On a recent trip to that wonderful event called the San Diego Chargers, my buddy and I came across an interesting discussion of Mexican Americans and Mexicans from Tijuana that have moved into a place called Bonita. I was already on an awe because we took the trolley to the stadium and saw that one of the stops is literally titled, "Barrio Logan" professionally labeled on the route map. I have never seen anything in Los Angeles-Orange County that states Barrio anywhere on the contrary, the word barrio is quieted away, not really pronounced except maybe in Barrio Studies class if they teach those anymore or if ever did. In Los Angeles the name of the place will tell you the racial makeup of the barrio: East LA= Chicanos; South Central LA=Blacks, the ghetto kind, Silverlake=Jotos, the White kind with too much money; Inglewood better off Blacks though Mexican Americans lived there and once had a barrio called Ballona no longer there because of suburbanization; Manhattan Beach= Filthy rich Whites; Sherman Oaks= Israel; Chinatown=Vietnamese; Monterey Park=Chinese non American; MacArthur Park=Marasalvatrucha though most Salvadorians have moved or been deported; Glendale: Armenia; Pacoima=George Lopez; Pasadena=Old Protestant Anglo Saxon Money; Movie Studios=Jews who are Whites and La Habra=OC Chicanos who are part White.
We don't have the barrio in front of the barrio, the place speaks for itself but to have a Trolley stop recognition scored points in my radar for the simple fact that no matter how barrio meaning how brown poor that neighborhood is, it still deserves it's due recognition. I took a picture because it moved me. Then we saw the drunk fest called professional football and because we were crowded we would talk, how could we not? As we ate the fillers, we had a conversation with a person next to us who would share with us football talk, then city or county talk. It was exciting to talk to somebody whose only point of reference to Los Angeles was visiting Disneyland in Anaheim. I was kind of surprised but maybe I should not have been, it's not exactly I know San Diego that well but through 20 plus years of adulthood, occasional trips have driven me into Pete Wilson country. That Camp Pendleton always made it seem too far and too disconnected from Los Angeles as if in another time zone.
As trust ensued and I enquired about her Santa Muerte tattoo, she began to open up about work, family, city or residence and city of growth. She even admitted she was a proud bitch in high school who liked the trouble makers, cholo bad boys. After a while I asked myself, am I at a Raider game but she settled my jitters by saying she's outgrown all that, she enjoys football and is raising her daughter to the best of her ability. Then she stated she lived in Chula Vista but had grown up in Bonita. I knew Chula Vista or Chulajuana as she calls it as to imply a relationship to Tijuana though she had not crossed the border in years, it was too dangerous. My aunt lived there in the early 1980's, where didn't she live, and the E Street exit was one place. But then she stated she was raised in Bonita where all the "fresas" lived. My buddy didn't catch on but I knew that well off Mexican nationals were called "strawberries" as class competition from my teenage travels to Torreon, Coahuila. It carries an attitude of "we are better" that those poor folks, but I had only heard it in central Mexico.
When she further stated, "Bonita is full of those fresas, who think they are better than us Mexican Americans because they have money. They are the ones that are born there then move across and view us as inferiors". I was shocked and yet I wasn't because I have come to the awareness that Mexican nationals think they are better than those of us born in the US for the simple reason that we are too Gringo for them and in my case too Apache. My type of Mexican American is rooted in being Apache and my height proves it for me so I have always sense this ethnic national north divide because we are really different ethnic people and I don't even like their offspring even if born in the north, I still see them distinct because their history is not in the north but somewhere in Zacatecas or Jalisco.
But her comment came from somebody geographically born in the same California who for many decades were also not viewed as Mexicans even if born behind the border because they were too far from the center. My mother was born in the Rancho Cucapah of Mexicali near the Cerro Prieto Volcano and she has always been viewed almost an non Mexican and my father was a Yuma Apache and he always dealt with Mexicans thinking he was not Mexican because he was "Puro Indio" as my uncle and many would say, de sangre pura.
"Yeah, they think they are better than us because they were born in Tijuana, have money and we weren't. And I grew up in Bonita. We are different".
It left me bewildered because of their arrogance, who the hell do they think they are, whose the foreigner, the one with papers, I'll say it, the pollos but at the same time it shows how space really defines Mexican Americans. Mexican Americans are spatial creatures defined by space and though we might have names like them or look like them we are not. We are our own people.
Then I told my East LA buddy Ruben who told me, "Hey, they remind me of the Soldatenkos", who was the Cal State LA Chicano Studies chair who was trying to change the name to Latino Studies like an act of revolution. As we, the Chicano Task Force Committee debated him about what a Mexican American is, his answer was "I think we have a different definition". We went ballistic at that comment because he stated that our definition did not include anybody born in Mexico and we stated yes, but the arrogance of him a foreigner to attempt to tell us Mexican Americans who we were because he felt entitled to change the meaning of our definition, of those born in the United States. And what that showed was that he nor those born in Tijuana really give a damn about Mexican Americans. One can feel he can change our identity though he was born in Mexico City and ignore our comments and the others straight forward show that they do not like us because we were born in the US. At least the Bonita residents don't pretend to be inclusive, they out right exclude through their dislike. In my eyes there was nothing beautiful about Bonita and was glad I was given insight to an area I have no knowledge of. And that there are alot of Cholos who are coyotes but that's for another day.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Saturday, August 6, 2011
One Reason I Do Not Like Female Bosses
Is due to the fact that I have not had a positive experience with female bosses or potential female bosses. Does that make me upset, angry, macho hurt or all three? I will stick with angry because I returned to my memory and counted how many had rejected me and denied me my place of opportunity.
But how did I get here. I cam across the job specifications for a Chicano Studies position at Cal State Fullerton and as I read the qualifications, the minimum all wanted doctoral degrees but in fields that did not make sense like Spanish. Mexican Americans were not educated in Spanish because we are from the US, it was an elective but then we didn't comprehend it because they used Castellian and had a Cuban or a White person teaching the class and neither were comprehensible. Plus my brand of Mexican American was really Apache Spanish which was more Apache than Spanish and that Spanish was Nahuatl based like Chingado and pinche loco which meant Spaniards wouldn't understand what I said and neither would southern Mexicans.
Then I looked at the preferred qualifications and they have queer studies and feminism spelled out loud and clear. They wanted a queer emphasis which meant one had to be queer too, you just couldn't write about it and not be joto (NACS accepted term). What degree would be needed to meet that qualification? Then the feminism which meant that one had to be a woman and hate males (think of your father-Darth Padre) or be a man who thinks like a woman and hates being men or males. I couldn't believe it, what kind of soupy qualifications were being written up by these professors who professed to be Chicano. No righteous Chicano would hate on themselves even if they wanted to fight or be embarassed about his testosterone but I had doubts as I read those quals. Then feminism which I have always read as "I hate Mexican American men" but I know my mother would fight any feminist who hated on me so if I was beloved by one woman, it was the most important one, my mother, my jefa who would not hesitate to say, "defend yourself mijo, what kind of man are you?"
So I decided to defend myself and I thought about all those places where I have had female bosses and come to think about it I have been on the negative receiving end of female hatred in the work place. Though no fault of my 6'5 height and 320 pound body I found myself reciting like the lord's prayer the evil of estrogen and it read like this:
1. Trade Tech: I was not rehired by A Rodriguez because she did not like my style of teaching eventhough she admitted she would teach online because students would not enroll in her class. And she laughed proudly of that.
2. CSULA: I was given a needs improvement evaluation by Talavera though I had more teaching experience than her and had been teaching at that place longer than her in a subject (literature) she never taught. I should have gone with the interim gay chair's evaluation. His rebuttal was upset at my rebuttal because I was still recommended for employment but I would not have a needs improvement from an unqualified person. And I was rehired.
3. Southwest: At this campus where discipline is lacking I was not placed on the seniority list because I did not have the right hair and colour. This was a Black campus and the Black female chair SLee would not place me on the seniority list even though I taught online for her and wrote the class up and got approved. She even admitted she did not place me on the seniority list and the union bylaws do not protect me against not being rehired and I wasn't.
4. CSULB: I once was hired to teach US history courses after 5 years of trying and being denied by the elder White woman who recently died. Though I was hired by a prolabor historian Quamwickham I learned why: 8 am classes. I learned full time faculty do not like to teach at those hours and have to get up so early. I had to rough it out in traffic and traffic sometimes got the best of me. Then I was evaluated and was not given a good one because I critiqued country club unions and that went counter to this White woman's lifestyle. Unions protected her but not me from her. Though in Chicano Studies where they placed on the Mexicans and even those that looked Mexican even though they were not, I was given satisfactory evaluations teaching courses that overlapped.
5. ELAC: those that know me know I was denied tenure at this place even after being recommended for tenure and them changing their votes from yes on Friday to No on Monday. I was thrashed by the Greek Woman in Chicano Studies who was the chair because I did not do as she pleased. Why should I have been a toy? I didn't go to college for that and she testified against me even though she was not around the last year because she resigned as chair and took a leave though her word meant more even as she had not been on campus during the 4th year. She could do no harm.
6. Loyola Marymount: even though I was being fired from ELAC, Loyola Marymount hired me as visiting professor. To be fired from ELAC which they didn't, I continued teaching but not as a full time faculty, I had seniority for part time then be hired by a 4 year institution was a redemption of the first class. How could they compete? I give props to Graciela Limon who hired me even after I informed her of ELAC though by reference of my former student Jorge Fajardo, a male who defended me and married me off once as the minister of ceremony. Unfortunately, Limon left in mid term for retirement and left me unprotected or without my manager. The other faculty was a female named Davalos who believed she was the superior one and Ms. Feminism a la macho, cried wolf to the Dean an Asian and ELAC's academic affairs vp badmouthing led to my ouster for I had no protection. Though Graciela Limon asked me to receive a female educator award on her behalf and when I showed up I was asked by Davalos what was I doing there and proudly I stated: "I'm here to pick up Graciela's award". I took a picture with other female recepients and enjoyed the moment that a woman of stature would confide in me a tall male to accept an award over a female feminist colleague. Revenge was sweet even if I was not employed the following year. It's the Apache blood I carry.
7. CSUDH: At this place I had resigned out of protest because (it was part time) the Black dean wanted to weaken the Chicano Studies Department and he did so by hiring a White woman named Irene Morris over a much more experience author Antonio Rios Bustamante. The Dean simply gave her the job and ignored the varous student and faculty suggestions. All S. Williams could say was that Rios was wierd. Some dean. The hiring of Morris meant that myself and others would not be rehired regardless of our experience and accomplishments. She was going to imposte her own female white view on Mexican Americans.
8. Santa Ana: this was the best where I interviewed for a miserable 1 class in Ethnic Studies. The commitee was made up of 6 women and the dean, another woman who was White. Though I did not show any botherness, I was suspicious of the all women committee. By this time in my life I had learned do not trust women and this place was evident. I presented the material the best I ever had and no call. I should have wore a dress. And this happened when I taught upper division at CSULB so it was funny to see their reactions because they did not know what they were questioning me on for it wasn't Ethnic Studies-they were instructors from different fields and that is what angered me the most. No hire there.
9. Female union reps have also been dismal at ELAC: A C Castro and A. Ornelas would not represent me in union matters though they were mandated to by district laws. Castro stated to me she would not be objective with me and shoved me off to somebody who wore a wig and did not know the union contract. Ornelas was worse, she didn't return my calls after one conversation. So here I distrusted both the union and females.
In summary, I have learned that I do not like female bosses because they are allowed to be male prejudice and they get away with it with no legal ramifications because they are protected under civil rights laws but a brown man like me has to take the violence and is not even able to defend himself. Even when filing harassment reports to no avail, the women are more protected. At least with male bosses including Whites I have had fairer opportunities if not the best scenario.
For the CSUF announcement a letter of protest was sent with other males but we are not sure it will succeed or better said, we don't expect it to. Not in this climate.
I trust the devil more.
But how did I get here. I cam across the job specifications for a Chicano Studies position at Cal State Fullerton and as I read the qualifications, the minimum all wanted doctoral degrees but in fields that did not make sense like Spanish. Mexican Americans were not educated in Spanish because we are from the US, it was an elective but then we didn't comprehend it because they used Castellian and had a Cuban or a White person teaching the class and neither were comprehensible. Plus my brand of Mexican American was really Apache Spanish which was more Apache than Spanish and that Spanish was Nahuatl based like Chingado and pinche loco which meant Spaniards wouldn't understand what I said and neither would southern Mexicans.
Then I looked at the preferred qualifications and they have queer studies and feminism spelled out loud and clear. They wanted a queer emphasis which meant one had to be queer too, you just couldn't write about it and not be joto (NACS accepted term). What degree would be needed to meet that qualification? Then the feminism which meant that one had to be a woman and hate males (think of your father-Darth Padre) or be a man who thinks like a woman and hates being men or males. I couldn't believe it, what kind of soupy qualifications were being written up by these professors who professed to be Chicano. No righteous Chicano would hate on themselves even if they wanted to fight or be embarassed about his testosterone but I had doubts as I read those quals. Then feminism which I have always read as "I hate Mexican American men" but I know my mother would fight any feminist who hated on me so if I was beloved by one woman, it was the most important one, my mother, my jefa who would not hesitate to say, "defend yourself mijo, what kind of man are you?"
So I decided to defend myself and I thought about all those places where I have had female bosses and come to think about it I have been on the negative receiving end of female hatred in the work place. Though no fault of my 6'5 height and 320 pound body I found myself reciting like the lord's prayer the evil of estrogen and it read like this:
1. Trade Tech: I was not rehired by A Rodriguez because she did not like my style of teaching eventhough she admitted she would teach online because students would not enroll in her class. And she laughed proudly of that.
2. CSULA: I was given a needs improvement evaluation by Talavera though I had more teaching experience than her and had been teaching at that place longer than her in a subject (literature) she never taught. I should have gone with the interim gay chair's evaluation. His rebuttal was upset at my rebuttal because I was still recommended for employment but I would not have a needs improvement from an unqualified person. And I was rehired.
3. Southwest: At this campus where discipline is lacking I was not placed on the seniority list because I did not have the right hair and colour. This was a Black campus and the Black female chair SLee would not place me on the seniority list even though I taught online for her and wrote the class up and got approved. She even admitted she did not place me on the seniority list and the union bylaws do not protect me against not being rehired and I wasn't.
4. CSULB: I once was hired to teach US history courses after 5 years of trying and being denied by the elder White woman who recently died. Though I was hired by a prolabor historian Quamwickham I learned why: 8 am classes. I learned full time faculty do not like to teach at those hours and have to get up so early. I had to rough it out in traffic and traffic sometimes got the best of me. Then I was evaluated and was not given a good one because I critiqued country club unions and that went counter to this White woman's lifestyle. Unions protected her but not me from her. Though in Chicano Studies where they placed on the Mexicans and even those that looked Mexican even though they were not, I was given satisfactory evaluations teaching courses that overlapped.
5. ELAC: those that know me know I was denied tenure at this place even after being recommended for tenure and them changing their votes from yes on Friday to No on Monday. I was thrashed by the Greek Woman in Chicano Studies who was the chair because I did not do as she pleased. Why should I have been a toy? I didn't go to college for that and she testified against me even though she was not around the last year because she resigned as chair and took a leave though her word meant more even as she had not been on campus during the 4th year. She could do no harm.
6. Loyola Marymount: even though I was being fired from ELAC, Loyola Marymount hired me as visiting professor. To be fired from ELAC which they didn't, I continued teaching but not as a full time faculty, I had seniority for part time then be hired by a 4 year institution was a redemption of the first class. How could they compete? I give props to Graciela Limon who hired me even after I informed her of ELAC though by reference of my former student Jorge Fajardo, a male who defended me and married me off once as the minister of ceremony. Unfortunately, Limon left in mid term for retirement and left me unprotected or without my manager. The other faculty was a female named Davalos who believed she was the superior one and Ms. Feminism a la macho, cried wolf to the Dean an Asian and ELAC's academic affairs vp badmouthing led to my ouster for I had no protection. Though Graciela Limon asked me to receive a female educator award on her behalf and when I showed up I was asked by Davalos what was I doing there and proudly I stated: "I'm here to pick up Graciela's award". I took a picture with other female recepients and enjoyed the moment that a woman of stature would confide in me a tall male to accept an award over a female feminist colleague. Revenge was sweet even if I was not employed the following year. It's the Apache blood I carry.
7. CSUDH: At this place I had resigned out of protest because (it was part time) the Black dean wanted to weaken the Chicano Studies Department and he did so by hiring a White woman named Irene Morris over a much more experience author Antonio Rios Bustamante. The Dean simply gave her the job and ignored the varous student and faculty suggestions. All S. Williams could say was that Rios was wierd. Some dean. The hiring of Morris meant that myself and others would not be rehired regardless of our experience and accomplishments. She was going to imposte her own female white view on Mexican Americans.
8. Santa Ana: this was the best where I interviewed for a miserable 1 class in Ethnic Studies. The commitee was made up of 6 women and the dean, another woman who was White. Though I did not show any botherness, I was suspicious of the all women committee. By this time in my life I had learned do not trust women and this place was evident. I presented the material the best I ever had and no call. I should have wore a dress. And this happened when I taught upper division at CSULB so it was funny to see their reactions because they did not know what they were questioning me on for it wasn't Ethnic Studies-they were instructors from different fields and that is what angered me the most. No hire there.
9. Female union reps have also been dismal at ELAC: A C Castro and A. Ornelas would not represent me in union matters though they were mandated to by district laws. Castro stated to me she would not be objective with me and shoved me off to somebody who wore a wig and did not know the union contract. Ornelas was worse, she didn't return my calls after one conversation. So here I distrusted both the union and females.
In summary, I have learned that I do not like female bosses because they are allowed to be male prejudice and they get away with it with no legal ramifications because they are protected under civil rights laws but a brown man like me has to take the violence and is not even able to defend himself. Even when filing harassment reports to no avail, the women are more protected. At least with male bosses including Whites I have had fairer opportunities if not the best scenario.
For the CSUF announcement a letter of protest was sent with other males but we are not sure it will succeed or better said, we don't expect it to. Not in this climate.
I trust the devil more.
Monday, July 18, 2011
White Women as Recipients of Affirmative Action
I recently reread a generic political science book and was surprised to learn not some much generic information. Information that is actually very valuable for many of my arguments in furthering the comprehension of Mexican Americans. As I read the section on civil rights, there was a breakdown as usual revolving around Blacks first though every inch of expansion was on Native American countries including Mexico. Hence to focus only Blacks white red people were fighting for their survival is one example of selective historiality. Whites feel they in essence created the Black but with Mexican Americans they can't say that specifically for the simple reason of our prior existence. And as an Apache I know we were not invented by Whites rather interuppted by them.
Then I came across the section on Hispanics which refers only to Mexican Americans as stated in the chapter and by birth, US which I found interesting because an ongoing theme has been to focus on US born for me. Many disagree with me but US birth means something and these authors agree with me or I with them. Then I came across the United Farmworker info and a phrase that caught my attention: "In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled in the Cisneros vs. Independent School District of Corpus Christi that Mexican Americans were a national minority and were now entitled to the 1964 Civil Rights Act". It blew my mind that even when I was born I was not considered a minority but I was a red man, black hair, spoke the California language prior to the US arrival mixed with so much Apache lingo that even southern Mexicans did not comprehend my workds. Civil Rights and affirmative action did not apply to my kind.
Then I read the section on Women's Liberation which I have extensively written about because in simple terms I don't see White women as a minority because they weren't segregated or looked down upon and even if poorer they could still pick who marry and better their societal position. Afterall they were still White and if the money issue did not pan out they could still chose who to have sex with and that for me is the ultimate power of any woman. The power to chose who they want to have sex with is the ultimate power of the human being.
So I read the prior struggle that even during the carnage days of the Cherokees or Black enslavement, White women were still citizens even if they couldn't vote. States determined that women could not vote but they were still citizens whereas no Native American or Black was a citizen. How bad were White women off? The Supreme Court ruled that voting came from the states yet the White women were still part of the country club so to speak. Not being able to vote was not the worst thing out there. Women are still not allowed to be priest in the Catholic Church and the majority in attendance are women. It must not be that bad.
Then I read that women were given the right to vote in 1919 but Native Americans born in this land were not even citizens until 1924 so who had it rough. An d with Jim Crow Laws, Plessy vs Ferguson the law of the land, poll taxes, No Dogs, Negroes, Mexicans signed and Hombres Aqui abounding plus Mexican schools how bad did White women have it? Then to my amazement when the Civil Rights legislation was passed White women were included though they had not been segregated by any of the laws I mentioned. How in the world did they then get included into the Civil Rights legislation when they were not forced to ride in the back of the bus? Or better yet, the White woman who felt offended by the Emmit Till whistle would have the same protection as Emmit Till.
The end result of that legislation is astounding that White women without ever having been segregated where given civil rights protection yet Mexican Americans who were legally segregated or called "wetbacks" as my father was in Imperial County was not given Civil Rights protection when the Mexicans needed it the most. My birth certificate states my father was a caucasian tomate packer but he was an Apache, how White could he have been. White women later benefitted from Title IX legislation in 1972 in higher education while for my family finishing high school was equivalent to getting a PhD without any professors favoristism in the committee.
White women were given affirmative action 7 years ahead of Mexican Americans yet who was more segregated and doing the low paying jobs. Because without doubt no affirmative action ever came down my road or ever saw White barrios akin to the Lennox's of the world. As a matter of fact the current data reveals the success of Title 9, more White women are earning PhDs than White males. Why even compare to Mexican American males? It's noncomparable.
Yet the irony of this discovery, is that White women, and women in general still choice who to have sex with, marry and now they have the money which amounts as a type of triple societal affirmative action because as females have stated, their teachers always graded them easier or the best quote I liked was this, "We never get our hearts broken". The arrogance.
Next time you think women are persecuted just think that White women were given racial cover while Mexican Americans, a minority by conquest was excluded even when their laws proved dejure discrimination. Something is wrong with this legal animal.
Then I came across the section on Hispanics which refers only to Mexican Americans as stated in the chapter and by birth, US which I found interesting because an ongoing theme has been to focus on US born for me. Many disagree with me but US birth means something and these authors agree with me or I with them. Then I came across the United Farmworker info and a phrase that caught my attention: "In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled in the Cisneros vs. Independent School District of Corpus Christi that Mexican Americans were a national minority and were now entitled to the 1964 Civil Rights Act". It blew my mind that even when I was born I was not considered a minority but I was a red man, black hair, spoke the California language prior to the US arrival mixed with so much Apache lingo that even southern Mexicans did not comprehend my workds. Civil Rights and affirmative action did not apply to my kind.
Then I read the section on Women's Liberation which I have extensively written about because in simple terms I don't see White women as a minority because they weren't segregated or looked down upon and even if poorer they could still pick who marry and better their societal position. Afterall they were still White and if the money issue did not pan out they could still chose who to have sex with and that for me is the ultimate power of any woman. The power to chose who they want to have sex with is the ultimate power of the human being.
So I read the prior struggle that even during the carnage days of the Cherokees or Black enslavement, White women were still citizens even if they couldn't vote. States determined that women could not vote but they were still citizens whereas no Native American or Black was a citizen. How bad were White women off? The Supreme Court ruled that voting came from the states yet the White women were still part of the country club so to speak. Not being able to vote was not the worst thing out there. Women are still not allowed to be priest in the Catholic Church and the majority in attendance are women. It must not be that bad.
Then I read that women were given the right to vote in 1919 but Native Americans born in this land were not even citizens until 1924 so who had it rough. An d with Jim Crow Laws, Plessy vs Ferguson the law of the land, poll taxes, No Dogs, Negroes, Mexicans signed and Hombres Aqui abounding plus Mexican schools how bad did White women have it? Then to my amazement when the Civil Rights legislation was passed White women were included though they had not been segregated by any of the laws I mentioned. How in the world did they then get included into the Civil Rights legislation when they were not forced to ride in the back of the bus? Or better yet, the White woman who felt offended by the Emmit Till whistle would have the same protection as Emmit Till.
The end result of that legislation is astounding that White women without ever having been segregated where given civil rights protection yet Mexican Americans who were legally segregated or called "wetbacks" as my father was in Imperial County was not given Civil Rights protection when the Mexicans needed it the most. My birth certificate states my father was a caucasian tomate packer but he was an Apache, how White could he have been. White women later benefitted from Title IX legislation in 1972 in higher education while for my family finishing high school was equivalent to getting a PhD without any professors favoristism in the committee.
White women were given affirmative action 7 years ahead of Mexican Americans yet who was more segregated and doing the low paying jobs. Because without doubt no affirmative action ever came down my road or ever saw White barrios akin to the Lennox's of the world. As a matter of fact the current data reveals the success of Title 9, more White women are earning PhDs than White males. Why even compare to Mexican American males? It's noncomparable.
Yet the irony of this discovery, is that White women, and women in general still choice who to have sex with, marry and now they have the money which amounts as a type of triple societal affirmative action because as females have stated, their teachers always graded them easier or the best quote I liked was this, "We never get our hearts broken". The arrogance.
Next time you think women are persecuted just think that White women were given racial cover while Mexican Americans, a minority by conquest was excluded even when their laws proved dejure discrimination. Something is wrong with this legal animal.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Fighting for Mexican American Studies
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)