Category: Uncategorized

It was bad enough that Gov. Schwarzenegger resurrected the headline status of Arizona Minutemen who had gone fairly quietly into the night. His decision to single them out for praise has set off an ugly trend in commentary. But when Schwarzenegger then scorned a Clear Channel billboard that celebrated Mexican heritage in California, he inflated his error beyond any reasonable pressure gauge. Suddenly pro-Mexican has become anti-American.

Into this stirred up climate of anti-Mexican sentiment we have a group in California called Save Our State that has declared a “Battle for Los Angeles” to censor the writings of Texas philosopher Gloria Anzaldua and remove her words from a public monument at Baldwin Park. But we wonder if they have any idea that Anzaldua was the great philosopher of borderland consciousness who warned us that we need not choose between beautiful dreams? We wonder if they know where the name Los Angeles came from?

The 1993 monument entitled Danza Indigenas by artist Judy Baca includes this inscription:

“This land was Mexican once,
was Indian always
and is,
And will be again.”

The monument looks like an archway left over from a neglected or bombed out mission. It is part of the design for a mass transit rail station that in the words of the L.A. County MTA “traces the historical importance of the California Mission period to contemporary Baldwin Park.”

The inscription is placed in quotes and attributed to Anzaldua. But thanks to the hysteria that Schwarzenegger has stirred up, this 12-year-old monument has now become lightning rod for the anti-Mexican movement in California. Because these symbolic wars have been overtly fueled by Schwarzenegger, it is time for him to draw a line against artistic suppression in California. Bad enough that he got his Republican buddies at Clear Channel to back down on the Mexico theme. He should not make things worse by watching abstractly the protest at Baldwin Park.

Of course, we would ask this so-called artist to stand up for artistic freedom even if the offended philosopher were not Tejana. But we are especially proud to speak up in this case. During this cultural crisis we recommend more exposure to the words of Anzaldua, not less. She taught us — based on her Texas experience — that we could flourish in the so-called culture wars so long as we have the courage to carve ourselves into borderland individuals, choosing freely between neither or both. Her verse above gives voice to a dream of beauty and reconciliation, the return of land to los Indios. Dress it up as a fine Hollywood ending, and you could jerk a tear from a fossil.

So what kind of conflict do the art vigilantes at Save Our State intend to provoke when they claim that the expression of that dream, when placed even into quote marks and verse, cannot be displayed? And what nonsense do they think they have the right to reclaim in their battle for a city long ago named Los Angeles? Had they been first to arrive would they have been able to see those angels in the first place?

“IT WAS BETTER BEFORE THEY CAME” claims the monument. If the citizens of Los Angeles have had twelve years to think about that riddle, why would they choose to prove it all over again out loud? How do they recognize themselves so clearly as the ones who always make things worse? They want to tear down a bombed out mission? When will they learn that ya basta is enough?

Introduction: "Inadvisable" is the word that
answers me when I think about posting the latest prison writings of
Ramsey Muniz. Isn’t there a populist vigilante movement rising against
Mexican immigration to the USA, sparked by the Minuteman Project and
fanned by a Governor of California and a would-be governor from Texas?
Are the Yankee border-watchers not out to personally hold the color
line in a kind of Alamo witness against ethnic invasion? And doesn’t
Ramsey simply taunt that movement with its Alamo futility, provoking
from the Minutemen a predictable crescendo of strident justifications
to remember the Alamo? And then doesn’t all hell break loose?

And what does Ramsey’s nationalism have to do with Civil Rights in
Texas? Is the Aztlan homeland not simply the mirror image of Homeland
Security? How can you malign the nationalism of the Minutemen while
aiding and abetting the nationalism of Aztlan? And why in the world
would you knowingly contribute to a polarization that is likely to
shake down some fence sitters onto the wrong side?

Let’s look at the problem in its utter generality. Five hundred
years ago an invasion of immigration began upon Turtle Island.
Beginning in 1492 the peoples of the North American continent were
purged and replaced. Today the First Nations of the continent still
live, but under stress. The Aztlan nationalism of Ramsey Muniz
celebrates the rebirth of a people, an historical and cultural
resurrection of los Indios upon land they belong to.

From a Minuteman point of view, however, the scenario of Aztlan
resurrected is a violence in the making, a submergence of culture and
people. And if there are fence sitters between camps, don’t these
competing nationalist visions of Mexican immigration shake people down
into predictable blocs–just in time for the 2006 elections?

Yet, in the general vision of Aztlan, how can one not see the
beauty? Don’t we tend to favor the underdog hero, the return of the
vanquished, the emergence of life upon death, and redemption? In order
to resist the beauty of Aztlan, one must assume a vested interest
against the vision. And this is what the Minutemen have done.

But the explicit, armed, and bodily intervention of the Minutemen
against the Mexican people’s return to Aztlan draws upon implicit
anxieties of English speaking peoples who find themselves increasingly
immersed in a Spanish speaking world. Where Mexican people are rising,
the English speaking world finds it all too difficult to say, well good
for them. It’s good to see people rising.

So the challenge to the fence sitter is this: will your vested
interests prevent you from seeing the beauty of Aztlan? Then go ahead
and fall where you must. But you don’t have to live without beauty. In
the beauty of others, you just might find something new in the beauty
of yourself.

Are the words of Ramsey Muniz inadvisable? We have to be careful
what we’re saying whenever we warn beauty to put a cover over her head:

* * *

Ya Basta with the American Minutemen
at the Borders

On or about 1920, in the Leavenworth Penitentiary, near
the end of his life, Ricardo Flores Magon, one of the
intellectual architects of the Mexican Revolution of 1910,
wrote a friend, stating that his comrades from the glory days
"are now generals, governors, secretaries of state, and
some have been presidents of Mexico."

"They are rich, famous, and powerful," Flores Magon
complained. "While I am poor, unknown, sick, almost
blind. With a number for a name, marked as a felon,
rotting in this human herd whose crime has been to be
so ignorant and so stupid as to have stolen a piece of
bread when it is a virtue to steal millions. But my
old comrades are practical men, while I’m only a dreamer,
and that is my fault. They have been the ant and I the
fly; while they have counted dollars, I have wasted
time counting the stars. I wanted to make a man of
each human animal. They, more practical, have made an
animal of each man, and they have made themselves the
shepherds of the flock. Nevertheless, I prefer to be
a dreamer than a practical man."

Ricardo Flores Magon
Died in the U.S.P. Leavenworth, 1922

As I have shared with nuestra gente in the past,
the borders between our Holy Land of Mexico and the
Southwest part of the United States will continue to be
a most decisive and profound issue of the 21st century.

For the record and for the purpose of sharing
with Hispanics, Latinos, Chicanos and Mexicanos, we
of the Sixth Sun and El Partido Raza Unida maintain a
strong opposition to the formation of the minutemen
vigilantes who have gathered at the borders. We oppose
citizens hunting down our people, our families, and
our friends like animals. We must not permit this
type of action to exist against humanity. We will
personally submit a letter to President Fox , so that
he convey our sentiments to the president of this
country, sharing that those types of actions by
citizens are illegal, unlawful, and extremely
prejudice. We will recommend that the United States
government, by law, grant amnesty to all our people
who at one time or another crossed the borders. At
this point, we are not addressing legal actions that
the United States can take, simply because we are
more concerned about the value of lives at our borders.

In reality it doesn’t matter how many agents,
vigilantes (minutemen) they will station at the borders,
because nuestra gente will continue to come across
into Aztlan.

We ARE here. The United States finally took count
and found out that within the last ten (10) years our
people have crossed the borders into American not
only fulfilling the American dream, but more importantly
fulfilling the destiny of our becoming the entire
majority in the Southwest (Aztlan). There is nothing
on this earth that can stop a movement of people whose
history revealed that they would once more govern not
only their lives, but their land.

We must have the heart, courage, and concern for
the well-being of our people. We must never forget that
in some fashion or another we are related. "We are all
Mexicanos — different names, different placed, different
native languages, but at the end we are Mexicanos. The
states within the borders know that it is a matter of
time before we become the majority. Those who doubt
this may study the U.S. census of people at the borders.
It was written in our ancient history, and the battle
cry for many centuries has been about life and death
for justice, liberation, and land. As a people and
race, we have returned to those times once again.
The land (Aztlan) itself cries for us. Before the
conquest by the invaders of 1521, our civilization was
one of the greatest in the history of the world.

This country has no business in the Middle East.
The issue represents the same method that was used in
taking possession of our land. Many refuse to address
the issue pertaining to Aztlan. They prefer to pat
"good deeds" on the back with words of praise for
taking one’s God-given land. This issue will never
end until atrocities committed are acknowledged. All
countries, including France and Spain, were defeated
in the Southwest of America — our Aztlan.

It is our responsibility to undo the mental brain
conditioning imposed, making us believe that we who
reside in the United States of America are different
from Mexicanos who reside in Mexico. We are one.
"Nosotros somos uno." The same Mexicanos/Mexicanas that
at times we see at the borders — barefooted, hungry,
and chained — are our sisters and brothers. These
Mexicanos are related to all of us. We are one, and
there is no river, no border, no agents or minutemen
that can ever stop the process of evolution. For
hundreds of years the invaders led us to believe that
we are different. Their history, how

ever, is wrong
and nature calls for the wrong to be corrected.

We request that Hispanic and Latino organizations
take a strong political position against citizen groups
at the borders. We ask that Hispanic/Latino Democratic
and Republicans take a strong political position against
the actions of citizens and groups in America taken
against us as a people.

Even though I find myself confined in these
penitentiaries of America, my soul is free with calm
rest because I know our history, and I know that our
time has come.

Let the world know. Let all Hispanic, Latino,
and Chicano groups know that our time has come. Do
we dare to scale the heights of heaven and our land
in Aztlan? Yes, I dare – y que!!!

In exile,
Tezcatlipoca (R. Muniz)
http://www.freeramsey.com

Note: received via email from Irma L. Muniz, May 10, 2005.–gm

The star reporter on the death of Riad Hamad is Ann Fowler. Her reports at the Oak Hill Gazette appear on Fridays. In this week’s report she talks to Ayman Suleiman.–gm

“Ayman Suleiman is one of the Palestinian youths helped by Hamad. He told the Gazette, ‘I first met Riad when I was in Hutto.’ Suleiman and his family were picked up by authorities and spent months in detention, awaiting deportation. ‘I was 16 at the time and I was about a month away from graduating early from high school, and going either Baylor med or SMU the next semester. That was what most bothered Riad and he had promised me that he will not only help get admittance to a medical university but will pay for my studies all the way through. I was brought to tears when I heard these words from him, for I was sure all the hard work and dreams of going to medical school had been shattered.’

“Remembered Suleiman, ‘[Hamad] got me a laptop to help me with finishing high school (which was from his organization) and he would call a lot here to check out how the family was doing and if there was anything we needed. Words could never describe Riad and his actions–he was a true hero.’

“Suleiman is one of those who will never accept the ruling of suicide. He said, ‘If there’s anything I do know it’s that Riad would never commit suicide. Why not? Because Riad was a very religious person. In Islam, suicide is something huge. Anyone who commits suicide in the Qur’an goes straight to hell. Why would a very religious man, who helps many children and people all over the world–with a very loving family and people all over the world that admire him–commit suicide?’ ”

Read the full story: “Memorial for Riad Hamad
Riad Hamad.” By Ann Fowler. Oak Hill Gazette (09.MAY.08).

By Nick Braune
Mid Valley Town Crier
by permisssion

Among the people I spoke with at the recent May Day labor rally in McAllen was Father John Lasseigne, the pastor of St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in San Juan. I usually move our conversations to capital punishment, because I know the pastor is concerned about the issue, has a law degree from Loyola University in New Orleans, and over the years has made friends with two people on death row. Of course, I asked for an interview.

Nick Braune: Executions have been stalled in Texas since last summer, as authorities were waiting for the nation’s Supreme Court to rule on execution practices in Kentucky. But just three weeks ago, the court issued its decision. Could you tell my readers about that decision?

Fr. John Lasseigne: Yes. In the April case of Baze v. Rees, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Kentucky’s lethal injection method. The method calls for three drugs: one to produce unconsciousness, a second to paralyze muscles, and a third to cause cardiac arrest. Some thirty states use this same drug combination.

A pair of Kentucky death row inmates challenged this procedure, presenting scientific evidence that the first drug sometimes fails to produce complete unconsciousness. The third drug would then cause excruciating pain before eventually killing the convict. The inmates called for execution by a single, massive dose of barbiturates — the same method used to euthanize animals.

But the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the constitution does not require Kentucky to change its execution method. I fully expected this outcome. Given the conservative bent of this Supreme Court, I did not think the justices would sympathize much with an argument that murderers deserve a less risky or less painful way to die.

The case, however, did produce one surprise. Justice John Paul Stevens announced that he had finally come to the conclusion that the death penalty is always unconstitutional. By his declaration Stevens joins a very small group of justices who in Supreme Court history have shared that view.

Braune: I expect executions will start up soon again in Texas. Why do we have so many more people on death row than other states?

Fr. John: Here are some reasons. For years, Texas jury instructions set a low bar for death sentences. After finding the accused to be guilty, Texas juries had only to answer two additional questions: did the defendant act deliberately and was there a reasonable chance of him/her being dangerous in the future.

After the jury answered yes to those two questions, the judge automatically imposed a death sentence. Neither judge nor jury ever answered the deeper question of whether the accused actually deserved to die. Mitigating evidence such as mental retardation had no relevance to the death decision.

In the 1989 case of Penry v. Lynaugh, the Supreme Court found Texas’ death penalty sentencing guidelines to be unconstitutional — but only after many hundreds of Texans had been sentenced under the flawed rule. The ruling in Penry was not retroactive. Even after Penry, Texas juries in capital cases still were given only two sentencing options: death or life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Although poll after poll showed that juries wanted the option of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, that option became available only in 2005. Before then some juries felt compelled to give death sentences against their best instincts.

There is another reason for so many people on death row: virtually all judges in Texas are elected. The last thing an elected judge wants is for a criminal who has appeared before his or her court to return to the streets and commit a well-publicized murder. Favoring the prosecution is an easy way for an elected judge to prevent that misfortune from happening.

Braune: In presentations you have made on capital punishment, you spoke about eyewitness testimony and false confessions. Could you go over that again?

Fr. John: Lawyers and psychologists know that eyewitness testimony is frequently unreliable. At times of emotional distress such as a crime, people’s capacity to see accurately plummets. The passage of time takes another toll on their ability to remember. Eyewitnesses tend to use freely composed bits of “memory” to fill in the gaps.

And as for confessions, defendants confess to crimes they did not commit for several reasons. They are subjected to brutal interrogations. The police feed them details of the crime to make their confessions believable. The defendants are told that if they confess they will make life easier for their loved ones who also may be facing serious charges. And the interrogations are not video-taped or even tape-recorded in most states, so the defense has little evidence to prove that the confession was coerced.

Braune: Thank you, Father John Lasseigne, for your comments.