Ada Maria Issi-Diaz Analysis

Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz writes:
In spite of this difference, many people believe we Hispanics could have become as successful as the European immigrants. So why haven’t we? For one thing, by the time Hispanics grew in numbers in the United States, the economy was no longer labor-intensive. Hispanics have lacked not “a strong back and a willingness to work,” but the opportunity to capitalize on them. Then, unlike the European immigrants who went west and were able to buy land, Hispanics arrived here after homesteading had passed. But a more fundamental reason exists: racism. Hispanics are considered a nonwhite race, regardless of the fact that many of us are of the white race. Our ethnic difference has been officially construed as a racial difference: In government, businesses, and school forms, “Hispanic” is one of the choices under the category race. (48)
Díaz argued Hispanic immigrants did not become as successful as European immigrants in America not because they lacked ability and effort, but rather because they lacked opportunity. She blamed racism as the main
cause of this difference, due in part because “Hispanics are considered a nonwhite race”. In this context, success pertained to “government, businesses, and school” which are synonymous with political, economic, and educational success. However, the success of other immigrant minority groups in all three categories disproves and invalidates her claim that being a “nonwhite race” is the definitive factor for success, or lack thereof. By asserting “Hispanics lacked not ‘a strong back and a willingness to work,’ but the opportunity to capitalize on them,” Diaz portrays racism as the critical reason for Hispanic’s lack of success.
Also, she claims that racism stems from the fact that Hispanics are “considered a nonwhite race”. Asian immigrants are a nonwhite race, but their educational achievements disproves that racism creates an indestructible barrier to success. Being that both Asians and Hispanics are part of the nonwhite group, they should face the same amount of racism, and thus share a similar degree of adversity. The 2000 census shows that 44% of Asians over the age of 25 held a four-year college degree, 26% of Whites over the age of held a four-year college degree, and 10% of Hispanics over the age of 25 hold four-year college degree, thus proving that being a nonwhite does not ultimately limit educational opportunities.
(1)
Diaz’s thesis racism is the primary reasoning for Hispanic’s status in America in relation to Whites. She also made the minor claim that the time period which Hispanics entered America is responsible for why Hispanics “could have become as successful as the European immigrants”. This predisposed disadvantage primarily focuses on financial success where she includes that “the economy was no longer labor-intensive” and that “unlike the European immigrants who went west and were able to buy land, Hispanics arrived here after homesteading had passed”. Once again, Asian immigrants haven disproven this fallacy regarding financial opportunity. In a 2006 Annual Demographic Survey, Over 25% of Asian households had over a six-figure income, under 20% of whites had over a six-figure income, and under 10% of Hispanics had over a six-figure income, which shows that although Asians came at a later time compared to whites, they still showed financial success. (2)
Diaz uses the pronoun “we” in reference to Hispanics, thus she seems to be speaking directly to Hispanics. However, the purpose of her essay is to potentially create change in attitudes towards Hispanics, thus her audience also includes whites. The situation she describes is the current socio-economic status of the Hispanic population in comparison to the White population, and her thesis is that racism is the causing factor for this status difference. One of her side claims was that timing caused Hispanics to have a predisposed disadvantage, because “the economy was no-longer labor intensive” and that “Hispanics arrived here after homesteading had passed”. While her argument makes a logical comparison between Hispanics and Whites, she does not mention other minority groups whose current socio-economic status disproves each one her claims, and in this way her logical appeal lacks validity. Her emotional appeal is to create anger and a feeling of injustice for Hispanics, and a feeling of empathy for non-Hispanics. Unfortunately, because her logical appeal lacks external truth, it is difficult to invoke emotions among readers and thus her pathos is also weak. Similarly, Diaz’s appeal for credibility is also weakened because the logos and pathos is weak. While Diaz has good reasoning within the premises of the article, her appeal to audiences is weak because her claims are easily disproven.