Congratulations to 2016 Learning through Languages participants

img_20161208_115248

The Learning Through Languages High School Research Symposium is a unique way for students to conduct and present preliminary research their language of study. Students from nine North Carolina high schools presented projects on Dec. 8, 2016 in six different languages-Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Japanese, and Spanish.

Teams were judged by UNC and Duke faculty, instructional staff and graduate students. We hope you will enjoy photos from the event (below):

Sponsors

Carolina Asia Center

Center for European Studies, UNC-Chapel Hill

Center for Global Initiatives, UNC-Chapel Hill

Department of Asian Studies, UNC-Chapel Hill

Duke-UNC Consortium for Middle East Studies

Institute for the Study of the Americas, UNC-Chapel Hill

Qatar Foundation International

UNC-Duke Consortium in Latin American and Caribbean Studies

Print Friendly

Congratulations to LTAM major, Luis Gonzalez Chávez

luis

Luis (left) pictured with his parents at the ISA 10th Annual Faculty Dinner

We were pleased to congratulate LTAM major Luis Gonzalez Chávez on Dec. 8, 2016 at the Institute for the Study of the Americas 10th Annual Facuty Dinner.  Following his December graduation, Gonzalez Chávez will start his graduate studies at Georgetown in the spring.

Congratulations, Luis!

About the LTAM major

Stand out in the NEW South
EXPLORE | CATALYZE | LEAD

Explore. The LTAM major offers opportunities to travel to Latin America for field work and study while you are here at UNC, including ISA scholarships for LTAM majors wishing to undertake study in Latin America and the Caribbean. As an LTAM major, you are highly competitive for these scholarships.

Catalyze. The LTAM major also offers high quality advising and personal attention, which are hard to find at a big place like UNC. Departmental advisor, Beatriz Riefkohl Muñiz can help you decide if this is a good major for you, select courses that fulfill requirements, plan a complete educational program, and learn about academic policies and procedures.

Lead. The Latin American studies major prepares students for graduate school and public and private sector careers such as in education, business, public health, law, communication, and government, among others. LTAM majors have gotten jobs in the U.S. State Department in a number of different Latin American countries, in non-profit organizations working with migrants in the U.S., and in transnational companies that operate in the U.S. and Latin America. Read their stories here.

 

Print Friendly

Rev. Erika Martínez Flores receives 2016 Sharon S. Mújica Community Service Award

img_1738-2

Rev. Erika Martínez Flores

Rev. Erika Martínez Flores received the 2016 Sharon S. Mújica Community Service Award Thursday, Dec. 8, 2015, at the 10th Annual Institute for the Study of the Americas Faculty Dinner. This award is given annually by the Institute for the Study of the Americas to individuals who have demonstrated extraordinary commitment to Latin American and Latino communities in North Carolina.

“It is a great honor to receive this award,” Rev. Martínez Flores said, thanking her community for practicing social justice and creating an inclusive cultural place.

As part of Sanford Building Integrated Communities, Rev. Erika Martínez Flores helped lead the Planning Committee to support Lee County’s immigrant and Hispanic residents. After analyzing the data of over 300 immigrant and Hispanic county residents, the Planning Committee worked to streamline strategies that would advance communication, improve public transportation, and support Hispanic leadership and engagement in local government into a single, comprehensive plan. This action plan was unanimously endorsed by the City of Sanford City Council and the Lee County Board of Commissioners.

Past recipients of the Sharon S. Mújica award include Blanca Zendejas Neinhaus, Jerry Markatos, Florence Simán, Ilana Dubester, Cassandra Daniels and Alvena Heggins, Gail Phares and Sarah Plastino.

About 

Building Integrated Communities (BIC) is a statewide initiative that helps North Carolina local governments successfully engage with immigrants and refugee populations in order to improve public safety, promote economic development, enhance communication, and improve relationships. As a result of working with BIC, local governments and diverse community stakeholders have the tools to generate locally-relevant strategies to strengthen immigrant civic engagement, linguistic achievement, and economic/educational advancement.

The program is supported by the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation.

Print Friendly

Conflict Management: The Practice of Negotiation and Mediation

Shai Tamari is the Associate Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he administers a federal grant in support of Middle East studies on campus. He is also a lecturer under the Department of Public Policy, Department of Political Science, and the Curriculum in Peace, War, and Defense at UNC, where he teaches “Conflict Management: The Practice of Negotiation & Mediation” to undergraduate and graduate students.

On Dec. 3, 2016, a total of 18 students spent around 6 hours negotiating over a conflict relating to the Mayans in Guatemala in 1990s. Enjoy some photos from the event (below).

 

Print Friendly

“The man Americans loved to hate,” director Louis A. Pérez Jr. talks to CNN about Castro’s relationship with the US

See the original post here

fullsizerender-2

Image of Fidel Castro in Santiago de Cuba

Fidel Castro Ruz, the political personality, has died. Fidel Castro, the historical persona, has been born. He passes from the present into the past, to serve as an enduring historical subject of debate and dispute, about whom dispassion will be impossible for years to come. Fidel Castro was not a man about whom one is likely to be neutral.

Fidel is a metaphor. He is a Rorschach blot upon which to project fears or hopes. A prism in which the spectrum of colors refracted out has to do with light that went in. He is a point of view, loaded with ideological purport and political meaning. A David who survived Goliath. A symbol of Third World intransigence against First World domination.

But it is also possible to discuss the historical “essences” of Fidel Castro. He emerged out of a history shaped by a century of Cuban national frustration, heir to a legacy of unfulfilled hopes for national sovereignty and self-determination, aspirations that put Cuba on a collision course with the United States. The collision of the early 1960s served to fix the trajectory of the 50 years of ruptured relations that followed.

There was something deeply personal about the Cuba-U.S. estrangement. Fidel Castro offended American sensibilities. The sheer effrontery of Castro’s challenge to the United States was breathtaking: defiant, strident, often virulent denunciations of the United States, hours at a time, day after day, stretching into weeks and months, and years.

Castro’s invective was more than adequately reciprocated by American vilification. Fidel Castro was held personally responsible for almost all the challenges the United States faced in Central and South America, in the Caribbean, in Africa. Castro was transformed simultaneously into an anathema and phantasma, unscrupulous and perhaps unbalanced, possessed by demons and given to evil doings.

He defied years of US efforts at regime change and his very defiance transformed him into something of an enduring national obsession. Castro occupied a place of almost singular distinction in that netherworld to which the United States banished its demons.

He was the man Americans loved to hate; political conflict personalized; decades of frustration over the US’ unsuccessful attempts to force Cuba to bend its will — all this vented on one man. Certainly, scores of assassination plots against the life of Castro could not have made American wrath any more personal.

And, yes: the missiles of October 1962. Castro would never be forgiven. It is highly unlikely that any American administration could have embarked on a US-Cuba rapprochement with Fidel Castro in power.

His death leaves something of a void in Cuba. Not in the form of a power vacuum, of course, but as the absence of a voice and the loss of a presence.

Even old, feeble and in failing health, beset with infirmities, and perhaps with traces of senility, Fidel continued to discharge the role of symbol. He was suspicious of President Barack Obama’s rapprochement initiatives. He no doubt would have been alarmed by the campaign rhetoric of President-elect Donald Trump.
The Republican Party platform inaugurated the 2016 electoral campaign prepared to welcome “Cuba back into our hemispheric family after their corrupt rulers are forced from power and brought to account for their crimes against humanity.” The President-elect vowed to roll back all “concessions” made to Cuba unless the “regime meets our demands,” demands that include “religious and political freedom for the Cuban people.”
At this stage of US-Cuba relations, the very proposition of American “demands” on Cuba bode ill for continued normalization. A people who have endured 60 years of privation over the course of 11 presidential administrations in defense of national sovereignty and self-determination will not likely acquiesce to demands of a 12th administration.
In passing from the present to the past, Fidel will henceforth speak from the grave.
Print Friendly

ISA Director Lou Pérez: “Why did Fidel Castro enfuriate the U.S. so much?”

ISA Director Lou Pérez is featured in the daily JStor. See the original article here

By Matthew Wills
Nov. 30, 2016

Fidel Castro is dead. The Cuban revolutionary, Prime Minister, and President, who dominated his small island nation’s history for half a century, was 90.

Improbably emerging from the Cuban highlands after a successful guerilla war against the Batista dictatorship, Castro went on to survive the United States’ assassination attempts, sponsored invasion, terrorism, and decades of embargo. He survived, too, the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had been subsidizing practically the entire Cuban economy.

Castro was no democrat, but then neither were the right-wing dictators the U.S. supported in Latin America and elsewhere around the world. Castro was different, though: he really got under the U.S.’s skin, wounding American national pride and humiliating and embarrassing the great colossus to the north.

Historian Louis A. Pérez Jr. looks into the “fear and loathing of Fidel Castro” in the U.S. Anti-communism and the Cuban-American exile community went a long way in making America anti-Castro, but there was an even deeper animosity. Writes Pérez, “That Castro embraced communism was insufficient to guarantee US ire. That it happened in a country where the United States had historically imposed its will and gotten its way deepened the insult of the injury.”

Before the 1959 Cuban Revolution, Americans thought of Cuba as their property; indeed, before the Civil War, Southerners had wanted to take it for the expansion of American slavery. After Cuba’s independence from Spain in 1898, the U.S. repeatedly intervened diplomatically, economically, and militarily on the island. The U.S. military was there from 1896-1902, 1906-1909, and 1917-1922; the 45 square miles of the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay have been continuously occupied since 1903.

By the mid 20th century, Cuba was “a background for honeymoons, a playground for vacations, a brothel, a casino, a cabaret, a good liberty port—a place for flings, sprees and binges,” writes Pérez. It was not a country to be taken seriously by Americans. Castro changed all that, vanquishing the American-allied local oligarchs and expelling the American gangsters who ran the casinos and brothels. He also nationalized $1.5 billion worth of American interests in the sugar, cattle, oil refining, mining, railroads, and banking sectors on the island.

Pérez goes so far as to describe America’s loss of Cuba as a “trauma.” Shocked and perplexed Americans, perhaps not unlike parents who watch a quiet child turn on them, were blindsided by Castro’s anti-Americanism and his turn to communism and the Soviets. Soviet missiles on the island in 1962, 90 miles from the Florida, had a “devastating psychological impact on the American people” wrote Dean Rusk, JFK’s Secretary of State.

The Cuban Missile Crisis ended with the Soviets removing their missiles from the island. As part of the deal, the U.S. removed its missiles from Turkey, on the USSR’s doorstep. And the U.S. renounced the use of direct military force in Cuba. Castro got to thumb his nose at the U.S. for four more decades, a constant reminder, as Pérez says, “of the limits of US power.”

Will Castro’s death mark a new era of relations with Cuba, now that what Thomas Friedman, quoted by Pérez, called the “blind hunger for revenge against Mr. Castro,” has no more target?

 

JSTOR CITATIONS
Fear and Loathing of Fidel Castro: Sources of US Policy toward Cuba
BY: LOUIS A. PÉREZ JR.

Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2 (May, 2002), pp. 227-254
Cambridge University Press

Print Friendly

“Fidel Castro: A Life— and Death— In Context,” by ISA Director Lou Pérez

ISA Director Lou Pérez writes for the North American Congress for Latin America. See the original post here.

fullsizerender-2

Fidel’s image in Santiago de Cuba

Among the many tens of thousands of well-wishers to congratulate the newly re-elected President Franklin Roosevelt in November 1940 was a 12-year-old boy writing in halting English. “I like to hear the radio,” the youngster wrote, “and I am very happy, because I hear in it that you will be President for a new period.” The letter was sent from the Colegio de Dolores, the Jesuit boarding school in Santiago de Cuba. The writer was Fidel Castro Ruz, who also added a request to his congratulations. “If you like,” he asked President Roosevelt, “[to] give me a ten dollars bill green american because . . . never I have not seen a ten dollars bill american and I would like to have one of them.”

Can the imagination contemplate the possibility that had 12-year-old Fidel Castro Ruz received a “ten dollars bill green American,” history would have been different? Not plausibly–but it does make for an arresting outcome to ponder.

On the other hand, outcomes no less plausible have acted to shape much of the history attributed to Fidel Castro. How utterly implausible: a revolution of uncommon breadth and depth in a country that before January 1959 was thought of— if thought of at all— as hardly more than a client state, an American playground: a place of license and loose morality; of prostitutes, pimps, and pornography; of bars and brothels; casinos and cabarets; in a country where the United States, former ambassador Earl E. T. Smith was to acknowledge, “was so overwhelmingly influential in Cuba that…the American ambassador was the second most important man in Cuba; sometimes even more important than the President.”

That the government of Fidel Castro expelled the United States, nationalized U.S. property, and aligned Cuba with the Soviet Union— and also survived decades of U.S. efforts at regime change, including one armed invasion, years of covert operations, scores of assassination attempts, and 50 years of withering sanctions. How implausible indeed…

It was precisely this implausibility that so tormented the United Statess. Fidel Castro cast a dark shadow over the U.S. sense of equanimity, a bad dream that would never go away.

santiagodecubaapril-157

José Martí billboard, Santiago de Cuba

The Cuban revolution, personified by and personalized in the figure of Fidel Castro, challenged long-cherished notions about national well-being and upset prevailing notions of the rightful order of things.Notions of injured national pride, of humiliation and embarrassment —very emotional stuff, indeed— all attributed directly to the person of Fidel Castro, shaped the mindset with which the U.S. fashioned policy toward Cuba. Fidel had to be punished, and U.S. policy toward Cuba with was nothing if not punitive: all Cubans would be punished until they did something about Castro. His mere presence served as a reminder of the inability of the United States to will the world in accordance with its own wishes, a condition made all the more insufferable by the fact that this was a country upon which the United States had routinely imposed its will. U.S. politicians could hardly contain their indignation. Cuba under Castro developed into an obsession and into a peculiar American pathology. The Cuban revolution, personified by and personalized in the figure of Fidel Castro, challenged long-cherished notions about national well-being and upset prevailing notions of the rightful order of things. Fidel Castro became a very personal bête noire for the Americans. Certainly the scores of U.S. assassination plots against the life of Castro could not have made American wrath any more personal.

Cultures cope with the demons that torment them in different ways and indeed the practice of exorcism assumes many forms. Castro occupied a place of almost singular distinction in that nether world to which the Americans banish their demons. He was reviled and vilified, he was denounced as a madman, a megalomaniac, a menace, an anathema and phantasma, given to evil doings, a wicked man with whom honorable men could not treat. Fidel was beyond the pale, an utterly reprehensible man of despicable character, devoid of the most minimal moral credibility necessary to negotiate in good faith. Simply put, he was a wicked man with whom honorable men could not deal, so irredeemably contemptible as to make even being in his company seem as something akin to consorting with the devil and the prospects of rapprochement appear an accommodation to evil.

santiagodecubaapril-193Fidel Castro was in many ways defined through his confrontation with the United States. His uncompromising defense of Cuban claims to self-determination as a matter of a historically-determined mandate and a legacy to fulfil more than adequately validated his moral claim to leadership. To confront the United States in defense of national sovereignty was to make good on the internal logic of Cuban history, a summons to which millions of Cubans could respond unequivocally, without regard to political affinities. It was in Juan Arcocha’s novel Los muertos andan solos (1962) that the poignancy of this moment in Cuban history was preserved in the thoughts of protagonist Esperanza. “At first, when Fidel had put it to the Americans,” the narrator comments, “she had liked that, because finally there was in Cuba a man of integrity who would stand up boldly and speak sternly to the Americans,” who would hold them accountable…

What resonated in 1959 and in the years that followed was the very phenomenon of the Cuban revolution, of a people summoned to heroic purpose, to affirm the right of self-determination and national sovereignty. Fidel Castro was the most visible representative of that people.

To confront the United States in the name of national sovereignty and self-determination catapulted Fidel onto the international stage, as a powerful symbol to sustain Third World intransigence against First World domination. It happened too that the Cuban revolution triumphed in a larger context, at a time of decolonization movements in Africa, the Middle East, South East Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America. To confront the United States in the name of national sovereignty and self-determination catapulted Fidel onto the international stage, as a powerful symbol to sustain Third World intransigence against First World domination. The Goliath had met his David. That the Cubans could make good on their aspirations resonated across the globe: Cuba as model, Cuba as example. The defeat of the U.S.-organized Bay of Pigs invasion, the Cubans boasted, represented the first defeat of imperialism in the Americas. Cuban bravado reverberated across Latin America.

It is also necessary to pause in the rush to ascertain Fidel’s “legacy.” It would be well in this time of Fidel Castro obituaries, from friends and from foes, from those who would mourn his passing or celebrate his death, to proceed with informed prudence. The temptation to conflate the complexities of historical outcomes with the will of one man must be resisted. The biography of Castro is not the history of Cuba.

The life of Fidel Castro was contingent and contextual. The social forces that crashed upon one another in fateful climax in 1959 were set in motion long before Fidel Castro. This is not to suggest that the Cuban revolution was a matter of inevitable outcome, of course. But to acknowledge that the revolution was not inevitable should not be understood to mean that it lacked an internal logic, one derived from the very history from which it emerged.

However large a role Fidel played in shaping the course of Cuban history, it bears emphasizing that the success of his appeal and the source of his authority were very much a function of the degree to which he represented the authenticity of Cuban historical aspirations. Fidel Castro was actor, of course, but he was also acted upon. He shaped the history of his times in discharge of the history by which he was formed. The meaning of his life must be situated within that history, as it was lived and learned, as the circumstances that acted to forge self-knowledge and knowledge of the world at large, and served to inform the purpose of his presence.

To subsume outcomes of 50 years of Cuban programs and policies to the will of one man is facile. It is bad history. Worse still, it is to dismiss the efforts of countless hundreds of thousands of other men and women who— with ill-will or good intentions— played important roles in the decisions, deliberations, and discharge of the purpose that has moved the history of Cuba over the past 50 years. The Cuban people fell in love with their revolution. Their hopes were lifted aloft by the prospects for a better life, if not immediately for themselves then eventually for their children. They were bestirred to act in discharge of sacrifice and selflessness, exhilarated by new possibilities and new promises, but most of all by the prospects of a better future that seemed to be within their reach and through their efforts. Agency, in a word.

The exercise of national sovereignty and self-determination was the defining paradigm from which the leadership of the Cuban revolution understood the logic of everything else. In this regard, Fidel Castro was uncompromising. Many factors played a part in sustaining Fidel Castro in power. Certainly the oft-cited resort to repression is not without basis in fact. The system has indeed relied on an extensive and efficient intelligence apparatus. It acted on authoritarian reflexes, and was neither slow nor unwilling to apply repression as a means to maintain internal consensus.

But repression alone is not an adequate explanation for the endurance of a government under extraordinary circumstances, during years of withering economic adversity, compounded by five decades of external pressures— active and passive, principally from the United States. The antecedents of the Cuban revolution reach deeply into the nineteenth century, precisely to the point at which men and women across the island arrived to an awareness of nationality and knowledge of the meaning of nationality. For vast numbers of men and women, being Cuban was a fate. No other aspiration so profoundly shaped the formation of Cuban national sensibility as the ideals of nation and national sovereignty. That is, the premise of the primacy of Cuban interests and the principal purpose of la patria, a deepening recognition of the need to relocate power within Cuba and reorder the purpose of power in behalf of things Cuban, but mostly as affirmation of the prerogative of the Cuban in Cuba. No one articulated these sentiments more frequently or more forcefully than Fidel Castro.

The global resonance of the Cuban purpose was coyuntural, representing a time when the resolve of the people of a small island in the Caribbean served as a symbol of hope to peoples in distant continents. The legacy of Fidel Castro? The example of the Cuban people…

Louis A. Pérez, Jr. is the J. Carlyle Sitterson Professor of History and Director of the Institute for the Study of the Americas at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Print Friendly

Sanford Mayor awards UNC BIC team key to the city

sanford_cropped_1Many thanks to Sanford Building Integrated Communities (BIC) for coming together on November 12, 2016, to celebrate their incredible accomplishments. We are honored that the City of Sanford awarded keys to Latino Migration Project Director Dr. Hannah Gill and BIC Researcher and Coordinator Jessica White in recognition of the statewide BIC initiative. Congratulations, team!

sanford_cropped_2About

Building Integrated Communities (BIC) is a statewide initiative that helps North Carolina local governments successfully engage with immigrants and refugee populations in order to improve public safety, promote economic development, enhance communication, and improve relationships. As a result of working with BIC, local governments and diverse community stakeholders have the tools to generate locally-relevant strategies to strengthen immigrant civic engagement, linguistic achievement, and economic/educational advancement.

The program is supported by the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation.

Print Friendly

New Roots/Nuevas Raíces team member María Ramírez featured in SILS news

ohavosramirezweb-2

From left, Doug Boyd (incoming president of OHA and Director of the Louie B. Nunn Center for Oral History at University of Kentucky Libraries), Hannah Gill, Jaycie Vos, Maria Ramirez, and Rachel Seidman (Associate Director of the Southern Oral History Program at UNC).

Read it now!

We are so pleased to share New Roots/Nuevas Raíces team member and current Master’s student Maria Ramirez is featured in the UNC School of Information and Library Science (SILS) news. She and SILS alumna Jaycie Vos (MSLS ’13) presented their work with New Roots/Nuevas Raíces: Voices from Carolina del Norte at the Oral History Association Annual Meeting on October 14, 2016, in Long Beach, Calif. At the meeting, Vos, Ramirez, and New Roots Director Hannah Gill accepted the OHA’s 2016 Elizabeth B. Mason Project Award, which recognizes outstanding oral history projects.

Print Friendly

‘Migration Narratives’ Panel Discussion Explores Immigrants’ Experience of Life in the United States

migration-narratives-6053

Left to right: Felicia Arriaga, doctoral candidate at Duke University; Bahij ’17; Hannah Gill, director of the Latino Migration Project and New Roots/Nuevas Raíces; Niklaus Steiner, director the Center for Global Initiatives; Laura Villa Torres, bilingual outreach assistant with New Roots/Nuevas Raíces; Ingrid Smith, manager of global events and exhibitions; Zubair ’18; Katie Bowler Young, director of Global Relations; Katy Clune ’15 M.A. Photo by Alicia Stemper.

See the original post here.

Bahij ’17 came to the United States as a refugee, fleeing the Syrian civil war to a place where, he explained, he could enjoy freedom of speech and feel like a citizen.

“When Americans welcome refugees, one day my kids and their kids are going to talk about how this made America great,” he said.

Bahij was one of several panelists at the Migration Narrativesexhibition reception and panel discussion at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s FedEx Global Education Center on Nov. 3. Migration Narratives features projects undertaken by recent alumni and students, taking viewers on various migration journeys from different communities around the world and giving voices to migrants’ experiences along the way.

Panelists included individuals featured in the exhibition, like Bahij, and project creators. They shared how difficult it can be for migrants to leave their homes and integrate into American society, sometimes without knowing any English. Speakers connected these personal experiences of migration to larger changes in demographics across the U.S., and argued for the importance of recording this history while it is being made.

Opening remarks were given by Katie Bowler Young, director of Global Relations. The panel was moderated by Niklaus Steiner, director of the Center for Global Initiatives and a migrant from Switzerland himself. During the discussion, Steiner emphasized the importance of the terms used for different types of migration and how they differ from each other. He said despite varying definitions of terms like “refugees” and “immigrants,” differences between migrants are not always so simple.

“We like to keep our policies and our laws in such black and white terms because it’s easier that way,” Steiner said. “But as soon as you start reading these stories, you realize there’s so much grayness in between that’s not that simple.”

Katy Clune ’15 M.A. researched two projects in the exhibition, Carolina Connections, in collaboration with the Global Relations office, and Home in a New Place: Making Laos in Morganton, North Carolina, which was drawn from a larger body of work she produced for her master’s thesis. Clune began work on Home in a New Place after meeting a Lao woman and being invited to her family restaurant in Morganton, North Carolina.

“I stepped into this world that this family had completely created to self-represent themselves to Morganton,” Clune said. “Laos is the only landlocked nation in Southeast Asia, relatively small, and most Americans don’t necessarily know what it is, or most certainly don’t know what role our country had in the nation’s history.”

Refugees fleeing the Laotian Civil War and the communist takeover in the 1970s first immigrated to California, then southern states. North Carolina offered an increased quality of life and mountains that resembled Laos, encouraging migration here.

In both projects, Clune found the experience of isolation to be a common factor, especially when immigrants and refugees come from a country that most Americans do not know a lot about.

The Lao community in Morganton is part of a broader demographic shift in the U.S. In recent years in the U.S. South, demographic changes have been especially dramatic in the Latino community. New Roots/Nuevas Raíces: Voices from Carolina del Norte is an oral history project that chronicles North Carolina’s changing Latino population.

“These perspectives are incredibly important to document because they represent a transitional time when many Latinos living in the south still have personal memories and knowledge about their country of origin and settlement in new communities in the United States,” said Hannah Gill, director of the Latino Migration Project and New Roots/Nuevas Raíces. “Thirty to forty years from now, this collection will be an invaluable resource and an historical collection about what it means to be an American.”

Migration Narratives highlights a total of four projects. Divided by the Sea chronicles the experiences of both refugees and community members in Reggio Calabria, a small Italian city caught in the crosshairs of the Mediterranean refugee crisis. New Roots/Nuevas Raíces: Voices from Carolina del Norte is a digital archive of oral histories from Latin American migrants to North Carolina and North Carolinians that have worked for their integration. Home in a New Place: Making Laos in Morganton, North Carolina, follows one immigrant family as they adapt and reshape Lao traditions in the small town of Morganton, North Carolina. Lastly, Carolina Connections provides a glimpse into the lives of current UNC students who were forced to flee the Syrian civil war.

The exhibition will be on display until Dec. 9 in the FedEx Global Education Center. This exhibition is sponsored by UNC Global with support from the African Studies CenterCarolina Asia CenterCarolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim CivilizationsCenter for European Studies, Center for Global InitiativesCenter for the Study of the American SouthCurriculum in Global StudiesDuke-UNC Consortium for Middle East StudiesGlobal Relations and the Institute for the Study of the Americas.

 

By Haley McDougal ’18

Print Friendly