Was Cesar Chavez a racist? No, I don’t think so. But today, people of every political stripe and ethnicity are labeled “racists” for espousing some of the same attitudes towards immigration and immigration law as Cesar Chavez did.
In their book, “Cesar Chavez: A Triumph Of Spirit,” Richard Griswold Del Castillo and Richard Garcia report: “It has been well documented…Agribusiness regularly employed Mexican immigrants as strike breakers; and Chavez and UFW leaders complained about the ‘porous border’ with Mexico.
“Beginning with the grape boycott of 1965, Chavez both championed the rights of immigrants and advocated vigorous police measures to enforce labor laws…the apparent contradiction between advocating the rights of Mexican immigrants to fair treatment and yet favoring immigration restrictions led, in the 1970’s, to open criticism of Chavez’s position by Chicano immigration-rights activists.”
And, in “The Fight In The Fields-Cesar Chavez And The Farmworkers Movement,” by Susan Ferris and Ricardo Sandoval, we read: “The union has sometimes been characterized as anti-immigrant because Chavez instructed union members to call the INS if they suspected undocumented workers had been brought into struck fields.”
It’s quite extraordinary if you think about it…a person who encouraged people to call the INS to turn in suspected undocumented workers is now honored with a state holiday on his birthday! If it’s okay for Cesar Chavez to hold such a position, why isn’t okay for others to insist that the law be followed?
Ferris and Sandoval report, “In 1973, Cesar had sent his cousin Manuel to manage a contract dispute with citrus farmers near Yuma. The subsequent strike had been successful until growers started recruiting workers from Mexico. The union response was to set up what it called a ‘wet line’- a series of outposts maned by UFW supporters assigned to stop incoming workers from crossing the border in uninhabited desert areas and then crossing picket lines.”
Why isn’t Cesar Chavez and his union condemned for using the same tactics employed by the so-called “Minutemen” of today? Aren’t their objectives and tactics the same?
Gee, a guy who believed that the world “paddy” is not a slur, even when the Mayor of Limerick denounced such language at a city council meeting, and who maintains he can make ethnic jokes at will, is now passing judgement on Cesar Chavez??
Golf Channel & Yahoo repeatedly refer to Padraig Harrington as “Paddy”. He doesn’t seem to mind.
Peter,
Very well said. Cesar Chavez understood the concept of worker exploitation and fought to ensure that LEGAL immigrants were not taken advantage of by ILLEGAL immigrants who would work for less, under horrific conditions. The reason he was never called a “racist” is because HE was Latino himself. I think many don’t even know the history or the truth behind the battle he waged. They celebrate him for his race more than his mission and values. The same can be said about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Few know that not only did he fight to advance the rights of African Americans, but the poor, and Unions too! He was also a strong opponent of the Vietnam War. Many celebrate him for his “I Have A Dream,” speech, and for his march against inequality but know little else about his incredibly courageous man.
I think it is like the old saying, “I can say anything I want about my Mother, but you can’t.” It is hypocrisy at its best. Even Mexico doesn’t celebrate Cinco-De-Mayo the way we do here in San Jose. I’ll bet you 10 bucks if you walked up and asked many people what is the history, and purpose behind this holiday, you’d get a lot of incorrect answers. It is sad when you think about how little we know about our great leaders like Chavez, and King Jr. They lived, fought, and died through some very difficult times in our history. It is too sad that their struggles and their accomplishments have been reduced to just their race~
Got it. If a commentator like Cosell uses the term “monkey” it is ok, because JMOC uses it too.
Hey, John, back on the steaming buns, and stop thinking about driving around with candy.
COMMENT DELETED.
I don’t see their tactics and objectives as being the same, especially when you look at the history of Chavez and the history of the unfortunately-named “Minutemen”. The only correlation I can see that both attempt, or attempted, to work within the law. This could be considered a tactic. Chavez had to do it this way because he was under scrutiny from federal authorities for organizing workers. Sometimes playing by the rules is necessary. His objective was noble and I can appreciate his need to do it as lawfully as possible. The Minutemen’s objectives seem cold, overly territorial, and borderline rediculous.
It’s unfortunate when intelligent conversations get derailed by the question of who the racist “is”. It usually just leads to poor generalizations, premature judgements, and meaningless anecdotes. There are more interesting questions to ask.
And Sergio Valente, your jeans are on too tight.
I guess Eric’s new policy on not allowing ad hominem attacks and off topic remarks really does only apply to his boss. So much for change Eric.
“The ad hominem attack:
San Jose Inside has always discouraged ad hominen arguments. Here’s a good definition from Wikipedia:
“An ad hominem argument (Latin: ‘argument against the man’) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.”
Very interesting, Pete.
I’m just tagging this for later reference in case somebody badgers me (again) for bringing up a topic on San Jose Inside that is not about San Jose.
JMO,
Get used to it – there’s a lot of anonymous chickensh*ts posting on this site. HDS never makes any sense… could be that he’s a lifelong short bus passenger.
#7 Christian: I hadn’t seen the comment. I found it and deleted it.
So, if Peter Campbell can write about ethnic centered issues, and not be challenged for his refusal to stop putting down Irish Americans, it is ok.
On topic?
Peter Campbell has no right as a white American to accuse Cesar Chavez of racism.
Christian is the man!!!!
However, Eric, didn’t number 9 qualify as well
For the Farm Workers, ultimately, it was about the defeat of racisium, oppresion and greed.
We are in a new age of redistribution of wealth and values in this country. You have to know it’s bad when not even Mexicans want to come here any more.
The banksters are winning, while the village people endur the new holocust.
Will Obama carry the standard proudly?
Find your way into the eye of the storm.
Farm Workers of America
Eric,
Everytime Pete Campbell writes on here he gets slammed for something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is getting old.
Eric,
Come on. You deleted JMO’s comment but not #1, #4. That is very odd to me given that 1 and 4 are attacks AND off topic. Pete Campbell comes back on and yet again gets insulted for something from the past having nothing to do with his column. What gives here?
Can’t we just have a respectful conversation on here and stay ON topic? This is a great topic that could both educate and engage many of us in a fruitful exchange of ideas, and thoughts, but as long as you keep letting these types of unrelated comments and attacks on here no one will feel safe enough to comment at all. Moderate fairly already will you! Geech~
Jefferson (#6),
What do tactics and objectives have to do with the point being made? It goes without saying that the objectives of a 60’s labor activist would necessarily differ from those of a group promoting secure-borders today (even though, as Pete Campbell pointed out, Chavez’s “wet line” tactics are similar to those used by the Minutemen). The significant point of the post is that both groups worked within the law, called for enforcement of the very same statutes against the very same people, yet somehow came to be portrayed by academics, partisans, and the media in an entirely different manner.
Why is that? Why is it that Cesar Chavez + Border Enforcement = Understandable and Noble, while Minutemen + Border Enforcement = Racism and Intolerance? In both cases we are dealing with law-abiding Americans working to protect their interests (Chavez’s control of California’s farm workers; the Minutemen’s desire to protect the nation’s sovereignty and culture). Since these actions negatively impacted the same population (foreigners sneaking in from Mexican) how might we account for the disparate reaction?
Clearly you expect to do it by justifying the disparity based upon your perceptions and values. Your perception of Chavez as noble is just that, your perception. It should take a lot more than an opinion to justify so blatant a disparity. That you have, to your satisfaction, rationalized away your obvious prejudices might play well on campus or in a news story but it does not mitigate the fallacy of your position.
It is clear to anyone with an ounce of objectivity that Cesar Chavez gets a pass from you (and others) because of his ethnicity; that so powerful is your prejudice that you are willing to overlook the negative impact his actions had on Mexican workers, go to great lengths to confer upon him noble intentions, and boldly suggest that if he did do anything back then that is today considered politically incorrect it was because racist America had left him no choice.
Bracero Please! Cesar Chavez’s actions reflected his interests; nothing else. And in protecting those interests he hurt thousands of desperate Mexicans, except in his case no one was (or is today) motivated to accuse him of vigilantism and thuggery, or portray him as a racist lowlife (as has been done to the Minutemen).
Face it, there is no group today more racist and intolerant of others than politically-correct liberals, provided the “others” are white, male, heterosexual, successful, or any combination thereof. And to be classified amongst the “others” is to know that the path to acceptance is narrow and well-defined—all are just one politically-incorrect step away from public scorn and potential ruin. The American landscape is littered with the charred remains of politicians, public servants, educators, and journalists who dared take a step in the direction of a verboten truth. The Left has claimed for itself the power of hypocrisy—the unconditional right to employ contradiction, apply double-standards, and pass judgement on its enemies unbound by fact or fairness (powers, ironically, traditionally retained by governments).
The Minutemen provide a great example, given that from the start the group went to great lengths to fashion its operation within the confines of the law, avoid direct confrontation with lawbreakers, and publicize its political beliefs and motivations. In short, they were a collection of Americans acting in support of their interests and trying to do everything right. But that didn’t stop the liberals from launching their disparaging attacks, spreading disinformation, and turning the debate into one of racism, which they could win, and not national sovereignty, which they could only lose.
I would guess that amongst college age Americans not one in one hundred is aware of this little bit of Cesar Chavez history (despite the fact that this marginal figure has been elevated within the educational system to the rank of a Founding Father), though I’m sure that 99 of them could tell you why it is racist to believe in secure borders. The hegemonic Left has done a great job of pulling the wool over the eyes of this newest generation, teaching them to abandon skepticism, distrust facts, and keep their ears tuned to the herd…
as they text and Twitter themselves right into serfdom.
#14-Padriac Smith,
With all due respect intended to you, the topic has nothing to do with Iris slurs Pete Campbell supposedly made. The topic is about Cesar Chavez and his fight to enforce the law, to empower farm workers, but was never considered a racist because he was Latino.
Whatever your beef is with Pete, please take it up with him privately and leave the rest of us out of it. To come on and bring this issue up every time Pete writes a column is really not helping to encourage conversation on the topic. Hopefully, you’ll understand my point and respect my request. Thanks~
Fin Fan,
Excellent points and very well said.
Gil, that 2nd paragraph didn’t make any sense to me. What were you trying to say?
Finfan, excellent and factual arguments; thanks.
#17: Kathleen, I agree with you 100 percent on this. I think we’re all very pleased that Pete is back, and I will look carefully at future posts by “Padriac” (which I THINK are intended to be funny—although I don’t really get the joke).
Having said that, I do not want to start moderating this site TOO carefully, and I do not want every post on SJI become a forum about moderation. Okay with that?
Eric,
In fairness to you, I know moderating is a difficult job. I know that first hand because I’m a mediator. I have to balance discussions in the heat of the moment and it is a real tough call on what I allow to be said and what I don’t. It is a real balancing act for sure.
Having said that, if you don’t want constant discussion on the way you are moderating this forum than enforce the rules “equally.” That is all I’m asking. I just want to discuss things in a fair and respectful manner, but every time I turn around people are bashing and belittling either one another or the columnists. Your readership might be high Eric, but posts have dropped significantly in the past year. That should tell you something.
Pete Campbell has been a real victim of cyber stalking on SJI and I find that really sad. I’m simply asking you to address that in any manner you deem appropriate Eric, and if we don’t tell you what we’re sick of and just leave SJI, then we aren’t giving you a fair opportunity to fix it are we?
Eric # 5—please email to me the comment that you deleted so that I may understand your deletion policy better.
So, if a darling of the liberals discriminates against Mexican nationals, it’s OK? But it’s a no-no if a right wing group would like to see our immigration laws enforced?
FinFan: I don’t always agree with you, but DAMN!!!! you write well.
#19 wrote:“Having said that, I do not want to start moderating this site TOO carefully, and I do not want every post on SJI become a forum about moderation.”
Then just stop editing out anything that is not overtly libelous.
#18—who’s Gil? I saw nothing above posted by anyone named Gil.
#20 K, stop whining. This isn’t an 18th century drawing room.
#25,
Greg’s just keenly observant.
Every writer has his own unique style.
Just as finfan’s precise wording and relentlessly logical constructions are instantly recognizable, so too is the unique spelling, and tortured, nearly incoherent phraseology demonstrated in #15 almost certainly that of the Village Blacksmith- God Bless Him!
When someone writes four straight post, we can assume that they are being a little too frustrated.
JMO,
It looked to me like the Blacksmith guy, Gil, posted #15. It was sufficiently squishy and idealistic to be him. Moreover, it had the air of “mystery soup” so often found in the fiction of Anaya and Villasenor.
#26-JMO,
Welcome to the censored club!
Boy for a guy who is so big into freedom of speech you do a lot of telling people to shut up and stop whining! With all due respect intended JMO, practice what you preach, stop whining, and telling others what they can and can’t say. You aren’t in a courtroom now where you can call the shots over what is and isn’t relevant.
#27-John,
You know what, your post surprised me. Your description of #15 is so PC it is frightening.
yeah #28, I could have put them all in one. I’m not frustrated. I’m merely prolific.
K #30—I don’t believe I told anyone to shut up. But I did tell you and Christian to stop whining. You guys snivel soooo much when someone disagrees with you, especially if they are not hyper polite about it. Thicken your skin, girls.
Jaymock,
Wow, you ARE prolific.
I don’t like to brag but I once posted 7 (that’s Seven!) comments in a row.
#16 Frustrated
You begin by asking, “What do tactics and objectives have to do with the point being made?” The last question Pete asks in the original post is “Aren’t their objectives and tactics the same?” He posed the question, which was unfortunately too general. But I thought I’d quickly try to answer and give some opinion. Then the next thing you know…
“Why is it that Cesar Chavez + Border Enforcement = Understandable and Noble, while Minutemen + Border Enforcement = Racism and Intolerance?”
You pick words I used out of context for your silly math equation, then throw in “racism” and “intolerance”, which I never said or even implied, for the Minutemen. This isn’t going well for me. But you’re all fueled up for…
Paragraphs 3 and 4 assume you’ve figured out, from a few sentences, my “perceptions and values” and from that you can keep drawing more conclusions about me, even so far as to know my “position”, that there is a fallacy in my position, that I’m not objective, that I give Chavez a pass because he is Mexican, and that I think (of course) America is racist.
The next couple paragraphs are full of your typical good/evil statements that are either indeterminate or meaningless, at best. But I understand people like that stuff because it helps angry up the blood.
Although it’s difficult to do, I tried to avoid absolute certainty when I stated my opinion the first time, but after reading your post I think I might have been on to something in my 2nd paragraph:
It’s unfortunate when intelligent conversations get derailed by the question of who the racist “is”. It usually just leads to poor generalizations, premature judgements, and meaningless anecdotes.
#33-JMO,
You remind me of Christian grumpy old salt of a Grandfather. You say things just to get a rise. I honestly think Eric is a big boy and can defend himself without your help JMO. I really don’t care what you think of me or Christian either. Again JMO, practice what you preach. You complain about everything and everyone, but who cares? You what you are. We love you any way JMO.
#6-Jefferson,
Let me ask you to clarify your comments. I want to understand your view of Minutemen verses Chavez. Are you saying that Chavez was working more from a moral point of view and had to play the politics game to help his people, where as you see the Minutemen coming more from a purely legal stance minus the human element in their actions to protect our borders? What did you mean by the statement, “unfortunately-named “Minutemen?” I don’t think you meant that in a derogatory manner but I thought I’d ask.
I’m asking because I think you and Fin Fan have some of the same points here. It seems to me you are both saying that race should not play a part in discussions on important issues like immigration (or any other issues not having to do directly with race that is), but rather the law and human compassion should. I think you are both also saying that the race of the person at hand should not be considered, regardless of the action or statement. Is that a correct understanding of what you are saying?
Johnmichael,
Aren’t you the one who lectured me on keeping my nose out of Kathleen’s battles with others, and to get help because I felt the need to stick up for her? So what’s your excuse for opening your big gob, sticking your nose into something that is none of your business, and defending Eric? You sure are hypocritical Johnmichael. Kathleen’s right, you are like my cranky Grandpa Arnold. You guys think you’ve got the right to speak your mind regardless of the harm you do.
If you want to comment back to me, we can take this off line Johnmichael. You have Kathleen’s private email address. This is the very thing I hate seeing on here so let’s take it off line and spare everyone the gory details.
Jefferson,
In your original post you report that you view Chavez and the Minutemen differently, going on to cite as evidence “the history of Chavez” versus the history of the “unfortunately-named Minutemen.” Now you come back and basically deny the obvious interpretation, one that any honest person would draw based on your post and the Campbell piece to which you responded, that being that despite the similarities in their behavior you view Chavez in a favorable light but hold some form of unexplained contempt for the “unfortunately-named” Minutemen. You go on to assert that Chavez “had to” do what he did in because of government scrutiny, that it was nonetheless noble, and then finish off with a harsh criticism of the Minutemen.
In your latest post you imply that the intent of your original post was to reply to questions posed by Pete Campbell in his piece. Well, let me clue you in on something, you didn’t reply to a damn thing. All you did with your inane offering was to continue on with two themes that have come to dominate the issue of border security, those being the sympathetic framing of illegal immigration and the unfair disparagement of Americans participating in what you call the “borderline ridiculous” Minutemen movement.
You accuse me of picking your words out of context, of utilizing “silly math,” and attributing to you things (racism and intolerance) that you never said or implied. The truth of the matter is that while you deployed your rich imagination in rationalizing away Chavez’s actions, for the Minutemen the best you could do was to condemn them without offering a single tidbit of supporting evidence.
My goodness, how did I ever miss the reason and impartiality of your post?
This may be news to you but when you choose to join forces with those engaged in a blanket condemnation you lose the right to claim yourself innocent of the worst of the excesses. My use of the terms “racism” and “intolerance” to describe one half of the contradictory interpretation was not unwarranted: those two unfair and unfounded accusations form the substance of the campaign to defame the Minutemen and bring discredit to everyone calling for controlled immigration. This is the campaign you joined when you threw your blanket over the Minutemen in your first post, when you voiced your objection to only their call for the enforcement of the law.
Though you obviously wish to present yourself as fair-minded there was no fairness in your first post and no honesty in your second. Notwithstanding the cute little tiptoeing act you did in your first post, your own use of good/evil conclusions were there for all to see. But fret not, you have lots of company; there has been no fair fight over this issue, the public discussion has been dominated by those who favor border chaos and are more than willing to engender hatred for the “cold, overly territorial, and borderline ridiculous” opposition.
Christian & Kathleen,
I’m troubled by what I’m reading and I’d like to offer my perspective.
I have to watch my words around my friends. I’m careful to guard my opinion around my family. At work it’s risky to say what I really think.
This website is the only opportunity for many of us to express ourselves freely. Though I express my opinion very sharply- even sarcastically at times, I have always assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the person I happen to be addressing knows that I value and appreciate them for giving me the opportunity to say what I think. After all, what could be more important to a person than being able to look someone squarely in the eye- someone you like and respect- and saying to them, “what you’re saying is bullshit!”?
Don’t change this place. Feel free to say to JMOC or to me, “you’re talking like an idiot.” Expect to hear the same thing from us
from time to time. Let JMOC say what he wants. Take it as an honor, not an insult.
Paraphrasing from The Godfather, “This isn’t personal. It’s just business”.
Christian, I hope you stick around and continue to participate. You’re dead wrong about most things but how’m I going to be able to tell you that if you’re not there to hear it?
Kathleen, your advocacy for animals always puts you squarely in my corner even if you stray on less important, more human issues. Besides, you have an endearing habit of separating compound words into two separate words!