One of the problems with blogging is the ‘scrum’ nature of it; ideas circulate, everyone piles on, trying to add their $0.02 before the ball squirts away and you start all over.
It also means that sometimes if you wait a little bit, someone else will write your blog post for you.
In my case, I’ve spent the weekend doing house maintenance and kid stuff, while thinking about a post on MEChA and Bustamante. Then Ted Barlow went and wrote my post for me, posted over at ‘Crooked Timber’. Go take a look…I’ll wait.Now in the traditional political spectrum, the average reader of this blog is more than a wee bit to my right, I’ll hazard. And that makes them quite a bit to Ted’s right. So you’ll forgive me if I make some assumptions about what your reaction might be:
1. It is not a ‘bullshit issue’, Bustamante was a part of a secretive organization which as recently as 2001 reaffirmed it’s intention to pull the Southwest states out of the U.S.!!
First, and foremost, let’s talk about MEChA. It’s a campus organization, formed in the late 60’s, with the express intent of creating a support network and advocacy group for Latino students. It has never done anything else. The rhetoric in which that group was wrapped – and still is wrapped – is rhetoric which I heard day in and day out as a politics student and student politician in California universities in the early 70’s and again as a grad student in the late 70’s.
There’s a funny thing about historical perspective. On one hand, you look at things and say, “Jefferson and Washington owned slaves,” and you agree “yeah, that was wrong, but that’s what gentlemen did back in that era.” Do you judge them – and their era – entirely by today’s values, or do you judge them by the values – however appropriate or inappropriate – that were in force at that time and in that place? Or, better still, do you meld the two and understand them in the context of what was, and judge them both for who they were in that context and outside it?
At every American university in the late 1960’s, radical left politics became the framework within which most issues were viewed, analyzed, and acted upon. Not by everyone, certainly. And not to the same extent in every case. But the language…the metaphors and the means of description…changed.
And language like that of the MEChA constitution became common.
Now part of what’s always been interesting to me about the New Left is how shallow the beliefs really have always been. It was what kept me out of it then and what makes me look on it now more as a kind of affectation. I’ve always felt that the underlying corrosive beliefs were far more dangerous than the actions of the self-styled radicals, who were acting out their adolescent rebellion using the political excuses the ideology gave them. I always felt (and feel I was right) that they would slot neatly into their white-collar career tracks as soon as they got through the “rebellion, sex and drugs” experimentation to which their new liberty entitled them.
And, similarly, in looking at the reality of MEChA – the actual organization and the behavior of its members, it is an ethnic advocacy group, neatly bound within the confines of typical interest group university politics. It’s interesting to me that in all the brouhaha over MEChA, that there are no concrete examples of antiwhite, deeply radical, dangerous behavior on the part of all these MEChA chapters. And that everyone who has direct experience with the organization is dismissive of the claims that it is a subversive or radical organization – or even a racist one, outside the current standard of ‘ethnic correctness’ and minority empowerment. Note that I’m not happy with those standards, and that I tend to share Erin O’Connor’s views of many of them. But to raise an organization which has no existence outside campuses to the level of the KKK – which murdered and lynched people into the 1960’s – is itself rhetorical bullshit of the highest order.
2. Bustamante should have disavowed his membership! Yes, if in fact MEChA was some secretive group of nightriders, he should have. But much of the Latino political leadership of California – as well as other states’ – is a product of MEChA. The problem lies much in the same vein as the problem politicians who are members of exclusive clubs had in the 80’s, in which their clubs tended not to include minorities and women but did tend to include much of your power base – if you repudiate the club, you are by extension isolating yourself from the key players on whom you rely for your power.
And I tend to think that the problem is going to be solved in much the same way. I think that like the University Club and the California Club, MEChA will change because it will otherwise be a liability to the Latinos who are already taking power within the larger institutions.
I think that this “crisis,” as minor as it may be – will force MEChA and the politically ambitious young Latinos who make up it’s membership today to confront the contradiction between their charter documents – which are an empty expression of adolescent ethnic pride – and their desire to succeed on the larger scale.
I have teenage sons, and so I’m used to the exaggerated rhetoric that youth uses to define itself against age; that’s part of the process of standing up for oneself and becoming an adult.
Similarly, I’ve come to the personal conclusion that the kind of rhetoric and exaggerated ethnic nationalism were appropriate for that first crop of Latino kids who got into the universities through affirmative action, and who had a thin field of Latino mentors and role models to look up to.
But in an adult, teenage behavior is both tiresome and counterproductive. And it’s time for MEChA to put aside the things of its youth – to look at them, if they choose, as historical artifacts, and to acknowledge that the Latino experience has moved far past the point where Aztlan – as a place or a state of mind – is worth pursuing. Because it’s not needed any more and because there’s something better out there.
UPDATES:
* Porphy comments
* Juan non-Volokh of Volokh Conspiracy comments
Ted makes a strong case, and so do you. Thinking…
A.L. wrote:
“Do you judge them – and their era – entirely by today’s values, or do you judge them by the values – however appropriate or inappropriate – that were in force at that time and in that place?”
How ’bout simply judging them by the standards that the appologists would apply if the shoe were on the other foot, if the coin was flipped, and a Right-Wing Anglo (rather than Left-Wing Person of Color) were a member of a comparable, but Right-Wing but White organization?
Unfair? Totally unacceptable for me to group them together?
“At every American university in the late 1960’s, radical left politics became the framework within which most issues were viewed, analyzed, and acted upon. Not by everyone, certainly. And not to the same extent in every case. But the language…the metaphors and the means of description…changed.
And language like that of the MEChA constitution became common.”
And something not worth reflecting upon later when one becomes more mature? Bringing it up is something that’s Bovine Fecal Matter? Bustamante and, say, David Horowitz (Leftish in the ’60s but had Second Thoughts) or Sol Stern (ditto) or Peter Collier (who, IIRC, remains a Social Democrat but has enchewed the kinds of things that passed for political discourse in the ’60s “campus” atmosphere)?
IMO, the analogy here might be Tom Hayden – radical past which he is in a continum on still but it is uncouth to bring it up. He gets a “pass”. So does Bustamante.
“I’ve always felt that the underlying corrosive beliefs were far more dangerous than the actions of the self-styled radicals, who were acting out their adolescent rebellion using the political excuses the ideology gave them.”
One of the pathologies common to Boomers is that they never grow out of this stuff. Not all of ’em, of course. But for many of them, it’s simply too much to ask that they say “you know, it was something I did at the time, I was moved in certain ways. But looking back on it, it’s was really hot air, the ideas promoted bad ones. Reflecting upon it, I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.”
I guess it is too much to ask.
“And that everyone who has direct experience with the organization is dismissive of the claims that it is a subversive or radical organization – or even a racist one, outside the current standard of ‘ethnic correctness’ and minority empowerment.”
Yah, you’re right: some standards.
But that’s part of the point in why some of us are actually taking the shockingly socially unacceptable action of making an issue of it.
It’s all too easy to denounce the KKK, say, today, within the “current standard of ‘ethnic correctness’. Your attitude here, though, seems to be “hey, I’m not happy with these standards, but lets not make a big deal about them”. The only way to challenge these standards is to take a stand at some point and challenge them.
Giving everyone who’s part of it a collective pass, almost in one-hand-washes-the-other manner (Bustamante is protected on this issue because everyone is protected because, well, that’s the standard I guess and it would be unfair to single him out now and make a point of it).
“But much of the Latino political leadership of California – as well as other states’ – is a product of MEChA.”
I don’t even have to particularize it to MEChA or to Latinos. The insidious fact is that “But much of the Liberal political leadership of California – as well as other states’ – is a product of New Leftist Kultursmog“, none of which any of them feels the need to disavow because, well, the standard is to accept it and let it go.
Which is pretty much another nail in the coffin of my entire political participation, which isn’t just “shrug our shoulders and accept this stuff and make the best of it” (as for some of the other nails, once I get done posting this I’m going to start writing a post over on my blog which will be titled “Sic Transit Gloria Mundi on a Tuesday Afternoon”, and dig at Republicans as well as Democrats. Btw, if this comment seems to have a bitter tone, it’s because I’m depressed and when I get depressed everything I write ends up sounding bitter; saying that, btw, isn’t a defense of the flaw).
“MEChA will change because it will otherwise be a liability to the Latinos who are already taking power within the larger institutions.”
Only if we people out here, and more pointedly the constituency of these politicians (and now, again, I’m speaking more broadly than just of Latino politicians or former MEChA members) make it a liability. Which Ted, and by extention apparently you, do not wish to do. What? Some external force (maybe it will be “society”. Btw, if I ever catch that guy, “Society”, I’m going to beat the living shit out of him) will make it a liability, but We the People shouldn’t: it’s a “bullshit issue” for us.
Instead, we’re directed to lengthy apologias. Well, I stand by what I concluded this post from earlier today on the issue.
Porphy, I think you’re wrong here.
How ’bout simply judging them by the standards that the apologists would apply if the shoe were on the other foot, if the coin was flipped, and a Right-Wing Anglo (rather than Left-Wing Person of Color) were a member of a comparable, but Right-Wing but White organization?
Unfair? Totally unacceptable for me to group them together?
Well, I’d have no problem supporting someone who was a Realtor® in the 1950’s for public office; sadly, most state and local associations of Realtors wouldn’t permit blacks, latins, or asians to join. I’d have no problem supporting someone who was a member of the California Club in the 1960’s or 1970’s when they didn’t admit blacks, Jews or women. I’d have no problem voting for someone who’d played golf at the Los Angeles Country Club, there the only blacks through most of the 70’s were carrying member’s clubs.
We have a long history with race in this country – and amazingly, we’ve done a better job of it than anyone else I can think of.
And something not worth reflecting upon later when one becomes more mature? Bringing it up is something that’s Bovine Fecal Matter?
No, but the tone of hyperbole – KKK=MEChA is BFM, and I’m happy to say that and keep saying it. If you (and any one else steps back for a moment, you’ll realize that it’s the exact conservative equivalent of Saddam=Bush, which is something I’m happy to savage the idiots about – and so are you. Listen carefully – one has a long history of real violence and murder, one is a bunch of college kids trying to use pressure politics to get sympathetic academic majors and funding for their clubs. Can you see the difference?? I’ll bet you can…
One of the pathologies common to Boomers is that they never grow out of this stuff. Not all of ’em, of course. But for many of them, it’s simply too much to ask that they say “you know, it was something I did at the time, I was moved in certain ways. But looking back on it, it’s was really hot air, the ideas promoted bad ones. Reflecting upon it, I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.”
I guess it is too much to ask.
BS again. If Bustamante was ever a New Leftie, which I doubt, he hasn’t shown it in office. He’s a plain-vanilla interest group pol. Think ‘Tammany Hall’ with enchiladas in lieu of corned beef and cabbage.
Yah, you’re right: some standards.
But that’s part of the point in why some of us are actually taking the shockingly socially unacceptable action of making an issue of it.
I’m not suggesting that there’s no issue here. I am suggesting that we’re applying the tired bad=horrible lack of judgment and maturity that the idiolatiarians (is that how it’s spelled?) engage in every day. Is that what we want to be?? I don’t think so.
It’s all too easy to denounce the KKK, say, today, within the “current standard of ‘ethnic correctness’. Your attitude here, though, seems to be “hey, I’m not happy with these standards, but lets not make a big deal about them”. The only way to challenge these standards is to take a stand at some point and challenge them.
OK, challenge the real standards of the organization as evidenced through it’s real behavior day to day.
I don’t even have to particularize it to MEChA or to Latinos. The insidious fact is that “But much of the Liberal political leadership of California – as well as other states’ – is a product of New Leftist Kultursmog”, none of which any of them feels the need to disavow because, well, the standard is to accept it and let it go.
I’m not accepting it, I’m not saying let it go. I am saying let’s diagnose the problem correctly before we start unbolting things.
Only if we people out here, and more pointedly the constituency of these politicians (and now, again, I’m speaking more broadly than just of Latino politicians or former MEChA members) make it a liability. Which Ted, and by extension apparently you, do not wish to do.
No, I’m happy to see it as a liability, and I see this as a part of the maturation process. I certainly don’t see the correct problem being looked at, and I think that we’re dangerously ahistorical in our arguments.
Instead, we’re directed to lengthy apologias.
What? I’m not apologizing for squat.
A.L.
Armed,
Nice to see a reasoned and essentially accurate take on the issue, rather than the foaming at the mouth spreading throughout blogworld. I do think that Bustamante could make some stronger statements disassociating himself with the type of thinking implied by Mecha’s outdated (and definitely out of the current standard) slogans.
I should also add that in my opinion, and despite mouth-frothing from other quarters, the U.S. (and Canada) has easily become the most tolerant and least racist society in the World, at least among major countries. The next spot defititely goes to the Brits. Hey, maybe identity politics isn’t that bad after all?
I almost always agree with A.L., but not here.
“Well, I’d have no problem supporting someone who was a Realtor® in the 1950’s for public office; sadly, most state and local associations of Realtors wouldn’t permit blacks, latins, or asians to join. I’d have no problem supporting someone who was a member of the California Club in the 1960’s or 1970’s when they didn’t admit blacks, Jews or women. I’d have no problem voting for someone who’d played golf at the Los Angeles Country Club, there the only blacks through most of the 70’s were carrying member’s clubs.”
What if the realtor was asked directly but refused to condemn those practices today?
Much of this would go away if Bustamante would just renounce MEChA’s founding principles. But you give Bustamante a pass on renouncing those racist principles because MEChA never lynched anyone. I disagree. I think the fact that he was once a member of the group gives him the duty to say whether he agrees or disagrees with the group’s principles when asked about them whether MEChA is terrorizing Anglo Californians or not.
BTW, my experience in college (about 10 years ago) was that they had not dropped the separatist/racist rhetoric.
The formatting on my post above came out so unreadable, I had to try again . . .
I almost always agree with A.L., but not here.
“Well, I’d have no problem supporting someone who was a Realtor® in the 1950’s for public office; sadly, most state and local associations of Realtors wouldn’t permit blacks, latins, or asians to join. I’d have no problem supporting someone who was a member of the California Club in the 1960’s or 1970’s when they didn’t admit blacks, Jews or women. I’d have no problem voting for someone who’d played golf at the Los Angeles Country Club, there the only blacks through most of the 70’s were carrying member’s clubs.”
What if the realtor was asked directly but refused to condemn those practices today?
Much of this would go away if Bustamante would just renounce MEChA’s founding principles. But you give Bustamante a pass on renouncing those racist principles because MEChA never lynched anyone. I disagree. I think the fact that he was once a member of the group gives him the duty to say whether he agrees or disagrees with the group’s principles when asked about them (whether MEChA is terrorizing Anglo Californians or not).
BTW, my experience in college (about 10 years ago) was that they had not dropped the separatist/racist rhetoric.
A.L. wrote:
“Porphy, I think you’re wrong here.”
And I think you’re wrong. We could either keep going around and around in circles, Or I could resign myself to the fact that the Left is just going to have this position when it comes to thinks of this type. That there’s no reform in them.
“What? I’m not apologizing for squat.”
An “apologia” isn’t the same as an “apology”. It’s more like “apologist” – rationalizing defense rather than “sorry”.
And, yah, I know you’re not apologizing for squat.
“I’m not accepting it, I’m not saying let it go. I am saying let’s diagnose the problem correctly before we start unbolting things.”
I’ve searched your posts and found nothing to indicate that, really, in any substantive way. There are a few gestures, not really backed by anything. The substance of your posts are directed at dismissing the criticism, not pointing out what would be legitimate. Certainly your “it’s just like a get together of people of Irish decent” attitude doesn’t indicate that you see anything unacceptable about it or that it should be a liability.
“No, I’m happy to see it as a liability.”
That assertion does not in the least square with your posts on the subject. Not one bit.
“I think that we’re dangerously ahistorical in our arguments.”
No analogy is perfect, if that’s what you’re getting at. IMO, we’re not talking about “Realtors” here, though, any more than we’re talking about the KKK. (That’s why I said “comparable white organization”; I only invoked the KKK as something – different – that is denounced. MEChA isn’t the KKK, but neither is it the Realtors, and your failure to recognize that, yah, Whaledog’s point is apt here, is a blind spot of Liberals in general).
There are white-oriented organizations that are not and were not the KKK and which don’t necessarily have its history of violence-in-action, but I for one don’t give them a pass and they are, and IMO should be, treated as of-a-piece: difference more in degree than in kind (it is a “plus” that they haven’t lynched anyone, but not enough for them to escape the general category). Or are you arguing that they shouldn’t be?
“OK, challenge the real standards of the organization as evidenced through it’s real behavior day to day.”
Here’s possibly the real point: you all are the ones saying we have it wrong, that you understand it better, that if it should be criticized it should be done on fair grounds. However, there is – apparently – an unwillingness to do that criticism yourselves. Instead, just a willingness to tell us we’re going about it wrong and should pipe down because what we’re saying about it is “bullshit”.
ANd maybe that Society guy will make it a liability for politicians, but we shouldn’t.
(Also, the idea that this is just a “Mexican Tammany Hall” doesn’t seem to fit with the fact that the vast majority of Mexican-Americans apparently feel no connection to MEChA; a strained analogy, IMO, if the KKK analogy is strained then this is, too).
Anyhow, your turn around the ring as we keep circling, I guess.
I checked out Ted’s Barlow’s post and read some of the Mecha documents linked there. A big part of the Mecha controversy stems from the following phrase attributed by a number of right wing sites to Mecha: “For the Race, everything. For those Outside the Race, nothing.”
This phrase is translated from the statement in El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan “Por la Raza, todo. Fuera de La Raza, nada”. There is no way in Hell that this translates into what is claimed above. The statement clearly means: “Through La Raza, everything. Outside La Raza, nothing.” It is a self-directed exhortation for spiritual inspiration, and does not have the sinister Chicano Uber Alles meaning attributed to it by the hysterics.
I’m surprised this hasn’t been pointed out.
Yes. “Through The Race, everything. Outside The Race, Nothing” is *sooooooo* much better. Very spiritual.
Igor,
Please do not assume that I agree or have ever agreed with Mecha’s philosophy, statements, politics, or otherwise. What is at issue is the form of extremism allegedly promoted by the group. In that context, one extremely inflamatory statement has been wrongly attributed to Mecha. And yes, there is a huge difference.
Perhaps, an equally important issue is why part of the blogosphere and in particular Front Page Magazine, NewsMax and Capitalism Magazine have embarked on a hysterical smear campaign using false information against a minor league Latino student group. What does that imply about their agenda? Why don’t we focus on that for a while?
Can’t resist, must post… Bush did make a campaign stop at Bob Jones University, which still had actively rascist polices.
Yes, Gabriel: anything to change the subject, I’m sure. Why not concentrate on something else for awhile, as usual? Look, right wingers to flagelate so we can ignore Leftist extremism again! Quick, change the subject!
That’s how these things usually go – so my point is proven once again.
Lurker makes a good point but it fits here because that was a political liability for Bush – he’ll never live it down. He, like the many Democratic candidates who have appeared at Bob Jones, isn’t an allum.
The Bob Jones analogy is good in other ways, too. It highlights the absurdity of Gabriel’s comment.
As if when Bob Jones is invoked, the Right would get away with changing the subject to the agenda of the Left who use it while defending separate graduation ceremonies &tc. That’d never pass – same principle should apply here to those on the Left who want to change the subject back to Arnold, or to a discussion of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy behind the MEChA controversy, or whatever.
But, of course, the Double Standard rules, which is my point throughout all this.
Ok, Gabriel. Fair enough. I guess. But if so, if you weren’t trying to cover for their ideas, why did you translate everything to english *except* “La Raza”?
A good answer would help me.
“This phrase is translated from the statement in El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan “Por la Raza, todo. Fuera de La Raza, nada”. There is no way in Hell that this translates into what is claimed above. The statement clearly means: “Through La Raza, everything. Outside La Raza, nothing.” It is a self-directed exhortation for spiritual inspiration, and does not have the sinister Chicano Uber Alles meaning attributed to it by the hysterics.”
where did you learn spanish?
that phrase can and does take on *multiple meanings*. spanish is quite a flexible language and it has many many many variations in how the countless subcultures interact with its nuances. sure, i may have grown up speaking proper castellano (even while surrounded by all those ‘bable’ speaking asturians), but there are very few spanish speakers in the world who pay any mind at all to the official spanish language police (and believe me they exist – have an Academia and everything) and its rulings on how the language is to be used.
if you read the rest of that same set of MeChA texts – the ones so many of us found when doing basic google searches for current MeChA chapters and positions – you may have noticed that they themselves talk extensivly about kicking out the non-chicanos and of rejecting all the european influence (yet still for some reason they keep using spanish words to say so).
they may be a bunch of harmless lip service paying, social club attending, self-help wanting, ethnic solidarity focused, four-year radicals… but that doesnt mean the rest of us cant call it like it is and tear them a new one for spouting horribly reasoned words that amount to *literal* fascist/nationalist rhetoric combined with a yearning for radical socialist economics and chicano supremacy. if they dont actually believe the bullshit they are saying then maybe they should find something better to do.
i for one, as an ethnic mutt with my own heavy dose of native/hispanic heritage am none too thrilled with their taking on the mantle of pseudo-leadership and speaking for “the people of bronze”.
i realize im being quite emotional and harsh here so dont take this as an attack against you. its an attack against MeChA because they have totally pissed me off with everything ive been reading about the recall. you just gave me a jumping off point.
here is some more from MeChA:
http://www.azteca.net/aztec/mecha/smearingofbustamante.html
apparently those of us who are engaging in or supporting a “smear campaign” against bustamente are on the “far-right”. funny how so many of us have gone from being accused of being left-wing liberals to being demonic agents of the far-right.
it reminds me of being in high school history class and being called hitler for being anti-nazi and for emotionally explaining that no, nazism is not just a “belief” or “opinion” that has equal value to all other “beliefs” and “opinions”.
Igor,
Fair question: La Raza is difficult to translate. It comes from the Latin American term for Columbus Day. In Spain, Columbus Day is known as “El Dia de la Hispanidad”. In Latin America, it is known as “El Dia de la Raza”. The term “la Raza” was coined in the early 20th Century by José Vasconcelos to denote all the peoples of Latin America, whether Spanish, European, indigenous or mixed. The term was therefore meant to be cultural, and racially inclusive. The term can have semi-mythological status in some Latin American countries. It’s sort of like the French talking about “our ancestors the Gauls”. Translating it as “the Race” just doesn’t do it for me.
“Can’t resist, must post… Bush did make a campaign stop at Bob Jones University, which still had actively rascist polices.”
Now THERE’s your bullshit story…
here is some more from MeChA:
http://www.azteca.net/aztec/mecha/smearingofbustamante.html
apparently those of us who are engaging in or supporting a “smear campaign” against bustamente are on the “far-right”. funny how so many of us have gone from being accused of being left-wing liberals to being demonic agents of the far-right.
it reminds me of being in high school history class and being called hitler for being anti-nazi and for emotionally explaining that no, nazism is not just a “belief” or “opinion” that has equal value to all other “beliefs” and “opinions”.
Balagan,
From my beloved parents, at a tender age, mostly in Mexico City.
Nuances: fine, all languages have nuances. But “por” La Raza will never be “para” La Raza, and that distinction has nothing to do with dialect or education. “Por” could conceivably mean “on behalf of” (and even that translation is imprecise) and the phrase might have that connotation. However, that doesn’t fit with the following “Fuera”, at least to my ear, it lacks parallelism.
What you really mean is that the phrase is sufficiently elliptical so that by the time you’ve dug up all the dirt you can on La Mecha in the current round of hysteria you can read into it pretty much anything you want.
A.L., actually Ted Barlow’s posting is a failure at wishing away the reality of what MECHA ideology stands for. Ted’s been debunked on his attempts to distance MECHA from the original Aztlan ideology – which appears on the websites of several MECHA chapters.
Well, it’s interesting…let me try one more time, although it may well be a waste of time because I think the meme has solidified and largtely replaced thinking on both sides of the issue.
First, some background: I detest Bustamante; I think he is, most charitibly, a ‘dumb as a box of rocks’ machine politician who happened to be in an office no one else really wanted as a reward for not blowing his bried stint as Speaker. I would certainly vote for Georgy before I voted for him. I also think that we have a Latino/Indio political machine in the making hers in CA, as the rising population of Latino voters is married to the rising cash clout of the Indian tribes. Now THAT’s a story, and an issue that needs to be taken on head-on.
But I have a huge problem with people who, on little data and with little effort to do research other than mad Google skills, make what are essentially death pronouncements about a public figure; to be associated, in this day and age, with a truly racist organization is in fact a kiss of death.
There are a bunch of issue to unpack in the transition from the – I believe appropriate – strong racial identity politics of the late 60’s and 70’s to what we have – a generation later – in the stultifying racial interest group politics today. They’re important issues, and deserve to be unpacked at looked at carefully.
But this Drudge-report crap isn’t any way to do it. And it makes me mental when I see people who I respect – like Porphy – make the same agile leaps of logic that I know he can’t stand when made by a Pilger or a Fisk.
Bush isn’t Hitler. Saddam isn’t a victim. And a kernel of racialist rhetoric alone – without amplification, without behavior just doesn’t make the leap to racism.
As I’ve said before, bad isn’t the same as evil, and one of the truly frustrating things about our modern discourse is that we seem to believe that it is.
It isn’t. So bash Cruz all you want; but for crying out loud, bash him for the real reasons he deserves it, not for this petty nonsense.
A.L.
Robin –
Two of Ted’s points were incorrect (which I shoulod have commented on, because I knew they were wrong) – the original Plan de Santa Barbara docs weren’t relevant is being countered by the fact thay they’re linked to in the websites; the other is that MEChA is a collective of small organizations is countered by the fact that there is antional constitution.
His larger points, which go to the question of what MEChA really is…in acts, not words…are unanswered.
The larger point that MEChA is not tracked by any of the organziations that track hate groups stands.
Nowhere in the blogs or media do I see one first-person account of racist activites at MEChA…to the contrary, I’ve seen several which echo my personal experience, which certainly didn’t leave me with a feeling that they were anything except strident.
So, yes, two holes in his arguments, but a number of other, more important isuses raised by him (and by me) don’t seem to be taking on a lot of water yet.
A.L.
Not that I don’t love a good blogfight as much as the next guy, but is anybody here actually concerned that Bustamente is a racist? That he supports kicking all the non-chicanos out of the West and Southwest? That he’s ever taken a single action, even made a single statement, that in any way furthers the goals that his former student organization proclaims? In short, is there anybody at all, anywhere in the world, who actually thinks Bustamente is guilty of supporting any of the MEChA ideas that have struck so many as so offensive? Is there any evidence to support this?
Or is he simply guilty of the crime of not disassociating himself with enough certitude?
And, to keep things in perspective, where does Bustamente’s failure to acceptably disassociate himself from these offensive statements rank in terms of criteria by which he should be voted for or against?
It ain’t first. I’ll bet it’s not even twentieth (and if you can find twenty things to say pro or con about Bustamente, you spend too much time thinking about California politics). Personally, I’m much more fascinated by the ease with which the “n-word” slipped out of his mouth–now that would make for a lively blogfight.
gabriel:
“What you really mean is that the phrase is sufficiently elliptical so that by the time you’ve dug up all the dirt you can on La Mecha in the current round of hysteria you can read into it pretty much anything you want.”
no what i actually mean is that the phrase itself is conveniently vague enough that i doubt most of the mechistas put the amount of thought into it which we do and rather that for most of them it works both ways. also, it has nothing to do with digging.. its all front and center. read what they say. i dont see where they are unclear about their racial exclusivity in their language, or in their embrace of really rotten smelling things ideogically. i dont disagree that they probably pay little attention to the substance of what they themselves profess to believe… just like many other young wannabe “radicals” reaching for a different time. what i am saying is that they should not be given the kind of pass on responsibility for what they are putting foward which so many would give them – *especially* if they arent going to back it up.
a.l.: i dont know if you were talking about my own mad google skillz but just to let you know, ive grown up with more than my fill in direct exposure to the kind of radical ethnocentric/tribalist/racialist groups we are talking about, along with countless other native experiences of hispanic/latino life… both in this country and outside of it. i think you are right that there are two seperate issues here. bustamente should be bashed for his own reasons. mecha is plenty foul on its own as well. when and if they happen to converge they should be bashed together. pretty simple i think.
the racialism isnt just a kernel. it has made the leap on its own by dominating politics in some parts of this country. it should be condemned by those of who feel that racism is wrong and damaging even when coming from those who happen to be in the “minority”. condemning the racism of groups like MeChA does not make us apologists for “The Man”(tm).
it doesnt help in the least when it is assumed that everyone who rejects mecha and racialism must be racist, anti-immigrant, far-right, ultra-conservative, white-bread, homogenous middle americans (as in the link i gave in an earlier post from one of those mecha websites my mad google skillz dug up).
“Personally, I’m much more fascinated by the ease with which the “n-word” slipped out of his mouth–now that would make for a lively blogfight.”
you are right. i am much more interested in that also. i was just responding to what i was reading.
also, MeChA and bustamente deserve their own attention for different reasons. not everything is about the recall.
MeChA has more to do with the current state of higher education and politics. i dont delude myself into thinking it was better at some nonexistant prior time… i just dont accept what we have now as being ok.
racism is not just about actions. its not just about physical violence. treating such a large number of people as a uniform-thought-sharing homogenous group based only on ethnicity and race is the kind of embedded racism that so many of us cringe at when “white people” even come close to doing it. there is a reason for this. its *de-humanizing* to see people as nothing more than a member of a group, rather than recognizing each person with their own value and ability to live for themseleves. it is no less so when its done by non-“white people”.
what a.l. sees as “strident” i see as a sad excuse for undermining the hope of students through empty radicalization. for those of us who live with the results, its a very big deal.
balagan –
My own views on this are slightly softened by having been pretty deeply immersed in the history of easy coast urban politics in the 19th and early 20th centuries (I did some research on the question of whether Progressivism was really such a good thing…just my way of tweaking the establishment at the time). Ethnic clubs…today they are all vestiges of what they once were (with the exception of some of the Chinese village and family associations), and once they ran urban politics.
So this isn’t exactly new.
But as the older immigrant organizations were dissolved in part by their own success, I think we’re seeing organizations like MEChA begin to sag under the middle-class experiences of many of their students.
A.L.
i can understand where you are coming from on this.
i just dont think the current wave will collapse fully on its own, nor do i think this kind of thing ever does. it requires both the changes brought on by increasing diversification and affluence which you mention, and a very direct challenge by those – like many here – who see the problems caused by making all politics about ethnic identification.
lets not wait for the mechistas and other remnants of the past to be replaced by the growing numbers of yuppie “radicals” who can be found in so many of our schools. lets not just watch as they collapse on their own from the weight of how wrong they can be… lets help them along a little by calling them on the beliefs they claim for themselves.
Balagan,
I join you in condemning racism, from wherever it comes. My single point is that the Mecha/Bustamante point is, in my humble opinion, overstated and the reaction overblown. Period.
I have to go back to bed. This is keeping me from sleep (here in Paris, France). Anyway, I never took Mecha (and similar groups) too seriously because I thought they had a lot more to do with mindless leftist political fads than La Raza.
Plus, I wouldn’t even vote for Bustamante. I’d vote against the recall (it’s silly and undemocratic, even if it’s in the goddam constitution) and then I’d vote for Arnold. (I’ve seen Terminator 9 times and it’s my wife’s favorite movie – the sentimental part, Reese and all.) Goodnite.
Christopher wrote:
“Or is he simply guilty of the crime of not disassociating himself with enough certitude?”
When it comes to Republicans who don’t do so regarding extremist rhetoric issuing from groups and organizations they are found to be a member of – or even not a member but, say, their father was – that’s enough of a crime. Again, my point pertains to the Left’s double-standard and blindness to these things when it’s “their guys” rather than “those right-wing philistines that everyone knows are insensitive on racial issues” whose oxen are getting gored. Anyhow, ok. I know – or should learn – when something is futile.
MoveAlong.org and I, the Defeated.
Whatever else you want to say about MEChA and Bustamante, Bustamante has a ‘racial sensitivity issue’ on the scale of Trent Lott.
It is a problem he is getting a pass for just because he is Latino and makes his salid days with MEChA part of a larger pattern.
See this link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller090203.asp
“Cruz Bustamante meant to say “Negro.” But he said something else instead, and California’s lieutenant governor has been apologizing for it ever since.
The scene was a February 2001 awards dinner sponsored by the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists at a Holiday Inn in Emeryville.
Bustamante was reading a speech and rattling off a list of black labor unions. When he got to one called the National Negro American Labor Council, he didn’t say “Negro.” He used a different N-word instead.
About one-quarter of the 400 people in the room left in protest, according to master of ceremonies Marshall Walker. (Other estimates suggested that fewer people walked out.)
When Bustamante finished his remarks, he knew he had done something wrong. “If you heard what I think I heard, I want you to know it wasn’t me,” he said. “It’s not the way I was raised, it’s not the way I was taught, it’s not the way I raise my children, and it’s not what’s in my heart.””
One more link from the WSJ opinion page and a text clip to place the MEChA and Bustamante pattern in further context:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003960
“Mr. Bustamante’s cheap shots are disappointing on several levels. For one, he should know how it feels to have cheap shots taken at him. Some critics have attacked him over his membership in the 1970s in the MEChA, the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan. With its motto–“For the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing”–and its call for the “liberation” of the territories Mexico ceded to the U.S. in 1848–MEChA is hardly a mainstream group. But it’s a stretch to liken it to the Ku Klux Klan, as some critics have done. “You won’t convince moderate Latinos that MEChA is dangerous, because many professionals encountered it in college as an ethnic identity group and its politics were secondary,” says Martha Montelongo, who hosts a radio show at KION in Monterey. “There are more important and recent issues of ethnic separatism to hold Cruz Bustamante to account for.”
Chief among them is the lieutenant governor’s support for the failed policy of bilingual education, which has done great damage to aspiring immigrant children. Here Mr. Bustamante has gone beyond merely disagreeing over the best public policy course. In February he lent considerable support to Nativo Lopez, a controversial Santa Ana school board member who was facing a recall. Mr. Lopez is known as the Al Sharpton of Southern California for his ethnic demagogy. He’d drawn the ire of his constituents, many of whom are Hispanic, for failing to improve local schools, but mostly for pressuring parents to demand bilingual education for their children.
In 1998, 61% of Californians voted for Proposition 227, which mandated that English be the primary language taught in public schools. (School districts that have followed Proposition 227’s mandate have seen test scores rise for immigrant children.) But Mr. Lopez was hoping to pressure enough parents into defying the referendum so as to render it unenforceable in Santa Ana.
Mr. Bustamante campaigned for Mr. Lopez even though the entire Santa Ana City Council, which has a Latino majority, supported his recall. Beatriz Salas, who immigrated from Mexico 20 years ago, says she was appalled when she and other parents attended a meeting with Mr. Lopez in 1999, where he admitted that his goal was to make Spanish the primary language in California.
Earlier this year, Ms. Salas met Mr. Bustamante and asked him why he had supported Mr. Lopez. “He said it had to do with his anger at Ron Unz, the sponsor of Proposition 227,” she told me. “He said that because Unz was all for English instruction he was all for Spanish instruction, and I guess that included Nativo Lopez. I was very disappointed in his answer.” ”
A.L. wrote:
“But I have a huge problem with people who, on little data and with little effort to do research other than mad Google skills”
You’re talkin about your boy, Ted Barlow here, right? I mean, he’s the one who built his post around “mad Google skills”.
Look, I’m done discussing the subject of this thing for the reasons I explained in late last night’s/early[er] this morning’s post. But one thing is clear:
1) YOU JUST DIDN’T EVER GET THE FACT THAT, AT LEAST FOR ME, IT WAS NEVER ABOUT ‘DETESTING’ BUSTAMANTE OR NOT.
I could give a rats ass about Bustamante’s political future. I *DID* endourse him for Governor, for reasons explained in that endoursement.
IT’S NEVER BEEN ABOUT FINDING “THE RIGHT WAY TO DESTROY BUSTAMANTE”, see? So the “this isn’t it” argument was meaningless to me. So he’s dumb as a post and represents politics at its most mindless. Swing a stick in Sacramento and you’ll hit two dozen (or more) Pols, mostly Democrat and some Republican (if only because in Sacramento the pool of Pols is mostly Democrat and some Republican) who are absolute ninnies and that’s why California’s governance is where it is today. Yah, Bustamante’s a piece of that pie. Take a bite – ya’ll elected these jerks and you’re right in that there’s nothing new whatsoever in elect-a-fool politics; nothing unique about it in California and it isn’t that unique to the current era, either.
I care about that but this WAS NEVER THE ISSUE AT HAND. But, ok, along with Gabriel, change the subject. Fine. As I said, I’m done battling what the subject was originally, for me, pertaining to, to the point where I’m vowing to myself not to even directly mention the subject or organization in this post.
But all the above was just prelude throat-clearing to what caused me to make this post. Another of the things that vexes me about all of these discussions is that they’re always rife with the Liberals projecting their methods onto the other side and then getting worked up about it.
it was your boy Ted, not I, who built his post around google skills and whose opinions of the situation are informed (such as they are) by them. But I suppose I’m out of line for pointing that out (criticisms are ok when directed at the right sort of people, but not when directed at the good people who benefit from elevating the level of debate at every opportunity. I suppose that’s what this has become all about, really. So see my “I, the Defeated” Post). Ted builds a post around his “mad google skills” and its your Sourceo of Wisdom on the topic, but I get smeared with having everything I know about MEChA be from the result of “mad Google skills”. I’m bitter and resentful over it and I don’t mind being honest about it.
“These are the good people. feel their goodness wash over you in a wave.” – Mike Nelson, being sarcastic (as usual), MYST3K.
Trent: But isn’t it part of a whole? That there’s a connection between inbibing a ideology of ethnic separatism and then later as a moderate politician, supporting educational failures like bilingualism to the end, mainly on racial grounds? That is, anyone against them is tarred as racist, the educational consiquences be damned? Same with how the 227 issue is treated? This is the political skills that MEChA helps (?) Latino politicians aquire and then they use them.
It is part of a whole, not separate, distinct things.
Porphy wrote:
When it comes to Republicans who don’t do so regarding extremist rhetoric issuing from groups and organizations they are found to be a member of – or even not a member but, say, their father was – [not disassociating himself with enough certitude is] enough of a crime.
Yeah, I just don’t see that happening. I think it was the L.A. Times that went out of their way to dig into Poppy Arnie’s Nazi past, but has that story had any legs? Are lefty bloggers demanding that Arnie publically dissasociate himself from his old man (more than not attending his funeral and having the Simon Wiesenthal center investigate him)?
Besides (and I know you don’t want to talk about this any more, and I don’t blame you), arguing that “the other guys do it too” isn’t really doing yourself a favor.
I don’t feel it appropriate to attack people for spontaneous malapropisms in speech. So I don’t make a big deal of Bustamante’s “n” word gaffe.
Christopher wrote:
“arguing that “the other guys do it too” isn’t really doing yourself a favor.”
So why are you doing it?
It’s your side, not mine, that is introducing the tu quoque as a defense. You, not me, who threw in non-sequiters and change-of-subject defenses. Not me.
I write this post because Christophers reinforces this statement of mine:
“But all the above was just prelude throat-clearing to what caused me to make this post. Another of the things that vexes me about all of these discussions is that they’re always rife with the Liberals projecting their methods onto the other side and then getting worked up about it.“
Christopher: Josh Marshall, Atrios, and others have certainly made an issue of Arnold’s links to people & organizations they deem unacceptable. You might need to read more Lefty blogs to keep up.
Christopher successfully rescues the Left’s double standards!
Move along, nothing to see here. That’s right. Go back to your simple lives. Forget. Forget.
“Nuances: fine, all languages have nuances. But “por” La Raza will never be “para” La Raza, and that distinction has nothing to do with dialect or education. “Por” could conceivably mean “on behalf of” (and even that translation is imprecise) and the phrase might have that connotation. However, that doesn’t fit with the following “Fuera”, at least to my ear, it lacks parallelism.
“What you really mean is that the phrase is sufficiently elliptical so that by the time you’ve dug up all the dirt you can on La Mecha in the current round of hysteria you can read into it pretty much anything you want.”
Well, my wife is from Venezuela, and I asked her about the phrase. By way of background, she moved to the U.S. mid-way through college and eventually graduated UCLA with a degree in literature with a Spanish emphasis.
Her translation of the phrase “Por la Raza, todo. Fuera de La Raza, nada”: For (as in ‘on the behalf of’) the race, everything. Outside the race, nothing. She didn’t have the same problem with paralelism that Gabriel has. It was very straight-forward to her.
I also ran the phrase by another friend of ours who earned her college degree in Venezuela. Same translation and reaction. Again, it was very straight-forward to our friend.
I’m no expert in Spanish, but I think Gabriel has been trying too hard to find a benign translation for an obviously exclusionary, racist statement.
Just a couple of comments. In the 1970’s, I spent far more time than I wanted to, searching for explosive devices being planted in public places in the Metro Denver area. The group taking credit for the presence of these devices was called La Raza Unida, which is an incarnation of MEChA. Their avowed goal was the creation of a Socialist Chicano Republic allied with the 3rd World, named Atzlan. Devices WERE found and disarmed, fortunately not by me. There is a Denver cop, long ago retired and now deceased, who I will always claim had big brass ones that clanged as he walked, because of a risk he took when he had no other choice to protect a restaurant full of people when there was not time to evacuate after a device was found. Many of the members of the group that admitted planting the devices [although not the members who were convicted and imprisoned] are now active politicians here. The Seventies were not all “peaceful college demonstrations” and it stands to reason that members of groups that practiced violence, but claim not to have done it themselves, should be held to the same standards, both Left and Right. Of course this is the United States in the 21st century, and you will never see the Left held to the same standards as they try to hold the Right. That would be ……. divisive.
Pejman just logically destroyed any presense that MEChA is anything other than a hate group:
http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/004148.html
“Nonsense. As demonstrated above, the MEChA issue is a much bigger one than Ted gives it credit for. The racism, the extremism, the calls to violence and the secessionist attitude of MEChA deserve a lot closer attention and scrutiny than Ted cares to admit. And in fact, Bustamante’s actions reek of opportunism, not manliness.
There are 135 candidates in the recall election. Six of them–Davis, Schwarzenegger, Bustamante, McClintock, Ueberroth and Huffington–arebig names. With that many names on the ballot, the vote will be extremely splintered.
This makes playing to the middle of the electorate that much harder–and completely unnecessary, as opposed to a standard election with only two or three major candidates. Bustamante knows that he can win the election by merely securing his base, and by playing exclusively to them.
That’s why he has come up with the completely unprecedented plan to fully regulate the gasoline industry. That’s why he is playing footsie with MEChA. As Robert Garcia Tagorda points out, Bustamante “won’t be so close to MEChA that he alienates mainstream supporters, but he could be close enough to pump up his Latino base, considering all the other race angles of the recall.” Playing to his racial base, as well as to his ideological base, might help get Bustamante elected. And denouncing MEChA would upset and undermine that plan. Bustamante isn’t being a man. He’s being a politician. An extremely cynical and calculating politician. Nothing more.
It’s disappointing to see that Bustamante didn’t have the moral courage to denounce a group of secessionist, violent racists. It’s disappointing to see that people on the Left are turning a blind eye to that sort of cop-out merely out of a partisan desire to keep the governorship.
Former U.S. Speaker of the House Tom Foley–a Democrat–was once in a very tough election. To give him a more down-home look, his campaign staff suggested that he ditch his traditional suit and tie, and show up at campaign stops in a casual shirt and jeans, or in overalls. A dandy to his core, Foley refused, telling his staff “There’s only one vote I want in this election. My own.”
Cruz Bustamante, to the best of my knowledge, is not a racist, or a secessionist, or an advocate of violence. But he once joined those who were, and who are. And just recently, he failed to denounce them. If he had any shame whatsoever, he wouldn’t even get his own vote. It’s bad enough that California is currently governed by an incompetent. It need not be governed by a coward. Cruz Bustamante blew an easy call by failing to denounce MEChA. His supporters repeat the mistake by trying to excuse away the indefensible.”
Bustamante is the Democratic Trent Lott and Democrats are acting like he is Bill Clinton under impeachment so they can keep the Governors office.
Sorry guys, we’re still stuck on one central question; while the rhetoric surrounding the founding of MEChA is clearly over-the-top in the context of the era which was certainly not entirely populated by ‘peaceful activism’, and which I’ve long said sits at the foundation of Bad Philosophy, it’s understandable and of-a-piece. Was it unforgiveable then? I’ll take a stand and say no, it was a part and parcel of the process whereby Latinos (and blacks and other racial minorities) gained enough ethnic pride to take their place in the mainstream.
Has that language overstayed it’s welcome? Of course. We’ve added ethnic interest blocs to the variety of other interest blocs jockeying for ‘their’ small piece of the pie, with the result that the pie is too big and indigestable.
Can you campare MEChA to real violent racist groups like the KKK, or the Panthers? Nope. Find me a direct example, and I’ll reconsider. Is being a member of MEChA today or having been one twenty years ago comparible to having been a member of the Klan? On what planet?? Tell me about the lynchings, beatings, and intimidation that MEChA carries out to keep people form voting, shopping, or buying homes….I’ll wait.
A.L.
is it comparable to praising a former dixicrat candidate for president on his birthday and saying one wishes he had won?
…even if that former dixicrat was not in the moment of time in question (the “oh look im older-than-dirt” celebration of a retiring highly polarizing senators bday) advocating for racial segregation or the seperation of a large chunk of the country from the rest? even if the segregationist beliefs were of a different time and context?
why do most of us agree that trent lott was wrong enough for praising thurmonds presidential bid to get his ass handed to him by the blogosphere but yet there is this argument about bustamente… it couldnt possibly be because bustamente isnt white could it? i cant imagine how that could ever be considering we all know only right wing white people are racist… (and yes those was oozing sarcasm for those that arent sure.)
what this all reminds me of is the antiwar crowds trying to say that so much of the arab/muslim world just isnt made for democracy or freedom and that they want tyranny and brutality.. racism comes in many forms.
Can you campare MEChA to real violent racist groups like the KKK, or the Panthers? Nope. Find me a direct example, and I’ll reconsider.
Read Subotai’s comment, above.
A.L., kind of a strawman, the comparisons of MECHA to the KKK were more along the line of ideology than the frequency of the group resorting to violence.
But so long as you agree that MECHA is racist … (grin).
Balagan –
If Lott had said it when he was 20, no one would have cared. If Bustamante was saying things like this in his political maturity, he should have been torpedoed.
Robert –
There were Jewish, WASP, and black nutball would-be bombers in the 70’s. They were a product of a larger social/philosophical movement of which MEChA is – as I’ve been saying consistently – flotsam.
Next?
A.L.
I shouldn’t be surprised that this issue is being whipped into a philosophical frappe, but I am disappointed. A few assertions, from a native Californian (myself) who has observed these things for many years now:
Yes, Mecha is a racial/ethnic hate organisation. Run by students, but that is its essence, nevertheless.
Is it just a “60’s thing”? Judge for yourself.
A few years ago, a troup of Mecha members assaulted a protest gathering against illegal immigration. This was off-campus, and the protestors were adults, some retirees. They were taken bloodied to the hospital.
California is struggling with a winner-take-all irredentist movement, thanks to the opportunities provided this sort of politic by unregulated mass migration from Mexico. This is not about the student organization Mecha, but the overwhelming number of hispanics in this state who identify with the ethnic hostility and chauvinism that this organisation exemplifies.
Ask yourselves why Bustamante would refuse to disassociate himself with Mecha, something that savvy americans would consider both astute and requisite, even if they did not entirely agree with the portrayal of the organisation.