Another Reaction to the N.M. Hotel Manager Post

A few weeks ago, the original post was made and I have a feeling that after it goes off the front page, many will not read it as has been the case with other posts I have commented on. Thusly, I place my comment here as a post not only so it will be read more, but also since it is quite lengthy. I encourage you first to read the original post and comments after which you may read mine if still interested. The following is my post:

Sadly, I cannot refrain from discussing the inaccuracy and anguish I feel from your defending these so-called “economically sound” and “good business” practices, which are overtly discriminatory. Sorry, but many of my comments come in response to Natalia’s most recent post in defense of the business world. First, I support the business world, but I don’t support exploitation of individuals and the “economically sound” practices some businesses engage in which merely profit off of less politically and economically privileged groups.

Corrections to your post:

First, kimonos are Japanese not Chinese. And, it is astounding that you would assert that of the 1.3 billion people living in China, not one would be able to pronounce an Anglo name. I personally know people living in China that have a greater understanding of and ability in the English language than yourself. And yes they can pronounce my Anglo name, without difficulty.

Second, America (the U.S.) is a nation founded on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not English. The U.S. has no official language because it has left it up to states to decide what the official language of each state is. Moreover, New Mexico as a state has declared that both Spanish and English are official languages, which means that all government documents are now produced in both languages. What does having an Anglocized name have to do with being understood when speaking English? Just because your name is not Anglo, does not mean that people won’t understand what you say.

Third, it’s not just a problem because it is the majority (in your words “white crowd”) oppressing the minority. It is a problem because it is overt racism and discrimination. That it is destructive to individuals and the community, regardless of their race or ethnicity. It is wrong because it puts profit before people.

Fourth, why do you assume that Spanish-speaking individuals that Whitten works with are “Mexicans”?

Fifth, maybe it is a difficult request for some of his employees to speak English in front of him? Why doesn’t find out their level of comfort with the language rather than assume that when his employees are speaking Spanish around him that they are speaking about him? We go to work for our living and why should we not worry about ourselves when the economy is so poor, especially when this hotel has had 4-5 managers in the last year and the employees don’t know how stable a job this is?

Sixth, your supervisor at the MTC, why does she need to know what her employees are talking about while they are working unless it is a group think or something. Shouldn’t she be able to watch them and know if they are working? You can look and see if people are working or not. You don’t usually have to talk with them to know if they are slacking off. If they are completing their jobs, why should you care what they are talking about?

I agree that he was probably doing what had worked in the past, but just because something worked in the past doesn’t make it right. Just because the FHA made “economically sound” decisions does not make them right. Companies have social responsibilities to the communities they serve. That is good business. Investing in people and communities, that is good business. Being culturally sensitive and respectful to employees, that is good business. Making profits, yes it is good business, but not at the expense of relationships and to the detriment of individuals and communities. I disagree with you that the FHA redlining and racial discrimination that lead to increased “white flight” was economically sound. For whom was it economically sound? For whites who paid higher prices to live in the suburbs, for African Americans who were forced to pay higher prices so that real estate agents could make larger profits from encouraging whites to leave for less and then charging higher rates to African American families that moved in; for the FHA which has had multiple suits against it for the discriminatory practices that it not only supported but mandated be used by loan agencies that they worked with to protect the racial and socioeconomic homogeneity of the neighborhoods for which they made loans. I disagree that the FHA loan movement was economically sound. It has left in its wake, a racially biased system for home-ownership and loans. Just because something may improve the bottom line does not mean it is right, especially when it destroys a people, a culture, a person or a community. I could give examples, but I will merely suggest that we all think of one that might have started the second world war.