Role of Cuba in African Independence Movements and Music Assignment | Custom Assignment Help

For the first paper (3 pages) Role of Cuba in African Independence Movements and Music, Listen to all the short clips and describe the role of Cuban music in the development of contemporary African music in the context of post-colonial Africa. Music of Congo (West) https://youtu.be/Eb9WhdRJZ3E Music of Kenya (East) https://youtu.be/HIh2WM95AhM Music of Senegal https://youtu.be/6O18RkCQwRM Fidel Castro was a liberation icon in South Africa https://youtu.be/szu9S_VN7zM Fidel Castro: Africa’s hero and liberation icon https://youtu.be/Fa2-NqmhGYI For the second paper(4 pages) Based on the Story of the DREAMers as told in the book, explain and analyze the most important aspects of the struggle for a legal status that led to the creation of this movement. 1, Identify and discuss messages created by the immigrant rights organizations in 2001 for the DREAMers and what were the positive and negative aspects of these messages intended to transform them into “exceptional immigrants”? (1page) 2, What disagreements over strategy emerged between the DREAMers and some of the immigrant rights organizations that led to the DREAMers breaking away? (1page) 3, “Undocumented, Unafraid and Unapologetic” became the new message crafted by the DREAMers, discuss why this new representation became a “coming out” moment for the undocumented youth? (1 page) 4, As part of their “multifront war” of trying to achieve victories, identify and discuss the laws that were passed at the state level in California and the policy enacted by the Obama administration, that would provide for Dreamers a “de-facto legality.” (1 page) Remember to use the MLA Style in-text citations when you cite or quote from the book. Your answers must be based on your reading of the book: The DREAMers: How the Undocumented Youth Movement Transformed the Immigrant Rights Debate. By, Walter J. Nichols. This is not a research paper so you must not use any outside sources

Introduction
cultures—into a coherent and deserving “group” that fits an available
niche.27 In addition to demonstrating their fit in a narrow opening,
they must also demonstrate their fit in the country. This involves crafting
discourses that cleanse the group of the polluting stigmas attributed
to undocumented immigrants.28 Well-placed immigrants, like
undocumented youths, must demonstrate that they are not free riders,
unassimilated, culpable for their illegality, or irreducibly foreign. It
also helps to be able to demonstrate both conformity to national values
and the ways they stand to make an important contribution to the
country. Their hard work ethic, love of family, and civic engagement
build on core national values and reinvigorate the moral and economic
life of the nation.29 Demonstrating national identification strengthens
the argument that they are not a threat to the nation but an exceptional
group that deserves an exemption from exclusionary immigration
rules. Natives can thus begin to recognize that these exceptional
immigrants are human beings who may deserve the right to reside in
the country legally. Once the strategy of national identification reveals
their humanity, support may broaden and the group of undocumented
immigrants can transform a narrow opening into a real and sustained
political opportunity.
This discursive strategy is by no means the only strategy available
to a group. But under conditions of intense hostility, it is the strategy
that is likely to be the most effective. More radical arguments calling
for the end of borders and the immediate extension of full citizenship
to all undocumented immigrants, irrespective of their attributes, would
likely be rejected as the “noise” of “crazy illegals” and not the “voice”
of a deserving and reasonable group of immigrants. Rights advocates
are quite conscious of this. While they are by no means bound to pursue
the strategy described above, many select this strategy over the
alternatives because it is better able to gain the support of a leery and
antagonistic public.
Good representations are important but so too are strong and supportive
networks. Crafting a voice requires ties with well-established
advocacy groups and rights associations. High levels of cultural and
symbolic capital are needed to produce a strong and legitimate voice.30
Rights advocates must have an intimate knowledge of the political
Introduction 13
culture of the country and understand how to pitch messages in ways
that resonate with natives at intellectual, moral, and emotional levels.31
They must also possess enough symbolic capital (that is, legitimacy) to
ensure that what they say is considered reasonable and believable by
the national public. Lastly, they must possess connections with media
gatekeepers who can assist in transmitting their frames, messages, and
talking points to the public. While these forms of cultural and symbolic
capital are necessary for producing compelling representations,
they are not equally distributed across the immigrant rights movement.
Newly arrived or newly politicized undocumented immigrants
are unlikely to possess sufficient levels of capital needed to produce
effective and believable representations. The nationally specific nature
of cultural and symbolic capital means that even the most sophisticated
newcomers will have difficulty representing their demands and
concerns in the most appropriate ways. The relative poverty of recent
immigrant activists, both in terms of cultural and symbolic capital,
requires them to depend on well-established advocacy organizations
in possession of these scarce resources, such as professional immigrant
rights associations, labor unions, religious organizations, and so on.32
These “support” organizations provide crucial resources to immigrants
including legal knowledge, knowledge of national political cultures
and institutions, legitimacy, and communication expertise. They can
use these strategic resources to translate the rights claims of the immigrant
group into powerful arguments that resonate with the norms and
values of the national public. The “voice” of the undocumented immigrant
is therefore not necessarily crafted by undocumented immigrants
themselves but well-established support associations, at least in the early
stages of a campaign.
The DREAMer as a political group was not necessarily created
by undocumented youths themselves. Rather, professional rights associations
identified a niche for well-integrated undocumented students
in 2001 and launched a campaign to pass the DREAM Act. Investing
considerable cultural and symbolic capital, leading immigrant rights
associations created the public figure of the “DREAMer.” They argued
that these youths were exceptionally good immigrants and particularly
deserving of legalization. These associations were responsible for
14 Introduction
introducing the issue of undocumented college students into Congress,
deciding what strategy was right for the youths, crafting and controlling
their representation in the public sphere, and representing them
directly to political officials and the media. While this representation
was crafted in the earlier years of the mobilization (2001–8), it served
as a framework that influenced how activists in later years produced
messages and arguments about themselves and their cause.
Good representations need to be transmitted into the public
sphere in a disciplined manner. If activists do not impose discipline on
their public message, the message will neither stick nor be well received
by the general public. In countless cases, the claims of protesters pierce
the public sphere and then quickly fade from the public’s political
imagination, as was the case with the Occupy Wall Street mobilizations
in 2011. In other instances, aggrieved protesters may be rejected
by the public as noise from an unruly mob.33 Creating and sustaining
legitimacy for a group of stigmatized outsiders requires the leadership
to impose discipline on both the message and the messengers. In the
case of the DREAMers campaign, the leadership centralized message
production, structured messages through the use of talking points,
and silenced utterances and symbols that detracted from the core
argument. Just as important, they disciplined undocumented youth
activists who were responsible for carrying the message into the public
sphere. Disciplining youth activists was a challenging task considering
the thousands of different activists and organizations involved in various
DREAM campaigns. By the second half of the 2000s, immigrant
rights associations had developed a complex and integrated infrastructure
to produce a common message and to train activists in localities
around the country. The leaders sought to diffuse talking points
downward into the grassroots. Training sessions helped socialize youth
activists into the DREAMer discourse, shaped their views of their
place and rights in the country, and contributed to forming individual
undocumented youths into a common political subject with common
worldviews, aspirations, and emotional dispositions.34 This disciplinary
infrastructure therefore kept activists on message, but it also transformed
youths into actual DREAMers who saw, felt, and experienced
their political worlds in very similar ways.
Introduction 15
The steps described above—namely, identifying niche openings,
crafting compelling representations, forming strategic alliances, disciplining
messages and messengers—have provided a narrow path for
a group of undocumented immigrants to produce a legitimate voice.
Recognition of a group’s legitimacy does not lead to the automatic
extension of legal rights. It only makes it possible for this group’s legalization
to become an issue of legitimate public debate. However, the
process that gives legitimacy to a political group also generates many
contradictions. The long and arduous struggle to create a political group
with a legitimate voice has rendered important cleavages between the
different allies involved. These cleavages have resulted in forceful disagreements
and conflicts over who deserves rights, how rights should
be represented, and who should be representing immigrants and their
struggles in the public sphere. While these disagreements risk fragmenting
the immigrant rights movement, they also introduce new
ideas about what rights are and what are the best strategies to achieve
them. The disagreements resulting from internal contradictions can
certainly be destructive, but they can also be moments of great creativity,
where different activists and advocates discover new ways to push
their struggles for equality and justice forward.
Stressing the attributes that make some groups of undocumented
immigrants deserving of legalization contributes to sharpening differences
with other undocumented groups. By representing individuals
with select attributes as exceptional, advocates assert that the possession
of these scarce attributes makes their case more deserving and
pressing than others. DREAMers have stressed high levels of assimilation,
education, and innocence as the attributes that make the case of
undocumented youths compelling and exceptional. Other immigrants
who lack these attributes, including adults, unassimilated, poor and
dependent, “guilty,” and so on, may find it more difficult to make arguments
in support of themselves and their cause. The political success of a
group can reinforce legal as well as rhetorical obstacles. Political success
means establishing new categories (for example, DREAM-eligibility)
with restrictive eligibility criteria (age, time in the country, education
requirements, and so on). The rhetoric of the “deserving immigrant” is
enacted into real legal categories, resulting in the unequal distribution
16 Introduction
of rights and privileges on the basis of one’s possession of strategic
attributes. Niche openings therefore provide undocumented immigrants
with one of the only realistic pathways in a closed and hostile
environment, but responding to these openings aggravates important
discursive and legal cleavages between legalizable and unlegalizable
immigrants. This gives rise to critiques directed at a strategy that
seeks out exceptions for privileged groups of immigrants. Critics may
then push for a more radical and universal position that rights should
be granted to everybody irrespective of their exceptional attributes.
This cleavage is and remains an important source of tension, disagreement,
and reflection within the contemporary immigrant rights
movement.
When human and immigrant rights associations assume central
roles in representing undocumented immigrants to media and
politicians, rank-and-file undocumented activists may give rise to
another set of cleavages. Leading associations assume a central role in
designing the strategy, setting up targets and priorities, creating the
messaging campaign, and training the activists to deliver the message
in a disciplined fashion. Leaders believe that by controlling representations,
the movement is better able to produce and deliver messages
and arguments in public, which in turn increases the chance of
achieving the goal of legalization. However, dominance of these associations—
run mostly by university-educated, middle-class citizens—
over the representational process introduces an important cleavage
with rank-and-file undocumented activists. Many in the rank and file
may begin to question whether leading immigrant rights associations
can actually represent the “true” interests of undocumented immigrants.
In 2010, as leading rights associations sought to control the
discourse and strategy of the campaign, many DREAMers and youth
activists felt deprived of the possibilities to speak for themselves in
the public sphere. Unable to express their own voices in their campaign
led some DREAMers to rethink the meaning of their struggle
for equality. If it was about gaining the legal right to stay in the
country, it was now also about gaining recognition for themselves as
political equals who could speak for themselves.35 Being able to speak
in the public sphere was viewed as a precondition of equality, so the
Introduction 17
act of representing became not simply a means to an end, as the
association believed, but rather an end in its own right. Those blocking
their abilities to speak, namely, the leading associations, were
therefore viewed as blocking undocumented youths from achieving
equality in the polis. DREAMers continued to criticize the government
for denying them the right to stay in the country, but they now
also criticized the immigrant rights associations for denying them the
right to represent themselves.
The efforts of DREAM activists and their allies created a
political group with a compelling and legitimate voice by 2010
and 2011. But this group was by no means unified. The process of
producing the group and its voice necessarily introduced disagreements
and conflicts. These disagreements have been a double-edged
sword: they are destructive because they give rise to factionalism
that can undermine the collective power of the movement, but they
are also creative because they help generate new ideas and discourses
about equality, rights, and citizenship. Debates and disagreements
permit activists to discover the limits of preexisting strategies and
create new ones that they believe are more appropriate, inclusive,
and equal. Such disagreements disrupt the reproduction of older
and sometimes exclusionary understandings of rights, for example,
stressing national belonging, and point out new directions outside
the well-worn strategies and notions of the past.36 The new discourses
and views that emerged since 2010 have sat beside those
produced in earlier stages of the movement, resulting in a cacophony
of arguments, frames, utterances, strategies, and visions in the
same social movement.
The process of creating a political group with a legitimate voice
does not simply result in discourses that affirm a single idea of citizenship.
Rather, it produces multiple discourses, ideas, and schemas of
citizenship, some of which complement one another and some of which
conflict. The very difficult challenge for a mature rights movements,
made up of many different factions and arguments, is to stitch together
some of these discordant discourses into a compelling mobilization
frame that convinces both the fractious activists making up the movement
and the