and most importantly, her body drove me nuts! But I love her! And of course I love her as a human being—I didn’t marry some quadruped creature—but I am willing to acknowledge her race as beautiful, because there is something very humane about it. Humanity is the assorted races that exist. It is replete with the color-tones and phenotypic features that we have all limited ourselves to in the name of a social categorization that lacks justification in our society and much less within our mind-frames.

Why am I writing this? Because by acknowledging and coming to terms with race, even whiteness—as a normalized discourse (societal message/condition)—we are stepping in the right direction. We aren’t hiding behind the elephant in the corner. The more vulnerable we are with racialized constructs, then the more honest we can be with each other. If you don’t think someone is attractive based on your racialized beauty scale, that’s okay. I don’t like it, and I think you’re limiting yourself in the most insane way, but it’s okay, as long as you can equally accept that race is real, that color matters, and that quite frankly, you might be racist because of your judgment. It’s okay. Again, you’ve been pretty much molded from birth about what to think about a specific kind of person and their racial group. Your job now, would be to unlearn these racist tendencies and adopt alternative ways of understanding race.

Open your eyes concerning beauty among the various racial and ethnic groups that exist, and do not dwell on something that’s been appropriated to be non-white and beautiful but is actually emulating White facial or racial features to be deemed as attractive. I’m talking about an actual racialized conception of beauty, something contextual yet applicable to all humanity. Understanding this actually places us in the route where an honest and authentic post-racial society can exist; where we don’t judge the potential for relationships and love based on ill-manifested racialized conditions.

However, I truthfully don’t believe that such a society, a post-racial one where we all get along happily regardless of what color or race we are/identify as, would actually be possible. Western society just isn’t manufactured that way. It never has been, nor will it ever be. There are too many powerful stakeholders that would do anything to make sure that such would never happen; even if the majority of the population were to be of color, or so mixed that you couldn’t even tell. A powerful and racist minority is still very possible, and in some ways that’s already present today. This message, if you even want to call it that, isn’t just for white people, it’s also for our communities of color in the effort that they shed colonial prejudices and begin to adopt a new lens to their own racial identities, their own beauty; because if you cannot begin with a positive manifestation of a self-beauty then nothing else survives unless it is what mainstream thought tells you, that white-only is beautiful.

So look at yourself. Look at others. Look at race, and look at races. Notice carefully. Never be deficit, especially to a group that is not your own, and watch and learn. Understand that race is real. That it will never go away; and at the same time, confront the fact that you might not like someone based upon their race, and that it is racist. Accept it. Own it. Then challenge it. Work around it. Open yourself up. Be vulnerable and let the world share itself with you. You’ll find that there is much you didn’t know, much you now know and much you will know. Always be safe and always appreciate, never hate…Peace      

(ii: In this piece I use the word You or We, sometimes I, a lot. I leave it up to the reader but when I write “You” I generally am referring to a white person or someone of color who identifies with whiteness. “We” being people of color or all of humanity, and “I” being me, the author.)

To Speak Spanish or Not…? An Argument between two Non-Native Speakers

When my parents came over, I wasn’t expecting for the following to ensue: my pops and wife to be arguing over what language ought to be spoken in OUR home, and taught to Luca, OUR son, nuestro hijo. At first the visit was typical. My mamita dropping off food and the abuelos getting to know their grandson. Typical.

But my dad said something in English to his grandson, and my wife responded jokingly, “en este casa, hablamos espanol! Jaja, Luca no entiende ingles [in this house we speak Spanish! Luca doesn’t understand English]. We [my mamita and I] laughed. My dad with a smile responded, “Yina, you know when Tino was 5 or 6 years old his teacher came to us and yelled at us because he didn’t speak any English. She said, ‘Mr. Diaz do you know where your boy is heading if he doesn’t learn English? Nowhere!’ I believe she was right. It would have been confusing for him. I didn’t want him growing up with an accent. I didn’t want him being discriminated. I didn’t want people hating him because of how he sounded. She was Puerto Rican too.” Mamita adds, “Peor que sea Latina tambien” [she just had to be Latina too]—my Mom was always opposed to and never followed our English-only household policy.   

Instantly, my wife and father go at it--when I say go at it, I mean the culturally relevant notion that WE as Caribbean Latinos associate the meaning of an argument, LOUD but not angry, and if angry not that Western kinda' angry. My father defends his nativist strategy for survival on behalf of his two-generations down posterity; my wife, responding with her own ESL experiences and unloading about 4 semesters worth of graduate work with English Language Learner research and study.  The point that struck me in their argument, with my mamita in the corner spurring on my wife and shouting a “Si” and “Mira,” backing my wife up, was when my wife said “And look at your son, a man who looks Latino but can’t speak like one. A man who wishes more than anything to communicate with his own people, but feels like he can’t!”

It stunned me…

There was a moment of silence before they further explored the many-nuanced subject of language acquisition and identity. She was so right that it hurt. It wasn’t intentional, of course. It was more out of love than accusation; more out of experiential warning than blame. It was the love of a parent and spouse that understood the past injustice of language and racism, nativism and education, and wanted her son equipped for these same struggles, not ill-prepared.

I supported my wife on this one. I had to. It isn’t just that traditional spousal agreement that we non-verbally consent to—to back up each other’s debates. But what she said hurt because it was true. Language for me had always been an issue. I never truly felt “Latino” because I never spoke like a “Latino,” I never spoke Spanish. When I was/am given the opportunity to speak I usually freeze up. I get nervous. My words leave or I stutter, and words repeat themselves in 3 to 7 cycles. As I talk, these same words feel like weights, each pronunciation like a 45 lb. steel-plate dampening the chords of my identity.

I’m somewhat good now, pretty good. What did it take? A lot of listening and shame-filled practice. It’s all good. It had to be that way. It used to make me so angry—still does—whenever Mormon missionaries at the Spanish congregations in Church I’d attend scoff when I would respond in English to them. They said, “Haha, hermano solamente hablamos espanol aqui.” “Screw you” I used to think. Screw all of you. Whiteboys that think they know my own language better than I do—but they did, and that’s the hard part—and comfortable, sometimes in jest when they err with  no critique: “Elder, esta bien” they would all say, comforting the Elder or Sister missionary that made a mistake, “aprender otro idioma es dificil.” When I make a mistake, in my own language critiqued by my own community, I am the welcomed recipient of perplexed looks and sympathetic but poetically disguised pats on the shoulder. No words.

 

But you have to understand the position my dad comes from. You see there’s a context to why he feels the Uncle Tom way he does. My mamita came to this country in her early 20’s. My dad came in the beginning of his high school years to Brooklyn, NY from La Ceiba, Honduras. In high school he was surrounded by young Black and Puerto Rican bodies that did not speak Spanish and that terrorized him because that was all he knew. His barrio slaughtered him. Roughed him up and created that tiny stick of terror that I now know as Dad. Homie, literally grew up in the school of Hardknocks and graduated. My mom once told me about a group of Italian dudes that chased him all the way home screaming racial slurs because they heard him talking on the phone as he walked back from work, I was at home and barely born. So I understood why he said these things, why he believed them. There was context and I can’t hide or ignore that. It’s often the reason why our people—and I use the term “OUR” loosely because I don’t believe in essentialized configurations—are wedged in colonial constructs that create a kind of lateral oppression. Get me right, I don’t agree with my dad—not at all—but I understand given his narrative, weighted around with context. We need to remember this.

In the end, my wife is right and so is my dad. It’s complicated right? How about this: My wife has a great understanding and foresight about where language and identity need to become addressed for the future, she sees a position for language and identity in social justice (in the home), and my Dad displays a context for what has occurred in the past and where we can start to deconstruct and decolonize, he represents the background of society along with its intersecting layers of oppression.

They both have much to contribute to the issue of language and identity, oppression and society. I don’t look at my dad’s experience as deficit, but as that of a young immigrant body seeking sense in a world that alienated him. As for my wife, what more can I say except that she is the voice of a future where families are no longer afraid to speak their native tongues in their own spaces and harness the sustainability of their racial and cultural legacies within their homes. Besides, she’s always right… J

Danza Azteca and Resistance? Rethinking challenges to dominance through dance.

Not too long ago, I wrote about dance as resistance and cultural exploitation in a Venceremos periodical in Salt Lake City. I wrote about the current danger of folkloric and cultural dancing as becoming entertainment and therefore assimilating into a commodity lacking context and intrinsic value. I’m writing today to reevaluate my stance—this is for me personally—and providing an alternative lens by which view to dance, resistance and appropriation.

There’s a group using Azteca dance as a form of exercise while granting what they believe to be a shared cultural experience. Activists and fellow Raza reacted in angst and frustration—do did I—at the purchase of a dearly cherished identity into fitness; why are people selling our traditions? Distorting the meaning of ancient belief into a conditioning physical program that promises you to shed 50 lbs. or less in the-faster-than-average speed of a week! Why are we giving our pearls to swine? Why? Then my question becomes, well why not...

I do not suggest that there is no risk of appropriation—particularly when the title of this article advocates for the replacement of Zumba for Danca Azteca—that might very well happen. But what I do see here is a chance to reintroduce an alternative-knowledge under an evolved framework. As we continue our entry into a new century with innovative strategies of community engagement, of adopting diverse but intersecting struggles, of activism and the neoliberal agenda that constantly molds itself to our activist response, we are left wondering whether or not our reactions are reproductive to the nature of oppression or if they are authentic methods of resistance.

I wrote the original article as a warning to dance groups that such efforts were oftentimes counter productive to what they were trying to achieve; that instead of spreading cultural wealth, they were entertainers similar to Rome and her games. I feel this was unfair of me.
The event that led to me making such accusatory statements was a cultural night in an LDS chapel sponsored by my Spanish-Speaking congregation. Families, children, and youth were dancing and I was disgusted by how they all seemed so focused on performing versus the context or narratives of such acts. Did they not know that these very dances were based in resistance? To resist, to keep and preserve identity? But I judged too harshly, because I’m sure they did know. They were aware. That night, was their moment to lay claim to a White space. Their defiance to Whiteness and class oppression, was their agency to dance how THEY wanted to dance, WHERE they wanted to dance, and whatsoever they chose to dance. That night, was their moment to shine, as a community, as one. That night they danced to pass their knowledge onto their children. They danced to say we are not foreigners for we are dancing our knowledges, our memories, right here on what “you” claim is your ground. We belong. That was their resistance, by solidifying their narrative in a space that is traditionally not theirs.

Then I think of the student groups at UVU and BYU, Cultural Envoy and Living Legends, and aren’t they just performing? Do half of them even know what they are dancing? Why they are dancing it? Is there context? Is there blood…and memory? The truth? Some might very well be lost in it; ignorant to what they are acting out and sold on the merits of their “performance” as “culturally rich.” But tell that to a young urban boy who grew up thinking that he was, as an identity, something so foreign to the conceptualization of the American body. Share that animosity to the boy who grew up with concrete and steel with nowhere to place roots because he felt he never had any.
He was just Brown. Brown as Brown can be. So where his friends. They never had a clue either. So when he saw those students dance in his chapel—which was a sold out car mall in a decaying barrio of Brooklyn, NY—he saw something that he felt was missing his whole life, he felt the hole filled. There was so much more to who he was than what the concrete and steel had hammered into him his whole life. He saw the raw appeal to ancestors; he never existed till that moment. It seemed alive to him. That moment, he planted roots, and his journey began to find out who exactly he was. Is that moment not the product of resistance? A personal revolution for a Brown body?

Umi Vaughan is a Afro Cuban artist that came to Salt Lake City recently to present on his recently published book: Rebel Dance, Renegade Stance. His work exposes how Afro Cubans use dance to maintain identity and preserve Blackness in an economy that can easily exploit their heritage for the tourist dollar--this argument is also historical in nature. He shares that there are many contradictions among these communities in terms of dance and resistance, but these are their contradictions and no one else’s. This is their struggle, something they must negotiate on their own without interruption of outside forces because that’s where true violence lies. Nevertheless, the outcome doesn’t change. Cuba is one of the few places where the Yoruba religion exists in an entirely unadulterated form. That is incredibly rare outside of Africa. They have managed to keep Africa within their island, among their people. This has been done through dance. In other words, dance is there resistance. Dance is Black.

I close by not voiding the article Veneceremos published, but by challenging it. Too often we become so immersed within our activist role that we often miss the small ways in which marginalized communities create their own alternatives to resistance. We forget that we too can become the oppressors to our communities. Cultural dance can very much reproduce and enhance the tokenization and oppression of communities of color, but it can also be a multifaceted and clandestine approach to resistance. So how is Danza Azteca resistance? I don’t know, but the response should be understood as complex and simultaneously impactful. It could very well become the next Zumba, and if so, what if a new narrative develops around fitness? Can our health not be cultural in its intuition? Can our people not become the new face to healthy bodies through a re-immersion of ancient dancing? Our Dancing!? Can this not be a new way, a more complex way to resist and learn again what was taken from us?

A Mormon Liberation Theology - Mis Raizes Sin Papeles (My people without papers)

My attendance at a Spanish-speaking Ward in Orem, UT coincided with the introduction of anti-immigration legislation in Arizona in the year 2010. At the same time, my involvement with the Dream Movement as an ally became a critical moment in my life as an activist and faithful member of the LDS faith. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, many of us viewed the potential of our own chapels as sites of local activism and resistance. Not only were these spaces filled with Latinos who often understood and empathized with the issue of justice for the undocumented community, but who could also be undocumented themselves. To say that we sought out Latinos in LDS Wards and Branches for recruitment and community support, is an understatement. We earnestly believed that our Mormon peers--whether they were of our own racial/ethnic grouping or not--would see eye-to-eye with our cause. After all, wouldn't the Savior want families to stay together and not be torn apart; and didn't we all believe in the access and support of education to all individuals residing within the walls of our nation? We believed we had a moral imperative that we could rally around. However, we were crushed when we found out that such wasn't the case.

Advocates among members of several congregations eventually joined. However, when it came to drawing that same support from the local leadership, we came up against a wall: "the house of The Lord does not host an opinion towards a political undertaking." Instead we were shunned--even from members of our own racial background. Turned down and seen as radical elements, we abandoned such efforts as the silence of what would happen to our paperless brothers and sisters went unabated in our Mormon spaces.

So we went a different direction. We looked to our cousins in the faith: the Catholic Diocese in Utah County. Instantly, we found a pipeline to working with the community. Not only had the Padre offered the chance for someone to make an announcement during Misa (Mass) but also had space made available in the lobby of the chapel where we could table and offer updates on immigration reform; alerting and recruiting, petition-signing and interacting. With our Mormon wards and branches, no such thing could be done. In some cases, many of us didn't even bother to ask--we became too afraid to do so.

Setting the tone, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of various members of our faith who pushed themselves unto the platform of immigration reform within our state and declared their faith as the holster by which they harnessed their immigrant activism. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we also felt that our faith added to our activism, that it provided the incentive and motivation to voice our sympathy, and simultaneously our anger, and declare that this was all very wrong. Something--someone--must act.

It wasn't just our racial or ethnic backgrounds that added to our compelling for action. It wasn't just the fact that many of us knew people or had family, or were even undocumented ourselves. It was our faith that stirred our hearts. It was our belief in the restored gospel, that a living Christ, would not condone what was occurring in political circles concerning immigration, nor would he have permitted a racist-nativism permeating among his followers.

What we could not understand, was the fact that in our own chapels, the realities of our members were being marginalized. That their voices were not given room. That their silence was normalized; and nothing was being done about it: treat the least of these my brethren…(Matthew 25)

A context is needed to understand what I have previously expressed. In the cultural affairs of the church, along with the institutional frame that has been constructed, the church does not interfere with politics, nor does it welcome a political discourse within its walls. This explains the silence of immigration in our chapels as well as in our congregations. This also explains why activism with respect to immigrant rights or the Dream movement are not welcomed either. This is so because Mormonism is not viewed as an active player in the cause of social justice, but merely as a silent partner delivering salvation as well as humanitarian supplies all over the world. The gospel is not there for social movements, it is there to provide salvation for humanity: Man shall not live by bread alone...

Yet it is in this respect, that we as a culture--as a way of thinking--institutionally as well as individually, have been misinformed. It is not the cementing of our complacency and indifference in politics where we strengthen our testimony; action is our faith, political action towards social justice, is Christlike. What we need is a redefinition, a reevaluation, of what it means to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, particularly as we view undocumented brothers and sisters. What we need, is a mainstream re-interpretation of the gospel to be approached as a Liberation Theology. In the context of Raza members and oppressed nationalities, a racialized and migrant Liberation Theology.

Book of Mormon as Liberation Theology

Liberation Theology as understood and acted on by Latin American priests and bishops, stood in the context of civil rights violations backed by U.S. interests as well as the economic devastation wreaked upon by Western exploitation. Gustavo Gutierrez, the Padre who first coined the term Liberation Theology, refers to such a movement as a "Theology which does not stop with reflecting on the world, but rather tries to be part of the process through which the world is transformed" (p. 12, Guitierrez, 1971).

As a result, thinking in the frame of Liberation Theology does not function as a distinction between political, spiritual and religious. Instead, it sees parallels and intersections, connections and relations; such elements are intertwined: “Human reason has become political reason. For the contemporary historical consciousness, things political are not only those which one attends to during the free time afforded by one’s private life...everything has a political color..." (p. 30-31, Guttierez, 1971).

Intrinsically the saviour's heart and hands were clean, such suffices for a symbolic resonance; but the saviour's hands were far from clean in the work of his salvation. They were doused in the realities of the world. In his heart, weighed the realness of suffering and poverty; and with his hands, he dug into the world's raw appeal to save mankind. He did not elevate man to his eternal realm so that they could be clothed in glory to never comprehend that opposition in all things would be one of the more critical of eternal principles. He came down, and condescended to our nature; took on our lens; felt our pain.   

So there existed no neutral condition to the Savior's willingness to care for humanity; nor is there an objective judgement from a religious institution on societal issues. Dennis Potter, an associate professor with Utah Valley University understood the Book of Mormon as a literary source of Liberation Theology. Potter's argument offers an analysis based on a socio-political reading of the Book of Mormon that suggests the Mormon canon as a warning to the rich and wealthy of their hypocritical natures. Potter also discusses some of the counters against a socio-political reading of the Book of Mormon and demonstrates that reading such a text as politically neutral is a serious error, because individual moral choices impact our societies, which in turn governs the politics of any given situation:   

“There is another objection to a socio-political reading of the Book of Mormon. One may argue that a religion, and religious organization, must be politically neutral. Religion, on this view, has only to do with personal salvation and morality. Religious organizations should encourage its members to be politically active but should not take stances on issues that don’t directly affect individual morality. However, when a political decision begins to affect an issue of “personal morality,” then the organization may take a stand. This happened in the case of the Knight Amendment in California.

The view that the political can be separated from issues of personal morality is flawed. Politics deals with the way we should organize ourselves in our community. We cannot completely separate individual action from societal implications. What we do affects our community. But then, anything that would have implications for individual morality would also have implications for social morality, and this involves political decisions about how to organize society…A church that fails to denounce slavery or the holocaust tacitly enables it. There is no space to be neutral about grave societal injustices” (Potter, Liberation Theology in the Book of Mormon)

Elder Christofferson's talk in the April 2013 Conference, titled Redemption, referenced the critical need for modern Latter Day Saints to not forget that the redemptive work we've taken on isn't merely about salvation, but one of justice and love; one that acts against the suffering of others. This path, Elder Christofferson mentions, is one of a temporal nature, it is subjective to reality and is not an objective connotation: "The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Mathew 20:28). In this example, Elder Christofferson demands that we gear our efforts to do good as an action, not as simple rhetoric:

"This kind of redemptive work means helping people with their problems. It means befriending the poor and the weak, alleviating suffering, righting wrongs, defending truth, strengthening the rising generation, and achieving security and happiness at home. Much of our redemptive work on earth is to help others grow and achieve their just hopes and aspirations" (Conference 2013, Christofferson)

Doing good, is far from a neutral stance of doing nothing. Even more potent than his reflection of the Savior's acts is his mentioning of Victor Hugo's novel Les Misérables and the fictional but powerful action of Bishop Bienvenu's charity to Jean Valjean--a criminal and protagonist. Aside from the fact that the novel takes place in France's revolutionary stage, to which Elder Christofferson said is a narrative that "has always touched and inspired" him (April Conference 2013), we learn from the Apostle's words that the savior and traditional culture of all Mormons never was founded on objective realities; that there is a moral imperative to every action we perform as Latter Day Saints.

Mormon individuals frequently summon this moral effect. They do so whenever someone is need in their local wards, the institution gathers resources to help countries who've been affected by natural disasters, and has even had something to say about Gay Marriage in the United States--I prefer not to engage this topic because it adds another layer of complexity and deserves a whole dialogue unto itself.

This very issue is one where we see the dialectical hand in the politics of the institution of religion in the Latter Day Saint Church. As Mormon individuals, we are encouraged to participate in our local and national politics but to take a stand and introduce that within spiritual spaces is neither appropriate nor relevant (Cook, Oct 2013). Yet when the issue endangers personal morality, it receives a free pass within church discourses--formally and informally.

Potter notes the continuing debate of gay marriage and Mormon opinion; this reveals reveals the political nature of the church and its membership. To go on as politically neutral is an ill-conceived logic. Political and individual morality, is not a disconnected issue. Individual moral choices are influenced by religion which in turn affects communities, communities are organized by politics; therefore, individual morality founded by religious philosophies pertains to societal thought and action which is managed by politics. The two are interwoven.

Potter then introduces the dilemma of which moral side may be justified in the chapels of Mormon congregations. While this a perfectly good question and a matter that deserves attention, I admit to its complexity--Potter provides a credible argument of leaning towards the Left in these matters. Nevertheless, the question I pose asks something very specific in terms of morality. What is it about undocumented students not having an equal opportunity to education, or the separation and deportation of their families, that is not enough of a moral issue to discuss openly?

A Raza Mormon Liberation Theology, A Migrant One...

The arrival of the undocumented as a moral plight to be sympathized with by Mormon individuals and the LDS Church, is still one in progress. Church members hold conflicted views since the 12th Article of Faith proclaims: 12) We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law (Pearl of Great Price, Articles of Faith). The legality of undocumented immigrants then becomes the crux of the question. Which moral issue holds more weight?

The moral conundrum, however, is easily dismissed when we acknowledge the words spoken by Latter day apostles at the October 2013 General Conference: "Our twelfth article of faith states our belief in being subject to civil authority and 'in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.' But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior" (Oaks, Oct. 2013); "Remember: sin, even if legalized by man, is still sin in the eyes of God!" (Nelson, Oct. 2013). Deportations and separating families, though legalized by man, are still sin in the eyes of God!

Our leaders have firmly stated that the law does not live above the morals upheld by the gospel. So what's the issue? The issue of morality becomes complex when it is acknowledged that the United States had a hand in pushing millions of migrants north in seeking refuge from the turmoil occurring in their home countries; this is the unethical and tragic responsibility of millions migrating to borders through political intervention and imperialism--the CIA had its hands in hundreds of assassinations of Latin American political leaders, along with the training of death squads for the slaughter of the Latin American subaltern (Harvest of Empire, 2012). The Frontera shuts down dependent on the politics of what occurs North of the border, and South. Who moves between the two are also factors of accountability stemming from U.S. interests; so if U.S. politics and imperialism are the heirs of this movement, of migrants risking their lives to cross various national borders to escape the oppression that we as a nation have produced, do we not have a moral obligation to address the issue we are indirectly or directly generating?

Undocumented immigrants are in the United States through an ill-conceived unjustly constructed racist-nativist piece of immigration legislation that does not take into account the imperialism and oppression created by the United States. I ask again, brothers and sisters, hermanos y hermanas,...is there no moral cause to address the unjust nature of the deportation and separation of families? Is there no moral foundation to allow young Latino youth to become involved politically to defend their paperless brothers and sisters, their families? Is there no moral cause to permit our chapels as sites of resistance and action; as spaces of dialogue, counseling and immigration policy updates? Is there no moral cause to say something?

I argue for a space and place--the two are quite different, one being security of location and the other being the conditions that operate culturally in that location--where the issue of undocumented immigration may be tackled on by our Spanish-Speaking Mormon congregations. For bishops to provide updates on reform and to publicly advocate, on the pulpit, for our community to become engaged and act...to do something! We begin by reframing a public discourse of Mormon and take on a liberation theological stance of the faith, a more honest, and what I feel is a more accurate tone of our spirituality. What I argue for is no different than what other religious institutions have come to advocate for and support; a voice for God's people--does it matter that it's a Brown one? An undocumented one?