Mexican American Studies
Self Preservation & the Right to Exist:
by Mexican Americans born and raised in the US
Julian Camacho: (US Birth Certificate states Caucasian and Tomato Packer for father)
Ruben Lopez: (US birth certificate states Caucasian and Unknown for father)
1. Chicano refers only to Mexican American, meaning US born
2. Mexican American refers to people of both parents and or 3 grandparents of Mexican American origin
3. Mexican American does not include mix people
4. Mexican Americans are racialized as White on birth certificates and student enrollment purposes but treated as non-White
5. Mexican Americans do not immigrate to the US therefore immigration is a non-issue
6. Mexico does not recognize Mexican Americans as citizens but as foreigners
7. Mexican Americans are a National Minority because of US conquest
8. Mexican Americans are desert US people distinct from Puerto Ricans and Cubans who are Caribbean Island people, Chicanos are mainlanders not islanders
9. Mexican American identity is rooted in US history from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to the many Mexican American Civil Rights Movements
10. US Commerce Department on Birth Certificate forms classify Mexican Americans as a distinct category independent of people born in Mexico and from Centro and South America
11. Mexican Americans because they are arid people of Aztlan (Deserts of the US) according to Dr. Daniel Potter, MD, their DNA is unique, separate, distinct from people in Southern Mexico and no relationship to Centro Americans who are tropical people
12. Mexican American culture is defined by birth, upbringing, tradition and folklore
13. Mexican Americans are defined by the 14th Amendment as US born and various Supreme Court Cases such as Cisneros, Hernandez and Miranda Cases
14. Mexican Americans according to the US 2000 Census earn the least of all groups in the US at $9400.00 of annual earnings
15. Mexican American comprise 9 out of every 10 Spanish Surnames in California
16. Mexican American US population is 30 million whereas Puerto Ricans in the US are 4 million which is the next closes group
17. Mexican Americans account for 1 out every 14 US person
18. Mexican Americans are the only native people from California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, Colorado because of their pre USA existence
19. Mexican American literature works reference only Mexican Americans not Salvadorians or Shakespeare
20. Mexican Americans are a recognized US culture through language: Spanglish; food; art; identity; accent and blood
21. Mexican Americans cannot be deported nor can their citizenship be revoked
22. In Black Studies, non Blacks are not allowed to teach therefore why are non Chicanos allowed in Mexican American Studies
23. In Women Studies, males are not allowed to teach then why are non Mexican Americans allowed in Mexican American Studies
24. Due to the fact that there are no Mexican American PhD programs, how relevant is a PhD only candidate for Mexican American Studies?
25. The CSU allows for expertise qualification then why does the same standard not apply to CSULA Chicano Studies
26. MA Terminal degrees in Theater, Fine Arts and creative writing is permitted why is it not for Chicano Studies or other relevant MA programs including publications
27. Hiring of non Mexican Americans purposely undercuts Mexican Americans of employment opportunities at CSULA, which is an indication of the highest unemployment rates in the state of California
28. Mexican American cultural distinctions set them apart from Mexico and Latin American born by: identity, accent, culture, race, psychology, experience and poverty
29. Mexican Americans have been in the US longer than any other “Latino” in particular to California
30. By merging Mexican American history with other Latinos, the assumption is that Mexican Americans do not have their own history, then what does Tex Mex, burrito, Zoot Suit, lowriders, Serrano vs Priest, Mendez vs. Westminster, Californian, Apache, Pueblo mean? Does that refer to people from El Salvador and Cuba?
31. What relevance do California Mexican American historical sites have? Such as the San Pascual Pass Museum in San Diego, Cahuenga Signing House, Pio Pico House, Rancho de Cerritos Adobe, The Centinela Adobe, the San Fernando Mission, The Avila Adobe in Montebello. Does this refer to Latinos from Central America, people from the Caribbean and the Philippines Islands because they have Spanish surnames?
32. Would the word Chicano also apply to Phillipinos or Spaniards because they have Spanish surnames? Where does one draw the fine line?
33. Did Latinos from Central and South America face segregation-legal or have their property eminent domained?
34. Did the voting rights act apply to people from Centro and South America?
35. The exclusion of Mexican Americans in the current curriculum development has interrupted the academic understanding of those born in the US and of multiple generations
36. Latinos do not have a comprehension, command, grasp of Mexican Americans therefore how can they teach about them, if even Mexico born do not understand them and they are closer by geography
37. Latinos incorporate US societal bigotry of Mexican Americans into the teaching realm
38. In the current era, Mexican American males face higher unemployment rates then their female counterparts and there is no educational awareness of the impact on the Mexican American community, whereas Columbia University is being sued by a male student because they do not have a male center versus a women’s center.
39. Chicano male needs are not being addressed, whereas Chicana feminist issues are openly welcomed and encouraged through White feminist ideology because White females have been the largest recipients of affirmative action and Title IX at the expense of Mexican American males visible in the low graduation rates of the men
40. The current hiring practice discriminates against Mexican Americans who have published books on Mexican Americans
41. The name change from Chicano Studies at other CSU to Chicano/Chicana Studies or Chicano/Latinos Studies set a bad precedent because it allowed for the name change to include non Mexican Americans, including the hiring of non Mexican Americans such as Puerto Ricans, Spaniards or Mexico born (including the current chair at CSULB or at CSULA)
42. CSULA Chair admitted and stated that just as the word “n” was redefined by Blacks to mean a term of endearment, we can change the meaning of Mexican American
43. CSULA chair was asked what was his definition of Mexican American and he did not answer, meaning the chairs own admission to want to name of the department and simultaneously had no clear answer to what Mexican American was
The ideal of lumping an American minority group with a foreign population is both racist and incomprehensible. This is racist because CSULA and many other governmental institutions want to artificially piece everybody in the same category without respect to Mexican American citizenry and history of which many are multi-generational, meaning from 3rd to 6th generations.
By merging Mexican Americans with others, Chicanos stand to lose more because scarce resources in academic teaching positions, student slots or job development programs are then diminished and allocated to non Mexican Americans. Which in turn as in the case of the name change for Chicano Studies, these outsiders have changed the curriculum or the departmental degree name into something non Chicano. For example, when current chair of CSULA was asked where was he at in the early 1970’s during the Mexican American Civil Rights movement by Agustin Cebada, a participant and a Mexican American born in New Mexico of Pueblo ancestry, the chair responded that he was in Mexico. Which is precisely the point that the Mexican American fight for equal US citizenry is in the US not in Mexico or in any other country of Latin America.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Apache Mexican: Intermarriage and becoming White
Apache Mexican: Intermarriage and becoming White: "'By Jonah Goldberg May 31, 2011; Los Angeles Times 'Princeton's Cornel West, one of the most famous black intellectuals in America, says ..."
Friday, June 3, 2011
Intermarriage and becoming White
"By Jonah Goldberg
May 31, 2011; Los Angeles Times
"Princeton's Cornel West, one of the most famous black intellectuals in America, says that President Obama is afraid of "free black men." Because of Obama's atypical upbringing, West says, "when he meets these independent black folk who have a history of slavery, Jim Crow, Jane Crow [sic] and so on, he is very apprehensive. He has a certain rootlessness, a de-racination."
I like this debate from Cornel West who is actually talking some reality and defining what Black is which is by two parents and telling Whites that their offspring is also White even if they look Black. Cornel West is saying Obama does not have the Black history and treatment as such when he alludes to Jim Crow. He might be Black looking but he's not Black, especially when mama is White. This is vital because he's saying apart from his Wall Street politics of favoritism that he's ignoring the job crisis which is what Civil Rights was all about but he's also challenging the White imposition of identity on Blacks. When Whites procreate with Blacks, Whites view the offspring as Black but the truth is that they are White and that is ignored. Cornel is saying to be Black means you must come from both parents and Whites should accept their kin and mixed Whites should comprehend that they are not the same as Blacks especially when history is thrown in. Torii Hunter was correct when he said that Carribbean baseball players were not Black in the US definition.
This made me think about Mexican Americans and in particular the women who marry out and have the highest intermarriage rates in the US according to National Geographic and as one Mexican American woman stated named Marlette Cortez, she knows a good number of Mexican American women who want their White male trophy. With these high intermarriage rates to Whites and men of other cultures their offspring must be viewed in the context of their reproduction, that their offspring become those peoples for blood, culture, appearance, philosophy, history. They do stop being Mexican American if they ever were because if they were Mexico born then they never were even if raised in the US but Whites like to consider them Mexican Americans without considering those of us by both parents who are Mexican Americans. I personally don't consider them Mexican Americans but what the parent married into because ultimately that is what woman wanted, to leave the skin she carried.
And because this is a phenomenon of women marrying out because under the human rule women chose and make themselves available to men, the same social context cannot be extended to Mexican American males because they on the otherhand chose what comes to them. In other words, Mexican American males can't be picky because there aren't than many options so they are very limited in availibilty and sometimes that means that the psychological personalogical test is ignored when shouldn't because there is a fear that another will not pay attention and that is fear to live by. A recent study in young people revealed that sex for males reaffirms and enhances their confidence so every time a woman says yes which wasn't very often for me in my early 20's, the feeling of not being wanted is a reality and now as near 50's, as my friend Ron said, imagine being 65, there is less loving.
The part I hate the most is the institutional racism visible in many places when White institutions use Whites with a Mexican parent to claim that they are being inclusive. It is the most dishonest, racist insulting practice spit at those of us who didn't benefit from that racial inclusion. That Whiteness and white name means better opportunities, no bad credit and the opportunity to hear all the bigotry first hand which is what Whiteness means and the White girls because they aren't looking at us dark black hair people. I can tell you from someone who grew up in Lennox-one of the most dense Mexican nieghborhoods where everything was outside of the unincorporated strips from the movies, to high school, churches and even the morgues. The only places that existed where two of the most dirtiest supermarkets that would make you vomit as you entered them and the ugliest post office in America. Anybody who lived here felt hell was a better place at least the she devils would pay attention.
So those Whites with a Mexican parent wouldn't live this because their mother procreated to get out for all love is economical. Therefore when institutions hire Whites and try to pass them off as Mexicans that is really one of the most disrespectful and racist acts because it maintains Whites in power and covertly discriminates against us Mexican Americans. And they get away with it. So Cornel is right, they don't know what it's like to live as vermin.
And for those that argue it wasn't their fault, they didn't chose to be born that way, I would say neither did I but I pay for that appearance and you benefit from that look.
May 31, 2011; Los Angeles Times
"Princeton's Cornel West, one of the most famous black intellectuals in America, says that President Obama is afraid of "free black men." Because of Obama's atypical upbringing, West says, "when he meets these independent black folk who have a history of slavery, Jim Crow, Jane Crow [sic] and so on, he is very apprehensive. He has a certain rootlessness, a de-racination."
I like this debate from Cornel West who is actually talking some reality and defining what Black is which is by two parents and telling Whites that their offspring is also White even if they look Black. Cornel West is saying Obama does not have the Black history and treatment as such when he alludes to Jim Crow. He might be Black looking but he's not Black, especially when mama is White. This is vital because he's saying apart from his Wall Street politics of favoritism that he's ignoring the job crisis which is what Civil Rights was all about but he's also challenging the White imposition of identity on Blacks. When Whites procreate with Blacks, Whites view the offspring as Black but the truth is that they are White and that is ignored. Cornel is saying to be Black means you must come from both parents and Whites should accept their kin and mixed Whites should comprehend that they are not the same as Blacks especially when history is thrown in. Torii Hunter was correct when he said that Carribbean baseball players were not Black in the US definition.
This made me think about Mexican Americans and in particular the women who marry out and have the highest intermarriage rates in the US according to National Geographic and as one Mexican American woman stated named Marlette Cortez, she knows a good number of Mexican American women who want their White male trophy. With these high intermarriage rates to Whites and men of other cultures their offspring must be viewed in the context of their reproduction, that their offspring become those peoples for blood, culture, appearance, philosophy, history. They do stop being Mexican American if they ever were because if they were Mexico born then they never were even if raised in the US but Whites like to consider them Mexican Americans without considering those of us by both parents who are Mexican Americans. I personally don't consider them Mexican Americans but what the parent married into because ultimately that is what woman wanted, to leave the skin she carried.
And because this is a phenomenon of women marrying out because under the human rule women chose and make themselves available to men, the same social context cannot be extended to Mexican American males because they on the otherhand chose what comes to them. In other words, Mexican American males can't be picky because there aren't than many options so they are very limited in availibilty and sometimes that means that the psychological personalogical test is ignored when shouldn't because there is a fear that another will not pay attention and that is fear to live by. A recent study in young people revealed that sex for males reaffirms and enhances their confidence so every time a woman says yes which wasn't very often for me in my early 20's, the feeling of not being wanted is a reality and now as near 50's, as my friend Ron said, imagine being 65, there is less loving.
The part I hate the most is the institutional racism visible in many places when White institutions use Whites with a Mexican parent to claim that they are being inclusive. It is the most dishonest, racist insulting practice spit at those of us who didn't benefit from that racial inclusion. That Whiteness and white name means better opportunities, no bad credit and the opportunity to hear all the bigotry first hand which is what Whiteness means and the White girls because they aren't looking at us dark black hair people. I can tell you from someone who grew up in Lennox-one of the most dense Mexican nieghborhoods where everything was outside of the unincorporated strips from the movies, to high school, churches and even the morgues. The only places that existed where two of the most dirtiest supermarkets that would make you vomit as you entered them and the ugliest post office in America. Anybody who lived here felt hell was a better place at least the she devils would pay attention.
So those Whites with a Mexican parent wouldn't live this because their mother procreated to get out for all love is economical. Therefore when institutions hire Whites and try to pass them off as Mexicans that is really one of the most disrespectful and racist acts because it maintains Whites in power and covertly discriminates against us Mexican Americans. And they get away with it. So Cornel is right, they don't know what it's like to live as vermin.
And for those that argue it wasn't their fault, they didn't chose to be born that way, I would say neither did I but I pay for that appearance and you benefit from that look.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Loving Strangers Is A Myth
Some time ago I came across some books from UCSB Chicano Studies professors who are suppose to be enhancing the study of Mexican Americans because that is what Chicano means, but since I don't use that term I take a different approach. As I saw the titles from the female Chicano Studies professors, there was one I think from Chela Sandoval that stated something about loving and that if one didn't love there was a fault in that person. But then I thought if she practiced that philosophy how come I never got any love when I applied to teach part time. All I got was the cold shoulder even after Francisco Lomeli wrote a nice recommendation which I never get because I am not loved by the Chicano community but then again not even my extended family loves me and I don't love them either. I care for two brothers and the other two well lets just say they we mutually dislike eachother. At least we are honest with our dislike. So I didn't get hired and thought those titles were not realistic.
Then I came across Cornel West and his books which can go either way with me though I have read "Why Race Matters" though I'm not Black and many Blacks believe Mexican Americans are not really part of the racial question eventhough we are in the part of Northern Mexico that was conquered by the US have been in the deserts of California for much much longer. And he too has his share of Living and Loving Loud but as I have concluded, this is all mythical.
My most obvious reason goes back to my world view, I can't love strangers. How can one love someone they don't know? That is ludicrious and illogical. So because I see a stranger even if he or she is Mexican American I'm suppose to love them when I don't know their intentions. Talk about not being prepared for life. Someone might take advantage of such openness. I was raised to mistrust the world so when I had to sit through classes on the Multiethnic Experience at CSULB I couldn't take the fact that female professors kept insisting that they had to be shown respect when they were strangers. In my world view, you have to earn that it isn't given willingly and stupidly. So when I stated I was raised to not respect a woman or strangers it was with the intent that I could not trust someone I did not know and even if we were friends we could turn on eachother at any moment. Ask any guy about that. But according to the self serving make belief world of a Cal State University who were self serving, they got upset at my cultural perspective because it didn't suite their purpose. The female professors got mad but I didn't care because they weren't showing me any love so they were being hypocritical and self serving. As long as they were being served they were happy but when challenged at that warp thinking they got mad.
Which brings me back to these not so bright articles and books about loving when the word is a verb not a noun. And for UCSB, I never got any love for all I was requesting was to be judged on my merit.
Then I came across Cornel West and his books which can go either way with me though I have read "Why Race Matters" though I'm not Black and many Blacks believe Mexican Americans are not really part of the racial question eventhough we are in the part of Northern Mexico that was conquered by the US have been in the deserts of California for much much longer. And he too has his share of Living and Loving Loud but as I have concluded, this is all mythical.
My most obvious reason goes back to my world view, I can't love strangers. How can one love someone they don't know? That is ludicrious and illogical. So because I see a stranger even if he or she is Mexican American I'm suppose to love them when I don't know their intentions. Talk about not being prepared for life. Someone might take advantage of such openness. I was raised to mistrust the world so when I had to sit through classes on the Multiethnic Experience at CSULB I couldn't take the fact that female professors kept insisting that they had to be shown respect when they were strangers. In my world view, you have to earn that it isn't given willingly and stupidly. So when I stated I was raised to not respect a woman or strangers it was with the intent that I could not trust someone I did not know and even if we were friends we could turn on eachother at any moment. Ask any guy about that. But according to the self serving make belief world of a Cal State University who were self serving, they got upset at my cultural perspective because it didn't suite their purpose. The female professors got mad but I didn't care because they weren't showing me any love so they were being hypocritical and self serving. As long as they were being served they were happy but when challenged at that warp thinking they got mad.
Which brings me back to these not so bright articles and books about loving when the word is a verb not a noun. And for UCSB, I never got any love for all I was requesting was to be judged on my merit.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Rampart Records
Some ten plus years ago I was at the now closed Towers Records on Atlantic Blvd. in East LA/Monterey Park whatever. I was in my cultural awareness era where I felt that to be Mexican meant that I had to follow musical influence from southern Mexico. I had bought my fair share of Mana, Jose Alfredo and other crap that I was beginning to grow tired of. So I returned to another era that reminded me of my pre teen and teen years. I looked for one of my favorite in Freddy Fender and didn't find his music in the Nortenho section. I assumed they had sold out and then I looked for Los Lobos because in my teenage years "Will the Wolf Survive?" was being played on KROQ plus they sang nortenho and ranchera songs in Spanish much like Freddy Fender. To my surprise I did not find either artist in the Mexico Spanish sections.
Then my curiosity took me to the English sections of rock and to my surprise I found Los Lobos del Este in the rocknroll section and when I couldn't find Freddy, I asked and found him in the country section. I thought damn, Los Lobos are in Rocknroll and Freddy Fender in country western. I was surprised to have found Mexican American nortenha songs in RocknRoll and in Countrywestern. It left me with alot of questions about how Mexican Americans were categorized and one of them was not in the Latin America section and not even in the Mexico section. I was confused.
Through the years I have realized that the separation and not inclusion would come to predict the future in directly. Now in my early 40's I have gone through a metamorphis of the sort that has epiphatized into the fact that I as a Mexican American am a different kind of animal apart from that Mexico section that does not depend on anything from Mexico or person to determine who I am, how I think and how I perceive others. This is not popular because the Chicano academic circles believe we are all the same when the fact US born and by generation and Apache heritage I have come to conclude that Mexico does not determine who I am. I do not depend on them for my cultural expression.
When I shared this belief with a person I met recently in the last year and a half by the name of Hector Gonzalez who I met through East LA College. Our unique distinction is that we were both forced out of East LA College by the Greek Chair of Chicano Studies. So we bonded under those tiring circumstances. But as I got to know him I learned that he inherited a music label by the name of Rampart Records when the original owner Eddie Davis passed away. Hector's connection was that he played with a music group called Eastside Connection and then later Lava and the Hot Rocks. Hector is a throw back to the 1970's kind of Mexican American who called themselves Chicanos. He is still kind of an original Chicano but because non Mexican Americans have stolen that identity including not just Mexico born but even Central Americans, the word has lost meaning.
When I expressed my thoughts with Hector that Mexican Americans have been thrown under the bus in this era because all brown people have been lumped as one with more attention given to those born in Mexico who succeeded and now those without documents plastering their faces all over television begging to be granted amnesty when they broke US law. The Mexican American like Hector or myself have been forgotten because we are easy to and their is this belief that we have it made because we were born in the US and also because we are lazy. We don't need White people to tell us we're lazy, the foreign born Mexicans will tell us we are not hardworkers.
Hector's response was surprising to me because I come across as some right wing nut but forget about the fact that I have a right to defend myself when he stated, "Paisa radio stations don't pay attention to Mexican Americans. Even if we sing in Spanish they won't play our music so we don't have an outlet". I don't know anything about music and radio play but I do know that I never heard Los Lobos or Freddy Fender on no KWKW or KLVE. "We don't get any radio play so all of our music is underground" only proves what I have been feeling for a long time. That the arrival of Mexican nationals endangers our American existence because our needs get pushed aside and forgotten along with our history. And nobody is advocating for us because we have no legal definition nor income and much less sympathy.
I remember once reading commentaries from a White woman in the LA Times over the direction at that time of Self Help Graphics, while a new guy advocated for Latin America by the name of Gustavo LeClerc who righteously thought it was time to include people like him, the White lady opposed it because she stated it hurt Mexican Americans and moved the focus away from the community. And was she ever right.
Lastly, even Hector has been told by a White person in the music industry that the arrivals of the "Paisas" have really hurt the Mexican Americans from the US. Was he ever correct.
And Hector continues to push the sound that existed way before the paisas arrived and the sound that was paid with through flipping burgers as the man funded the Eastside Sounds through his restaurant and who believed Mexican Americans had a vital cultural component. Eddie Davis proved that by giving ownership to Hector when he passed. And for me, I stopped listening to music from Mexico because my heart's not there, my heart is at home.
Then my curiosity took me to the English sections of rock and to my surprise I found Los Lobos del Este in the rocknroll section and when I couldn't find Freddy, I asked and found him in the country section. I thought damn, Los Lobos are in Rocknroll and Freddy Fender in country western. I was surprised to have found Mexican American nortenha songs in RocknRoll and in Countrywestern. It left me with alot of questions about how Mexican Americans were categorized and one of them was not in the Latin America section and not even in the Mexico section. I was confused.
Through the years I have realized that the separation and not inclusion would come to predict the future in directly. Now in my early 40's I have gone through a metamorphis of the sort that has epiphatized into the fact that I as a Mexican American am a different kind of animal apart from that Mexico section that does not depend on anything from Mexico or person to determine who I am, how I think and how I perceive others. This is not popular because the Chicano academic circles believe we are all the same when the fact US born and by generation and Apache heritage I have come to conclude that Mexico does not determine who I am. I do not depend on them for my cultural expression.
When I shared this belief with a person I met recently in the last year and a half by the name of Hector Gonzalez who I met through East LA College. Our unique distinction is that we were both forced out of East LA College by the Greek Chair of Chicano Studies. So we bonded under those tiring circumstances. But as I got to know him I learned that he inherited a music label by the name of Rampart Records when the original owner Eddie Davis passed away. Hector's connection was that he played with a music group called Eastside Connection and then later Lava and the Hot Rocks. Hector is a throw back to the 1970's kind of Mexican American who called themselves Chicanos. He is still kind of an original Chicano but because non Mexican Americans have stolen that identity including not just Mexico born but even Central Americans, the word has lost meaning.
When I expressed my thoughts with Hector that Mexican Americans have been thrown under the bus in this era because all brown people have been lumped as one with more attention given to those born in Mexico who succeeded and now those without documents plastering their faces all over television begging to be granted amnesty when they broke US law. The Mexican American like Hector or myself have been forgotten because we are easy to and their is this belief that we have it made because we were born in the US and also because we are lazy. We don't need White people to tell us we're lazy, the foreign born Mexicans will tell us we are not hardworkers.
Hector's response was surprising to me because I come across as some right wing nut but forget about the fact that I have a right to defend myself when he stated, "Paisa radio stations don't pay attention to Mexican Americans. Even if we sing in Spanish they won't play our music so we don't have an outlet". I don't know anything about music and radio play but I do know that I never heard Los Lobos or Freddy Fender on no KWKW or KLVE. "We don't get any radio play so all of our music is underground" only proves what I have been feeling for a long time. That the arrival of Mexican nationals endangers our American existence because our needs get pushed aside and forgotten along with our history. And nobody is advocating for us because we have no legal definition nor income and much less sympathy.
I remember once reading commentaries from a White woman in the LA Times over the direction at that time of Self Help Graphics, while a new guy advocated for Latin America by the name of Gustavo LeClerc who righteously thought it was time to include people like him, the White lady opposed it because she stated it hurt Mexican Americans and moved the focus away from the community. And was she ever right.
Lastly, even Hector has been told by a White person in the music industry that the arrivals of the "Paisas" have really hurt the Mexican Americans from the US. Was he ever correct.
And Hector continues to push the sound that existed way before the paisas arrived and the sound that was paid with through flipping burgers as the man funded the Eastside Sounds through his restaurant and who believed Mexican Americans had a vital cultural component. Eddie Davis proved that by giving ownership to Hector when he passed. And for me, I stopped listening to music from Mexico because my heart's not there, my heart is at home.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Mexican American?
So I'm at Cal State LA with the Chicano Rountable who are a group of individuals that range from Agustin Cebada and David Sanchez from the Brown Berets in the late 1960's to Saul Figueroa and Xihuan Montalvo both Chicanos from the South LA area and one generation younger than the Brown Berets. Saul and Xihuan represent the Mexican Americans that tend to be forgotten because they don't originate from East LA but as all should know, Mexican Americans don't just come from East LA though another compa Ruben Lopez does and he was also in attendance.
We were all there meeting with the Dean and chair of Chicano Studies, Henderson and Soldatenko attempting to prevent the destruction of the departmental name to the guilt ridden inclusive word of Latino. I decided to help because I believe that Mexican Americans, are spat on and stepped on while others benefit and we are ignored. The first issue is simple the administration hired 4 non Mexican Americans which is really part of the problem which is why they would push to change the name because they are not Mexican Americans and the others of one is also a non Mexican American but Mexican national who has been there so long everybody assumed he was but me. The other two females who are Mexican Americans don't have a pedagogical background in Chicano Studies or even a cultural relevant approach: Education and English is not Chicano Studies and the only qualification seems to have been some matching system the college liked.
So we argued not to change the name and the chair defended the name change and the notion that the Chicano Roundtable had a different definition to what Mexican American means which has always meant US born. And there we were being told by a non Mexican American that our definition was wrong, he's Ukrainian by his own admission, that us who are Mexican Americans by birth were wrong. I couldn't believe his arrogance and the dean arguing that Mexican American Studies should be more inclusive of other Latinos with the assumption we were being exclusive. When the continued life for Mexican Americans is that others are not inclusive of us.
Finally, our elder Luis Garcia who comprehends our argument asked him, "can you tell me what your definition of a Mexican American is". A silent reply and then a Che Guevara answer that the author of Occupied America would not fit our definition because he was not US born. And our answer was yes because those of us US born have no legal definition in Mexico and as we argued we were the ones outside looking in asking non Mexican Americans to keep the word Chicano for the department.
Whose really not included?
We were all there meeting with the Dean and chair of Chicano Studies, Henderson and Soldatenko attempting to prevent the destruction of the departmental name to the guilt ridden inclusive word of Latino. I decided to help because I believe that Mexican Americans, are spat on and stepped on while others benefit and we are ignored. The first issue is simple the administration hired 4 non Mexican Americans which is really part of the problem which is why they would push to change the name because they are not Mexican Americans and the others of one is also a non Mexican American but Mexican national who has been there so long everybody assumed he was but me. The other two females who are Mexican Americans don't have a pedagogical background in Chicano Studies or even a cultural relevant approach: Education and English is not Chicano Studies and the only qualification seems to have been some matching system the college liked.
So we argued not to change the name and the chair defended the name change and the notion that the Chicano Roundtable had a different definition to what Mexican American means which has always meant US born. And there we were being told by a non Mexican American that our definition was wrong, he's Ukrainian by his own admission, that us who are Mexican Americans by birth were wrong. I couldn't believe his arrogance and the dean arguing that Mexican American Studies should be more inclusive of other Latinos with the assumption we were being exclusive. When the continued life for Mexican Americans is that others are not inclusive of us.
Finally, our elder Luis Garcia who comprehends our argument asked him, "can you tell me what your definition of a Mexican American is". A silent reply and then a Che Guevara answer that the author of Occupied America would not fit our definition because he was not US born. And our answer was yes because those of us US born have no legal definition in Mexico and as we argued we were the ones outside looking in asking non Mexican Americans to keep the word Chicano for the department.
Whose really not included?
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Being Gay is not Chicano
I have noticed that one trend that will get an aspiring Mexican American writer is to say you are gay. And you will get more attention. I read some article about a new writer whose name I forgot and the one point the Harvard article pinpointed was that he was gay and Chicano which are really two words that don't go together. Gay because any racial group can be a homosexual but not all racial groups can be Chicanos. And if anybody knows, Chicanos do not want to be identified as gay because most are not. So it is disingenious to try to lump both together when the majority don't want to be labeled in the popular Hollywood or Academia esqueness. Now if that is what is getting published, shame on the publishers for pushing that genre onto a community that believes in children, reproduction, legacy of blood and the beauty of the female body.
Normal Mexican Americans like women and considering US born Mexican Americans are of desert Apache to Mescalero to Yuma heritage, the love of women or polygamy was is part of the male cultural heritage for the simple reason more offspring kept expanding the group. And the women agreed to that cultural norm because unlike southern Mexicans who move north, Apaches and other Northern Mexicans were not Catholocized so the ideal of monogamy is not in my cultural lineage. We view women as having the ultimate power because they choose who to mate with and that is the ultimate power of the female line, even if they are old. Even the older ladies can reject the older men.
Thus to try to focus on Mexican Americans as gay ignores the vast Mexican American community that is anything but gay and are interested in normal struggles and questions of life with womanizing on the side. By accepting more gay writers, the publishers are identifying what is Mexican American in print and that is very dangerous. They are also saying that only gay narratives are worthy of publication whereas the others are not valuable lives worth mentioning or considering for analysis or acceptance. In the academic circle of Mexican American Studies, there is an overimposition of gay and feminist writers which amounts to one conclusion only: the hatred of macho culture. Gay and feminism in Chicano academic (if you can call it that) circles dominates the curriculum that people who fought for such fields of study feel excluded because the gays and female haters have taken over with complicity of the White academic world for they facilitated those hirings and curriculum imposition at the expense of 90% population that is not gay nor feminist. Gays can push their lifestyles but if a heterosexual male writer talks about wanting to have multiple women he is shun. Or if he counters feminist any male hatred he is called all the negative labels available and I don't have a problem with that but let me get my voice out. Gays should stay with their gay community because their lifestyle is important than race and so should feminist because they believe gender is more important than race which I disagree with both. Yet because they are accepted by the White circles as their tokens, their self centered lifestyles become sacred but ask us normal Mexican Americans and we'll laugh.
I don't want to be known as liking men nor as pro women at the expense of my gender because I don't see the gays or the feminist advocating on my behalf and my needs. Those people don't speak for me and I'm not politically correct nor religious, I believe my own mind and don't believe in a popularity contest. And because I haven't been annointed by the gay White literary circle my writings continue to go unnoticed but they are out there pushing for normal Mexican Americans who are trying to survive all these impositions who are only self centered.
Julian Camacho
Normal Mexican Americans like women and considering US born Mexican Americans are of desert Apache to Mescalero to Yuma heritage, the love of women or polygamy was is part of the male cultural heritage for the simple reason more offspring kept expanding the group. And the women agreed to that cultural norm because unlike southern Mexicans who move north, Apaches and other Northern Mexicans were not Catholocized so the ideal of monogamy is not in my cultural lineage. We view women as having the ultimate power because they choose who to mate with and that is the ultimate power of the female line, even if they are old. Even the older ladies can reject the older men.
Thus to try to focus on Mexican Americans as gay ignores the vast Mexican American community that is anything but gay and are interested in normal struggles and questions of life with womanizing on the side. By accepting more gay writers, the publishers are identifying what is Mexican American in print and that is very dangerous. They are also saying that only gay narratives are worthy of publication whereas the others are not valuable lives worth mentioning or considering for analysis or acceptance. In the academic circle of Mexican American Studies, there is an overimposition of gay and feminist writers which amounts to one conclusion only: the hatred of macho culture. Gay and feminism in Chicano academic (if you can call it that) circles dominates the curriculum that people who fought for such fields of study feel excluded because the gays and female haters have taken over with complicity of the White academic world for they facilitated those hirings and curriculum imposition at the expense of 90% population that is not gay nor feminist. Gays can push their lifestyles but if a heterosexual male writer talks about wanting to have multiple women he is shun. Or if he counters feminist any male hatred he is called all the negative labels available and I don't have a problem with that but let me get my voice out. Gays should stay with their gay community because their lifestyle is important than race and so should feminist because they believe gender is more important than race which I disagree with both. Yet because they are accepted by the White circles as their tokens, their self centered lifestyles become sacred but ask us normal Mexican Americans and we'll laugh.
I don't want to be known as liking men nor as pro women at the expense of my gender because I don't see the gays or the feminist advocating on my behalf and my needs. Those people don't speak for me and I'm not politically correct nor religious, I believe my own mind and don't believe in a popularity contest. And because I haven't been annointed by the gay White literary circle my writings continue to go unnoticed but they are out there pushing for normal Mexican Americans who are trying to survive all these impositions who are only self centered.
Julian Camacho
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)