Now that the political theater of the conventions is over, the commentary keeps plowing on from: who got their message out, who motivated their base the most, and, oh so importantly, which party had the best (read: most) Latino representative.

I’ve complained in the past about demographers insisting that the Latino Vote is a monolith.  Insisting that Latinos swear political allegiance to only one party is just a different way to stereotype, as far as I’m concerned.  And recent polling shows Latinos shifting to become independent voters in droves.

My favorite claim in this comes from the right wing insistence that Rubio is “more Latino” than Castro because he is fluent in Spanish.  Funny how the party that insists we wetbacks learn English would tout the retention of language as a key component to being fully Latino.

My Spanish is terrible.  My parents didn’t prize keeping language and any native language acquisition I would have gained died with my maternal grandmother when I was six years old.  I feel like I would have had more opportunity if I had language beyond a 5 year old.  I insist that my daughters learn Spanish because it will make them better people and better citizens.

But lack of language has not made me less of a Latina.  It has not severed my ties from my family or my culture.  I am a bridge from one world to the other with or without Spanish.  Do I think I might be a more effective bridge with language? Yes.  It’s something I question quite a bit.  Something I struggle with personally.  The thing about a bridge is that it’s not on one side or the other – it is by definition in between, a conduit for movement from one side to the other.