All posts by Russell Cobb

 

Mississippi musings

A look back at one writer’s head-on confrontation with the poultry industry — and immigrants’ rights.

Winner of BEST OF IDENTIFY (SO FAR) for “The chicken hangers”

The genesis for “The chicken hangers” comes from a personal crisis. I didn’t know whether I wanted to finish my Ph.D. in comparative literature at the University of Texas at Austin or go full-bore into freelance writing, something I had been toying with for three years. When I got a grant through UT’s L.B.J. School of Public Affairs in 2003, to research Latino immigration in Deep South poultry plants, I decided to put the crisis on hold and spend a summer living, writing, breathing, and eating poultry.

The dense smell of chickens getting slaughtered and processed lingers in the humid Mississippi air in small towns like Collins and Laurel, where poultry plants dominate the local economy. It’s a strange smell — something like a cross between hot chocolate and road kill. When I think back about the time I spent in and around those chicken plants, it’s that smell that I remember most. Proust has his tea-dipped madeleine, I have my Peco Foods chicken plant in Bay Springs, Mississippi.

Under the terms of the grant, I was to document the rapid transformation of Mississippi from a biracial state to a place where Latinos had displaced African Americans in the lowest-paying jobs. It’s a familiar story, but in Mississippi, those low-paying jobs were especially bad. The jobs that went to Latinos were in catfish farms and poultry plants:  dangerous and filthy jobs where workers sometimes didn’t get paid. Employers in the poultry industry play cat-and-mouse games with the workers; they know the workers are undocumented but allow them to use fake drivers’ licenses and Social Security cards until the workers start unionizing or demanding higher wages. Employers will suddenly discover that the ID the worker used to get the job was fake. Then, it’s out the door.

I’m proud of “The chicken hangers” because it documents these practices without sensationalizing anything. I was living among the chicken workers at the same time Fast Food Nation was causing a national stir, and I wanted to resist some of the melodrama epitomized by that book. After all, the workers didn’t want anyone to boycott the poultry producers; we all ate the same chicken they killed, de-boned, and packaged.

A lot of academics — myself included — dream about writing for an audience other than a handful of specialists, while a lot of journalists dream about writing complex and nuanced stories that do more than report “the facts.” Researching and writing “The chicken hangers” was, in this regard, the best of both worlds.

Still, publishing the article in InTheFray didn’t make me any friends, and, in fact, destroyed many of the relationships I had established while researching it. Even some of the people who come off as sympathetic — the union reps and workers — were not happy about having their stories published. On the other hand, my academic credentials scored me plant tours and long interviews from poultry industry executives.  “I’m a graduate student researcher,” I’d say, hoping it would sound innocuous.

These people probably felt betrayed by the story, since I never said I was also a journalist. Even the non-profit organization that sponsored my stay in Mississippi was nonplussed about the story, since it adversely affected the organizing efforts of some of immigrants’ rights groups.

None of this bothers me in the slightest. “The chicken hangers” reveals a side of the so-called “illegal immigration” debate that is rarely featured in the media. I tried to humanize a group of people who are dehumanized — sometimes even by people with good intentions. Many protestant churches in the South, for example, embrace these workers and help them get on their feet. These churches think of themselves as a better force for social good than the government, but, in the end, they see the mostly Catholic immigrants as possible converts to evangelical Christianity. It was a bleak picture for Latinos in the South, and I hear it’s only gotten worse in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

After writing “The chicken hangers”, I moved to Paris and started work on my dissertation. The project didn’t solve my crisis, but it did put it in perspective. After all, I could be hanging chickens in Mississippi.

 

Traveling through the Red Sea

On the road in Red America.

I set out in late May on a leisurely journey to the American West by car. Among other things, I wanted to witness first-hand the political reality of Red America — a reality I don’t often confront in the blue isthmus of Austin, Texas. My journey started in Austin and ended up in San Francisco, two cities known for their liberal inclinations, though neither is far from Republican strongholds. Austin and San Francisco are both high rent, hip towns populated by a lot of people that fit my demographic — young, white, college-educated liberal Democrats — who, truth be told, have little interest in penetrating the mentalité of the conservative heartland.

As New York Times columnist David Brooks might say, they’d rather vacation in Tuscany than Tucson.

Red America shouldn’t have been such a mystery to me. After all, I grew up in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a place John Gunther called “the most conservative city in America,” in Inside USA. Tulsa is the kind of place where the first question people ask outsiders is “What church do you go to?” Voting Republican is not something you decide to do out of free will; it’s a civic obligation, like getting a library card or picking up litter.

Still, the shock of the November election remains with me. Even though I grew up with them, and count of them as family members and friends, I still wonder: Who the hell are these people who reelected George W. Bush?! If, as Thomas Frank claims in What’s the Matter with Kansas, Americans are suffering from a “species of derangement” that allows them to vote against their own best interests, what does this derangement look like on the ground?

This is my travelogue of the people and places of the Red Sea:

Somewhere around Mason, Texas, the inevitable happens. I have been listening to the Austin-based NPR affiliate, KUT, when the crackle and hiss of the weak signal becomes unbearable. I push the dial further to the left, hoping to hear more about the scandal of the day, the “Downing Street Memo,” which supposedly proves that the Bush Administration was attempting to “fix” intelligence to support the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

After weeks of ignoring the memo, journalists were starting to pay attention. The memo was the “smoking gun” that proved the Administration had deceived the American public in the run up to the war.

I listen for more, but no luck. Monopolizing the left side of the dial is what sounds like a college rock band, with a low-fi sound and a jangling guitar riff. When I listen closely, though, I hear earnest lyrics about Jesus and the young rocker’s personal relationship with the Lord. It is “alternative Christian,” a bizarre palimpsest of the Pixies or Nirvana, but with saccharine lyrics about being reborn in Christ.  

I push the dial rightward, hoping to get another slice of the airwaves — maybe more on the Memo. Here I encounter Toby Keith, a fellow Oklahoman who has his own take on international affairs. In a song called “Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue,” Keith warns “the terrorists” (whoever they are in west Texas) that he will personally “put a boot up your ass / it’s the American way.”

AM radio isn’t much better: Rush offers predictable rants about Hillary, Hannity vents about liberal judges, and a particularly vile shout show host named Michael Savage offers his $1.02 about “politically correct” professors. Nothing about Downing Street.

In the afternoon, hunger overtakes me. I am in the vicinity of Llano, Texas — pronounced “Laan-ah” by locals —  and the world famous Cooper’s BBQ, so I make a detour. I once read a book by Larry McMurtry in which the Texan said that he would drive 100 miles for a good steak, so I figure a half-hour’s detour for the thickest pork chops ever carved from a pig is worth the trip.

Cooper’s has approximately seven 20-foot-long rows of BBQ pits that smoke every conceivable kind of meat: sausage, brisket, chicken, turkey legs. I think you can even get ostrich. You point to the meat you like, and a huge man in Wranglers pokes it with a sword-like instrument, dips it in some sauce, and then throws it on a plastic tray. If you get your food to go, the good people at Cooper’s put it in an over-sized cardboard box — the kind that liquor stores often use. They encourage you to take an entire loaf of white bread, a 20-ounce Styrofoam cup of beans and a roll of paper towels — for free! It is all excess and dressed-down decadence: what Texans like to call “Texas-sized.”

It is also wasteful and inefficient, of course, but to call attention to the vast amounts of waste generated would come off as un-Texan, and by extension, un-American. A pickup truck in the parking lot has a bumper sticker that reads: “Piss off a liberal: Be happy!” Some eating establishments might be wary of offending patrons by announcing their politics, but Cooper’s has a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker affixed to the front door.  

Two pounds of pork chops later, I am back on the road. Long stretches of nothing. Dusty, low-slung towns. Few people visible outdoors, apart from Mexican construction and lawn workers. Even as I write this, I sense something’s wrong with my observation. Texas is now a “majority-minority” state and Hispanics are the largest minority, so of course I would see a lot of brown-skinned folks. It’s just that I don’t see any white people. That’s not a problem, of course, but as I approach the border, I see bright blue “Viva Bush” yard signs. My stomach churns pork.

Contrary to popular belief, a handful of counties outside of Travis (where Austin is located) voted for Kerry last year. Most are along the Mexican border. About seven hours west of Austin, I am in one of these counties: Presidio.

The county seat is Marfa, home to just over 2,000 people, but disproportionately famous for at least three reasons. One is a bizarre phenomenon known as the Marfa Lights, mysterious lights that flash on and off near a distant mountain range. Another Marfa attraction is the Paisano Hotel, where James Dean stayed while on the set of Giant, his last movie. Still another is the work of minimalist artist Donald Judd, who took over an abandoned Air Force base and converted it into a permanent art installation. The installation also houses an artists’ colony that attracts artists from around the world. At the Marfa Book Company, a sleek, cool downtown coffee bar/bookstore, I hear German and Australian accents.

The influx of artists has an odd effect on the locals. Down a side street, I spot an old white church that has been redecorated to look a cross between a Las Vegas-style wedding chapel and an artist’s studio. Pure kitsch. As I get out of the car to snap a photo, an old cowboy in dusty jeans, cowboy hat, and western shirt, nods to me. I am sure I have committed some faux pas.

“Hey, why don’t you take a picture of this?” he says, pointing to his scrappy house and rusted-out pick-up truck next door.

We talk and I find out he is the ex-sheriff of Presidio County, and — surprise — a Democrat. Now he works part-time as a cop in Marfa. Contrary to the stereotype of a redneck, he embraces the artists.

“As long as they pay taxes, let them do what they want. It’s good for a little town like this,” he informs me.

Outside of Marfa, and all along the New Mexico/Arizona border, I see more green U.S. Border Patrol SUV’s than civilian cars. I take two-lanes as close to the Mexican border as I can get. Twice — once in Texas and once in New Mexico — I see billboards spray-painted “The Minutemen.” The border feels militarized and eerie. It is blazing hot, and there are no signs of life except for the occasional torn piece of clothing on a barbed wire fence, probably left by an immigrant suffering from heat exhaustion. I begin to worry about breaking down: there are no towns for 50 miles and no cell phone signals.

On the way to California, I see sprawling towns all along the border that lack any visible water supply: El Paso, Las Cruces, Yuma, El Centro. Theses are booming places that feel part Mad Max, part Bed, Bath, and Beyond. Cruel, lifeless places that look like upscale versions of Falluja.

But the biggest surprise is that, in the middle of this blighted Red Sea, there are signs of life. Flagstaff and Tucson in Arizona. Santa Fe, New Mexico. Here I see people actually walking. Flagstaff, I read in the local paper, is resisting the invasion of a Wal-Mart Supercenter. Santa Fe, for all its hokey New Age vibe, has a unique character. I see more Subarus (the most popular car for Democrats) in Santa Fe than anywhere else in the country.

Days later I arrive in Las Vegas, a place I hope to never see again. This where the American species of derangement becomes a virus, making people look and behave like they’re on a Fox reality show for the living dead.

After four days of traveling I finally feel the cool breeze of the Pacific. I have come up from California’s Central Valley, a flat place of urban sprawl, smelly farms and unbearable heat. Another Red space.

On the horizon, I spy the red Golden Gate Bridge and thank God that the sky is still blue.

I think I’ll fly next time.

STORY INDEX

The writer
Russell Cobb, InTheFray Assistant Managing Editor

 

Go ahead, make my next four years

What’s really behind the sound and the fury of Clint Eastwood criticism?

Sunday night’s Academy Awards proved that we’ve come a long way in the so-called culture wars. There was a time when Clint Eastwood cut the cloth of the perfect liberal boogeyman. In 1971, The New York Times film critic Pauline Kael famously called Dirty Harry a “medieval fascist” for his unrepentant pursuit of vigilante justice. Eastwood’s characters saw the world in Manichean terms, and his movies’ plots were simple-minded conflicts of Good vs. Evil — a storyline the Bush Administration is fond of imposing on real world conflicts.

Fast-forward to 2005, and Eastwood — a lifelong Republican — has become the bête noir of conservative pundits like Michael Medved and Rush Limbaugh, as well as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has called Eastwood’s Oscar-winning Million Dollar Baby “morally offensive.” The film’s “permissive depiction of euthanasia,” the USCCB claims, “will leave Catholic viewers emotionally against the ropes.”

Now, I don’t claim to know why Catholic bishops watch movies, but I do know that great art does occasionally challenge our ethical and moral sensibilities. Oedipus Rex, for instance, involves the prickly issues of patricide and incest. Same goes for a lot of Shakespeare’s work, which could be skewered by twenty-first century Republicans for portraying for all kinds of acquaintance-assisted suicide.

None of this matters, of course, if you are the moral arbiter of all that is good and just in America like Wall Street Journal columnist Michael Medved, who spoiled the plot of the movie because, as he claims, “There are competing moral demands that come into the job of a movie critic. We have a moral and fairness obligation to not spoil movies. On the other hand, our primary moral obligation is to tell the truth.”

The truth being, evidently, that Dirty Harry has become a puppet of liberal Hollywood.

Still, this self-righteousness is nothing compared to News Max columnist Ted Baehr, who called Million Dollar Baby a “neo-Nazi movie.”

Take that, Pauline Kael!

What the controversy over Million Dollar Baby really underscores, though, is a paradox in the ascendancy of the Religious Right since the last election. While religious conservatives from James Dobson to Jerry Falwell have amped up their cultural critique of everything from the Super Bowl to SpongeBob, they have yet to accomplish one single victory in culture wars. The sound and fury of the Religious Right may get rural voters in Alabama to the polls in November, but let’s face the facts: Religious conservatives are never going to change popular culture.

That’s because, as Thomas Frank demonstrates in What’s the Matter with Kansas , they’ve built an entire political strategy based on false martyrdom. As Frank writes:

[The Religious Right’s] voters toss a few liberals out of office and Hollywood doesn’t change …They return an entire phalanx of pro-business blowhards to Washington and still the culture industry goes on its merry way. But at least those backlash politicians that they elect are willing to do one thing differently: They stand there are on the floor of the U.S. Senate and shout no to it all.

Still, as the 2005 Academy Awards proved, Americans — even those who consider themselves apolitical — love to watch transgression. The transgression may be sexual (e.g. ABC’s Desperate Housewives or HBO’s Sex and the City) or moral (e.g. Million Dollar Baby) — sometimes it may even be a conflation of the two — but it always appeals to viewers across the aisle. In fact, it’s only when the transgression is overtly political, as in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, that the culture industry gets cold feet.

Right-wing politicians and pundits who think a Republican-dominated Congress and second Bush Administration will change the tenor of Hollywood or prime time TV are either self-deluded or using rhetoric to manipulate their religious base. The latter is more likely since Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan have been chirping on about “moral values,” only to spend all of their political capital on economic policies like tax cuts and Social Security privatization.

Next time a conservative Republican politician pledges to clean up the crassness of American culture or some such nonsense, someone in the media — just for once — should stand up and say: “Go ahead, make my day!”

STORY INDEX

The writer
Russell Cobb, InTheFray Assistant Managing Editor

 

What liberal academia?

Conservatives claim that the ivory tower is the last refuge of liberal clout. But a view from the inside suggests this assertion doesn’t live up to its hype.

It was a familiar complaint from an unusual source. A colleague of mine at the University of Texas at Austin, where I teach a rhetoric course, was moaning about the overwhelming support for Democrats in the liberal arts.

“It just irritates me that people assume that everyone in the liberal arts is a Democrat,” the American Studies graduate student told me. “The chair of my department sends mass emails of George Bush jokes. I think it’s totally inappropriate that a university forum be used for partisan politics.”

I was shocked to hear this grumbling from an avowed leftist and member of the Green Party.

This is also the cause du jour of conservative pundits like George Will and David Brooks, who have written of the liberal hegemon that is higher education. Brooks and Will both seem to believe that the liberal arts are dominated by radical leftists calling for the overthrow of capitalism.

A quick glance around my campus here in Austin reveals a Taco Bell in the student union, Coke machines in every building, a business school endowed by a mega-rich car salesman, Dell computers in almost every classroom, and an athletics department endorsed by Nike. Hardly evidence of a socialist cabal.

Still, just when it seemed the conservative attack machine had run out of straw men, it has unearthed a new menace: leftist profs in the ivory tower. Arch-conservative activist and faux scholar David Horowitz is the ringleader of the campus jihad. For years, he has been calling attention to the “modern plague” of “radical leftism in the universities,” but now, with the decline of leftist boogeymen in the halls of power, Republicans are starting to listen.

Horowitz has written an “Academic Bill of Rights” that would protect against the “unwarranted intrusion of faculty members’ political views into the classroom.” He claims that at least 20 states will enact legislation this year in support of his manifesto.  

Horowitz has also found some obedient foot soldiers here in Austin — another supposed liberal bastion in a sea of red. The Young Conservatives of Texas made headlines last year with a  “watch list,” designed to “monitor” professors pushing an ideological agenda.

The fact is, when push comes to shove, colleges and universities are only as liberal as the people who fund and manage them; i.e. rich alumni, Boards of Regents, and endowment managers.

Universities, like it or not, are pseudo-corporations that pay more attention to their self-image than true intellectual freedom. When Michael Moore scheduled a stop at Utah Valley State on his “Slacker Tour” last year, prominent alumni threatened to withdraw all donations to the school unless Moore’s gig was cancelled. The school, not surprisingly, complied.

If you want to see how political power on campus really works, don’t read an MLA article about race, class, and gender in the works of Jane Austen. Instead, consider UT’s Board of Regents, which actively solicited funds for Republican candidates on university letterhead during the last election as a quid pro quo for tuition deregulation.

While registered Democrats probably do outnumber Republicans in humanities and social science departments, statistics on professors’ ideologies have been notoriously difficult to pin down. The most reliable survey, conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute and published in the Chronicle of Higher Education , found that 48 percent of 50,000 faculty interviewed classified themselves as “liberal” to “far left.” The rest classified themselves as either “conservative” or “moderate.” Hardly a mandate for the radical leftism that Horowitz complains about.

Even if Democrats do outnumber Republicans in the liberal arts, conservative “scholars” seem to have no problem finding public outlets for their views — even when their opinions fly in the face of accepted scholarship. There was no shortage of publicity last month, for instance, when Harvard president Larry Summers made the absurd claim that woman lack a biological predisposition for science and engineering. And Condi Rice, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz, all big-time players in the Bush Administration, previously held cozy academic positions at elite universities.

If conservative academics find themselves on the outs with their moderate to liberal colleagues, they probably have their own shrillness to blame. That’s because many of them, like Stephen Balch, president of the conservative National Association of Scholars, have an annoying tendency to openly boast of their revolutionary zeal. Balch recently told the Chronicle of Higher Education that his conservative colleagues share the belief that “America is a society in drastic need of an overhaul.”

Academia, contrary to popular belief, is a community that thrives on consensus and non-confrontation. If out-of-the-closet conservative professors intimidate hiring committees, it is not because of a specific ideology, but because anyone openly calling for a revolution — from the left or the right — will raise a few eyebrows among tenured faculty.

 

Mad dog and glory

A season in the French Football Leagues.

The Corsaires’ defense tightens up against the Meteores and wins the game by two touchdowns. The author is in the center, wearing #50.

I’d only been in Paris for a couple of weeks last September when I started feeling the lonely sting of an expat with no connections to the local culture and a tenuous grasp of the language. By then, I’d seen the Louvre, strolled through the Luxembourg Gardens and sat in cafés eating steak frites and drinking carafes of wine.

The weak dollar threatened to put a premature end to my bohemian lifestyle. I canvassed the Left Bank on foot, gazing into the Café Select (where a destitute Hemingway still found enough money to drink every night of the week in the 1920s), and marveling at Les Deux Magots (where an anguished Sartre spent the German Occupation hashing out existentialism). Both places were now overpriced tourist traps patrolled by surly waiters. Running out of money and feeling slightly disillusioned with life in Paris, I resolved to make a change.

I wanted to meet actual Parisians and practice my French. So, when one day, while sitting on a park bench eating an overly salty egg and cheese crêpe, I came across an ad in an English-language magazine that read: “You wanna play some ball? Contact Cyril of the Corsaires,” I acted.

I wasn’t sure what kind of “ball” was being advertised, and just hoped it wasn’t soccer, since I was slow, uncoordinated, and past my athletic prime.

“We play American football,” Cyril told me in English, with a heavy French accent. “With helmets and pads and tackling, you know?”

Cyril, a brawny 30-something with a receding hairline, was the president of the Évry Corsaires, a semi-professional football team in Paris. He picked me up at a Métro stop on the Périphérique, where Paris officially ends and the dreary suburbs begin. We drove out to Évry, one of the grittier outlying suburbs populated mostly by North African immigrants, to play flag football on a Friday evening. Flag was just for fun, Cyril said. The Corsaires’ real game was full-speed, bone-crunching football américain.

“Oh, that’s serious,” I said.

“Where are you from?” he asked.

“I grew up in Oklahoma,” I replied. “The heart of football country, in other words.”

“Sure, yes, but my favorite team is zee Packers, from Green Bay. I’m sure you can play with us. Offense and defense, maybe.”

Cyril went on to explain that France supports a fledging network of approximately 16 semi-pro teams that compete each year for the “Casque d’Or,” or Golden Helmet. The Corsaires played in the second division of the Fédération Française de Football Américain (F.F.F.A.), but could move up to the first division if they won the title that year. If this happened, teams from N.F.L. Europe would start offering Corsaire players professional contracts. To this end, the team had recruited Xavier, a back-up quarterback from the French national team, and Cyril was scouting American talent.

Teams in the French leagues are organized as private clubs that function as community centers, like the Rotary Club or Lions’ Club. The players, ranging in age from 18 to 45, do charity work and put on local exhibitions demonstrating the complex rules of the game to skeptical onlookers, often immigrants from Algeria or Senegal. Some clubs even pay players and coaches, and have cheerleaders and private sponsors. Still, the whole thing seemed quaint and innocent, like a 1950’s-Beaver Cleaver version of football, light years away from the sex, drugs and sleaze of the sport’s current U.S. incarnation. Players in France wear letterman jackets emblazoned with their positions and nicknames — “Warrior” or “Screwdriver” or “The Cramp.”

The first time I suited up for a Corsaires practice last September, I was overcome with emotion. Jogging around the field in full pads was, for me, the equivalent of Proust’s madeleine: suppressed memories from my Oklahoma youth came rushing over me. The smell of freshly cut grass, musty shoulder pads, and the first hints of autumn weather sent me into a reverie.

“Knock that man’s dick in the dirt!”

Until I was 14, my only goal in life was to play football for as long as it was physically possible. For me — as for most of my friends — this meant (ideally) high school and college ball in Oklahoma and pro ball with the Dallas Cowboys or Houston Oilers. I matured early and by eighth grade was a relatively bulky six-foot-tall starting middle linebacker. (I haven’t grown since.) By age 13, I was being recruited to play for a small Catholic high school and was told that I might even have a shot at a Division I scholarship for college. All of this, of course, depended on my dedication to football.

At this young age, football was life — not only for me, but for most of the adults in the community. The Oklahoma oil patch had gone bust in 1986, the local economy was in tatters, but these were the glory years of Barry Switzer, the legendary coach of the Oklahoma Sooners. In a dead-end town on the Bible Belt at the end of the Cold War, high school football provided a reason for hope, and everyone wanted to be a part of it.

My junior high team, the Edison Eagles, for example, supported a phalanx of unpaid assistant coaches who ran us into the ground twice a day during August: one practice at 7:30 a.m., followed by another after school. The coaches pushed us until someone vomited or suffered heat exhaustion. Water and bathroom breaks occurred rarely — usually only once a practice. If someone didn’t sacrifice his barely pubescent body on a tackle, one of the coaches would be in his face immediately.

“Knock that man’s dick in the dirt!” Coach Carl liked to scream, making the adolescent boys blush.

Kids — even academically successful ones — were encouraged to repeat eighth grade to gain an extra year of “maturity” before moving on to high school ball, where the stakes were even higher. Despite it all, I loved the game.

It was only at the Catholic high school’s varsity level that things went too far. Priests visited the locker room to bless our team before games, and to assure us that we were morally — and physically — superior to our opponents. At the same time, the starting linebacker and fullback terrorized the younger players with frat-like pranks usually involving threats of anal penetration. All of this was tolerated, and even encouraged by school authorities, as a rite of passage. The hypocrisy, the stupidity, the homophobia — it was all too much for me and I quit halfway through my sophomore year.

I put all this history aside for my season in the French leagues. At that first practice in Évry, Cyril put me in the end zone to return a kickoff. I felt a surge of adrenaline as I waited near the goal line for the whistle. Suddenly, I saw the pigskin hanging in the air above my head, secured it in my hands and sprinted up-field, breaking arm tackles and jogging triumphantly the last 20 yards into the opposite end zone. And this was just the first practice!  

As I trotted those last few yards, I imagined my redemption as a football player in this foreign land. “You will be a good linebacker,” Cyril had said prophetically. “And you will be called ‘Mad Dog.’”

Who needed a state championship in Oklahoma when I could have a Golden Helmet in France? I thought about the letterman’s jacket I never had in high school, with the words “chien fou” stitched across the breast.

The author with a broken left finger after a game in Chateauroux, France.

For the team

Practices started in early autumn — a glorious time in Paris — and we were expected to report every Tuesday and Thursday from 8:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. for the next five months. My initial feelings of imminent redemption gave way to confusion as the defensive coordinator, Jean-Pierre, gave me a weighty playbook to memorize. It had blitz packages and coverage schemes, audibles, zone and man defenses.

“You will play my way, or you won’t play at all,” he told me. “And you must learn it in French.”

The physical training proved difficult as well. There was no weight room, so we used random objects — and each other — to increase strength. My legs buckled as I tried to squat Arnaud, a 200-pound running back, on my shoulders. We had orange cones for agility drills, but I tripped over them. We had sleds for blocking and tackling practice, but I couldn’t move them. My helmet never fit properly and gave me headaches. I had to relearn how to tackle with my head up, lest I spear someone and break my neck. When I tried to cover wide receivers in man-to-man defense, another linebacker joked that I ran like a crab. The name stuck, and for a while I wasn’t “chien fou” but “le crabe.”

The weather turned cold and rainy around the end of October and I routinely left the practice field feeling cold, sore and exhausted. On these evenings, I usually headed to the team bar next to the practice field where the team ate olives and cheese, accompanied by wine and beer. When our de facto cheerleaders — the wives, sisters and girlfriends of my teammates — showed up, someone would put on Barry White’s greatest hits, and the bar would go crazy as people danced around our dirty clubhouse. Sometimes a player would bring a videotape of a recent N.F.L. game, and it always seemed so foreign, like watching a game of cricket in Texas.

I told some of the players that this whole routine was unique, very French.

“In the States, football is a spectator sport, a passive leisure activity, or an excuse for beer and BBQ,” I explained.

“You mean you would not put on the pads and play in your own leagues?” a linebacker called Dub asked me.

“Of course not,” I said. There would be fights, injuries, lawsuits, hurt feelings. It would be anarchy and bloodshed. We leave the game to the professionals.

“In France, we are the professionals,” someone else chimed in.

Each football team in the F.F.F.A. is allowed only three American players, and taxes of about $300 per player are levied on teams that employ American ringers. Many of these are former college players not skilled enough to make it professionally in the States or N.F.L. Europe, but still starved for the game they grew up on. Some are paid, but most do it for the love of football. Some come from major university programs, where the game is big business; others have never even played before.

The only other American on my team had never played a down of football in the United States but was now the star receiver on the Corsaires. In fact, Daniel didn’t even follow the game back home. One day, on the commuter train out to practice, I tried to engage him in a discussion about the N.F.L., but he only shrugged his shoulders.

“I follow soccer here,” he said. “I didn’t even watch the Super Bowl this year.”

I asked him why he played such a dangerous sport that he didn’t even follow. “You can be a star in France,” he replied. “In the States, you’d be nobody. So why not?”

The rest of the players came from every imaginable socio-economic and ethnic background. There were immigrants from West Africa, Vietnam, and Algeria. There were poor guys from the neighborhood who’d started playing out of curiosity. There were well-to-do French white guys who had studied at elite universities in the States and had picked up a passion for football there.

Then there were guys like Buko, who looked imposing and burly, like an American football player should look. He stood about 6’3’’, ran like a gazelle, and wore shiny blue leggings in lieu of socks. Buko spoke perfect black English without ever having set foot in an English-speaking country.

One day I asked him how he spoke English so well.

“I watch a lot of movies and shit,” he said. One of his favorites was the feel-good Disney picture, Remember the Titans.

In the film, Denzel Washington plays an African American coach for a football team in the South. The team has just been integrated and the racial strife that plagues the region is magnified among the individual players. Eventually, Coach Denzel brings everyone together and the integrated team wins a state championship. It is a happy ending that stresses team solidarity above individual difference, equality of opportunity above birthright. These are the values, incidentally, of the French Republic: Liberté, Egalité, and Fraternité.

French football, much more than its American counterpart, seemed to embody these Enlightenment values. Despite the ethnic and class differences on the team, everyone seemed to get along.

Buko was the spiritual leader, and I couldn’t help but get emotional when he led a team chant that he had lifted from Remember the Titans:  “Everywhere we go/ People want to know/ Who we are/ So well tell them …We are the Corsaires/ The mighty mighty Corsaires!”

We chanted this as we jogged around the field before our first game, intimidating our opponent, Les Templiers, from another Paris suburb.

It worked — we won the game by two touchdowns. Our quarterback, Xavier, threw pinpoint strikes to Buko, the tight end, and Daniel, the wide receiver. They ran over the diminutive cornerbacks and safeties, guys who had plenty of speed but no knowledge of tackling. Our running back, a 34-year-old bald guy with no neck, and thighs like tree trunks, dragged their linebackers 10, 15 yards a carry and steamrolled their defensive backs.

Our defense wasn’t such an unstoppable force. The defensive backs didn’t seem to understand the concept of pass interference, and allowed the other team to move up and down the field on penalties. As a linebacker, my first assignment was to stop the run game, and this proved frustrating. I could see plays develop in the backfield, but just as I was about to tackle the running back, I found myself knocked backward by an offensive lineman. My highlight came when, dropping back into zone coverage on a pass, I deflected a pass to the tight end. Jean-Pierre, the defensive coordinator was livid and pulled me out of the game.

“On 53 punch, you are supposed to blitz the QB. Like I said — if you don’t respect my play-calling, you don’t play at all!”

A crowd of about 100 spectators braved the miserable rain to watch the Corsaires destroy the Templeriers on their home turf. For the most part, the spectators looked confused or disinterested, and even some of our own players had trouble deciphering the penalties. I explained to a second-string tackle that the team kicking the ball off can recover it only after it travels 10 yards. I watched the line judges consistently forget to change the down marker and move the chains. No one seemed too excited about anything. As a football fan, the experience was maddening.

When too much Fraternité is a bad thing

As autumn gave way to winter and our gridiron turned into a mud pit, the practices became miserable, boot-camp-like affairs. The dreary month of December brought a cold, steady rain to Paris and I began to realize that I was hopelessly undersized to play defense. The low point came shortly before Christmas, when an offensive tackle named Bob knocked me to the ground and then sat on me in the chilly mud.

In addition to my on-the-field frustrations, off-the-field festivities became increasingly ugly. The problem on the Corsaires, as it turned out, was not Liberty or Equality, but Fraternity.

Quite literally, this was fraternity of the Animal House variety, even though most of the players were well into their 30s, many players supporting families. They were grown men with responsibilities and serious jobs, not the kind of people you would imagine behaving like frat boys at a keg party. Some of them were intellectuals, capable of passing time on long bus rides by discussing world affairs; perhaps that’s why their dissolution into American-style meatheads surprised me.

Things came to a head the day that the starting quarterback, Xavier, lectured me about the fragility of the world’s oil supply.

“I don’t understand how you Americans can drive these huge cars, these SUV things,” he said. “Do you know that if you continue to consume oil at the current rate, the world’s supply will run out in twenty years? How can you, in good conscience, drive a car like that?”

I was stumped. This was not the kind of post-game talk I expected to hear.

“You know, it’s not that the French hate Americans,” he continued. “It’s this Manichean, dualistic view of the world your president has.”

By this time, Xavier was turned around and addressing the whole bus. A journalist from a Parisian daily was riding with us, and watched the Americans’ response closely.

I tried to be conscientious, I said. I rode my bike whenever possible. I recycled (sort of).
I recognized that the world wasn’t divided into good and evil, or black and white. I felt I had to say something conciliatory, something diplomatic to make up for all the bad blood caused by the Bush administration.  

Just then, a chant came up from the back of the bus. “Xavier! Xavier!” the crowd intoned.
The unsuspecting quarterback was being dragged to the back of the bus where a group of the largest Frenchmen I have ever seen waited for him. Whatever was happening didn’t look like the logical continuation of our discussion of American foreign policy.

A veteran lineman explained: “It is the bizoutage that all new players — including yourself — get when you join the Corsaires.”

Daniel translated for me: bizoutage meant hazing.

The back of the bus erupted in laughter as Xavier screamed, “No! Not the tape!” The ritual involved a lot of Ben Gay in the groin area and athletic tape below the belt. A hirsute man, the quarterback cried out in pain. So much for the pacifistic French you hear about on The O’Reilly Factor: these guys were sadists!

But the mob couldn’t be quelled by just one hazing. “The American! The American!” the crowd began to chant. I recalled my final decision to quit high school football after a frighteningly similar scene.

“Uh, I’m injured,” I said. “I can’t because of my finger. You see, it’s broken. I need ice and rest. Please. I’ll let you guys do the bizoutage next week.”

Part of my plea was true. I had actually broken my finger in the game, despite my limited playing time. At the middle joint, the finger bent into a bizarre 45-degree angle. It was red and purple and swollen. The next part, however, was a lie:  there would be no next week for me. My football career was over, again.

I found myself in the Luxembourg Gardens a few weeks later, noticing the meticulous attention that the groundskeepers paid to every sculpture, every plant, every tree, even in the dead of winter. No one dared to step on the grass that the gardeners in their lime-green suits had dutifully maintained. This part of Paris felt a world away from Évry and the Corsaires. It was quiet and civilized.

Some things, I decided, were best left to the professionals.

STORY INDEX

BOOKS >
Purchase these books through Powells.com and a portion of the proceeds benefit InTheFray

TOPICS > CLASSIC FOOTBALL LITERATURE

Friday Night Lights
by H.G. Bissinger
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/partner?partner_id=28164&cgi=product&isbn=0306809907

Paper Lion
by George Plimpton
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/partner?partner_id=28164&cgi=product&isbn=1592280153

North Dallas Forty
by Peter Gent
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/partner?partner_id=28164&cgi=product&isbn=1894963024

TOPICS> AMERICANS IN PARIS

Paris to the Moon
by Adam Gopnik
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/partner?partner_id=28164&cgi=product&isbn=0375758232

A Moveable Feast
by Ernest Hemingway
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/partner?partner_id=28164&cgi=product&isbn=068482499x

Tropic of Cancer
by Henry Miller
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/partner?partner_id=28164&cgi=product&isbn=0802131786

 

Behind the veil

As if attending school wasn't tough enough, the French government is making life more difficult for some Muslim students who are now banned from wearing Islamic headscarves in public institutions. A view of the explosive and complex debate — and what it reveals about the country — from inside the classroom.

Sonia, a 25-year-old convert to Islam, was born in France but says that many French perceive her as a foreigner. Discrimination has only gotten worse since 9/11,” she says. (photo by Tanguy Kouessan)

In a scruffy classroom at the University of Paris X at Nanterre, in a suburb outside Paris, a group of academics, journalists, and activists of all stripes gathered in March to hash out the “crisis”: what to do about the Islamic veil in French schools.  A small group of college-aged women at the back of the room listened quietly until a man at the front pointed in their direction. Three of the women wore a hijab covering their hair, forehead, and neck. Together, they had been half-heartedly working on a crossword puzzle, but now they were on the spot.

“When I look at these girls,” the man said, “I can’t help but think that they’ve been branded ‘hallal’ — like a piece of meat — by an Islamist patriarchy. I fled Algeria for France to get away from this sort of intolerance, and now it’s infiltrating the Republic!”

One of them put down the crossword. “I’ve been wearing this veil since I was twelve, and it was my personal decision to put it on.” she said.  “It’s not a question of submission to men, but of religious expression.”

Her voice started to shake, and then, fighting back tears, she said, “I’m a French citizen. I was born here. I thought the French Revolution was fought for freedom, but here we are being marginalized and humiliated once again. Stop insulting our intelligence! Stop treating us like imbeciles!”

“Islamism is a wart on the face of this country.” responded the man, Derri Berkani, a journalist, filmmaker, and practicing Muslim. Berkani said he had heard enough about the symbolism of the voile.  “The veil is not a religious issue, but a political one, so I could give a damn about their cause,” he said. “There’s nothing in the Koran that obliges a woman to wear a veil.”

The packed lecture hall erupted in fragmented arguments and debates that exceeded my level of French. A literature professor who called himself a communist extolled the secular values of the Republic as a counterweight to religious extremism and American imperialism, while a young Moroccan proclaimed that only Islam could combat the moral decline of the West. Just when the room verged on complete anarchy, Nelcya Delanoë, a professor in the Anglo American Studies department at Nanterre, called for order, but the women in the back were still seething.

The veiled woman who had spoken earlier, a 23-year-old political science student named Khalidja (students quoted in this article requested that only their first names be used), asked Delanoë if she could respond to some of the comments, but slipped into the informal “tu,” rather than the more formal “vous,” in her request.

“You will not address me as ‘tu,’ young lady,” Delanoë chided. “You will show me some respect!”

“Only when you show us some respect,” Khalidja replied.

When I found Khalidja after the meeting, she was exasperated and enraged. Surrounded by a group of friends chatting away on cell phones, some wearing veils, some not, she seemed to embody all the contradictions of a reinvigorated Islam in secular France: She wore stylish sneakers poking out from under an austere robe and sprinkled her French with a variety of curse words. Khalidja had almost finished the equivalent of a master’s degree and would soon start looking for a job, probably as a government functionary.

I asked her if she would have to take off the veil if she worked in government.

“I will leave France before I’m forced to take off my veil. I’m French and I don’t see a contradiction between my country and my religion, but I’ll move to the U.S. if it comes to that,” she said.

I asked her if she thought Islamophobia — a popular term in the French media — is a problem in the United States as well. Like almost every French person I had met, she despised President George W. Bush and prefaced her answer with a denunciation of the war in Iraq and the current administration’s Middle East policies.

“But do you think the United States is more tolerant?” I asked.

“Yes,” she said. “Religion is important in the States. Here if you have any sort of religious belief people think you’re a barbarian or just plain retarded.”

The Paris Mosque is the spiritual center of France’s “second religion,” Islam. Many French now question whether the growing popularity of Islam is compatible with the country’s strict secular traditions. (photo by Tanguy Kouessan)

Lost in translation

Like the United States, France constantly wrings its hands over the separation of church and state, although the rebirth of Islam in the marginalized banlieues — dreary, crime-ridden suburbs — poses a problem for France which the United States has yet to face on the same scale. It is undoubtedly a vast, complex problem that has much to do with France’s troubled colonial history as it does with religious extremism. Nevertheless, the veil has become the flashpoint for almost every discussion about immigration, Islam, terrorism, or French identity since last December when a 20-member commission, assembled by French President Jacques Chirac, named the Stasi Commission (after a former education secretary), recommended a ban on all conspicuous religious symbols in state-run spaces. In addition to the ban on the veil, the commission called for a ban on large crosses and yarmulkes, the Jewish skullcaps, as well as two new official days off for Yom Kippur and Aid-e l-Kebir as tokens of acceptance of non-Catholic holidays in a country where Ascension Day is still a paid holiday.

By all accounts, a majority of the French supported the ban: in a poll taken in early February  2004, 57 percent said that conspicuous religious symbols were “a threat to national cohesion” and 69 percent said they favored banning the headscarf from public schools. The law sailed through the National Assembly shortly after the poll was taken, with little opposition.  Although Chirac signed the bill into law in February, it took the French Council on Education until May to work out the finer details, like whether bandanas will be prohibited (it will depend on the point of view of individual principals). The law is set to go into effect at the start of the next school year. Among the few politicians to criticize the law was France’s new economics minister and fastest rising political star, Nicolas Sarkozy, who went so far as to call the ban “secularist fundamentalism.”

To really understand why the Islamic headscarf has become so controversial in France, one must try to understand two words that are often bandied about in this debate and are not easy to translate into English: laïcité and communautarisme. The first term is often translated in the American press as “secularism,” as if it simply designated the separation of church and state, a familiar issue to Americans. In reality, laïcité implies a set of political and cultural values, that, in a way, have become a pseudo-religion of the state.

As one member of Chirac’s Stasi Commission, philosopher Henri Peña-Ruiz, put it in Le Monde Diplomatique recently, “laïcité only favors what is in the common interest [of the Republic]. With moral and intellectual autonomy, it promotes the freedom of conscience and the total equality of rights without regard to sex, [ethnic] origin, or spiritual conviction.” Because of laïcité, he continued, “tomorrow, thousands of young women will be recognized by the Republic as having preserved their right to bare their heads at school and sit next to boys who have the same status as them.”

Communautarisme, on the other hand, roughly means “multiculturalism,” although its connotations are almost entirely negative. Communautarisme, to the French, is what happens when you let immigrants form their own communities, speak their own languages, and practice their own religions. Consequently, France becomes less “French” and more open to foreign values and cultural practices.

To be sure, there are real dangers associated with communautarisme — such as support for female circumcision in Malian or Senegalese communities or acceptance of stoning women who are accused of adultery by certain Muslim imams — but it’s hard to distinguish when legitimate concerns about human rights cross over into racist notions about cultural superiority.

The controversy surrounding the Islamic veil actually dates back to at least 1989, when the Council of State, one of France’s high courts, ruled that religious symbols that “constitute an act of intimidation, provocation, proselytizing or propaganda” could not be worn in public schools. Under this decision, individual schools were left to determine what was a provocation and what was simply a personal expression of faith. Often, this came down to a judgment call by individual teachers and principals.

“I had girls with half-scarves and full-on veils,” remembers Isabelle, a middle-aged English teacher in a poor suburb northeast of Paris who did not want her last name used. “You couldn’t tell the difference between religious proselytism and fashion. That’s why I supported Chirac’s law at first: It backed teachers up so that it wasn’t just us against the students and their parents.”

Now, however, some of the same teachers who favored the ban are rethinking their positions. “It’s going to be impossible to enforce,” Isabelle predicts. “And the Muslim girls who refuse to take off their veils — where are they going to go?”

Khalidja, the political science student, says she favors opening up more Muslim private schools if France won’t compromise on the veil issue. So far, however, there is only one Muslim school in the entire country, in the far north near the Belgian border. “Every time we start the process of opening up a school, the government shuts it down,” Khalidja says. “Catholics and Jews can have their own schools, but if Muslims want one, it’s labeled as communautarisme by the government. It’s a totally hypocritical position.”

Contrary to popular belief, many leading French Muslims like Dalil Boubaker, the rector of the Paris Mosque, have not opposed the new law, and some of its most vociferous proponents, such as Derri Berkani, the filmmaker and journalist at the Nanterre meeting, are Muslims themselves.  Although many Muslims I spoke with took varying positions on the veil, the sense of discrimination at the hands of the secular French state seemed nearly universal.

“I’d say the biggest problem is not the veil at all, but jobs,” says Sonia, a 25-year-old Muslim convert who wears the veil. “You don’t see any diversity in French media or French politics. I’m a French citizen, but because I’m black and because I wear a veil, I’m doubly marginalized,” she explains. “I’ve had people scream, ‘Go back to Morocco,’ at me from their cars. I’m from France and my parents are from Benin.”

“This isn’t about the veil,” one Moroccan-born student at the Nanterre meeting had said. “It’s about a profound problem that France has with Islam.”  

Many staunch advocates of laïcité argue, on the other hand, that it is the version of Islam which refuses to separate religion from the public sphere that is the problem. This is what Nelcya Delanoë, the professor who kept order at the meeting, tells me later.  When I sum up Khalidja’s and Sonia’s arguments to her on an unseasonably hot May day at her apartment in central Paris, she seems unimpressed.

Delanoë has written extensively about secularism in Morocco and France, but doesn’t view this issue with the typical detachment of a scholar. Delanoë was born and raised in Morocco and speaks Arabic. Her father, a Moroccan-born Frenchman who was also raised Jewish, fought against the French occupation of his homeland and envisaged a “liberal and independent” country quite different from the Morocco of today. Delanoë shares that vision and works closely with liberal Moroccans on human rights and women’s rights issues. For her, the headscarf is a pretext to legitimize an extremist political movement.

“There were no headscarves here three years ago,” Delanoë claims, referring to the Nanterre campus. “Now, they’re everywhere. I’ve heard people say, ‘This is multiculturalism, this is great,’ but we’ll see where it leads in ten years.” She cites her experience in Morocco as proof that Islamism is indeed a threat to democratic countries like France. The Islamists “claim that there’s no contradiction between their religious beliefs and democracy, but they have an ignorant understanding of democracy: It’s not just voting, but a social contract,” she insists. “I’ve changed my mind on this issue about fifteen times, but I’m now convinced that each new veil is a victory for the Islamists.”

A popular poster at the university in Nanterre labels George Bush as the world’s biggest terrorist. (photo by Russell Cobb)

The Revolution is dead. Long live the Revolution!

My window into this controversy opened last year when I took a year-long position as an adjunct English teacher at the university in Nanterre. It is a strange place: Most of the buildings were built in the early 1960’s and resemble a modern American-style commuter campus. Despite its placid exterior, it has been a hotspot for radicalism. In fact, Nanterre has changed the course of French history at least once. In May 1968, a group of students protesting everything from same-sex dorms to the Vietnam War ignited a sequence of events that eventually led to the downfall of President Charles de Gaulle a year later.

Decades later, the place is still roiling in political turmoil, and classes are often disrupted by routine strikes, sit-ins, and sometimes violent protests over Israel, Iraq, and the length of spring break. Non-French professors and lecturers, such as I, learn to take these things in stride. When a chalkboard is spray-painted with graffiti or a lecture is interrupted by a megaphone call for a general strike, we generally sigh and say, “c’est Nanterre.”

It was surprising, then, that when I asked my students to debate the headscarf controversy in class, I got an almost uniform endorsement of French Enlightenment values over what was perceived as American-style multiculturalism. Rare was the student who argued against Chirac’s new law. I asked one Jewish student, a 19-year-old named Nili, if she thought that banning religious symbols from schools might backfire and intensify religious extremism and anti-Semitism.  “France’s policy of laïcité is preceded by the concept of equality, which prohibits any sort of discrimination. In order to maintain social cohesion and public order, we must keep religion out of public space,” she said thoughtfully.

I received similar — almost identical — responses from most of my students, who agreed that the Islamic headscarf should be banned. My plans for class debates turned into rousing eulogies to French values: liberty, equality, fraternity, and, most importantly, secularism.  

I taught, arguably, some of the best and brightest in the university system: future lawyers and technocrats studying for the equivalent of a major in English and a law degree. Whenever the subject of religious symbols came up, however, the students started to sound like modern-day Jacobins. “If you allow religion into the public sphere,” one bright Italian student said, “France could become like the United States, where the president declares war while in church.”

Declaration of war? In church? Did I miss something? I tried to explain that in the United States there is also a separation of church and state — however precarious it may seem these days — and that no president since Roosevelt had actually declared war. Still, it was useless: These law students were convinced that France was caught between two dangerous fundamentalist movements: one Christian (led by George W. Bush), and one Muslim (led as much by radical French imams as by Al-Qaeda).

But while France has proven largely immune to Bush’s seemingly messianic vision — a recent New York Times poll reported that 85 percent of French respondents had a “negative” image of the American president — radical Islam appears to be gaining a foothold in the marginalized outskirts of the country’s big cities. Young, firebrand intellectuals like Tariq Ramadan have gained popularity at the expense of more moderate, government-backed leaders like Dalil Boubaker. Politicized Islam is becoming a force to be reckoned with among France’s five million or so Muslims, about 8 percent of the total population; the questions, of course, are how significant this force is and how to respond to it.

The government’s reaction to political Islam has been famously heavy-handed. Clerics accused of spouting anti-Semitism have been deported in recent weeks. Police arrest and interrogate Arab-looking men in the banlieues and in the Paris Métro without cause. The far right party of Jean-Marie Le Pen continues to gain popularity in some areas. And now Islamic headwear is banned in schools, even though the Sikh turban, for example, is still allowed. On the campus of Nanterre, meanwhile, Arab students have complained of the appearance of a mysterious group called the Jewish Defense League and of being singled out and beaten up by university security guards since the latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict broke out. The whole thing, many Muslims claim, smacks of a growing Islamophobia at best, and at worst, a European import of Middle Eastern conflicts.

Considering the complexity and gravity of the issue, it started to bother me that my students all had the same point of view. So I devised an experiment. I divided my classes into pairs and told them to debate the pros and cons of such hot-button topics as the death penalty, the war in Iraq, and, of course, the veil. We talked about multiculturalism vs. equality, personal freedom vs. security, and private vs. public space. We had very interesting discussions, but when I asked them to give their honest opinions about the headscarf issue at the end, only one, an 18-year-old named Caroline, said she was definitely opposed to the ban.

“You can’t be serious, can you?” Valentin, the guy sitting next to her exclaimed in French.

But while my mostly white, middle-class students attacked the veil and supported the government, others on campus have a quite different take. After I asked professors and minority students about the issue, I found that everyone on campus had become hyperconscious about headwear and its symbolic power, but no one could agree on what the Islamic headscarf actually represented. Oppression by a fundamentalist patriarchy? An Islamic expression of feminism? The latest fashion in teen rebellion?

Michel Allner, a professor in American Studies at Nanterre who has recently finished a book about the West’s perception of Islam, explains that the foulard has replaced Che Guevara T-shirts as the ultimate symbol of anti-Western imperialism. “The veil is a uniform in opposition,” he says with the lyrical abstraction so often found in French intellectuals.

I heard all sorts of interpretations on the veil’s true meaning. Still, the diversity of the foulard itself made it hard to generalize about its symbolism. At one point, I had a Lebanese student in my class who wore a polka-dotted silk scarf lightly draped over the top of her head. But she also wore more make-up than most of my “French” students. Certainly her headscarf did not mean the same thing as Khalidja’s all-black veil, which covered the forehead down to the eyebrows.

Civilizing the natives

Nanterre and its surrounding communities — like many Parisian banlieues, or suburbs — are heavily populated by Muslim immigrants from North Africa, many of whom live completely cut off from mainstream French culture. Among young people, unemployment runs as high as 50 percent in some banlieues and crime has soared the past two decades, even though it slacked recently in the face of controversial, Giuliani-esque tactics taken by Nicolas Sarkozy during his tenure as interior minister, which expired in April.  

To see a slice of la France communautariste, I went to a suburb in Northeast Paris widely regarded as one of the poorest and most disadvantaged. Collectively, the area is known as “93,” for its postal code. The high school I visited, Olympe de Gourges, has one of the lowest graduation rates in all of France and teacher turnover is high.

I expected the worst. The French media play up ethnic tensions in the banlieue to the point that it seems, in the eyes of a bourgeois Parisian, like the Balkan Peninsula circa 1995. There are stories every day of Muslim dads keeping their daughters out of P.E. and biology classes, teachers derided for teaching the Holocaust, and Jewish students beaten up and called “salle juif” (or “dirty Jew”) by their Muslim classmates.

So I was surprised to find the most diverse group of French I’ve ever encountered, lingering outside the school’s gates. There was a Russian-Congolese guy flirting with a blond French girl, whose best friend was Algerian. They weren’t dealing drugs or beating each other up; they weren’t even engaged in the national pastimes of smoking and arguing. They were like poster-children for racial harmony: They smiled and took turns practicing their English on me. They all seemed to get along so well, I decided to ask them what all the fuss was about.

“I think it’s played up by TV,” Olaf, the Russian-Congolese kid says. “There’s no intolerance here at school,” he says even as his face darkens. He points across the street to a housing project. “Over there, though, now there’s intolerance.”

More and more of these students — children of immigrants — have entered the university system, which, with its promise of free and universal acceptance to all French students holding a high school diploma, promises to be the great equalizer of socio-economic and cultural difference.  Despite the relatively new influence of Anglo American concepts like multiculturalism and affirmative action (or “positive discrimination” as it is known here), many French still believe, like Diderot over two centuries ago, that “to teach is also to civilize.” The pinnacle of civilization being, of course, the French version, armed with the ideals of its Great Men buried at the Pantheon: Rousseau, Voltaire, Hugo, et al.

Indeed, the French secular state has become a sort of church unto itself, in which all loyalties, allegiances, and creeds must be sworn off in favor of Enlightenment values. One Stasi commission member, Régis Debray, a former Marxist revolutionary-turned-public intellectual, has unwittingly supported this argument with an oft-quoted analogy: “If I visit a mosque, I take my shoes off before I enter as a sign of respect. We only ask that Muslims show the same respect when they enter the French schools.” Jean-Pierre Raffarin, the blunt Prime Minister, has noted with optimism, “Secularism has a chance to become the religion of France.”

If the school’s job is to create model citizens of the French Republic, then the university’s job is to be “the temple of reason,” claims Michel Allner. “This is the heritage of the Third Republic,” Allner tells me. “The idea back then was to erase regional differences and build a nation based on the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Regional dialects and customs from Brittany and the Basque Country, for example, were suppressed and the tablier (a sort of white smock) was imposed as the uniform for all schoolchildren. It was a very repressive system and I think we can agree now that it was a mistake.” As is the current ban on religious symbols, Allner says. “I know it’s an unpopular position, but I think multiculturalism is the way to go.”

Not surprisingly, many high school students I spoke with agreed that any sort of dress code for kids was a bad idea. “The teachers want to make us all equal,” a 17-year-old student at Olympe de Gourges named Camelia says. “But look at how we dress — of course we’re not equal. Still, I think we’re old enough to make our own decisions about how we want to dress.” Camelia, for example, comes from a conservative family of Algerian origin but no one — including her parents — has ever tried to force her to wear a veil. “I wouldn’t wear it even if they did,” she says firmly.

Nicolas Ginsburger, a professor of Franco-American relations at Nanterre, disagrees that secularism à la française is simply about freedom of choice, as many Americans would believe. The law that definitively separated church and state in 1905, notes Ginsburger, declares that the state must remain neutral with respect to religion. “That means in school, the student and teacher must remain neutral as well,” he notes. “This law has guaranteed civil peace in France and put an end to many centuries of religious warfare. ”

Ginsburger puts the issue in a historical context, which is perhaps lost in the media frenzy over exotic images of veiled young women living in what is, after all, a highly sexualized country. The current flare-up over the veil is nothing, he says, compared to the civil wars between Catholics and Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries, or even 19th-century anti-Semitism.

Nevertheless, Ginsburger has been shocked by the negative reaction to the ban on religious symbols coming from the American media and government. Last month, a Justice Department spokesperson called a similar ban on headwear in an Oklahoma school district “un-American” and “morally despicable.” Also, last December the U.S. ambassador on religious freedom said that the Bush administration would “watch carefully” what happened in France on the headscarf front. “Why can’t they mind their own business?” Ginsburger asks. “The big difference is that, in America, religion is used as proof of morality in political life,” he says. “In France, the idea is that the less religious one is, the better.”

When clichés come home to roost

Throughout my year in France, I discovered that the two primary fears in French society — radical Islam and Americanization — are often mingled into one discourse. During the meeting at Nanterre, for example, the only thing the leftist French professors and Islamist students could find in common was their disgust for American cultural relativism and political correctness.  The professors worried about American-style multiculturalism ruining the secular “exception française”,  while some Muslim students voiced conservative concerns about the liberal American influence on the gay marriage debate in France. The “threat” always came from elsewhere — the United States, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Algeria — and never from a domestic source.

A similar phenomenon took place in my classroom: When it came to tough issues like the veil or racism, students blamed the Other. I was reminded of the reaction to a tragic incident that took place two years ago at the Nanterre City Council, when a gunman burst into a meeting and killed eight people. The next day, French newspapers called it an “American-style massacre,” as if the United States invented mass-murder. “Everyone in America carries a weapon,” proclaimed one of my students, 19-year-old Alexandra. I told her that I had never owned a weapon and did not know anyone who actually carried a gun. “This can’t be possible,” she responded. “Have you not seen Bowling for Columbine? That is the real America!”

I suddenly felt a strange solidarity with Sonia and Khalidja, the two women I had met who wore veils: I knew what it felt like to be assaulted by stereotypes. That wasn’t my America, I wanted to answer Alexandra. Instead, I was seized with the opportunity to impart a little English language pedagogy.

“Here’s a good idiomatic phrase to learn,” I said. “Don’t judge a book by its cover.”

STORY INDEX

TOPICS >

“A Frenchman or a Jew”
By Fernanda Eberstadt. Published by The New York Times Magazine. February 29, 2004.
URL: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40D1FFF3C580C7A8EDDAB0894DC404482

Le Monde Diplomatique dossier on secularism and the headscarf
URL: http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/index/sujet/laicite

ORGANIZATIONS >

Ni putes ni soumises (Neither whores nor doormats)
URL: http://www.niputesnisoumises.com/html/index.php

The Brookings Institution’s take on Islam in France
URL: http://www.brookings.edu/fp/cusf/analysis/islam.htm

 

The chicken hangers

BEST OF IDENTIFY (SO FAR)

President Bush has proposed an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws that could provide broad new rights to millions of undocumented workers. But how are they faring now? A look at how immigrant workers from Mexico are changing the face of the poultry industry in the South.

 

Chicken processing is a dirty business, but no job in a poultry plant is more dreaded than “live hang.” Here, workers known as “chicken hangers” grab birds by their feet and sling them onto fast-moving metal hooks. This is the first — and dirtiest — stage of poultry processing. The birds, weighing approximately five pounds each, fight back by pecking, biting, and scratching the hangers, who wear plastic cones around their forearms to shield off chicken attacks. Then, as workers finally hoist the birds onto the hooks, the chickens urinate and defecate out of desperation, often hitting the workers below.

The next stage — the “kill room” — may be bloodier, but most of the work there is done by laser-sharpened buzz-saws; only rarely does a chicken slip past the saw with its throat intact. Although no one has figured out how to sanitize the nasty job of hanging chickens, poultry managers pride themselves on the efficiency of their plants.  One plant manager in Laurel, Mississippi, described his plant to me as “an automobile factory in reverse: They put cars together, we take chickens apart.”

Like many immigrant workers in the poultry industry, Esteban — a Veracruz, Mexico, native in his early twenties — agreed to work in “live hang” where he would colgar pollos only because it paid slightly better than other positions at the Peco Foods plant in Bay Springs, Mississippi. Nestled in the rolling hills of southern Mississippi’s “Pine Belt,” Bay Springs feels like a twenty-first century company town: Peco employs approximately 800 workers, while the total population of Bay Springs is around 2,000.  At $8 an hour, chicken hangers at the Bay Springs plant make $1 to $1.50 more than other workers who debone, package, eviscerate, or kill chickens in other parts of the plant. In an industry with some of the highest turnover rates and lowest wages in the nation, chicken hanging has the highest turnover of any position. According to one manager I spoke to, workers in “live hang” rarely last a week before they ask to be transferred to another position. Others simply disappear, never to return to the chicken plant.  

“You think you’d last a week here?” the manager asked me as he opened a door to the plant’s live hang room. For about five seconds, I watched men in a dark, sweltering room, (the darkness supposedly calms the chickens) struggle with a blur of feathers, dirt, and blood. A conveyor belt dumped chickens on the ground and about five men wrestled to get them on the hooks before the next load arrived.

“I probably wouldn’t last an hour,” I responded.

Despite the bleak conditions, Esteban flourished in his new job. With closely cropped hair, a slight build, and a collection of NBA T-shirts, Esteban had the air of a bright-eyed teenager. As an undocumented worker who spoke no English, he made the most of his limited opportunities in Mississippi; he got along well with his line supervisor and claims to have been able to hang over forty five-pound chickens per minute, an incredible feat considering the hazards of the job.

Then, after a year on the job, Julio Gordo, a manager at Peco Foods, called Esteban into his office. (To protect his identity, Julio Gordo is a pseudonym.)  According to Esteban, Gordo told him that the Social Security Administration had notified Peco Foods that Esteban’s Social Security Number had repeated as a number for another worker.

At first, Esteban feared he would be fired by the plant and deported for document fraud — a fate not uncommon among undocumented workers.  “Gordo told me he could have the cops here in five minutes if I didn’t cooperate with him,” Esteban confided to me later.

 

 

The no-match crisis: threats in the guise of favors

When I first met Esteban during the hottest days of last summer, he was reluctant to talk about hanging chickens, Peco Foods, Social Security Numbers, or anything else other than the new car he had bought with Peco wages. Like many immigrant workers in chicken plants, Esteban initially shrugged off my questions about hardships in the plant by saying, “I came here to work and I don’t want any problems.”

At the time, I was working as a translator for the local union, Laborer’s International Union of North America (LIUNA) Local 693, while gathering research for an academic paper focusing on the changing face of the South vis-à-vis the poultry industry. The management of Peco Foods decided to let me in the plant on one condition: that I work exclusively as a translator — and not as a recruiter — for the union.

I quickly learned that workers at Peco Foods had two mutually exclusive opinions about the plant: Inside the plant, they had no complaints about the work or their bosses; outside the plant, the workers despaired about what they saw as deplorable conditions and incessant harassment by managers. Many wondered why they had risked their lives to come to Mississippi only to slave away in a chicken plant. They longed for jobs picking fruit, cutting timber, or doing construction — anything besides hanging poultry.

Outside the plant, they accused managers of not paying overtime, charging workers money to keep their jobs, and denying workers bathroom breaks; inside the plant, however, they couldn’t be happier about Peco Foods. In the end, a job at the chicken plant represented a ticket to a new life for immigrant workers and few were willing to quit over perceived injustices. Esteban was no exception.

After Gordo allegedly threatened to deport Esteban, he reassured him that he could stay on at the plant if he could get a new ID and Social Security Number. Esteban knew this would be difficult; fake documents cost hundreds of dollars and were sold by only a handful of people in southern Mississippi on the black market. Furthermore, Esteban knew he would run the risk of being fired or deported if he bought a new Social Security Number, since he would be admitting his old one was false. Even with a new I.D., his seniority — including the two raises he had received for a year’s work — would be revoked. Esteban would be starting over from scratch.

Then, according to Esteban, Gordo told him he was willing to do him a “favor”: Esteban could buy a new Social Security Card from Gordo for $700. This was a favor Gordo had done for many other Mexicans in the same situation, he claimed. Still, the news came at a bad time: Esteban was trying to pay off traffic tickets and send money back to his family in Veracruz. He simply didn’t have the cash to pay off his supervisor.  When Gordo also demanded that Esteban arrange a date for him with Esteban’s female cousin after work as a return “favor,” Esteban decided he had had enough. (In a conversation with a union representative, Gordo vehemently denied that he ever offered to “sell” documents to employees).

Esteban asked the plant’s union representative, Charles Carney, for advice. Although it was rare for an immigrant worker to talk to a union rep in the plant, Esteban felt he had no other choice than to turn to the union, since Gordo had threatened to terminate him if he didn’t accept the deal.

Carney listened in shock to Esteban’s story as I translated. “Tell him we need to talk to him at home,” Carney told me. “We can’t talk in here.”

Home, as we found out, was a run-down trailer park on the outskirts of Laurel, Mississippi, where many chicken workers lived. Tucked away behind the town’s Wal-Mart on an unpaved road, the unnamed trailer park looked more like a refugee camp than a subdivision; rotting garbage and abandoned pick-up trucks were the only landmarks.  The day we visited, workers came out of their trailers to tell similar stories about Gordo first charging them to obtain jobs and then, after informing them of a Social Security “no-match” letter, demanding additional payment for providing new documents.

After a day of interviews, it became clear that the Social Security Administration (SSA) had sent a letter to Peco Foods with the names of workers whose Social Security Numbers did not match its records. Peco Foods then told these workers individually that they must “correct” the error or be fired within two weeks.

Although Peco officials are no longer officially commenting on the “no-match” situation, Steve Conley, the company’s human resources manager, told the Associated Press in August, “We didn’t realize there was a problem with these folks or we wouldn’t have hired them in the first place. At that point, we just told them, get it straight with Social Security or we’ll terminate you.” (Peco Foods did not respond to phone and email inquiries for this story.)

Carney, a former poultry plant worker himself, was incredulous when he heard that company officials claimed they were ignorant of the immigrants’ status. In fact, he was convinced that the company knew it stood to gain from employing workers who could be easily sacked because of questions about their papers and took advantage of their precarious legal status.

Carney’s union, LIUNA Local 693, had recently succeeded in ousting one manager accused of charging immigrants to obtain jobs, and his replacement — Gordo — was turning out to be even more problematic. Carney began to wonder if Gordo’s purported strategy of selling counterfeit documents to immigrants who had shown up as “no-matches” in the SSA’s database extended to higher-level managers in the company, and perhaps outside the plant.

After Esteban was fired weeks later, Carney called Peco Foods’ plant manager and threatened to file a grievance for a breach of the union contract unless the worker was reinstated and Gordo was fired. Carney claimed the worker was fired without just cause since, as far as he could tell, the “no-match” letter did not imply the worker was illegal, but rather that there had been some sort of error in his paperwork. The plant manager was surprised to hear a union representative — especially an African American — taking an interest in the plight of an immigrant worker.  

“I thought you wanted [the immigrants] out of the plant, because they were stealing your jobs,” the manager said to Carney over the phone.

“If I’ve learned one thing over the past ten years,” Carney responded, “it’s, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.”

“He didn’t take that too well,” Carney told me later. “I think I heard him throwing a chair around his office.”

 

 

Learning to “speak Mexican” in the rural South

Carney, a stout Baptist deacon and veteran of the Vietnam War and many years in Mississippi chicken plants, is an unlikely convert to the immigrants’ cause.  When he came back from the war, Carney found a job in the deep freeze section of a Sanderson Farms plant in Collins, Mississippi. He quickly gained a reputation as the only African American worker willing to stand up to a notoriously racist plant manager and helped to unionize three poultry plants in southern Mississippi. After nearly a decade of fighting to keep immigrants out of the local poultry plants, only to see their numbers increase steadily, Carney underwent a Pauline conversion in his attitude toward immigrant rights a few years ago.

Although he doesn’t “speak Mexican,” as he puts it, he believes immigrant workers and African Americans share many of the same problems in Mississippi poultry plants: Both are stuck in low-wage jobs with few chances to get ahead in a highly segregated society. They work in an industry that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has designated as one of the most hazardous and that ranks near the bottom in Labor Department statistics for median wages. And as bad as conditions can be for African American workers on the processing line, Carney believes the immigrants’ situation is worse; in fact, he often compares it to slavery.  

But while Carney equates “Big Poultry” with the plantation system, industry experts cite the huge economic impact of chicken on the state economy and its ever-expanding global market as Mississippi’s ticket out of its seemingly perpetual status as the nation’s poorest state. According to Mississippi State University poultry science reports, poultry contributes $2 billion to the state economy and nearly 70,000 jobs, making it the most important “agricultural” industry in the state. Since 1987, the number of Mississippi chickens sold has more than doubled to over 700 million per year, and poultry companies are increasingly looking abroad for new consumers. In 1990, the U.S. exported 500,000 metric tons of chicken overseas, while in the year 2000 that figure increased five-fold to 2,500,000, as China and Russia became the two largest consumers of U.S. chicken. Peco Food’s website proudly boasts company exports of “jumbo wings” and “jumbo legs” to Indonesia, China, Spain, and Romania, among other countries.

Like the plantation system, however, Big Poultry is largely a Southern phenomenon: The top six broiler-producing states are located in the South, with Georgia and Arkansas constantly battling for number one. And even though it is currently ranked as the fifth-largest broiler producer, Mississippi boasts the single largest processing plant in the U.S. — an ultra-modern Choctaw Maid plant built in 2000 in Carthage, capable of processing over 2 million chickens per week. It is this massive boom in poultry that is largely responsible for changing the rural South from a biracial, agricultural culture to a globalized entrepôt.

Despite the boom in poultry production, the industry has a notorious reputation with labor, environmental, and immigrants’ rights groups. Tyson, the world’s largest chicken processor, was labeled by Multinational Monitor magazine as one of the world’s “Ten Worst Corporations” in 1999 for its use of child labor. Then, Tyson became the subject of a thirty-six-count Justice Department indictment for human trafficking in 2001. Ever since three top-level Tyson managers were acquitted by a federal grand jury for smuggling immigrants to the South from Central America last year, the industry has faced increasing scrutiny on its recruiting and hiring tactics. The media spotlight on Tyson’s alleged trafficking in immigrant labor, combined with the economic downturn and security concerns in recent years, has made many locals — whites and African Americans alike — wary of embracing undocumented workers.

In another Peco Foods plant in Canton, Mississippi, a similar “no-match” crisis set off a crusade led by the town’s sheriff against Canton’s entire population of undocumented workers. After approximately 200 workers were fired by Peco because of the “no-match” letter, Sheriff Toby Trowbridge told the Clarion-Ledger — the daily paper in Jackson — that he would “round up” all “illegals” and “deport them.” Although many workers were finally reinstated after the plant’s union filed a grievance and national media started to take notice of the sheriff’s campaign to deport an entire trailer park populated by immigrants, the damage had already been done.

As Anita Grabowski of the Equal Justice Center, an Austin, Texas-based legal aid group that focuses on immigration, told me: “Most of the workers live paycheck to paycheck…. They had to find other work.” Grabowski worked on a campaign to get the workers reinstated and found the union in Canton — a local of the United Food and Commercial Workers — less enthusiastic than Carney’s local when it came to the plight of immigrant workers. Grabowski says that in the Canton case, union representatives were more interested in recruiting dues-paying members. At a July meeting for union members, Carney tried to convert other African American workers to his newfound cause. “They treat these Hispanics like they treated black folk back in slavery days,” he said. “Y’all got to stick together with the Latinos.”

 

 

The “Latinization” of the South

In a state still wrestling with ghosts of the Civil Rights struggle, Carney’s message gets a mixed reception in the black community. In towns throughout the South where poultry is king, working-class African Americans view the influx of Latino workers with suspicion. Although the South is famous for its insularity and chauvinism, the refrain “they’re stealing our jobs” is actually heard more in the black community than the white community, since few whites work processing-line jobs such as “live hang” and evisceration.  

As Mike Cockrell, the chief financial officer of Mississippi’s largest poultry company, Sanderson Farms, told me during a tour of the company’s Laurel plant: “Jobs in chicken processing have been traditionally filled by black women. Many of these women are single mothers without much education. You can imagine it’s got to be a hard life trying to raise children and work fulltime at a chicken plant.”

Cockrell went on to argue that Hispanic immigrants — many of them indigenous people from southern Mexico and Central America — have a completely different conception of what constitutes a decent standard of living than Americans, but that Sanderson was committed to improving conditions in the plants. “Normal incentives to keep employees — health care, retirement, pensions — don’t work with immigrants,” he said. “They come here to work and send money back home.” Nevertheless, Cockrell maintained that Sanderson Farms was a “family-friendly” company; he cited Sanderson’s child-care facility in Collins, Mississippi, as an industry first. “We have people who work almost their whole lives here, and love it,” he said. “The guy in the kill room, he loves killing chickens. It’s hard to get him out of there.”

“He can say what he wants,” Carney later told me. “But the fact is, they care more about those chickens than they care about their people.” This is a truism repeated by processing-line workers everywhere. In an industry with annual turnover rates approaching 100 percent, the only constant in a chicken plant seems to be the endless line of upside-down birds whirling past the plant floor.

Because of increasing competition for these low-wage jobs, racial tension among Hispanic immigrants and African Americans runs high and occasionally boils over into a shouting match in the break room or parking lot. Carney fields calls daily from African American job seekers who claim to have been turned away from plants even as more immigrants are brought on. Poultry managers, for their part, maintain they simply can’t hire enough native workers to supply the booming demand for chicken, which Americans increasingly view as a healthier and safer alternative to red meat.  

Even if immigrants are not, in fact, taking poultry jobs away from locals (Grabowski claims they are not), the negative reaction is as understandable as it is misconceived. Against the odds — Mississippi is notoriously anti-union — Carney helped organize three Mississippi poultry plants in the early 1990s: two Sanderson Farms plants and one run by Peco Foods in Bay Springs. About five years ago, after tough union certification drives and harassment by plant managers, things started to look up for the union and its members. The poultry industry was booming and the union had fought for and received wage hikes and other benefits.

Then, the immigrants began arriving. Native Mississippians working on the line were at first perplexed, then angry, as line-speeds increased and new jobs were filled by workers from parts of Mexico they had never heard of, like Oaxaca and Chiapas. The immigrants worked harder, faster, and never complained. Labor contractors brought in groups of immigrants and paid them separately from other workers, often deducting a cut for their “services.” Seemingly overnight, immigrants became the majority on the line at Peco Foods and a significant part of the Sanderson Farms plant.

Under the union contract, new workers aren’t allowed to join until after a ninety-day probationary period. When Carney tried to recruit immigrant workers for his union, he found that the labor contractor fired workers after exactly ninety days, only to rehire them the same day under a new name and Social Security number. He discovered that workers who complained about not receiving overtime were fired on the spot. Even after massive firings, the poultry plants were able to bring in new immigrant workers without missing production quotas.

The situation is not unique to southern Mississippi. Throughout the South, immigrants have started taking jobs in poultry and meatpacking plants in towns that, until recently, remained largely untouched by the great waves of immigration to the United States throughout the twentieth century. The impact of Latino immigration on the economy and culture of the South has been overwhelming, yet rarely examined. When the Census Bureau reported that the Latino population of the Southern states had tripled from 1990 to 2000, many people who follow immigration patterns thought that the Census had actually underreported the number of Latinos in the South. In Laurel, for example, the mayor and police officials consistently estimated the Hispanic population to be around 10 percent, while the census reported only 2 percent. Laurel residents say ten years ago, there was not one Mexican restaurant in town, whereas now there are at least four, plus three Mexican grocery stores.

This unprecedented immigration to the South represents a curious twist in the logic of global capitalism. “What’s unique about poultry,” Grabowski says, “is that unlike other sectors — like manufacturing — where companies have moved abroad in search of cheaper labor, poultry companies have, in effect, brought the cheap labor here. Poultry has combined the worst labor practices in agriculture with the worst practices in meatpacking.”

Immigrants to small Southern towns also struggle with life outside the plant. Although Mississippi has one of the lowest costs of living in the country, immigrants often pay over $1,000 a month for a rundown two-bedroom house or trailer. Rental markets in small towns in Mississippi are often controlled by a handful of landlords who gouge immigrants by charging rent per person, not per property. Under this scheme, half a dozen workers can be housed in small trailers, some without heat or running water. According to Laurel’s mayor, some poultry workers have even lived in tents by the town’s only shopping mall.

Responding to the no-match crisis

As Carney contemplated his options for responding to the situation at Peco Foods, he quickly learned more about the SSA’s “no-match letter”— the reason Peco had fired Esteban. Shortly after Esteban was fired, other workers started approaching Carney telling him that they, too, had been notified that they had shown up as a “no-match” in the SSA database and would be fired within two weeks if they did nothing to correct the problem.

Carney called other LIUNA locals and an immigrants’ rights group in Jackson. The “no-match” letter was not even on their radar; no one knew how to respond to the threat of mass firings other than to wish the immigrants luck in the next chicken plant. He arranged an ad hoc meeting at the Catholic church in Laurel with some bilingual immigrants’ rights advocates and asked workers to come. With less than twenty-four hours advance notice, approximately eighty workers showed up for the meeting.

After consulting with a team of lawyers and researchers from the Equal Justice Center and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), Carney and his colleagues were finally able to get some background on the “no-match” letter. Both organizations are legal aid nonprofits that represent immigrant workers with immigration and labor issues. After every tax season, Carney learned, the SSA sends letters to employees whose Social Security Numbers do not match the name reported to the SSA through the Internal Revenue Service.

According to the SSA, the original purpose of these letters was to reduce the astounding $374 billion in the SSA’s “Earnings Suspense File” (ESF), an account that holds money paid into Social Security that cannot be linked to individual workers. However benevolent SSA’s intentions, the result of the government’s “no-match” campaign has been a disaster for immigrant workers, a group disproportionately affected by these letters. The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) estimates that tens of thousands of workers have been fired solely on the basis of the “no-match” letter.

What makes these mass firings particularly troublesome, according to Bill Beardall, director of the Equal Justice Center, is that the SSA has no law enforcement powers and does not “share” information with government agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (the agency formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service).

Although employers are supposed to submit a copy of the letter to the employee and allow him or her to handle the issue without interference by the company, the company often fires the employee on the basis of the letter alone. In the Peco Foods case, for example, the company created its own letter, which it required employees to submit and sign, in effect forcing them to admit that they are working illegally. Once they admit to having submitted counterfeit documents to the company, they must be fired under the terms of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which prohibits employers from “knowingly” hiring undocumented workers.

None of this, of course, is explained to the immigrant, and companies such as Peco appear determined to keep immigrant workers in the dark about the “no-match” process; Peco sent out approximately sixty no-match letters last summer to immigrant workers and did not provide a Spanish translation until workers began to demand one. None of the workers were allowed to see the SSA’s original letter, which clearly states in boldface type (in English and Spanish) that the letter does not constitute grounds for any adverse action against the employee.

Furthermore, the letter states that if the employer does, in fact, take action against the employee, the company “may” (a key word whose ambivalence remains unresolved even by legal experts at NILC and the Equal Justice Center) be violating the employee’s rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The workers were simply told — and sometimes urged on the spot — to sign the company’s letter and return it to Gordo as soon as possible.

The workers at the meeting in Laurel, however, appeared determined to fight for their jobs. With some emergency training and support from Beardall, the group of immigrants’ rights advocates gathered at Laurel’s Catholic church — including a freelance English teacher/translator and a Catholic seminarian — were able to explain to the workers that it would be illegal for the company to fire them without a just cause and that the “no-match letter” did not, in itself, constitute a just cause for termination.

Nevertheless, many of the immigrant workers doubted that the company would respect their legal rights as workers. After hours of discussion in Spanish and English, it became clear that the workers held a fundamental mistrust not only of their employer — Peco Foods — but also of the governmental institutions that regulate companies’ labor and safety practices. The immigrants simply could not believe that their rights would be respected by either the company or the government.

 

Foul-smelling victories  

In a sense, immigrants are rightly skeptical of such institutions: Undocumented workers are often arrested for minor crimes such as public intoxication or excessive traffic tickets and then deported. If an undocumented immigrant chooses to testify in court against an abusive employer, he or she will almost certainly be asked about his or her employment eligibility and the source of his or her documents, which are often counterfeit. This means potentially exposing the coyote who brought him or her into the country, as well as family and friends. Also, a recent decision by the Supreme Court in Hoffman Plastic v. NLRB makes it even harder for undocumented workers to win remuneration after being fired. Even when undocumented immigrants are “unjustly terminated,” the court ruled, they do not have a right to sue their employer for back pay. Grabowski cites the Hoffman decision as a major factor in the Canton workers’ inability to win back pay after being unjustly fired. In sum, the cards are stacked against the worker and only those with nothing to lose — such as Esteban — are willing to come forward and tell their stories.

Ultimately, the group of workers assembled at the church in Laurel decided to hand in letters to the company stating that they were aware of the no-match problem and would look into it on their own; they would not admit to having submitted a false Social Security Number, as the company had asked them to. Workers reported that when Gordo learned of the meeting, he became furious and told them they “would pay a price” and that “the union couldn’t help them.”

Many of the workers — and Carney — feared that Peco Foods would fire them, regardless. Surprisingly, days, then weeks went by, and Gordo took no action. The chicken hangers kept hanging chickens and the debone line kept removing bones from meat. For the immigrants and their unlikely advocate, it was a small, quiet victory over a powerful industry, an industry whose influence has done more to change the face of Mississippi than anything since the civil rights struggle.

Weeks after the “no-match” crisis had passed, I found myself back in the Peco Foods break room gazing through a window onto the plant floor. A conveyor belt with metal hooks wound around an immense room from “live hang” to “cut up,” where a group of mostly Latina workers furiously separated chicken breasts from bones. The floor was like an ice-rink of chicken slime and water. The air was putrid as the smell from “further processing” — where the birds’ bones, guts, and waste are boiled into animal feed — hung in the humid Mississippi air.

A group of chicken hangers came through the door for a fifteen-minute rest. Most of their break is spent doffing and donning their uniforms, which are caked in chicken excrement and chicken guts, and the time left is usually spent smoking cigarettes and eating snacks from the vending machines. Two weeks after receiving their “no-match” letter, they weren’t basking in their victory over Peco Foods, but contemplating other jobs in Mississippi, anywhere but in a chicken plant.

“So you don’t want to stay here in Bay Springs now that you can keep your job?”

“I hear the timber industry is hiring,” one said. “Mejor que colgar pollos.

STORY INDEX

MARKETPLACE >
(order from Powells.com and a portion of each sale goes to InTheFray)

Any Way You Cut It: Meat Processing and Small-Town America
Edited by Donald D. Stull, Michael J. Broadway, and David Griffith. University Press of Kansas. 1995.
An anthology of articles by anthropologists and sociologists tracing the transformation of small-town America through low-wage meatpacking jobs.
Purchase this book from Amazon or Powells

The Jungle
By Upton Sinclair. 1906.
The classic Upton Sinclair novel that forced the government to drastically reform working conditions in meatpacking plants in the early twentieth century.
Purchase this book from Amazon or Powells

ORGANIZATIONS >

Equal Justice Center
An Austin, Texas-based legal aid nonprofit that has been monitoring abuses in the poultry industry throughout the South.
URL: http://www.equaljusticecenter.org/PoultryWorker.htm

Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA)
The governmental agency charged with maintaining safe working conditions in U.S. workplaces.
URL: http://www.osha.gov

National Immigration Law Center
A "national support center whose mission is to protect and promote the rights and opportunities of low-income immigrants and their family members."
URL: http://www.nilc.org

Laborers International Union of North America
One of the unions — along with the United Food and Commercial Workers — attempting to organize undocumented workers in poultry plants.
URL: http://www.liuna.org

TOPICS >

President Bush’s proposed immigration reforms
URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-1.html