Illiterate Peasants…
So I was browsing blogs and came across a blog by some angry white guy which I don’t feel like looking up the link to (and really don’t want to link to anyway). He posted a link and entry to an AP story about a CO legislator who said something rather distasteful:
State Rep. Douglas Bruce, who has a history of provoking controversy, made the comment during debate on a bill that would allow the state to help immigrant workers get temporary federal visas. The measure is intended to ease a shortage of farm workers in the state.
“I would like to have the opportunity to state at the microphone why I don’t think we need 5,000 more illiterate peasants in Colorado,” Bruce said.
His outburst drew an audible gasp from the House.
(more below)
“How dare you,” said state Rep. Kathleen Curry, a Democrat who was serving as chairwoman during the debate. She told the Republican lawmaker he was no longer recognized to speak.
House Minority Leader Mike May, head of the GOP caucus, said legislative leaders were trying to determine what action to take against Bruce.
Rep. Terrance Carroll, a Democrat, said the remark could result in a formal ethics complaint that would require a hearing and possible suspension, censure or expulsion.
Well, here at SansPretense, we’re interested in dropping the niceties and looking at the facts. Before we slam Bruce, let’s see what “illiterate peasants” actually means according to Merriam-Webster:
- Illiterate : 1: having little or no education; especially : unable to read or write <an illiterate population>2 a: showing or marked by a lack of familiarity with language and literature <an illiterate magazine> b: violating approved patterns of speaking or writing3: showing or marked by a lack of acquaintance with the fundamentals of a particular field of knowledge <musically illiterate>
- Peasant: 1: a member of a European class of persons tilling the soil as small landowners or as laborers; also : a member of a similar class elsewhere2: a usually uneducated person of low social status
- According to this report by the National Center for Education Statistics, which breaks literacy rates into three categories - prose, document, and quantitative literacy - in 2003, adults with “less than basic” literacy skills in the hispanic population increased since 1992, whereas it decreased in other races. Now, I’m just guessing that this has to do with the rise of illegal immigration in the same time period, but I could be wrong. Within the hispanic population the percentage of adults with below basic literacy skills in each category are: 44% prose, 36% document, and 50% quantitative. I’m not comparing with the rest of the US population because it’s quite depressing, frankly, that we have such rates in this country (among ALL races, including whites). The important thing is that hispanics are the only group that I saw with increases in these rates. Now I cannot find statistics from a “reputable” source on the literacy rates among hispanic immigrants, but I found one blog claiming it is 2.5 times that of American citizens. It is also not clear how many hispanics included in these statistics are legal vs. illegal.
I don’t know what the literacy rate in Mexico is, but I’ve seen a couple commentors on news site claim it’s around 95%. It is reasonable to assume that the number is higher out of the poorer Mexicans coming to the US. I find it hard to believe that a majority of the immigrants coming to the US are strictly illiterate (not able to read or write in one’s native language). I do find it likely that a majority are functionally illiterate in English (I can’t find the statistics). Since this bill was designed to bring in farm workers, the peasant description is technically accurate. So what Bruce said is technically, I believe, true, depending on the literacy requirements contained within the bill.
So people are getting pissed off about Bruce saying something politically incorrect but seemingly, technically, the truth. It’s the connotations of the words “illiterate” and “peasant” that presents the biggest problems. Words have technical definitions, but the connotations of the words given to them by society carries as much weight as the techinical definitions. Sometimes these connotations are unjustified, and sometimes they are justified. The connotations around illiterate are unjustified. If you are illiterate, then you can’t read and I can say anything I want about you then why get offended when someone calls you that? It’s like the word ignorant. If you are ignorant, admit your ignorance and learn from it. If you are illiterate or ignorant, don’t get pissed off when someone calls you out for it, and if you’re NOT illiterate or ignorant, don’t get pissed off when someone else is being called out for it. This goes for functional illiteracy as well. If you get mad at this, then you’re the dumbass, not Bruce.
However, the word peasant carries an offensive connotation in my mind. To me, it peasants are not only poor farm workers, they’re pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things, having no net worth whatsoever. But that could just be me.
Hell, now that I think about it, I really can’t find anything actually offensive in what Bruce said…it’s just that people don’t like their insignificance, poverty, and ignorance pointed out to them, even if that is what they are to a society. Employers view them as cheap labor, politicians view them as a future, easy voting block like other minorities, and the common US worker views them as the group that’s undercutting pay and taking their jobs. Their significance is only that they piss people off. So maybe the problem isn’t that Bruce called it like it is, but that we, as a nation, need to all change our attitude towards hispanic immigrants and begin encouraging them to come as more permanent, legal, civilly active members of US society (as opposed to just cheap labor or victims of American Imperialism)…HAHAHAHAHA…yea right. That can’t be it. Maybe they really are just insignificant, illiterate, peasants…
More on Bruce:
Republicans later removed him from the powerful State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee because he refused to co-sponsor a resolution honoring military veterans. Bruce said he believed resolutions were a waste of time because they have no legal effect.
Like it or not, the man might be an asshole, but he makes some good points…
He defends himself at the end of this article.
My take on the bill is that it sounds like a step in the right direction to curb illegal immigration by improving the legal routes for immigrants to come here.
Let me start off with saying that although I heard of this story, I didn’t really pay much attention to it because I figured it was just the media blowing someone’s comments out of proportion (again).
I read the quote and followed the link from your blog, and I read your response to it (good blog by the way).
Mostly, I agree that “technically” Mr. Bruce didn’t say anything wrong -the people he was referring to are farm workers and most likely uneducated.
What I have a problem with is that aside from the technical definition, the words he chose were meant to denote class (and in my opinion denote his superiority). We are not in the friggin Medieval times here…we don’t refer to human beings as peasants…and in doing so establish our “kingship” over them.
Even if it is “technically” true…it doesn’t make it right. I am sure he could have found a better way to say what he meant. Of course, there’s always the chance that he does think himself superior and stated what he meant very well.
Human dignity is human dignity…here in the US, or in Mexico or wherever you can think of in this world. It is never right to think that one person is somehow superior…this is how we get in trouble (just ask Adolf about it).
So anyway, I understand what you’re saying, and I know very well that sometimes people only cry out because society is concerned about being PC, but in this case I do take offense to his statement. Not as any particular group, but as a human being who is tired of class always being thrown around, as if we are all born with the same privileges and therefore have control of what kind of social status we can achieve (granted that we have more control in this day and age, than before).
Just as an aside…check out this cool Middle Ages website:
http://www.themiddleages.net -
“The word peasant is sometimes used as an insult by those townsfolk who consider themselves superior to rural labourers.”
And just to clarify…I’m not technically pissed off at his comments, I think the word annoyed is appropriate - technically.