As I age into my mid 40's I realize I hate ignorant people especially ignorant PhD's like most I have come across in my adulthood because all they do is press the play button of their professors. One in particular was a stupid White woman who was interviewing for a Chicano Studies position at CSULB which proves that the full time Chicano Studies faculty was just as stupid for interviewing a non Mexican American, but what do I expect from people who are not even Mexican Americans themselves.
She was referring to Mexican Americans as immigrants but last I recall, Mexican Americans dont exist in Mexico they would not be and then talked about new Oaxaca people in Baja California which she then referred that because a certain amount had moved in so now they could change the name of my people's land to Oaxacalifornia. That irritated me because it was a direct assault on those who had lived in Baja and were from Cucapah, Kumeyaay or other groups that were now part of the peninsula and the culture. So just because new people show up the identity of the place has to be changed to accomdodate them because they are so deserving. I was mad because my family history is being obliterated and never given an opportunity to be known but now because ugly people from 2000 miles away arrive they have to be catered to. And because some idiotic professor believes they can create new labels they now have carte blanche to do as they please. Lets call women men then and men women.
This is very similar to the definition of Mexican American or Chicano, I only use Mexican American, which somehow now includes Mexico born when it never did and others from Central America. And if we Mexican Americans speak up we are wrong when outsiders as I previously stated have no right to come and impose themselves on us. We didn't ask them to and we don't need them much less do we need so called White or Brown academicians creating false identities or changing the identities to suite their little box.
Call this a gripe, I don't care but don't profess to present an argument and ignore the other millions that live in that place because you believe these exotic subethnic Mexican migrants have to be showcased because they moved and moving is akin to some religious pilgrimmage. The natives of Baja didn't ask them to show up much less like Whites or Asians who want to turn the upper half of California into their homeland while they ignore those that have been living there the longest. This isn't a free for all to take. And as a person who believes space is identity the attempted swap is paramount to destroying my history all because academicians do not want to acknowledge a population existed prior and continue to live there.
Go to your home state and change that name not mine because when I was born in the Imperial Valley we were Mexican Americans only and not Latinos or anything else, well except that we were Apache too. I was born in Apacheria and I kind of like it that way, I don't need no more White woman ignorance.
I will be reading this and posting to youtube and am only two stories away from finishing my new book that has no title but does have 26 chapters. I will post more blogs sooner.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Outsiders Telling Us Who We Are
Sometime this past June, I attended a meeting with the dean of CSULA who oversaw Chicano Studies and the chair of Chicano Studies, Michael Soldatenko whose not a Chicano which means Mexican American, born in the US.
I was part of The Chicano Task Force which is a subcommittee of the Chicano Roundtable that meet weekly at the Boys and Girls Club in East Los Angeles one block east from Ford/710 freeway exit. I attended with great guys who even though we have different perspectives on all things we agreed that changing the name from Chicano Studies to Latino Studies was an affront to Mexican Americans and wrong for the sake of the politically correct era that somehow people born in Latin America have to be accomodated while Mexican Americans born in the US are thrown under the bus.
I have not written about because I needed to process the words and reasoning from both the dean and the chair. Dean Henderson sounded like he was given a script from the non Mexican American faculty in Chicano Studies that justifies why Guatemalans, Salvadorians, Southern Mexicans have to be given recognition when they are not historically Americans. Can Guatemalans and Salvadorians trace their history to California or Arizona or New Mexico? Where are their historical monuments in California?
And I do take it personal because as someone from Apache Cucapah lineage from Southern California/Yuma I view outsiders with mistrust especially when they arrive and feel entitled. They sure don't show any consideration to those of us born here and the same can be stated for southern Mexicans who show up to the north and believe they are owed something.
The likes of Saul Figueroa, Chihuan Montalvo, David Sanchez, Ruben Lopez, Agustin Cebada, Luis Garcia and Popeii Aguilar were in attendance to protest the proposed name change.
After back and forth respectable but heated debate the dialogue took us to the most important part of the meeting that began with Michael Soldatenko stating the following:
"The problem here is I think we have a different definition of what is a Mexican American, according to your definition, somebody like Rudy Acunha is not a Chicano".
And for the record, Soldatenko admitted he was born in Mexico City too when questioned where was he during the Chicano Movement of the early 70's and he stated, "I was in Mexico". Meaning he was not in the US.
"That's true, Chicanos are US born people". I replied.
He was not happy at my reply and yet the most poignant point was made when Luis Garcia asked him: "What's your definition of a Chicano"? And he remained quiet.
I couldn't help but think the following in the subsequent months since that meeting.
Since the time of my birth in 1969 a constant legal definition of a US citizen has been birth with naturalization coming in at second. Though some might say that they are the same, there are certain qualifications that only applies to US born and not those naturalized. Second, in an era where laws are being changed and those that naturalized but engaged in illegal activities find themselves being deported after their time, one can't help to comprehend that those Mexican Americans won't be on any bus for deportation. And vice versa, Mexican Americans in Mexico do not exist as an anything because they weren't born there so to them we are foreigners and gringos to them too. Birth is sacred to both countries. At least those born in Mexico have a place to return to, we don't. And it shows history to both countries. When someone is born in Mexico it means they have had a presence there for at least one generation. The same can be said for those of us born here, we have presence. I was born here, my grandmother was born in Yuma eventhough she gave birth to my father in Mexicali, her father and mother were born in Arizona, my children are born in the US too. Birth isn't just luck, its a connection which people born outside don't have. My children are 7th generation by their Mexican American grandmother: born in Los Angeles, grandmother born in Clifton, AZ, great grandmother born in El Paso, great great in Isleta, mother in Santa Ana. How do others compare to my children's history. They don't.
And I'm not the only one, Cebada was born in Cuba, New Mexico whereas Soldatenko and his mention of the so called father of Chicanos was not so how do they compare to somebody like Cebada or myself.
But the part that irks me the most is the following: Who are foreigners to come to the US and tell us, US citizens, Mexican Americans who we are.
That is the part I cannot reconcile because its these outsiders who are the heads of so called academia of Chicanos when they are not Mexican Americans. Non Mexican Americans are telling us who we are and I find that to be disgusting because it's another form of colonialism.
Mexican Americans don't go to their universities and tell them who they are thus what gives them the right to feel that they can dictate to us. Where else is this permitted?
The assumption is that because Whites see us all as "Mexicans" then we can be lumped with people from Mexico but in actuality for US Whites to lump US citizens with another country is in itself racism. Just because we might share the same name then Mexican Americans must be from Mexico. Can people not distinguish between the American part? Why because we're racialized? It is easier to write us off as foreigners versus considering us to be American. But I don't deal with anything that a Mexican national has to deal with when migrating to the US. I don't stand in line for a green card, take a citizenship test or deal with relatives in southern Mexico. That is not my history.
So yes, I find it insulting and disrespectful that universities permit foreigners from Mexico and now Central America to dictate to me a Mexican American what I am which is not a foreigner. If I don't allow Whites, my fellow US citizens to dictate who I am why should we permit a Mexican national to dictate. Who the hell are them? If they want to talk about Mexican Nationals in the US go ahead but don't speak for Mexican Americans and don't steal from us what little we have.
The same could be said for Central Americans, they don't know Mexican American culture, we don't speak the same, have a different cosmic vision and look different and the same can be said when employing other US citizens such as Puerto Ricans in Chicano Studies much like CSULB has done. They don't know Mexican American culture and we don't know them either and this I can tell you by the two Puerto Rican boyfriends my mother has had, we don't have cultural simularity.
Though the issue is not isolated to CSULA, it's at CSULB as I mentioned along with their current chair who was undocumented by his own admission, Mexican Americans have never been illegal, that narrative does not apply to us. And even the UCLA has faculty from Mexico like Raul Hinojosa who was my instructor at UCLA in Urban Planning but he's not Mexican Ameican because he was born in Mexico City.
That is University racism by lumping them into Chicano Studies which has always been about those from the US not those that migrate north but those faculty don't care because it's a job, a retirement to them and they benefit while we US born lose.
And the best part, these foreigners born in Mexico hire others born in Mexico because that's their shared narrative and screw over those born here. Some say, they have qualifications, but why do they hire an EDD when that's not a PHD or MA in Fine Arts or Creative Writing. They make up rules as they please and attempt to change to meet their cultural needs which always ends up coming at the expense of US born Mexican Americans because nobody believes they exist today because they are all assumed to be immigrants.
Lastly, I could help but thing that the majority of us complaining about the proposed name change were the Mexican Americans looking in while the foreigners where the ones in positions that belonged to Mexican Americans.
So they had the last laugh.
I was part of The Chicano Task Force which is a subcommittee of the Chicano Roundtable that meet weekly at the Boys and Girls Club in East Los Angeles one block east from Ford/710 freeway exit. I attended with great guys who even though we have different perspectives on all things we agreed that changing the name from Chicano Studies to Latino Studies was an affront to Mexican Americans and wrong for the sake of the politically correct era that somehow people born in Latin America have to be accomodated while Mexican Americans born in the US are thrown under the bus.
I have not written about because I needed to process the words and reasoning from both the dean and the chair. Dean Henderson sounded like he was given a script from the non Mexican American faculty in Chicano Studies that justifies why Guatemalans, Salvadorians, Southern Mexicans have to be given recognition when they are not historically Americans. Can Guatemalans and Salvadorians trace their history to California or Arizona or New Mexico? Where are their historical monuments in California?
And I do take it personal because as someone from Apache Cucapah lineage from Southern California/Yuma I view outsiders with mistrust especially when they arrive and feel entitled. They sure don't show any consideration to those of us born here and the same can be stated for southern Mexicans who show up to the north and believe they are owed something.
The likes of Saul Figueroa, Chihuan Montalvo, David Sanchez, Ruben Lopez, Agustin Cebada, Luis Garcia and Popeii Aguilar were in attendance to protest the proposed name change.
After back and forth respectable but heated debate the dialogue took us to the most important part of the meeting that began with Michael Soldatenko stating the following:
"The problem here is I think we have a different definition of what is a Mexican American, according to your definition, somebody like Rudy Acunha is not a Chicano".
And for the record, Soldatenko admitted he was born in Mexico City too when questioned where was he during the Chicano Movement of the early 70's and he stated, "I was in Mexico". Meaning he was not in the US.
"That's true, Chicanos are US born people". I replied.
He was not happy at my reply and yet the most poignant point was made when Luis Garcia asked him: "What's your definition of a Chicano"? And he remained quiet.
I couldn't help but think the following in the subsequent months since that meeting.
Since the time of my birth in 1969 a constant legal definition of a US citizen has been birth with naturalization coming in at second. Though some might say that they are the same, there are certain qualifications that only applies to US born and not those naturalized. Second, in an era where laws are being changed and those that naturalized but engaged in illegal activities find themselves being deported after their time, one can't help to comprehend that those Mexican Americans won't be on any bus for deportation. And vice versa, Mexican Americans in Mexico do not exist as an anything because they weren't born there so to them we are foreigners and gringos to them too. Birth is sacred to both countries. At least those born in Mexico have a place to return to, we don't. And it shows history to both countries. When someone is born in Mexico it means they have had a presence there for at least one generation. The same can be said for those of us born here, we have presence. I was born here, my grandmother was born in Yuma eventhough she gave birth to my father in Mexicali, her father and mother were born in Arizona, my children are born in the US too. Birth isn't just luck, its a connection which people born outside don't have. My children are 7th generation by their Mexican American grandmother: born in Los Angeles, grandmother born in Clifton, AZ, great grandmother born in El Paso, great great in Isleta, mother in Santa Ana. How do others compare to my children's history. They don't.
And I'm not the only one, Cebada was born in Cuba, New Mexico whereas Soldatenko and his mention of the so called father of Chicanos was not so how do they compare to somebody like Cebada or myself.
But the part that irks me the most is the following: Who are foreigners to come to the US and tell us, US citizens, Mexican Americans who we are.
That is the part I cannot reconcile because its these outsiders who are the heads of so called academia of Chicanos when they are not Mexican Americans. Non Mexican Americans are telling us who we are and I find that to be disgusting because it's another form of colonialism.
Mexican Americans don't go to their universities and tell them who they are thus what gives them the right to feel that they can dictate to us. Where else is this permitted?
The assumption is that because Whites see us all as "Mexicans" then we can be lumped with people from Mexico but in actuality for US Whites to lump US citizens with another country is in itself racism. Just because we might share the same name then Mexican Americans must be from Mexico. Can people not distinguish between the American part? Why because we're racialized? It is easier to write us off as foreigners versus considering us to be American. But I don't deal with anything that a Mexican national has to deal with when migrating to the US. I don't stand in line for a green card, take a citizenship test or deal with relatives in southern Mexico. That is not my history.
So yes, I find it insulting and disrespectful that universities permit foreigners from Mexico and now Central America to dictate to me a Mexican American what I am which is not a foreigner. If I don't allow Whites, my fellow US citizens to dictate who I am why should we permit a Mexican national to dictate. Who the hell are them? If they want to talk about Mexican Nationals in the US go ahead but don't speak for Mexican Americans and don't steal from us what little we have.
The same could be said for Central Americans, they don't know Mexican American culture, we don't speak the same, have a different cosmic vision and look different and the same can be said when employing other US citizens such as Puerto Ricans in Chicano Studies much like CSULB has done. They don't know Mexican American culture and we don't know them either and this I can tell you by the two Puerto Rican boyfriends my mother has had, we don't have cultural simularity.
Though the issue is not isolated to CSULA, it's at CSULB as I mentioned along with their current chair who was undocumented by his own admission, Mexican Americans have never been illegal, that narrative does not apply to us. And even the UCLA has faculty from Mexico like Raul Hinojosa who was my instructor at UCLA in Urban Planning but he's not Mexican Ameican because he was born in Mexico City.
That is University racism by lumping them into Chicano Studies which has always been about those from the US not those that migrate north but those faculty don't care because it's a job, a retirement to them and they benefit while we US born lose.
And the best part, these foreigners born in Mexico hire others born in Mexico because that's their shared narrative and screw over those born here. Some say, they have qualifications, but why do they hire an EDD when that's not a PHD or MA in Fine Arts or Creative Writing. They make up rules as they please and attempt to change to meet their cultural needs which always ends up coming at the expense of US born Mexican Americans because nobody believes they exist today because they are all assumed to be immigrants.
Lastly, I could help but thing that the majority of us complaining about the proposed name change were the Mexican Americans looking in while the foreigners where the ones in positions that belonged to Mexican Americans.
So they had the last laugh.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
The X Files
I recently came across a chapter in year 9 of The X Files, I have been watching every episode from season 1, have turned on the subtitle and have read like if it was a novel. In this episode, they are on an oil ring investigating how one Mestizo was killed by a specific radiation but were not effected by the alien virus, oil.
Then in a dialogue over the so called Mestizo Mexican, that even the human like White aliens referred to them as mestizo, Scully tells Skinner, her boss the following line in the autopsy:
“Mr Simon de la Cruz is listed of mixed Mexican ancestry, when in fact he is of Hecha Indian, the Huecha are an indigenous Mexican culture that has a rate undiluted gene pool. Now, these genes may have an innate immunity to infection.”
Considering the Aztecs saw themselves as People of the Sun, literally coming from the sun and a belief in outer space is quite prevalent without having to ever go on an airplane, I could not help but think why this television program basically spelled out who Mexicans are and Mexican Americans but colleges who specialize in Mexico and Mexican American Studies keep insisting that they are something they are not. Why do these centers of higher education keep shoving down ignorance when the opposite is true.
To keep insisting Mexican Americans are mestizos with categories that are invalid perpetuates not just a mislabeling of the very people they profess to know but also a confusion of identities because they the very professors of knowledge are themselves confused. What more evidence do they need other than Black hair and brown or red skin to prove what they are? Or eating the same diet for centuries even if the cow came from Europe. As Dick Cheney said, "so". Are Spaniards or Germans Mexican because they have incorporated chocolate or a papa into their diet? They don't change other than better looking teeth and satisfied females, so why doesn't that argument hold truth for Mexicans. US whites drink more tequila than the tequila Gods just listen to country music and you would think hot water comes from Tenneesee. Maybe it does.
For you Chicano lost professors just look in the mirror and if you don't resemble maybe you are not which is ok, just don't confuse those who are "indigenous" because if the writers of The X Files got it correct why can't you?
Or as my fellow Mexican American Apache friend Ruben Lopez was told by the American Red Cross when he donated blood: "you have rare antagems, we want you to come back". And he just wanted the extra credit.
I personally love being a Cucapah Apache!
Kunahuati Chalea Turi!
Then in a dialogue over the so called Mestizo Mexican, that even the human like White aliens referred to them as mestizo, Scully tells Skinner, her boss the following line in the autopsy:
“Mr Simon de la Cruz is listed of mixed Mexican ancestry, when in fact he is of Hecha Indian, the Huecha are an indigenous Mexican culture that has a rate undiluted gene pool. Now, these genes may have an innate immunity to infection.”
Considering the Aztecs saw themselves as People of the Sun, literally coming from the sun and a belief in outer space is quite prevalent without having to ever go on an airplane, I could not help but think why this television program basically spelled out who Mexicans are and Mexican Americans but colleges who specialize in Mexico and Mexican American Studies keep insisting that they are something they are not. Why do these centers of higher education keep shoving down ignorance when the opposite is true.
To keep insisting Mexican Americans are mestizos with categories that are invalid perpetuates not just a mislabeling of the very people they profess to know but also a confusion of identities because they the very professors of knowledge are themselves confused. What more evidence do they need other than Black hair and brown or red skin to prove what they are? Or eating the same diet for centuries even if the cow came from Europe. As Dick Cheney said, "so". Are Spaniards or Germans Mexican because they have incorporated chocolate or a papa into their diet? They don't change other than better looking teeth and satisfied females, so why doesn't that argument hold truth for Mexicans. US whites drink more tequila than the tequila Gods just listen to country music and you would think hot water comes from Tenneesee. Maybe it does.
For you Chicano lost professors just look in the mirror and if you don't resemble maybe you are not which is ok, just don't confuse those who are "indigenous" because if the writers of The X Files got it correct why can't you?
Or as my fellow Mexican American Apache friend Ruben Lopez was told by the American Red Cross when he donated blood: "you have rare antagems, we want you to come back". And he just wanted the extra credit.
I personally love being a Cucapah Apache!
Kunahuati Chalea Turi!
Friday, September 9, 2011
From Leon
I once met a man named Antonio from Leon, Guanajuato who made me think about emigration from Central Mexico and the reasons associated with migration. The easiest assumption is that they are unemployed and looking for an opportunity. But I'm not sure that holds merit because when people are unemployed they rarely have the money to move. I see my buddy Ruben whose been unemployed, walks and takes the bus everywhere because his car gave out and cannot afford another one. My other unemployed friend Rodrigo survives only because he lives at home but as he has stated, "I can't afford to move to another state, I only get $32 per week from unemployment" and he has a Master's in Chicano Studies. I could go on here but I hope you catch my point, no money, no movement.
Thus as Antonio and I continued talking, I asked him why he moved north. Did he have a job, did he have feel he had to move for an opportunity when his answer surprised me. Antonio stated, "I had a little welding shop in Leon, was self employed doing well for myself, then one day I went to the bank and I saw this woman in front of me with a bundle of dollars. My eyes got crazy, I said to myself, I want what she had, I wanted those bundles of dollars. At that moment I said to myself I'm heading north, and I closed my shop and left and here I am 30 years later. Doing the same job that I did in Leon, welding. Those dollars drove me wild"
Then he further told me he settled in Long Beach because there was a community of Guanajuato people and was constantly employed as a welder and was able to purchase a condo with his wife. At that moment I wondered why people much poorer in my Mexicali, Baja California visits who lived in quite humble conditions never attempted to move across the line while somebody 1200 miles away did. And Antonio was not the only example but it lead me to conclude that what drove him was the simple desire of greed because he wanted more than what he was earning though by his own admission he had a comfortable business, something my friends wont have access to even though they might dream about it and they are Americans in the birth and paper definition sense.
In a strange way this bothers me because this attitude is a negative source of energy because this person moved without having to and all because of greed while people in Baja would settle for what they have and the guys I know find themselves victims of the current recession and truth of the matter they will probably never own a home because their job prospect is nil and they dont have enough money for anything else. Immigrant Mexicans have better opportunities than any one will admit and they don't always come because they do not have a employment, they just want those bundles of dollars because of greed. And that attitude is not positive for our society because all they think about is me me me. How many do not say they have an empty home where they come? From our US experience none of us have homes period except for one guy I know whose mother left him her home because he was the only offspring alive. And he's the one who travels between Vegas and Los Angeles for his job because he can afford to.
Some will say that this is one example and holds no validity for the majority but his reason for coming is not about the majority but him and yet if you believe you need examples, the Pew Hispanic Center last year published a report that stipulated that since June 2009, foreign born Latinos gained more employment by 600,000, a 1/3 were undocumented so it doesn't matter when referred to status while US born Latinos 9/10 are Mexican Americans in California, 3/4 in US are also Mexican Americans and they lost 1.2 million jobs. Hence that attitude or desire of wanting more does hurt, has hurt Mexican Americans because they confront more numbers competition, more attitudes of greed and "me, me, me" along with other people who have arrived and US born themselves of any color.
Antonio's attitude was troubling for me because I hate greed and that attitude permeates greater Los Angeles into many different aspects of a non community because the sense of collectivity never develops exist for new gold rush people who want a quick rich scheme and as Dr. Lopez stated about other newcomers from Jalisco into his beloved East LA they think they are better than us which really destroyed my neighborhood.
And I remembered once with my beloved Baja California apa, grandfather Matiaz visiting the Colorado River near Algodonez just across from Sonora. He told me he once worked in this area in the 40's, even in Winterhaven but that was all he wanted from the US side he never thought about crossing and he could have because he had relatives born in the US and his own father had lived in Redondo Beach area in the 1890's. When all of a sudden, two males approached us with their backpacks and their lost gaze of being in a new country eventhough they were still in Mexico when they asked us for a few pesos and told us they were trying to cross over and had traveled on the train. We gave them a few pesos and my apa told them to becareful and I thought to myself, "you haven't crossed yet and you are already begging for money, why travel".
My apa knew better and was enchanted with his humble home which he didn't even own. Too bad the US didn't have his gentle non greedy spirit.
Thus as Antonio and I continued talking, I asked him why he moved north. Did he have a job, did he have feel he had to move for an opportunity when his answer surprised me. Antonio stated, "I had a little welding shop in Leon, was self employed doing well for myself, then one day I went to the bank and I saw this woman in front of me with a bundle of dollars. My eyes got crazy, I said to myself, I want what she had, I wanted those bundles of dollars. At that moment I said to myself I'm heading north, and I closed my shop and left and here I am 30 years later. Doing the same job that I did in Leon, welding. Those dollars drove me wild"
Then he further told me he settled in Long Beach because there was a community of Guanajuato people and was constantly employed as a welder and was able to purchase a condo with his wife. At that moment I wondered why people much poorer in my Mexicali, Baja California visits who lived in quite humble conditions never attempted to move across the line while somebody 1200 miles away did. And Antonio was not the only example but it lead me to conclude that what drove him was the simple desire of greed because he wanted more than what he was earning though by his own admission he had a comfortable business, something my friends wont have access to even though they might dream about it and they are Americans in the birth and paper definition sense.
In a strange way this bothers me because this attitude is a negative source of energy because this person moved without having to and all because of greed while people in Baja would settle for what they have and the guys I know find themselves victims of the current recession and truth of the matter they will probably never own a home because their job prospect is nil and they dont have enough money for anything else. Immigrant Mexicans have better opportunities than any one will admit and they don't always come because they do not have a employment, they just want those bundles of dollars because of greed. And that attitude is not positive for our society because all they think about is me me me. How many do not say they have an empty home where they come? From our US experience none of us have homes period except for one guy I know whose mother left him her home because he was the only offspring alive. And he's the one who travels between Vegas and Los Angeles for his job because he can afford to.
Some will say that this is one example and holds no validity for the majority but his reason for coming is not about the majority but him and yet if you believe you need examples, the Pew Hispanic Center last year published a report that stipulated that since June 2009, foreign born Latinos gained more employment by 600,000, a 1/3 were undocumented so it doesn't matter when referred to status while US born Latinos 9/10 are Mexican Americans in California, 3/4 in US are also Mexican Americans and they lost 1.2 million jobs. Hence that attitude or desire of wanting more does hurt, has hurt Mexican Americans because they confront more numbers competition, more attitudes of greed and "me, me, me" along with other people who have arrived and US born themselves of any color.
Antonio's attitude was troubling for me because I hate greed and that attitude permeates greater Los Angeles into many different aspects of a non community because the sense of collectivity never develops exist for new gold rush people who want a quick rich scheme and as Dr. Lopez stated about other newcomers from Jalisco into his beloved East LA they think they are better than us which really destroyed my neighborhood.
And I remembered once with my beloved Baja California apa, grandfather Matiaz visiting the Colorado River near Algodonez just across from Sonora. He told me he once worked in this area in the 40's, even in Winterhaven but that was all he wanted from the US side he never thought about crossing and he could have because he had relatives born in the US and his own father had lived in Redondo Beach area in the 1890's. When all of a sudden, two males approached us with their backpacks and their lost gaze of being in a new country eventhough they were still in Mexico when they asked us for a few pesos and told us they were trying to cross over and had traveled on the train. We gave them a few pesos and my apa told them to becareful and I thought to myself, "you haven't crossed yet and you are already begging for money, why travel".
My apa knew better and was enchanted with his humble home which he didn't even own. Too bad the US didn't have his gentle non greedy spirit.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Bonita
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)