In his interview with Candy Crowley, Allen confirmed my initial thoughts: the government is acting so permissively, because they don’t have the power to do otherwise. I don’t mean the formal, regulatory power. What I mean is that the government does not have the technical power to oversee what is going on. Neither did they have the power to properly regulate the rig before the spill.

What those at the top do not openly dare admit is that private industry has surpassed the abilities of the US government in several sectors. Private industry has more technology, more creativity, more discipline and more knowledge than the agencies which pretend to regulate them.

The Admiral admitted that in the instance of the oil spill, BP had the technology required to work on the spill and the government does not. He said that “partnering” with BP to shut off the oil spill was the “necessary modality” which will be used to shut off the spill. He was later asked if he trusts BP. If the Admiral does not have the technology to do his own work, what choice does he have but to trust BP?  He is required to trust BP because he can’t do his own verifications.

Private industry has surpassed the ability of its regulators in many industries including, finance, weapons, computer tech and energy. I don’t say this to argue for the free market. I say this to warn against my previous prediction that the decline of government’s authority could one day make democracy irrelevant to the “masters of the universe,” the CEOs of these multi-nationals.

In this case, the government serves only as the guy in the room saying, “um do you think you can kind of hurry up? Do you need some water uh or help or something?”

In the end, the Admiral was forced to answer the question, “Do you trust BP?” He responded something like, “I trust Tony Hayward (BP’s CEO). I even have his cel phone, and he picks right up when I call him.” For real? That’s why? He answers your phone calls and answers your questions? He kind of sounded like a teenager bragging that they had spoken to one of their singing idols. Let’s hope Hayward doesn’t change his cel phone number.

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.

In the same way that most migrants hop the illegit border to find a way to feed their families, they too are part of a moral disobedience to unjust laws.  Just like the slaves, many of whom were running for their own freedom, migrants come not for political action, but for their own good.  Even so, we must change our view of their role in society. 

Whatever their motivation, they are rebelling against unjust laws which have created the greatest disparities in wages between two borders in the world.  These laws include NAFTA, which open the borders for rich white-owned companies to economically raid the rich labor market of Mexico, without offering anything in return.  It also includes the laws related to the War On Drugs, which enriches by billions-fold, entrepreneurs in the detention business and related industries, and does nothing to treat the root of the drug problems.

These laws have created the explosive situation between the two countries, and undocumented migration is a rebellion against these laws.

We need to honor those who have chosen this path, not try to apologize on their behalf nor try to engender sympathy from the enemy.  We must speak and act in terms of just, indignant rebellions, not in terms of us coming to shine the gringo’s shoes.

Honor them.  Honor us.

The computerized tests cost nothing extra, and an English-only format might actually cost the state of Alabama more due to federal funding being yanked and the law suits which would result.

Northamerican arrogance always amazes me.  English-only in a country in which english-speakers are the illegal immigrant makes no sense.  Perhaps I would have no problem with English-only in England.

I always take time in the English only debate to point out a few things.  By some measures, the gringo is the most successful immigrant in American history.  The white man did not bother to learn the language when he arrived.  He stuck to his own and built his own society.  If we wish to be successful, why do we follow a learn-the-language philosophy? 

I think that the answer is very complex, but if I were forced to propagandize it into a simple phrase: Our self-esteem is so shot from colonization, that we can only imagine ourselves as wage laborers for the gringo.  With this goal in mind, learning English is the best strategy.

Un discurso en español elaborado por Hector A. Chavana Jr.

Haz cliq para escuchar.

Their system should not be the “end all/be all” of our visions for a better world. If we limit ourselves to the confines of their system, we have already lost from the very beginning and we ourselves will continue upholding the very same colonial structures we proclaim to defy. Like Audre Lord once declared: “We cannot take down the Master’s house with the Master’s tools.” We must stop defining ourselves and the Migrant Rights Movement on foreign ways of being, on their system, on the continuing occupation of our minds, bodies, hearts and souls.

We must reclaim/transform language and our points of view. The current debate on “borders” and “immigration reform” even from the so-called pro-migrant camp comes from a colonial framework that lacks a social justice vision and never challenges borders or citizenship. Instead, the migrant rights movement Hispanic/White liberal establishment negotiates and collaborates with colonization and occupation.

With U.S. government-sponsored immigration raids, detentions, deportations, and genocide of our people and corporate interests increasing unemployment, poverty, imperialist wars and inaccessible health care at global levels, times are proving that “government [and corporations are] best which govern not at all.”

Let’s take it all back! ¡YA BASTA!

¡Un abrazo fuerte a tod@s mis compañer@s en la lucha!

Many people confuse my rants against “White Power” with me taking a position against all white people.  In fact, my measure for a human being are her soul and her deeds. 

It is true, as Olbermann suggests, that I do look at whites with some suspicion because of their inherent racial/cultural privilege, and because I believe that most are not willing to sacrifice their privilege for any moral good.

I do not excuse liberals who, were it for their impotence, would grant us equality of opportunity in a heartbeat. This classic liberal stance will not remedy the immense theft of cutural and economic wealth which has put our people at a disadvantage, and on an inherent uneven playing field. We do not wish to compete in race to build in which we are handed a hammer at the same time that our competitors have been out stealing power tools all night.

My test for a white person is whether or not they will consciously act toward giving our gente the ultimate rights that we deserve and that we are owed: self determination.  If a white person can respect and actively support our desire to have full authority of ourselves (equality of authority) then they are no longer deserving of the title gringo.

Full self determination, autonomy and sovereignty over our own lands (without political, military or economic intervention) shall complete the cycle of justice.  The Azteca concept of justice was equated with untwisting a twisted rope.  The last stage of such atonement is reparations.  Unfortunately, this country and the gringo populace in general has not even embarked on the first stage of atonement. Listen carefully to Keith Olbermann. Does he ever suggest that the solution to the problem of racism is granting people of color the rights to govern ourselves? Instead he defends the classic liberal position that we are all the same and should be colorblind, that integration is the answer and that the president is just as capitalistic as anyone else.

We don’t want colorblindness. We want land.

As usual, my mind started wandering, and I stayed up a few extra minutes thinking about the nature of wealth and economies. One of the reasons I normally don’t do night feeding is this reason: I find it hard to get back to sleep, and I start thinking about this nonsense. If it kept me up, I figured I would share it with you, so that you might be distracted with obtuse thoughts too! Anyway, it’s nothing I would turn in to a prof, but I think it’ll make the grade for a little post.

I started thinking about how some people choose to define wealth. I heard one guy define it as a measure of how long one could go without having to work and at the same time maintaining one’s current lifestyle. I’m not sure where he might have gotten this from, maybe from one of those wealth workshop huckster, or at least it sounds like what one of them might say. For our purposes this definition is as good as any. Wealth is production in excess of what is required for basic needs.

But what of the origins of economies? We can assume that the origins of most economies are organic, in that they arose out of the normal course of human interaction. The origins of the oldest economies, I assume, do not arise out of a collection of essays and  philosophic pontifications. They arise out of people doing what is best for them as individuals and as groups. They arise as solutions to practical situations, and they are built by a people with an existing value/preference system.

Each economy has it unintended side effects, as most medicines do. Once established, these economies ARE subject to the moldings of intellectuals, and the side effects are gamed by ambitious individuals for personal gain.

I began to think about what goals, values and preferences different economies satisfied at their origins. Bonfil Batalla, in Mexico Profundo, argues that the economies of Viejo Anahuac, were driven by a goal of offering self determination to individuals and families. Thus, families did not focus, generally, on the specialization seen in capitalist economies. Instead, families and individuals had a general knowledge and “general practice” of agriculture. Learning how to grow corn, and surrounding this corn with beans, squash and other vegetables, was an extremely efficient use and practice of agriculture, and it met the goal of allowing the individual to feel self determined and self actualized. She could grow everything she needed to survive and to prosper. (Perhaps it’s no coincidence that many Chicano professionals interested in being independent go into medical and legal general practice. More streams of production/wealth/income, even today ensure a higher likelihood of self-determined success).

I started thinking about the luxury and glory that Viejo Anahuac must have produced to entice the people toward such a goal. I began to wonder what sort of need Euro-trash capitalism must have been designed to meet. I began to think in generalities about the climates that they must have had to contend with during the formation of modern economies. Ante-dated by feudalism, I began to postulate that the production of excess wealth (hoarding) must have been a response to a deficiency in their ability to produce for themselves in a steady manner. In the very beginning, I don’t think that capitalism was about the most comical discrepancy in wealth that we see today. That, in fact, was a side effect that was manipulated over centuries.

I began to think of the original aristocracies as the result of original community organizers: a response to the needs of the people.  The feeble European must have originally had great difficulty in steadily feeding his own people, and so he devised a method to cope: hoarding. Produce more than necessary when possible; entrust it to an organizer for fair distribution. Whereas in Viejo Anahuac, there was little question that the next season would produce a bounty in our beloved motherland, the European must not have had the same confidence and he must have adapted by producing and managing (excess) wealth.

They also took proportionally to greater tendencies toward piracy and invasion (theft of wealth). This way of life (hoarding and theft) became out and out a part of their culture, which resulted in what we have today: the modern gringo system. (lovely, as mija says).

Down the line, this system was gamed and the wheels of capitalism started spinning. The merchant class, the producers of the wealth, eventually overturned the aristocracy, the organizers of the wealth, and after centuries we got the beast that we have today: a system in which some may purchase a trip to the moon and others may not have enough food to eat. This sounds like a system which would come out of a society so insecure that they weren’t sure if they could feed their family next season: so why worry about our neighbor.

In the end, I began to wonder, is it possible that climate could have been the origin of the great cultural divide between the European and the rest of the world.

I don’t know, but maybe I’ll pick apart this argument at my next night feeding.

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.

About one million teenage girls in the United States, or one in three, gets pregnant before they turn 20.

More than 80 percent of those pregnancies are unintended and unintentional, and one quarter of the girls who have babies have another one within two years.

Hispanic girls have the highest teen birth rate at 83 out of 1,000 girls.

For  many reasons, activistas have never really touched on the subject teenage preganancy in our comunidad. This, along with other issues like health, have traditionally been seen as a personal issue, and traditional activism has always been about fighting the system. It seems that activists draw the line at the canton’s door.

There are complex reasons why activistas won’t touch the subject. Those on the far, far left have traditionally seen family values as a construct of capitalism, and some proponents of communism really believe that the family is an enemy to the state or at least an impedimet to the creation of the new human, which should see all humanity as his brother/sister, and not just his family. They see this as slightly elevated individualism. Addressing teenage pregnancy properly also requires a talk about personal responisbility. Many would rather focus on defeating the system.

There is also the feminista challenge. Some feminists resent the implication that children require a man to have a “proper” upbringing or that gay couples can’t do an explary job in rearing children.  Point taken.  I have seen very strong women and men grow up without a father, and I have seen others grow up in a situation in which a father has done more harm than good.

Even so, when speaking about the ideal situation for our children, I still believe that family is important.  Setting aside the requirement of a straight man, I believe that a positive family is a requirement for the strong nation that we shall build in Our New Anahuac. 

I accept that families can come with a variety of gender relations and that a traditional marriage might not be necessary.  But a positive family is required for us to be a strong people.  I don’t think that a movement promising a new tomorrow can ignore it.  If those of us who concern ourselves with flowering the pilosophy of Mexicayotl do not pay attention the the values of our community, then who will?

The Catholic Church has failed, as it was destined to when forced on us.  The schools won’t touch the issue.  Planned Parenthood has promoted women’s rights, but has no place in promoting our people’s culture.  Those of us who see our people as a nation have the responsibility to make sure that the nation is built upon values that will sustain our nation.  If a nation has no values, it will fall.

Do not confuse the ideas of this post with the Christian ideal of marriage being an intractable covenant with Jesus. 

I am not suggesting that we promote the idea of trying to force unhealthy marriages (I remember a pamphlet about 15 years ago.  I think it was from the Chicano Moratorium Committee which suggested 50 actions, and it included dissuading people from divorce).  I have seen single fathers be more involved than some fathers who live in the child’s home.  My ideal  would discourage the behaviors which lead to divorce, such as alcohol and spousal abuse, infidelity and materialism.

I’m not suggesting that the problem is “unwed mothers.”  This phenomenon is a symptom of the problem, and blaming mothers frees the young man of his responsibilities.

I’m not saying that gay couples can’t raise healthy families.

What I am saying is that we must promote the idea of a healthy family in our community.  Our sacred ancestors called their community their extended home (kalpulli).  Our best friends are honored by attaching them to our home: nonchantlaka, literally means homeboy in Nahuatl.  Places of worship, teokalli, is literally translated at spirit home.  All of this speaks to the important place that the home and family plays in our traditions. 

Our nations were build on the foundations of families, and exteneded families, and our nation must be re-built on families.  So what does the ideal Anahuac family look like, if traditional Christian marriage is not needed, if gay couples are not condemned to hell, and if we recognize the importance of extended families.  I have my own ideas, but I will leave it up to you to comment.  Please share your thoughts below.