Also depicted is Corky Gonzales. He got his name and his start from his early involvement in amateur boxing and was ranked at the very top of his division. He later founded the Crusade for Justice in Denver, as he took the most overt role in reshaping the ways Chicanos viewed our own identity. Early on, he embraced the idea that Chicanos had an unexplored indigenous (Indian) identity. His work still lives via La Escuela Tlatelolco in Denver.

Many veteran activists and scholars were involved in the mural project in one way or another. At the time of the painting, noted organizer Maria Jimenez insisted that the muralists include Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz. That tidbit is an invaluable part of history that symbolizes the growth that many Chicano males went through as a result of the Chicana feminist influence in the Chicano Movement.

Students, alumni and the general public have enjoyed the mural for years, and there has been some swift reaction. Two online petitions have surfaced, one on change.org, the other on my blog site, OurNewAnahuac.net. A facebook page has gone up, which you can find if you do a search of University of Houston on facebook. Faculty and students have met with administrators in an attempt to convince them to preserve the art. In addition, a few days ago, many people spoke out against the destruction of the mural at an assembly of the student government. All of these actions are happening spontaneously and independently of each other.

There have been few recent events or problems which have motivated so many people so quickly.

For many, the mural is a symbol. One signatory to the petition writes “I did not attend U of H but am familiar with the mural. It is more than a mural. It symbolizes a part of our past and serves as inspiration for future generations. When my eyes first fell upon it, I felt a sense of pride and encouraged students to consider U of H because I felt the university was aware of and respectful of our and the cultures of others.”

I felt the same way when I first saw it, and I can say that the mural was an influential factor in my decision to attend U of H. I don’t think that our community will allow this mural to be destroyed with out at least some resistance.

If this mural or if just the idea of the mural is important to you, please consider signing one or both of the online petitions. Speak out!

Sign At This Link; Firme en esta página:

www.ournewanahuac.net/save-uh-mural

Please sign this petition, which we plan to use in organizing to make sure that the mural stays up.

Sign the petition here.

I wanted to take some time to recap my understanding of what we discussed at our first meeting.  The subject of our meeting was the need for an idea like the Mexica Church (or whatever we will call it).  What we decided was that some of us will continue investing some time to see if this is viable for us as individuals and families.  People expressed reasons in support of the idea, and others expressed many of the concerns that I was anticipating.

Support

For some, the idea made sense for differing reasons.  One person confided that he had been interested in danza, but that some physical challenges disallowed him from participating.  For me, the promotion of a world view in a manner in which many people in our community can relate to is important.  Some of the ceremonies in which I have regularly participated before are far removed from the experiences of many in our community.  It is a far leap for many people.  When most people see a setting like a church, I believe that they will see a setting in which they could visualize themselves participating.  Additionally, some people at the meeting said that a church-style ceremony is more in line with what they are able to commit to in their own life.   I believe the three participants with small children were in agreement with this.  Some people felt that something new was necessary for their own or for the community’s development or both.

Objections

There were objections.  Some seemed concerned concerned that we would be compromising the traditions by mixing the traditions with something new.  Another objection seemed to imply that we were just not willing to commit enough to doing it the traditional way.  Another objection repeated was a concern for “mixing politics and spirituality.”  Some simply did not like the word church.

Answers to objections

If creating something new necessarily implies compromising traditions, then we are compromising traditions.  If this is true then traditions must have been compromised when people began transitioning from conchero-style dancing to Mexica-style dancing, It would also mean that Northern natives compromised their ways when they added medicina to their ceremonies.  Traditions sometimes flourish because of change. 

To the idea that those in danza might be more committed, and that we might just not be willing to put in the work, I don’t choose to deny that.  There are some very committed people in danza.  This is not a competition for me, and there are people who have put in considerably more hours.  I, and the community, appreciate and support their dedication.

To the idea that I want to “mix spirituality and politics,” I don’t think that is an accurate way to describe the vision.  I hope to include a world view that incorporates the necessary views of a nation.  Those views include healthcare, education, spirituality, history, economics, and, yes, politics.  To try to explain our history void of a political context does us little good, and does more to keep us mentally colonized.  It’s not that I want to mix these views; it’s that if we consider ourselves a nation, these views exist together.  To try to separate them is like trying to separate someone her first and last name and then to accuse them of mixing identities when they call themselves by both.  We are a political people; we are a spiritual people; we are a people in need of education, health and economic healing.  We should not isolate those aspects of ourselves.  I don’t think that there is a place for electoral politics in the church, but there is a need for a political perspective.

As far as the term church goes, I don’t mind looking at different terms.  I will continue to use the term church, just for its usefulness over the next few weeks, but I’m open to changing later.

Those of us who will continue meeting, have a great deal ahead of us in seeing if this will work.  We will invest time to see if we can build this foundation, and if our measurements for this foundation match up.  I have seen efforts like this fail because of trying to move to fast or because people (often me!) won’t compromise.  There are some things that I can’t compromise or let go of, just as I hope that there are things that you won’t.  This time, though, I hope to err on the side of creating this and of compromise rather than perfection in perspective or practice.  If we are going to invest the time in doing this, I will really want to see this project come together for ourselves, our children and our community.  I think that this will mean that many of us will have to be as flexible as we can, since many of us are very set in the way that we think and believe.

I propose that in the next meeting we focus on the basics of the beliefs.  We can talk about our understanding of the armas, the opening and closing and the creator among other things.

We can reserve the following meeting for a proposed structure for the ceremony.

After that, I believe a discussion of the historical/political social perspective of this undertaking.

Are there any ideas of dates for the next meeting?  December 11^th or 18^th might be good or maybe we should wait until next year, past the holidays.

Sincerely,

Hector A. Chavana Jr.

Over the years, it has become apparent to me that our people have remained largely affected by the Spanish colonization and the subsequent occupations of our lands. Countless people have written about the effects that colonization has had on our identity, behaviors and power.

As evidence, we are perhaps one of the only peoples in the world who continue to identify ourselves by name with a colonizer. We follow classic mal-adaptive behaviors cited by colonized people all over the world, and we are powerless in our own lands. This, though, is not a message about our problems. Rather, it is a message about how we can fix them.

The first step toward any solution is education (consciencia y conceiencia), education regarding our law, history, spirituality, political and economic situation, defense, gender relations and more. As long as we look at our different problems as separate issues, we will continue to bandage the symptoms, when we truly need to take a medicine that will treat the root of the illness.

A church can naturally offer a holistic education for all of these concerns. More than anything, it can offer a worldview that will challenge our current situation and promote possibilities of new answers. Such a message can be consistent and accessible through a weekly service.

Why a church, instead of a community group?
“Church” is an inexact word to describe this vision. Most, if not all, of the current ceremonies are rooted in pre-Cuahtemoc traditions. This means that they were developed at a time in which colonization had not yet hit our lands. Consequently, they were not designed to deal with today’s results of colonization. They were designed to honor the Creator amongst a group of people who already have some knowledge of the beliefs. These traditions are beautiful, and they have captivated me for more than a decade. However, they do not address one of our community’s biggest problems today—that the vast majority of our community does not have the basic knowledge of their purpose, much less their deeper meaning. We do not currently have a ceremony wholly dedicated to the people and their understanding of themselves. The Church service’s primary mission is just that, to reach more people with our message and to create a method of delivery for this message, as we offer our prayers in a newly designed service.

Egalitarianism
It has become more popular to support a perspective of egalitarianism and consensus-based models. A church, or any ideology, which seeks to provide answers does not seem to fit this model. Nevertheless, there are people in our city who have developed a great deal of knowledge of the Red Road over the past ten to fifteen years. They know far more about Mexicaoytl than 99% of the population in Houston. This is simply a fact. I understand that there may be a hesitation to promote the idea that a group of people may have more knowledge than others, but again, it is simply a fact. There are people in Houston who are looking for guidance, looking for answers, looking for leadership. They are not looking to be asked for their opinion. They are looking and asking for your knowledge. Imagine going to a mechanic for help and being sat down in a circle and hearing, “what do you think our first step should be in fixing your car.” Sometimes, people want guidance, and we hope to provide some. This notion does not mean that we do not have anything to learn or that we should not listen or that we hope to simply pour ideas into people’s heads. What it does mean is that there is a place for leadership and a flow of knowledge from those who know to those who need.

Isn’t Church A European Concept?
Yes. Church is not the most appropriate word for this vision, but for now, it is the quickest way for me to express my idea. I think it is useful at this stage because it speaks in a language that our people understand. If we promote the idea as a “Mitote Teokalli,” I don’t think most people would understand the concept enough to take a second look. And, since this concept is for the people above all else, we hope to speak a language that our people understand.

Who is welcome?
People of all colors who come with an open heart are welcome to come. One of the primary purposes of the proposed church is floricanto, to spread the beauty of our true culture/spirituality. Even so, all human nations, including our own, have adopted people from elsewhere. With the understanding that the goal is to be adopted by or to understand our culture/spirituality, we welcome all.

I’m not sure if this is right or if it’s for me/other commitments.
I fully expect that some will come down this road with us, to find that it is not for them, for whatever reason. Keep in mind, that we are still exploring this idea. Nobody has committed to starting this church, only to begin some prayers and talking circles about it. If you find that it is not for you, either because of the leadership style, time commitments, beliefs or whatever, you can stop coming, no hard feelings. For now, I invite you to hear some of these ideas and to share yours.

Isn’t Religion Oppressive?
It has been used by oppressors, but it has also been a thorn in the side of oppressors.

Invitation
I would like to invite you this Sunday, November 13th at 3PM to a prayer discussion about this idea. If you may be able to help in anyway, either as atl-cihuatl, malintzin or by opening prayer or by offering cantos, please let me know. We are hoping for this help and your experience. Please bring your spiritual armas and anything for the altar. If you can come, please let me know, just for a basic head count. I am expecting a very small crowd, perhaps five people, but I hope that you may be among them.

-Hector

Just under three months ago, an article exposing John Tanton as the white nationalist founder of the modern day anti-immigrant movement appeared on the front page of a Sunday edition of The New York Times.

Soon after, Tanton’s name quietly disappeared from the board of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an organization he founded in 1979. Tanton’s health issues were cited as the reason he left the board, but many believed increasing scrutiny of the group’s ties to Tanton was the real cause.

The concept of a union is vivid in the minds of many people. As an individual, it is difficult to bargain with the company. As a group, they are forced to listen, or you strike.

It is a very similar concept with this new group. Instead of walking off the job, we have a “vote strike” by withholding votes in certain races. Of course, there are many more strategies, just as in union organizing. Come check out our small group, and share your ideas.

Anyway, we are having a meeting this Saturday (tomorrow). Sorry for the late notice, but we are working on communication, and we can use your help on this. 3-5 at Tejas, and all progresistas are welcome.

To recap briefly, redistricting is the process of drawing the electoral districts, which elect officials to office. It happens every ten years. In this particular round of redistricting, two brand new city council seats will be added, as a result of a population increase, caused mostly to an increase in the so-called Latino population. At the same time that our community is responsible for the population increase, the Parker plan allotted no new districts to be “Latino opportunity” districts.

A distinct plan, called the Jara map, is supported by a “Hispanic” business group. It would add a district, which supporters of the plan claim would add one new Latino opportunity district in Southwest Houston. Another map, proposed by Gregory Wythe, would add a supposed Latino opportunity district by merging Aldine and Spring Branch into one district.

The plan that I helped to work on, the Guerra map, adds two new districts in Latino areas. We add both the Southwest and the Spring Branch/Aldine district in our proposal.

Here is the question that Latino supporters of the other maps have been unable to answer: If you claim to represent the interests of the Latino community, either as an elected official or as an organization, what interest do you have in supporting a plan that does not maximize our voting potential?

I understand why enemies of our community might want to minimize our voting power. I understand why big business interests might have little interest in augmenting our voice, but I still am left wondering why groups who claim to represent our people would advocate for anything less than the best-two new districts that give Latinos some voice.

After the city council presentation, the mayor spoke to a couple of us from the Guerra camp. She made it clear that she clearly favored the Jara plan, in part because it seems to preserve the seats of the sitting council members.

She, like others, also mentioned that the Jara plan took into account the “realities” of voting among Latinos. This is the nice way of saying, that “while it is possible to draw districts with a majority of Latinos,that doesn’t mean that they will come out to vote. Many are too young, and, oh yeah, there’s that whole documentation/citizenship problem.”

There is merit to the argument that a large segment of our people can’t or don’t vote. However, there is not enough merit to deny us our districts. The Voting Rights Act, and the numerous legal decisions issued in its challenges, is clear. Districts are drawn based on census population counts, regardless of the community’s ability or tendency to exercise its right to vote.

While it is generally conceded that the Voting Rights Act allows for the consideration of current political incumbents, it is also clear that such consideration cannot come at the cost of minority voting power.

It is possible, that due to the voting age and migration status of our people in both of our districts, a Latino would not be elected in either of our districts. (So would be the problem in the Jara and Wythe map as well.)

The point that we are arguing is that whether or not we have a Latino elected from our districts, our districts are more in keeping with the Voting Rights Act, and they would increase our influence in those areas, whether or not we had the ultimate victory of a progressive Latino elected.

In the end, I have little hope that our map will gain much traction with the council…for different reasons, but the people working on our map are preparing to appeal to the Department of Justice if our demands are not satisfied, and I do believe our arguments will gain traction with the Justice Department.

I fully expect that it will come to this, and I know that our coalition will take particular note of the votes of the Latinos on council. Again, I wonder, why would they vote for a map which provides less Latino voting power?  Time will tell and so will El Pueblo.

I know that I am not alone when I say that for years, I have not felt compelled to vote, and I have skipped many elections. This fact sometimes surprises people who know that I have been active in many social issues. However, like many of my friends, I have believed for many years that the difference between Republicans and Democrats has been minute. My reaction has always been to use other forms of power, like activism, in order to pressure whoever is in power, regardless of party affiliation. We have known that for most of our lives that the dog and pony show called elections, is just that…a show.

If anything, recent comments by Nancy Pelosi underscore this long-held belief of mine, and at the same time also illuminate part of why I have begun to change my view of things.

At a recent event, Pelosi said, “To my Republican friends, take back your party, so that it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election because we have shared values about, again, the education of our children, the growth of our economy, how we defend our country.” She went on to say that elections should “not matter as much as they do.”

In her comments, Pelosi was longing for the “good old days” when the parties were much more similar. For better or worse she was being brutally honest in her assertion that Republicans and Democrats play the game at election time, and then quickly get to work in back rooms after the elections are finished. These are the politics that I have traditionally responded to with electoral apathy.

However, she is also stating that those days are gone, and that the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party has had abnormally greater influence than normal. I think that she is right. There are influential tendencies in the Republican party that, when objectively analyzed, could be categorized as classical domestic fascism.

These are the tendencies that we must fight against, and we can’t depend on the traditional Democratic candidates to take on this fight. I believe that many of them are stuck in the conciliatory mindset that Nancy Pelosi outlined.

I believe that many are unwilling to risk their stature or their re-election for what most progressive Chicanos consider morally right. Particularly in the case of immigration, we are fighting against the death of our community as we know it. The deportation of twelve million people would vastly change the landscape of our communities, and there are people on the extreme right wing pushing for this.

Unfortunately, the traditional Democratic candidates have not dealt with this and other challenges. Of course there are prized exceptions, but generally, the Democratic response has been slow, uncoordinated and lacking in leadership to the extent that we need to begin looking for more aggressive, activist candidates.

We must meet fire on the right with fire on the left, not with compromise and not with pandering. Using my traditional analysis, and the one that Pelosi offers, there is not that much difference from traditional Democrats and Republicans.

In that sense, I am willing to risk the election of a Republican in the fight for a fiery activist to be elected to office. If we must look to third parties, primary challenges, the endorsement of a no-vote in particular races, then we will. Traditional Democrats have come to take the Latino vote for granted, and consequently do not do much to appeal to us.

This is where the Progresista Voting Bloc comes in. Those involved with the group are are young, beholden to no patron, and willing to push the issues are as far as they can go. They can’t be bought or sold, and they have no interest in political favors. They want what is just, and they will make no compromises in getting it.

If this approach sounds familiar, it should. Many in the group are proud to describe themselves as the inverse of the tea party. I can’t wait to see the group grow into these shoes.

Sometimes, we get so caught up in the battles, that we forget to understand the war.

Come learn about the thirteen beliefs of La Raza Justice Movement.

It is my hope that these study sessions, not soon, but later will give rise to something important and necessary in our community.