-
- QUESTION
Lorrin Thomas argues that the high “visibility” of Puerto Ricans in New York during the 1940’s and 1950’s actually made “invisible” certain aspects of their reality. In what ways were they made more “visible”? How were the causes of their condition, such as the colonial relationship with the United States, or “deindustrialization”, made “invisible”? What did this have to with the voices that Thomas asserts were left out? Explain.
| Subject | History | Pages | 2 | Style | APA |
|---|
Answer
Visibilty of Puerto Ricans in New York during the 1940s and 1950s
According to Lorrin Thomas, the high visibility of Puerto Ricans within New York during the 1940s and 1950s essentially made invisible some aspects of their reality. This paper advances the argument that even though certain aspects of Puerto Ricans’ reality were made more visible by the issuance of citizenship and citizenship rights to them, the causes of their state such as the colonial association with the U.S. were made invisible by the absence of social and political recognition, thereby sidelining the minority. The realities of Puerto Ricans were made more visible in terms of being granted citizenship rights and citizenship within the United States. As such, they enjoyed the voting right, protections as provided by the Bill of Rights, and other privileges accorded to citizens. Therefore, by establishing a place within New York City’s social fabric, Puerto Ricans could build on their position as citizens by focusing on fellow members of the Puerto Rican community and leaders when it comes to accessing work, as well as other resources (Elkan 2). Such a privilege could enable them to establish their power or authority as a primary ethnic constituency within the city’s political life.
Even though Puerto Ricans witnessed the visibility of their citizenship and enjoyment of citizenship rights within the United States, certain aspects of their reality were invisible. For instance, the liberals’ denial of the colonial relationship of the United Sates with Puerto Rico resulted in the political invisibility of Puerto Ricans within the U.S being a phenomenon that arpproached a foregone conclusion by the culmination of World War II (p. 11). By repudiating the the real nature of the relationship of thw U.S. with the island, the liberals also refuted the burdens associated with political identity endured by its peple within the metropole (Thomas 11). As such, by the early years of 1940s, politicised Puerto Ricans could clearly perceive their own invisibility, and in battling against it, the establsihed a newly convoluted relationshio to liberalism, thereby continuing to depend on its discourse of belonging, rights, and inclusion (Thomas 11). In 1950s, the framing of the social and political goal of acknowledgment resulted from the failures of aspirations of Puerto Ricans for empowerment as citizens by the conclusion of World War II. The debate about citizenship rights and citizenship had drifted off the table during this period (1950s) (Thomas 11).The drifting of such talks off the table was partly attributed to the fact that the emancipatory promises associated with the World War II period were a wash for Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans (Thomas 11). Puerto Ricans within the U.S. had settled quite apparentely into the ovel social class of minority by the termination of the war. As such, Puerto Ricans were excluded from full involvment in the societal life. The victimization of Puerto Ricans was became more visible as a social issue bu the late years of 1940s, and this became a prominent academic study topic by the early years of 1950s (Thomas 11). In relation to this, some Puerto Ricans started to take occount of the manners in whch their extreme visibility generated a novel form of inconspicuousness for them within the American society. This form of invisibility reduced them to victims. Nonetheless, other Puerto Ricans remained optimistic about the inforporation of Puerto Ricans into the American society. As such, the voices that were left out engaged in political activism, as means of promoting civic and voting engagement among other assimilation tools (Thomas 11). Puerto Ricans’ aspirations were a broader acknowledgemnt as equals and valid social actors.
References
|
Elkan, Daniel Acosta. The Colonia Next Door: Puerto Ricans in the Harlem Community, 1917-1948. Diss. Bowling Green State University, 2017. Thomas, Lorrin. Puerto Rican Citizen: History and Political Identity in Twentieth-Century New York City. University of Chicago Press, 2010.
Appendix
|
|