Their change in perception was unintentional, but it made me aware of the power and efficacy of propaganda.  Admittedly, the speed with which this propaganda took root caught me off guard, as jaded as I am about the machinations of politics, conspiracy and media manipulation.  The original rationale for invading Iraq is important, to be sure, but more shocking is how quickly national media outlets can skew the public’s perception of what happened only a few years ago.  I have not seen any polls, but I am more than certain that the vast, vast majority of United Statesians now believe the original cause of the Iraq invasion to be the War of Terror. 

It made me think a little bit about the great shift if public perception that the Texas State Board of Education might be responsible for by changing the curriculum standards in the text books.  History is replete with forgotten movements and unnoticed heroes, especially our history and our heroes.  These movements and heroes are intentionally forgotten by curriculum writers and boards.  It is a shame that these handful of people might have the power to completely erase the Civil Rights movement from scholastic discourse within few years.

I remember looking up Chicano Movement once in my high school history book’s index.  There was only a “Chicago Movement,” listed.  When I looked up this “Chicago Movement,” I actually found what I was looking for, or at least a portion of it:  two paragraphs on the Chicano Movement existed in the book after all.  The index was mislabeled.

It will be a sad day, indeed, when I will wish that at least the Chicago Movement would still exist in the book’s index.

UPDATE: Stace Medellin from DosCentavos.net did a post on the specifics of how the board’s mandates will take its toll on our history.

The immigration law was adopted around the same time as the enactment of a law prohibiting Arizona school programs that “are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group” or that “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

The state superintendent of schools, the primary state official who promoted this legislation, has repeatedly stated that the law is aimed at eradicating particular existing ethnic studies programs that provide instruction featuring the history, social dynamics, and cultural patterns of Mexican-Americans in the United States.

The independent experts noted that “such law and attitude are at odds with the State’s responsibility to respect the right of everyone to have access to his or her own cultural and linguistic heritage and to participate in cultural life. Everyone has the right to seek and develop cultural knowledge and to know and understand his or her own culture and that of others through education and information.”

The Raza Studies ban boils down to disenfranchisement. One of the few, lasting, semi-independent institutions which came out of the Chicano Movement was Mexican American Studies. The ban is couched in cultural and curricular terms, but Mexican American Studies Departments play a real role in offering institutional empowerment to our community.

Most importantly, it is one of the few, if not the only, institutions which is not primarily beholden to corporate or Zionist interests.  Heretofore, these institutions have had great latitude with their choice of curriculum and points of views, as academic freedom has been falsely touted as a great North American value.

Apart from the controversy surrounding the curriculum, though, they have provided the mechanics, at times physical mechanics via bus rides, to promote upward mobility and education amongst Latinos.  They have often provided the means for both by offering scholarship opportunities.  Once in university, they have even provided retention services to a segment of the student population which often feels isolated.

Most people in the know would not seriously accuse Raza Studies Departments of fomenting revolution. In fact, Raza Studies have been meritoriously criticized by the far left, indigenistas and feministas among us for not going far enough in certain areas.   They have even been criticized for creating for and delivering to the gringo a co-opted class, a “power” which is now being threatened by the Arizona law.

It is true that Raza Studies generally have provided access and has even required the reading of material which point to revolutionary and nationalists movements which deny the legitimacy of the US, and which have even risen violently against the US.  These movements include, the Cortina and Murrieta uprisings, El Plan De San Diego, the Tijerina Reactions, and La Raza Unida Party.  The reading and analysis of this “material” is usually known as “history” and “political science.”

In the context of the Arizona law, however, this course of study is considered an ethnic solidarity class and a course of study which stirs up resentment. It may very well be true that finding a common strain of oppression among our people stirs up solidarity and resentment. Truth is funny like that. It does things and moves people.

The truth is that some people DO believe that Latinos are oppressed by the gringo. Many scholars believe this in many different shades of gray, even though many people standing up for Raza Studies tend to deny this when they get on camera. Raza studies DOES give these voices an audience, as it should. Academia is about considering different viewpoints, and I know I sure learned the gringo’s viewpoint in my Texas history class.  So we should be allowed the opportunity to learn that some scholars refer to this land as “Occupied America,” as Rudy Acuna’s book calls the Southwest.

The greatest irony about the whole situation is that the gringo’s fear of the resentment that his history might cause is threatening the institutional mechanics that Raza studies offers regardless of one’s ideology. In essence, he is scared of his own shadow. 

Raza-studies departments help all people that come through its doors. They don’t do an ideology check before admitting someone to its library or helping to enroll someone at college day. These mechanics are ideologically neutral, which even many conservative Hispanics would recognize as beneficial to all. 

Despite all of the teaching of “Occupied America” by Raza Studies, I believe that the mechanics provided by Raza Studies DO produce the co-opted class that I mentioned earlier, not by design, but by default.  I do not mean to disparage the excellent, progressive work of Raza Studies in the least bit.  I only mean to comment on the overwhelming odds that all progressives face.  The social forces in the greater society does not permit one university department to undo all of the brainwashing to which people are subject in this system.  Generally, Raza Studies helps a great deal of people arrive and stay in university, and only a miniscule fraction of these people are re-socialized into a revolutionary, indigenist, leftist or nationalist.  Even a smaller fraction become so due to their dealings with the Raza Studies department. 

And this is where I find irony and folly in the gringo’s ethnic studies ban in Arizona.  If Arizona removes the mechanism for creating a co-opted class of people, what outlet will the upwardly aspiring have other than to listen to ideas like mine: nationalist, leftist and separatist-inspired rantings otherwise known as the truth? ;) After living through the Black Power and Chicano Movements, when 100 cities went up in flames after MLK was shot, and when Tijerina arrested some federal officials for violating land grants, the gringo generally learned that it was better for him to co-opt than to segregate.  If the gringo is unsure to where the upwardly-aspiring class might turn, perhaps he should consult with Flugencio Batista, who was forced from office by a frustrated attorney-turned-repressed-electoral candidate (Fidel) and a doctor (Che).

This is not an endorsement of the Raza Studies ban by any means.  It is only an attempt to find any small advantage in a grim situation.  If the gringo seals off the pressure-release valve, he is setting himself up for an explosion.

A poem to honor him:

The Consecration Of Coffee

                                to Archbishop Oscar A. Romero

                   One day of god
                  drinking coffee in my patio
                     nothing is normal –
                            not the calla
                           with its penis of gold
                          nor the iris
                            like purple lava
                                a volcano spills.
                       I find in the depths of the cup
                chasubles embroidered
                   with black moths
                        & red stains –
                        the sun fires
                           a scintillation of silver bullets
                               & of candles drowned -
                                  there is blood in its shine.
                    I place the cup on its saucer
                   with a most tender care
                as if it were a chalice
                & say the litany:
                                       Guatemala
                                       Nicaragua
                                       El Salvador
                     & one side of my heart
                  tastes white & sweet
                    like cane sugar
                        & the other,
                                    like coffee,
                                            bitter & black.

                                © Rafael Jesús González 2010

The United States Revolutionary Army Started as A Terrorist Force

It is one of the greatest ironies that a nation founded on terrorism is being pestered in its latter days by groups using modern terrorism.  The founders of this country labeled themselves patriots, as in Che’s famous phrase patria o muerte.  Patria, you know, as in country, as in they wanted their own.  They were violent separatists who used terror tactics to achieve their means. 

I am not referring, as I usually do, to the terror that they unleashed on people of color.  Their very own people equated them with what we would understand to be terrorism. 

Their use of guerrilla-hide-in-the-bushes tactics, instead of the disciplined European lines, put them squarely in the scum-of-the-earth-coward category.  More analogous to modern-day terrorism is the fact that the revolutionaries intentionally killed off-limit targets—military officers.

The negative reputation of snipers can be traced back to the American Revolution, when American “Marksmen” would intentionally target British officers, an act considered uncivilized by the British Army at the time

Why? Because they put their efforts toward liberty before anything else. 

Today, the modern day terrorists is on the one hand told that they must convert to democracy, because a democratic country is run by the people.  On the other hand this democratic governement invades foreign countries, to the tune of half a million to two million CIVILIAN deaths. If a democracy means rule by the people, ostensibly, the decision to kill these large number of civilans was made by a civilian populace. The American Revolutionaries targeted officers because they were “the deciders.” Modern terrorists are doing the same thing, going after the deciders.

The recent on-base suicide bomber was motivated by the high civilan deaths, according to Jordinian sources.

Anonymous Jordanian intelligence sources told TIME that Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi was not a double agent working for al Qaeda, as claimed by the U.S. government. They say the bomber had provided useful information exposing al Qaeda leaders and he only turned out of anger at the high number of civilians killed in U.S. airstrikes.

Labeling Terrorism is Propaganda-Civilian Deaths Come From Both Sides
The term terrorism, in fact, is used not to describe acts, but rather to polarize the people. Again, the US has caused half a million to two million civilian deaths.  Many attacks lead by the US were carried out fully knowing that massive civilian casualties would result. The terrorists have caused probably less than 4,000 civilain deaths on US soil this century. We can easily see that the term terrorism is applied not to those who knowingly cause civilian death, but to “those other people” on the other side.

Maybe its a style of killing that earns the term terrorism. Let us compare two incidents that occurred in the past month. One was Abdumutallab, the would-be plane bomber. The other was Johnny Lee Wicks, who opened fire in a federal building, and actually killed a veteran US Marshall. Abdumutallab, who did not succeed in killing anyone, completely overshadowed the news of Wicks. The Wicks incident received only one or two days of major coverage, while the plane incident is still major daily news.

Why? Because it is a propaganda piece. Polarization, remember? The US wants to keep us emotional, dissatisfied, scared and generally ready to strike, while covering up its imperial interests. Senior senators (Lieberman) are already hinting at the possibility of striking Yemen. 

So to get us on board, they ignore the hundreds that die weekly in street crimes. They ignore the thousands that are robbed or burglarized daily, and the countless spousal and child abuse cases. These problems, the problems which really affect us on a daily basis, are made to be much more acceptable. Whiles some dramatic theatre plays on for months, despite the lack of one death on US soil for nine years. Get over it, you are more likely to die walking out of a taqueria than by a terrorist. That’s just a fact. But they keep feeding us this myth to keep us on their side.

Attempted deaths caused by foreigners are more freighteneing to the white, xenophoic psyche than actual deaths caused by citizens.  The government-media complex knows this and exploits this by publicizing “terrorist” attempts and the hype around “criminal” aliens.

Pretending That We Can Control It Will Lead To Abuses
Finally, I am sick and tired of politicians and the media pretending that terrorism can be prevented or trying to assign blame to bureaucrats for failing to prevent a bombing. Nobody goes around blaming the cops for a pre-meditated bank robbery or murder. These things happens.

It’s not that I am defending the bureaucrats. It is their fault to the extent they continue with an imperialist policy, not because their policing powers are deficient.

My point is this, as long as people harbor the errant belief that all terrorism can be prevented, they will demand that officials take those intrusive steps, like the Patriot Act, to do so. I do not expect that federal officials can prevent a small group of individuals from planning something secretly and then acting on it. Those who do, begin to negotiate whether or not having the government eavesdrop on our cel phone calls is acceptable. It isn’t. Even if it were, it would not stop all attacks.

Jcruzor1 @ aol.com , (323) 687-0963-organize @ pnlru.org

P.O.Box 13 San Fernando CA 91340

December 28, 2009

Hermanas y Hermanos,

The Nacional Chicano Moratorium Committee-NCMC, extends an invitation
to help organize the 40th Commemoration of August 29, 1970.  The 40th
Commemoration is going to be held on August 28, 2010.

40 years is easily said, however it has taken a lot of hard work by
dedicated people to get here.  Much has happened on our way, as we
arrive at our 40th Commemoration of the Chicano Moratorium, which has
solidified our commitment to continue, honoring the slogan of our 39th
Commemoration that stated, “We are still here, and still a force”.

In preparation of our 40th Commemoration of this important historical
day for Chicanos and Raza in general we are calling for a “National”
NCMC Meeting, on Saturday January 30, 2010 to be held at the Latino
Museum, located at 514 South Spring Street Downtown Los Angeles Ca.
Starting at 12: P.M.. Unity, liberation and self-determination are our
underlying principles . August 29, 1970 lives in the hearts and minds
of La Raza as a symbol of our potential “United Power”.

If you have any questions or have names of other organizations you
think would like to participate, please contact us. Today more than
ever the spirit of “August 29, 1970” continues to live.

HACIA LA VICTORIA

Jaime Cruz, Chair NCMC

Guillermo Suarez, MLN, Member NCMC

Xenaro Ayala, Chair PNLRU, Member NCMC

CC/on file pnlru

The sample text below is an excerpt from a statement issued in Nahuatl by Emiliano Zapata in 1918 in order to convince the Nahua towns in the area of Tlaxcala to join the Revolution against the regime of Venustiano Carranza.^[104] The orthography employed in the letter is improvised, and does not distinguish long vowels and only sporadically marks “saltillo” (with both <h> and acute accent).

The repeal of Glass-Steagall removed the legal prohibition on combinations between commercial banks on the one hand, and investment banks and other financial services companies on the other. Glass-Steagall’s strict rules originated in the U.S. government’s response to the Depression and reflected the learned experience of the severe dangers to consumers and the overall financial system of permitting giant financial institutions to combine commercial banking with other financial operations.

I thought a little bit about the meaning of the report, but the wheels of my mind started turning when I heard this little tidbit, which is also on the blog post:

Then, in 1998, in an act of corporate civil disobedience, Citicorp and Travelers Group announced they were merging. Such a combination of banking and insurance companies was illegal under the Bank Holding Company Act, but was excused due to a loophole that provided a two-year review period of proposed mergers. The merger was premised on the expectation that Glass-Steagall would be repealed. Citigroup’s co-chairs Sandy Weill and John Reed led a swarm of industry executives and lobbyists who trammeled the halls of Congress to make sure a deal was cut.

It painted the picture that the corporate chairs basically did whatever they wanted and that they would have to deal with a little matter of those people over on the hill later. Congress and federal law were basically reduced to a detail in the transaction, a detail that would have to be worked on later, but not something that could actually stop these two mammoths from doing whatever they wanted.

We have become accustomed to corporations essentially buying votes, and execs doing things under the table, but to hear that two major corporations openly disregarding federal law, premised on the thought that they would make Congress come around, is a new one on me. I know that I am twelve years late on this, but this was the first that I had heard of such an overt act of “civil disobedience” by major corps. It made me think hard about the future of corporations overtly disobeying laws. It was almost as if they did not recognize the authority of Congress.

That’s when it hit me. The government only has authority because we recognize this authority. No, that was not the epiphany.

I finally began to understand the decline of the Roman Catholic Church’s authority over sovereign nations. But more importantly, I began to understand why they ever had such control over nation-states in the first place, a concept which I understood academically, but could never relate to.

The Catholic Church could command countries simply because these countries, and their sovereigns, allowed The Church to do so. Period.

The Church was the recognized moral authority. Once nation states were no longer dependent or fearful of The Church, they began to disobey its orders, especially when such orders were no longer convenient.

Today, the recognized authority is the government.  The moral authority has changed from God to “the people,” at least in propaganda.

The Swiss Guard: Today's Ceremonial Guard at The Vatican. Their forces were not needed by England.

I began to see the corporate executives of Traveler’s and Citi as today’s version of Henry VIII. By the time Henry VIII disobeyed Rome by taking his new wife, Anne Boleyn, Rome seems to have become more dependent on nation-states than vice-versa. The pope could no longer offer the defense to the nation-states, after each country had organized its own military. Sure they had the Swiss Guards, but c’mon. The sovereigns, after all, could muster loyalty among the people without the consent of the pope. Basically, The Church had become superfluous, unnecessary, and maybe a little pesky to the captains of countries.

And it dawned on me that as these corporations become more powerful, bloggers in four or five hundred years, or maybe even one hundred, might wonder why on earth, corporations would have ever sought the approval of democratic governments in the first place.  It seems silly to us, in these days, that a sovereign might have to seek permission from a foreign pope for anything.  It might seems silly to our future generations that these theoretically democratic institutions supposedly by the people (however fraudulent it may be) might have had sway over private enterprise.

England had its own powerful, loyal constituents at the time it left The Church.  After all, it was the House of Commons who banned Rome from making decisions in England.  Today, corporations have their own powerful, loyal constituents.  They are called lobbyists and politicians.

At the time it left The Church, England has its own “national” army.  Today, corporations have their own “private” armies.  As of March, according to the Christian Science Monitor, 57 percent of the Pentagon’s Afghanistan personnel were private contractors.

Obviously, the members of Congress are far more dependent on corporations than are corporations dependent on Congress for anything.

Finally, as the sovereign and his apparatus controlled a great deal of the communication in England, so do the corporations control the vast majority of mass communication in the US.

It seems that it is only a matter of centuries before captains of industry get it into their heads that this whole rule by the people thing is too inconvenient, and perhaps, yes, a little pesky.  Sure, goverment will continue to exist, for those who wish to believe in it, but today’s US Marine might look as ceremonial to our future generations as the Swiss Guard do to us.  In fact, they might just be that-ceremonial with the contractors of Blackwater/Xe holding the real force for the new sovereigns: the corporate executives.

Last Fridayish, Attorney General Eric Holder held a press conference in which he explained why some of the 9-11 criminals would be tried in civilian courts…but just some. The rest, would be tried by military tribunals. In essence, he implied that the criminals that would be tried in civilian courts were sure-fire convictions. The evidence was overwhelmingly in favor of the prosecution in the cases that are going to civilian courts. The reason, of course, that some criminals would be tried in civilian courts is, according to Holder, that true justice requires due process and a fair trial.

I was surprised when, a few questions later, a reporter took the words right out of my mouth. He asked, “you say this is being done in the name of justice, but it seems that you are choosing which cases you can win and sending those into civilian courts. How is that just?”

As soon as he posed the question that I had wondered about, I recalled an article, Nuremburg: A Fair Trial? by Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr. in which the liberal author argued that the Nuremburg Trials were simply a propaganda show for the Allies after World War II. He argued that the Nazi prisoners should simply have been executed by military tribunals. He argued this, not in the name of revanchist reaction, but so that the supposed purity of the jurisprudence system not be corrupted and manipulated by populist politics.

Obviously this guy was not familiar with the tradition of Southern/Frontier Justice, but he brought to light a good point. He went through a litany of reasons as to why the Nazi defendants did not receive an actual “trial.” He explained that Nuremburg was really a dog and pony show for the international stage. The article taught me a great deal about the motivations of powers to hold public trials.

I hold no romantic notions about the soundness of the justice system, as might Wyzanski, but recalling his article did open my eyes, and soon pundits began raising the point about the Obama administration’s high priority of reestablishing credit abroad.

My point in all this, besides the fact that I figured it out first and that, therefore, I am brilliant, is that I agree with many conservatives on the idea that these defendants should be tried by military tribunal.

I believe this not for the hate that conservatives feel toward the criminals, nor for the romantic feelings toward the (in)justice system that Wyzanski espouses. I believe that they should be tried by the military because we all know that they have already been convicted, and I believe that no life should be sacrificed to the God of US Imperialism with the added benefit of strengthening Uncle Sam’s credibility abroad and increasing his capacity to further invade, kill and maim civilians. They will be put to death anyway, let’s not use a show-trial to increase US hegemony.