40 yrs of Chicano Studies

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Old 10-14-2009, 10:08 PM
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Enlistee

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 316
Default
Rodriguez 2)

Quote:
Mexicans will remember this century as the century of loss. The land will not sustain Mexicans. For generations, from Mexico City, came promises of land reform. This land will be yours.

What more seductive promise could there be to a nation haunted by the memory of dispossession?

The city broke most of its promises...

The Goddess of Liberty... may well ask Mexicans why they are so resistant to change, to the interesting freedoms she offers. Mexicans are notorious in the United States for their skepticism regarding public life. Mexicans don't vote. Mexicans drop out of school.

Mexicans live in superstitious fear of the American diaspora. Mexican Americans are in awe of education, of getting too much schooling, of changing too much, of moving too far from home.

Well, never to be outdone, Mother Mexico has got herself up in goddess cloth. She carries a torch, too, and it is the torch of memory. She is searching for her children.

A false mother, Mexico cares less for her children than she does for her pride. The exodus of so many Mexicans for the U.S. Is not evidence of Mexico's failure; it is evidence, rather, of the emigrant's failure. After all, those who left were of the peasant, the lower classes – those who could not make it in Mexico.

The government of hurt pride is not above political drag. The government of Mexico impersonates the intimate genius of matriarchy in order to justify a political strangle hold.

You betray Uncle Sam by favoring private over public life, by seeking to exempt yourself: by cheating on your income taxes, by avoiding jury duty, by trying to keep your boy on the farm.

These are legal offenses.

Betrayal of Mother Mexico, on the other hand, is a sin against the natural law, a failure of memory...

Mexico always can find a myth to account for us: Mexicans who go north are like the Chichimeca, - a barbarous tribe antithetical to Mexico. But in the United States, Mexican Americans did not exist in the national imagination until the 1960's – years when the black civil rights movement prompted Americans to acknowledge “invisible minorities” in their midst. Then it was deemed statistically that Mexican Americans constituted a disadvantaged society, living in worse conditions than most other Americans, having less education, facing bleaker sidewalks or Safeways.

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Old 10-14-2009, 10:11 PM
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Enlistee

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 316
Default
Rodriguez 3)

Quote:
3
The sixties were years of romance for the American middle class. Americans competed with one another to play the role of society's victim...

In those years, the national habit of Americans was to seek from the comparison with blacks a kind of analogy. Mexican American political activists, especially student activists, insisted on a rough similarity between the two societies – black, Chicano – ignoring any complex factor of history or race that might disqualify the equation.

Black Americans had suffered relentless segregation and mistreatment, but blacks had been implicated in the public life of this country from the beginning. Oceans separated the black slave from any possibility of rescue or restoration. From the symbiosis of oppressor and the oppressed, blacks took a hard realism. They acquired the language of the white man, though they inflected it with refusal. And because racism fell on all blacks,regardless of class, a bond formed between the poor and bourgeoisie, thence the possibility of a leadership class able to speak for the entire group.

Mexican Americans of the generation of the sixties had no myth of themselves as Americans. So that when Mexican Americans won national notoriety, we could only refer the public gaze to the past. We are people of the land, we told ourselves. Middle class college students took to wearing farmer-in-the-dell overalls and they took, as well, a rural slang to name themselves: Chicanos.

Chicanismo blended nostalgia with grievance to reinvent the mythic northern kingdom of Aztlan as corresponding to the southwestern American desert. Just as Mexico would only celebrate her Indian half, Chicanos determined to portray themselves as Indians in America, as indigenous people, thus casting the United States in the role of Spain.

Chicanos used the language of colonial Spain to declare to America that they would never give up their culture. And they said, in Spanish, that Spaniards had been the oppressors of their people.

Left to ourselves in a protestant land, Mexican Americans shored up our grievances, making them alters to the past...

Ah, Mother, can you not realize how Mexican we have become?

But she hates us, she hates us.

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Old 10-14-2009, 10:15 PM
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Enlistee

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 316
Default
Rodriguez 4)

Quote:
Chicanismo offended Mexico. It was one thing for Mexico to play the victim among her children, but Mexico didn't like it that Chicanos were playing the same role for the gringos.

By claiming too many exemptions, Chicanos also offended Americans. Chicanos seemed to violate a civic agreement that generations of other immigrants had honored: “My grandparents had to learn English.”...

In the late 1960's, when Cesar Chavez made the cover of time as the most famous Mexican American anyone could name, he was already irrelevant to to Mexican-American lives insofar as 90 percent of us lived in cities and were more apt to work in construction than as farm workers...

Politics can easily override irony. But, by the late 1980's, the confusing “we” of Mexican Americanism was transposed an octave higher to the “we” of pan-American Hispanicism.

Mexican Americans constituted the majority of the nation's Hispanic population. But Mexican Americans were in no position to define the latitude of of the term “Hispanic” - the tumult of pigments and alters and memories there. “Hispanic" is not a racial or a cultural or a geographic or a linguistic or an economic description. "Hispanic" is a bureaucratic integer – a complete political fiction. How much does a central American refugee have in common with the Mexican from Tijuana? What does the black Puerto Rican in New York have in common with the white Cuban in Mimi? Those Mexican Americans in a position to speak for the group – whatever the group was – that is, those of us with access to microphones because of affirmative action, were not even able to account for our own success. Or were we advancing on the backs of those who were drowning?

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Old 10-14-2009, 10:17 PM
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Enlistee

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 316
Default
Rodriguez 5)

Quote:
Think of earlier immigrants to this country. Think of the Jewish immigrants or the Italian. Many came, carefully observing Old World distinctions and rivalries. German Jews distinguished themselves from Russian Jews. The Venetian was adamant about not being taken for a Neopolitan. But to America, what did such claims matter? All Italians pretty much looked and sounded the same. A Jew was a Jew. And now, America shrugs again. Palm trees or cactus, it's all the same. Hispanics are all the same.

I saw Cesar Chavez again, a year ago, at a black – tie benefit in a hotel in San Jose. The organizers of the event ushered him into the crowded ballroom under a canopy of hush and tenderness and parked him at the center table, where he sat blinking. How fragile the great can seem. How much more substantial we of the ballroom seemed, the Mexican-American haute bourgeoisie, as we stood to pay our homage – orange women in fur coats, affirmative-action officers from cigarette companies, film makers, investment bankers, fat cats and stuffed shirts and bleeding hearts – stood applauding our little saint. Cesar Chavez reminded us that night of who our grandparents used to be.

Then Mexican waiters served champagne

Success is a terrible dilemma for Mexican Americans, like being denied some soul – sustaining sacrament. Without the myth of victimization – who are we? We are no longer Mexican, we are professional Mexicans. We hire Mexicans. After so many years thinking ourselves exempt from some common myth of America, we might as well be Italians.

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Old 10-15-2009, 11:46 PM
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Enlistee

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 316
Default
Next day or three I want to get into the Denver youth conference and get into the origin of the farfetched concept of Aztlan and contrived north of the border "indigenism" of people with south of the border Mexican mestizo origins, as well as a smattering of associated issues.

I might take a couple days off or post on something off topic but relevant in the meantime.

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Old 10-17-2009, 09:09 AM
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Enlistee

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 316
Default
This is in the words of Ernest Vigil, a member of the Crusade for Justice from 1968 to 1981, organizer, activist, and an ethnic and race research associate at the University of Colorado. From his book Crusade for Justice.


Quote:
El Plan Espiritual De Aztlan

The first Denver Youth Conference is best known for a proclamation called El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan, published in English and Spanish and consisting of a preamble and a less well known “program of Action”. The three paragraph preamble read:

In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage, but also of the brutal “Gringo” invasion of our territories, We, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan, from whence came pour forefathers, reclaiming the land of our birth, and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, Declare that the call of our blood is our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny.

We are free and sovereign to determine those tasks which are justly called for by our house, our land, the sweat of our brows, and by our hearts. Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds and water the fields, and gather the crops, and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the Bronze Continent.

Brotherhood unites us, and love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come and who struggles against the foreigner “Gabacho”, who exploits our riches and destroys our culture. With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, We Declare the Independence of our Mestizo Nation. We are a Bronze People with a Bronze Culture, before all of North America,before all our brothers in the Bronze Continent, We are a Nation, We are a Union of free Pueblos, We are Aztlan – Por La Raza Todo, fuera La Raza Nada. March 1969.

“Aztlan” referred to the origin of the Nahuatl speaking Mexica of Mexico, who are commonly, but incorrectly, referred to a Aztecs. They came from somewhere in Northern Mexico or the present day American southwest. The Mexica, who are not specifically mention in the Plan, arrived nearly one thousand years ago in the Valley of Anahuac, after a long odyssey,and rose to power and splendor until their subjugation by the Spaniards. The location of Aztlan, their homeland, is difficult to ascertain: somewhere between Nayrit, Mexico – 400 miles northwest of Mexico City – and the present day U.S. Southwest. Who could locate, with precision, Aztlan, the ancestral Mexica homeland? Incidentally, no account of Aztlan locates it near Denver, which is 120 miles north of the Arkansas River, Mexico's northern border at the time of the American takeover.
Continued below

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
ilbegone
View Public Profile
Send a private message to ilbegone
Find all posts by ilbegone
Add ilbegone to Your Buddy List
#87 Report Post
Old 10-17-2009, 09:13 AM
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Enlistee

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 316
Default
Vigil continued
Quote:
“AZLAN” RECONSIDERED

The wording of the Plan demonstrates ethnic pride in its consciousness of a “proud historical heritage”, but its poetic wording creates great interpretive difficulties. It declared unity in gender based terminology (“brotherhood unites us, and love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come”). It spoke of “tasks which are justly called for by our house, our land, the sweat of our brow, and by our hearts”. But what exactly were these tasks for which our hearts called, and what, exactly, was it time to do?

And what did indigenous nations have to say about this grand plan declared in their absence? They clearly have their own myths, legends, and histories of origin that surpass, equal, predate, or displace Aztlan. What did the Plan mean to the tribal nations of the present day American southwest, if this was where Aztlan was once located, tribal nations who had engaged Spaniards and Mexicans (mestizos) in bloody warfare for encroachment on lands they occupied. Or was their input needed, since Chicanos were really “Indian”, or at least mestizo, anyway?

While declaring the “Independence of our Mestizo Nation”, the Plan says nothing about these peoples and nations, nor about African Americans or the role – if any- that the foreign: "Gabacho” would play in the nation it proclaimed. Its wording implies the solidarity of the Americas, since it does “not recognize capricious frontiers on the Bronze Continent”. But how were Chicanos to commune with their “brothers” across these borders? And what was meant by a “Bronze People with a Bronze Culture”?

The Plan declares, “We are free and sovereign, We are a nation”. Was this to be a new nation called Aztlan? And how would Aztlan relate to Mexico? Or would it? Was the Plan a literal declaration of independence from the United States? If so, where were the limits of these lands, since Mexico's borders were drawn by Spanish imperialists anyway and, at the time of the American takeover, vast regions populated not by Mexican mestizos, but by sedentary or nomadic tribal nations? In what sense did “Chicanos” have “their hearts in their hands and their hands in the soil”? What did this interesting imagery mean?

The verbal and theoretical imprecision of this declaration leaves room for many interpretations. Whatever “Aztlan” meant, the word spread rapidly after the conference. Students, for example, soon adopted the name Moviemento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA) – The Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan.

The Plan was, as noted above, a two part document; Gonzales wrote the program, while poet Alberto Urista wrote most of the preamble. The program sees nationalism as an ideology around which Chicanos would rally:

"The Chicano, (La Raza de Bronze) must use nationalism as the key for or common denominator for mass mobilization and organization. Once committed to the idea and philosophy of El Plan de Aztlan, we can only conclude that social, economic, cultural, and political independence is the only road to total liberation from oppression, exploitation, and racism. Our struggle must be the control of our barrios, campos, pueblos, lands, our economy, and our political life. El Plan commits all levels of Chicano society: the barrio, the campo, the ranchero, the writer, the teacher, the worker, the professional, to la causa."

Nationalism was so important that a restatement of it served as punto primero (point one): “Nationalism as the key to organization transcends all religions, political, class and economic factions or boundaries”. Nationalism is the common denominator that all members of La Raza can agree on”. Gonzales believed nationalism should, and would transcend those factors that divided Chicanos. Leftists and many intellectuals at the youth conference, however, argued that “La Raza” itself was divided into classes with divergent interests, and that, at its worst, primitive nationalism could be racist. For them, nationalism alone would not transcend class privilege and bias. The Plan did not address these issues.

The resolutions of the crusade's youth conferences of 1969, 1970, and 1971 reflect the prevailing nationalist sentiments of conference participants. Nationalism may not have been a comprehensive political theory, but it prevailed in the conferences' rhetoric, emotion, spirit of unity, and youthful enthusiasm. Philosophical conflict arose between nationalists and those advocating theories based on class, and though the Plan did not cause these conflicts, being merely an expression of pre-existing nationalist sentiment, neither was it an adequate framework to comprehend or resolve them.

For all its conceptual murkiness, and rhetorical quirkiness, the Plan's preamble and program denounce exploitation and advocated liberation and self determination, calling for driving out exploiters and “occupying forces”. It was provocative In its advocacy or “revolutionary acts” by youth and was traditionalist, or conservative, in its defense of culture, morals, and values like “respect” and “family and home”. It was idealistic in advocating “love”, “humanism”, and “dignity”. It criticized and rejected American society and government and served as a radical voice that spoke to many ideas, emotions, visions, and issues within the community.