Latino rally sends mixed messages

Oct. 12, 1996 marked another day in Latino civil rights history. An estimated 20,000 to 30,000 Latinos marched and rallied in Washington, D.C. to assert their demands for equality in the United States.

The march began in a minority neighborhood and traveled 2 1/2 miles north to Ellipse Park near the White House.

The purpose of the rally was for Latinos and organizers to set forth seven specific demands before Congress. Those demands are:

• human and constitutional rights for everyone
• affirmative action continuance and equal opportunities for everyone
• police review boards by citizens
• free public education for everyone
• public health services expansion
• labor law reform to include a minimum wage hike to $7 per hour
• a streamlined citizenship program plus amnesty extension to those immigrants who entered the United State illegally before 1992

The Los Angeles Times reported that event organizers said these demands "must be adopted by Congress to ensure full Latino participation in this country."

The idea for the Washington march was conceived in 1994 amidst the controversy surrounding Proposition 187.

Watching news coverage of the event in Washington was reminiscent of the Los Angeles scenes in 1994 in which many Latinos gathered together to demonstrate their opposition to Prop. 187.

While the Washington march was markedly more peaceful than some of the 1994 events, there was one distinct similarity: people were proudly waving flags of their native country.

Surely, they are proud of their heritage. There is nothing wrong with that. But was this flag waving a display of native pride or an act of defiance?

According to the Los Angeles Times, "some Latino critics of the Los Angeles march said Mexican flags flown during the demonstrations played into the hands of supporters of Prop. 187 by creating the image that marchers' allegiance was to their nation of heritage rather than to the United States."

Indeed, comments in the surrounding community have not only echoed that sentiment but have proved it as well -- not only by the people who supported Prop. 187, but by those who also opposed it.

Immigrants arrive in this country to seek a better way of life. In a perfect situation, they learn the language, work and pay taxes, get their citizenship and register to vote.

As a citizen of the United States that is an inherent right among many others. Free speech is also a right. No one should deny a person the right to celebrate his/her cultural heritage.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America . . .

They do, however, swear their allegiance to this country as a citizen. So, as a citizen of the United States, a person should be waving a flag. The American flag.

The United States is a giant melting pot. That's what makes this country special. By waving a flag of another country, however, a "citizen" is compromising his/her integrity.

. . . and to the republic for which it stands . . .

So then, where does the loyalty lie when they march in our nation's capital bearing the flag of another country? If cultural pride is the purpose of the demonstration, it should be saved for the appropriate holiday(s).

. . . one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Unless, however, it is to defy the very nation they have chosen to adopt as their own.

A nation whose principles one has chosen to embrace. A nation offering the American dream. Then giving proponents of radical immigration reform more ammunition is not the answer.

If equality is what one seeks, then start by equally embracing this country . . . and its flag.

Gisele Durham is a Special Reporter to the Daily Forty- Niner.