Author: XicanoPwr

In a recent Washington Post article, the Post reported on a study conducted by Vanderbilt economist Joni Hersch where she found a correlation between skin color and income earnings among immigrants. Hersch found that Hispanic, Asian, and white immigrants with darker skin color earned less money than their fair-skinned counterparts.

Immigrants with the lightest complexions earned, on average, about 8 to 15 percent more than those with the darkest skin tone after controlling for race and country of origin as well as for other factors related to earnings, including occupation, education, language skills, work history, type of visa and whether they were married to a U.S. citizen.

This information is not new, it was already understood among African-Americans that preferential treatment is given to those with lighter skin, which is referred to as “colorism.”

Some people are under the impression that Hispanics do not encounter color-based racism, but this idea is very wrong. Most are either uninformed or perhaps harbor some personal agenda that limits their perception of reality. The sad thing is, the issue has only been addressed by a few scholars, and for the most part, it has been neglected. When it comes to discussion about skin-color, it has generally been discussed in terms of a Black/White dichotomy. However, similar issues concerning skin color also exist within the Native American and Asian-American communities.
Despite all the adulation of having an indigenous past, the sad reality, color-based racism has been lodged firmly in the subconscious mind of too many Hispanics due to it’s Spanish-colonialization heritage. In different regions of Latin America, color-based racism continues to have an impact in the way people interact with each other. In fact, if anyone were to examin any US-based Spanish language media networks, such as Telemundo and Univisión, one would definitely find a large presence of blondes than their English-language media counterparts.

As a Xicano, I do have to accept, perhaps there are no other ethnic group so self-conscious and irresolute about its self-worth. To get a firm grasp of this madness, one must understand the historical impact and the psychological effects of Spanish colonization it had on the indigenous population. In Guillermo Bonfil Batalla’s book, Mexico Profundo: Reclaiming a Civilization, Batalla notes:

A basic characteristic of every colonial society is that invading group, with a different culture from the dominated, ideologically affirms its immanent superiority on all areas of life and denies and excludes the culture of those colonized.

According to Batalla, even though Mexico achieved Independence from Spain, Mexico never completed the decolonization process. The internal colonial structure was never eliminated since groups, who continued to hold power, even after the Mexico’s Independence, never abandoned the distorted view where “whiteness” was rewarded and “Indianness” was stigmatized.

The desire to shed one’s native identity was one of the most devastating consequences regarding Mexico’s colonization. Batalla calls this type of transformation “de-Indianization.”

De-Indianization is a historical process through which populations that originally possessed a particular and distinctive identity, based upon their own culture, are forced to renounce that identity with all the consequent changes in their social organization and culture.

This process of shedding one’s indigenous identity is coupled with the desire to improve one’s socio-economic condition, which ultimately meant, the indigenous remained the poorest, most subjugated group in Mexico – a process that started in 1492.

Interestingly enough, it appears, African-Americans were also subjugated to the same process during and after the end of slavery. According to Hersch:

Within the South, the likely causal link of preferred treatment of light skinned blacks was through kinship, as slave owners bore children with their slaves. These advantages persisted after the end of slavery, with mixed-race individuals holding leadership positions in the black community and establishing segregated societies within the black community.

Discrimination within black communities on the basis of skin tone was generally not subtle and was apparently widely practiced. It influenced residential housing, membership of social clubs and churches, entrance into historically black colleges and universities, and membership of fraternities and sororities.

In Hersch’s paper, she also found a direct link between wage earnings and skin-color for “non-Hispanic white immigrants, and for Asian immigrants.” In our minds, we often equate race to skin color, so, one would wonder how is it possible for white folks to discriminate other white folks based on skin color. But in the late 19th century and early 20th century, it wasn’t so, there was a distinct belief that people who came from Northern Europe were far superior than those from Southern and Eastern Europe.

During the 1920s, the US passed several restrictive immigration laws. In 1921, the Emergency Quota Act, which discriminated against immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, and in 1924 the National Origins Act, which completely excluded Japanese and other Asian immigrants and further reduced those admitted from Southern and Eastern Europe. It was at this time, there was a large interest in eugenics.

U.S. eugenicists also supported restriction on immigration from nations with “inferior” stock, such as Italy, Greece, and countries of eastern Europe, and argued for the sterilization of insane, retarded, and epileptic citizens.

Unfortunately, Hersch did not identify what countries the non-Hispanic whites originated. She does make an interesting finding. She notes:

There is also considerable support for the possibility that darker-skinned respondents may have likewise faced discrimination in their originating countries, and for that reason may have ended up with inferior market-related characteristics … A preference for lighter skin occurs not only among blacks in the U.S., but in India, Asia, Africa, and Central and South America. What appears to be skin color discrimination affecting immigrants to the U.S. may instead be a continuation of discrimination already experienced in their home countries. On the other hand, positive self-selection among immigrants would offset negative effects of skin color discrimination experienced in their home countries.

For those who persist in claiming discrimination is a thing of the past, why is there a large number of people in the US who have the desire to appear as white as possible?

(Hat tip to JV for pointing out Belle Waring’s post at Crooked Timber)

The quandary in this country, classism has become sort of a no-no in America to speak about because there is a myth that this country is assumed to be classless. We are constantly bombarded with the notion that this is the “land of opportunity.” And if you didn’t “make it” it was your fault for not taking advantage of all the tools that are there for the taking. We are reminded of this everyday, whenever we enter a business, an educational institution, and/or government facility and see the equal opportunity clause posted for us to see that states: “We do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation…”

Racism is not manifested solely through a persons attitude or act toward another. It is deeply embedded in our system and structures through instruments of power and control, which is not consistently achieved or maintained through numerical strength but through the construction and preservation of a biased system.

According to research written by Alan Berube, Overcoming Barriers to Mobility: The Role of Place in the United States and UK, in the US, it is becoming increasingly less socially mobile. The reality is, in today’s society, if you are born into poverty, you are most likely end up dying poor. If you are born into riches, you will remain wealthy. If your parents are middle-class, the chances of you moving up on the economic ladder have now become nearly impossible.

During the 90s, roughly 40% of US families remained in the same income bracket in which they began at the completion of the decade vs 36-37% in the 1970s and 1980s. More than half the households at the bottom remained there after 10 years.
He also stated that the location within the city played a major role in social mobility. A person living in a deprived area is kept poor in several ways. Poor neighborhoods tend to separate people from their work geographically; schools are less likely to offer high-quality education; crime rates are higher, particularly for violent crime; and health care is poorer. Social expectations to hold a job, stay away from crime and avoid risky behaviors are lowered in poor neighborhoods, too.

Poverty is regarded as a consequence of an individuals’ decisions, attributes and/or moral failings instead of being seen as the exploitation of the working class by the business elites. To understand how classism was taken out of the racism picture, we have to know the history and role of white privilege in this country. White working class people are considered as both oppressor and oppressed. They are oppressed by non-working class white based on class, gender and sexuality, and based on religion, culture, ethnicity, age, physical abilities and politics. At the same time, they are privileged in relation to people of color. Sharon Martinas provides an excellent summary how white privilege was developed:

In the early 1600’s, 50 wealthy Englishmen bought stock in the Virginia Company of London. Their stock options included large parcels of (indigenous) land in the new colony of Virginia, as well as the right to govern the colony.

These English gentlemen did not intend to work their lands in Virginia. To get workers, they contracted with English merchants who delivered impoverished English teenagers and kidnapped African people.

Workers were regularly whipped, nearly starved to death, denied days of rest, and were refused permission to marry. … Under these conditions, African and English servants struggled to survive and resist their common oppression. They traded together, they made love together, and they made war together against their masters. Most servants were armed, since the wealthy used their servants to protect the frontiers against “hostile Indians.”

Virginia records document ten servant revolts in the mid-1600’s, culminating in the famous Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676. African and English servants, free workers and farmers, demanded land and pay for their labor. They burned down Jamestown, the colony’s capital. … Colonial land-owning legislators responded with a series of Slave Codes, enacted from 1680 through 1705. These codes legalized chattel slavery … and severely restricted the rights of free Africans. The codes equated the terms “slave” and “Negro,” thus institutionalizing the world’s first system of racialized slavery.

As the codes tightened the legal noose around enslaved Africans, they simultaneously loosened the legal bonds on English indentured servants. English or “white” servants were granted specific forms of privilege or preferential treatment which was specifically denied to slaves, or “Negroes.”

All these “privileges” were specified as being available only to “white” people. However, if any poor whites acted in solidarity with any Africans, they would be physically branded, and their privileges removed. Thus the term “white” became synonymous with “privilege”* in colonial law.

Basically, it was a method used by the business elites to dupe the poor white working class into believing that they have non-monetary privileges in society therefore, indoctrinating them into believing that they are better than the ethnic minorities – giving rise to the concept of “White privilege.”

Journalist and Professor Robert Jensen further explains, white privilege is not that straightforward but complex – a unspoken caste system among whites:

White privilege, like any other social phenomenon, is complex. In a white supremacist culture, all white people have privilege, whether or not they are overtly racist themselves. There are general patterns, but such privilege plays out differently depending on context and other aspects of one’s identity (in my case, being male gives me other kinds of privilege).

In a society as thoroughly and violently racialized as the US, working class whites and people of color are not seeing what is seriously at stake – the challenges of creating a true united anti-racist force that can resist the contemporary racist strategies of divide-and-conquer. In other words, there is a constant competition among different social groupings for who is “more oppressed.”

What is taking place now, the primary benefits many working class whites enjoyed are disappearing – such as wage increases and the instability of full employment because of outsourcing – therefore, leaving an uncertainty in their children’s future, since it has been clearly assumed that a “child is expected to do better than their parents.” Secondary benefits are also diminishing, such as limited financial resources to pay for educational opportunities for white working-class youngsters because of college tuition rates continue to rise and the constant cutting of federal grants. Existing social services that used to be in place to create social mobility – medicaid, medicare, TANF – are being reduced. The impacts of these diminishing privileges are endangering the legitimacy of the white supremacy system, and the system is now relying on scapegoating to maintain order.

——————————-
At this point, I would not be surprised that some white people are getting bent out of shape. Before moving on, here are a couple of questions white people should consider before getting defensive – Do you think that in the United States being white has advantages? Have any of you ever benefited from being white in a world run mostly by white people? If so, if we live in a world of white privilege – unearned white privilege – then how does that affect the notion of a so-called existing level playing field?

Still not convinced? The answer these questions: What was the company or government agency, or contractor to which you had applied for a position or contract, which you believe discriminated against you?

Second, when did you apply for this job or contract?

And, finally, who was hired or given the contract ahead of you, and what evidence do you have that they were less qualified, objectively than you for the position?
——————————-

Until we start defining equality in terms of opportunity rather than in terms of moral responsibility, capitalist America will continue to provide the working class with the illusion of equality while it proceeds to exploit them.

The racism many white people feel are not from minorities, but from other whites – the wealthy, which explains why white privilege complex. The subjugation that is being rendered is more subtle, by the creation of private spaces – First Class accommodations, country clubs, five star restaurants, and other private spaces. Why do you suppose the wealthy are willing to pay a hundred dollars a plate or pay more to fly class? Why are they willing to pay more to live in secluded neighborhoods?

In the US, the idea of individualism is a much-celebrated theme in the national myth, this focus on the individual extends beyond rightist libertarians to the Right as a whole. The Right provides two misperceptions to continue this hoax. When it comes to racism, the Right most often dismiss the very idea of racism and consider it as having no merit, strongly affirming that racial incidents and outcomes are solely a problem between individuals. For the most part, the Right alleges, “racism is a thing of the past.”

liberal programs as affirmative action have little to do with fighting racism; rather, they are aimed at camouflaging the embarrassing reality of black failure to meet merit standards of academic achievement and economic performance. One of my main conclusions is that even though we now have substantial numbers of Hispanics, Asians, and Middle Easterners in this country, racism remains primarily a black-and-white problem. Many people may not like Korean or Mexican immigrants, but there is no systematic belief today that holds these groups to be inferior. Yet four centuries after blacks were brought to this country against their will, the suspicion of black inferiority persists. This suspicion helps to keep racism alive and so hinders progress toward a race-neutral society. Only by recognizing and confronting cultural pathology and becoming fully competitive with other groups, I argue, can African Americans discredit racism and join whites and other ethnic groups in claiming the fruits of the American dream.

When it comes to portraying the white working class, it is always the old stereotype of the white supremacist or the non-educated white trash hillbillies who refuse to get over the South’s defeat of the civil war. For the past 40 years, white (particularly non-Southern white) liberals, progressives, and others on the left have mistakenly assume that white supremacy were only a matter of ignorance. That once they were educated, things would become the liberal paradise. It did not work out that way. It is such an easy meme for progressives to repeat. It puts the problem outside of New York or Massachusetts or California or any time progressives might actually have to work on the polite forms of fascism.

But why do so many otherwise clear thinking people on the left share the misperceptions? Why is West Virginia and Alabama first on the list whenever the KKK comes up and not Michigan or California? Folks in Michigan know that the KKK is there, and folks in California know about the neo-Nazis among them. Who are these snake oil salesmen? The obvious answer is, the extremely wealth, the political elites, the ones who want to keep the status quo and the mass media is their tool to continue this division.

Any time you turn on the TV, you continually see junk shows like The Jerry Springer which reinforces these stereotypes. Springer’s show has gone out of its way to reinforce our view on white trash or the uppity minority.

The same goes for the news. When it comes to stories dealing with the rural areas or the inner city, reporters are always interviewing people to who fit the stereotype.

The same thing can be view with primetime TV shows like “My Name is Earl” which depicts male rednecks as lacking an education, ignorant, uncouth, poor hygiene, etc. And when it comes to female, (urban and white trash) they are portrayed as sexually promiscuous (Dukes of Hazards).

There is a fundamental reason class is “America’s forbidden subject.” It is time for white people to go beyond good intentions and begin to face, and to tell, the truth how how the privileges that come with being white gives you advantages, some subtle and some obvious, some overt and some covert, some material and some ideological.

I have said this in college and will proceed to say it over and over again. Since poverty is not concentrated among one group of people it serves as a starting point for healing the racial divisions in America. Once people are willingly to accept these facts, it is then the status quo will change.

It is funny how the GOP loves to use Martin Luther King Jr’s “color-blindness” line from the 1963 March on Washington when it comes to race issues. In fact, the Party recently has been actively recruiting minorities just to show how serious their efforts are to end racism. However, it is not hard to see how white supremacist groups have learned to play the system.

Oh sure they are quick to criticize Dudya when it comes to immigration issues. But don’t be fooled, they do share the same right-wing template when it comes to issues of race, immigration, losing their country, and the so-called decline of “civilization.”

In Texas, it seems the Wise County GOP has been a breeding ground for white supremacist. Recently, DKos diarist TxSharon exposed the blatant racism within the Wise County Republican Party. It seems that the local Republicans want to make sure that their constituents know that their candidates are white, more specifically, “American European.”

The Republican Party in Wise County loves white folks, but not just any white folks. They are very specific in which white folks are acceptable especially when considering those who are running for political office. On their website, they listed the candidates and included the race of each which, without exception, were “American European.”

This is the same county where folks from the Wise County Minuteman Project enjoy socializing with the women at the Wise Republican Women’s meeting and where county commissioners hung a Confederate flag in the courthouse.
Some people find it surprising but in reality, this is not new, not in my neck of the woods – Texas. It must be noted there is a known neo-Confederates group around Wise County, League of the South. One thing, white conservative Texans love to do is to live in past so long as it’s a past that makes them feel good and venerates them as heroes.

If you were to ask the Wise County commissioners why they decided to wave the Confederate flag, they would insist it was merely honoring their Southern heritage. Yet, if you were to ask them about ask them about the issue of slavery, most likely, their answer would be “it’s all that was in the past.”

Neo-Confederates have a bad habit revising history by shrilling that the Confederate Battle has nothing to do with slavery or racism. Modern day confederates insist that the battle flag only represents the noble and gallant efforts of their ancestors in their fight for “state’s rights.” However, they ignore the primary reason Texas seceded from the Union.

The notion that the Confederate States fought for such noble principles as defense of homeland, or regional pride, or other similarly abstract notions only speaks to their own self-delusion.

Under the Texas Ordinance of Secession, it stated that Texas had been admitted to the Union

as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery — the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits — a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

The Texas secession delegates went even further than those in most other Southern states, by declaring:

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. That in this free government all white men are and of right to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both the desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.

They even went so far to specifically refer Native Americans as “Indian savages” and Mexicans as “murderous” bandits.

For modern neo-Confederates to try to pass off their iconography soul purpose of defending “state’s rights” with no racial overtones is an attempt to rewrite history, and is akin to saying that the Holocaust did not occur.

Most frightening, this is not just a Texas phenomenon. Organizations such as the League are also involved with other white supremacy groups, such as the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) – a group that propounds its bigotry in the guise of conservative advocacy. One League’s founding member, Jack Kershaw, is also a member of the white supremacist CCC.

One of America’s dirty secret in American politics is that significant sections of the Republican Party “base” have ties with organizations that consist of racists and neo-fascists. The CCC has been able to maintain its strong connections with extremists by appealing to widespread resentments and successfully attracting prominent conservative politicians within the GOP, such Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott and Georgia Republican Rep Bob Barr participate in their events.

Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, who had spoken to the group five times, once telling its members they “stand for the right principles and the right philosophy,” claimed he had “no firsthand knowledge” of it.

Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia, who touched off the brouhaha by delivering a keynote speech at the CCC’s national convention in June 1998, said he had “no idea” what the organization stood for.

Lott was forced to step down as Senate Majority Leader after he praised long-time Senator, now deceased, Strom Thurmond’s 1948 presidential campaign, when he split with the Democratic ticket to run as a third-party candidate on a segregationist platform.

Members from the League and the CCC are also involved with other white supremacy group, American Renaissance, who share the same concern that multiculturalism and immigration as being the gravest threat to white societies in America and Europe.

It is not hard to see the dangers that these groups posed to our democracy by hard right forces such as dogmatic religious movements, regressive populism, and White racial nationalism also are attacking democratic values in our country. The immigration issue does bring out the nationalism in these groups. It is no surprise that white supremacists have been eager to use the Sept 11 terrorist attacks to further their own goals. In fact, some of them have turned Sept. 11 into a marketing tool.

The US has been a majority-white country and immigrant labor in the early part of this century was white, although, as we have seen, ethnic, national, and religious distinctions were critical in that time as the basis for defining immigrants as different, inferior morally and intellectually and, thus, threatening. The current influx from Third World countries faces the added dimension of race, a powerful factor throughout US history. Thus the current sentiment is as much the political twin of the racist history of exclusion of the Chinese as it is the resistance to white immigration.

Truth be told, whenever racism is brought up, these sanctimonious group that quick to brand minorities with the victim mentality label. Such whites insist that minorities are being encouraged to adopt a victim mentality, and to view themselves as perpetual targets of oppression. It is the conservatives who then take on a paternalistic attitude, which they are able to parade themselves as friends of minorities, only concerned about freeing them from the debilitating mindset of victimization that liberals wish to see them adopt.

White denial does not only deal with conservatives or white supremacists, in fact, it has become a widespread phenomenon nowadays. A recent survey from the University of Chicago found that most whites are unwilling to entertain even the mildest of suggestions that racism and racial inequity might still be issues. The survey asked two questions about Hurricane Katrina and the governmental response to the tragedy.

The first question asked respondents whether they believed the government response would have been speedier had the victims been white. To no surprise, more Blacks than whites agreed that the federal government’s response would have been faster if the victims of Katrina in New Orleans had been white. However, the next question that was weakly worded was more telling. The second question asked respondents if the Katrina tragedy showed that there was a lesson to be learned about racial inequality in America, only 38 percent of whites agreed.

The differences of perceptions based on an event to which the entire nation was exposed in living color, are staggeringly instructive. Blacks and whites saw the same images, but perceived them differently. The Dawson poll, which included approximately 500 whites and 700 Blacks, shows a 64 percent difference between Black and white perceptions on the federal response to Katrina, and a 52 percent divide on the disaster’s significance in terms of racial equality in the United States.

At times, it seems nothing has to do with race nowadays in the eyes of white America. Even the media seems to play down race. For the first time in CBS’ Survivor, the contestants were divided into four tribes by race. The only ones who really made an issue came from the minorities groups. A large majority of white folks felt that is was “no less arbitrary to group people by sex than it is by race.”

It seems the only time some white people will take a person of color seriously is when they think they are in their face, which some see it as counterproductive because it perpetuates an image of people of color as angry minorities who just want to bitch and gripe. But it is the bitching and griping that actually have a positive effect. In the case of CBS’s Survivor, the firestorm actually ended the ethnic experiment quickly. After two episodes and no explanation, producers quickly abandoned their little segregation experiment and merged the black, white, Asian and Latino tribes into two groups.

Often, deeply felt issues raised by groups whose numbers are in the minority have the power to convert, while issues that theoretically should be in everyone’s interest never take hold. It is therefore essential that we address several fundamental questions right now: To point out those overt expressions of bigotry is all fine, but what about the underlying mindset, which gives rise to such acts? And the institutional inequities that make such a mindset seem rational? And which crimes are the ones we should punish anyway: the retail versions perpetrated by lone bigots and hate groups, or the wholesale versions which form the basis of institutional racism, and are the very fabric which comprise the tapestry of American society? And, finally, how are we to take back this country if our issues only receive lip service and are not even widely represented in the movement’s leadership and decision-making structures?

We can only take back this country again, unless and until people in the US come to see people of color as their brothers and sisters in a common struggle for economic justice and human dignity nothing will change, or at least, not for the better.

It looks like things are still not looking good in Oaxaca. It looked like the APPO, teachers and government were about to reach an agreement to allow the police to enter, until the police and roving band of strikers wearing hoods and carrying clubs and rocks started shooting at members of APPO and some university students.

According to La Jornada, gunfire erupted as a band of roving strikers – known as the APPO’s “mobile brigade” – tried symbolically seize the public safety agency. The same building they seized weeks ago. As they tried to enter, they were met with a hail of gunfire.

A las 16:12 de este miércoles, cuando casi concluían una larga jornada de toma simbólica y desocupación de oficinas gubernamentales, y cuando ya se retiraban de la Secretaría de Protección Ciudadana (Seproci), que dirige Lino Celaya, policías y un grupo de respaldo dispararon contra los manifestantes, cuando ya se hallaban en los tres autobuses en los que habían hecho el recorrido por las dependencias.

The whole incident lasted for 10 minutes and about 60 to 80 shots being fired at the protesters. It was reported that two demonstrators were grazed by bullets.
Earlier in the day, leaders of the movement asked demonstrators over the radio station to step up disruptive activities to prove to the visiting senators that the rule of law had broken down in Oaxaca. The Senate commission was expected to arrive in Oaxaca today to determine whether the state government has effectively ceases to function, but the trip has now been called off.

News reports said a group of senators who planned to visit the city on a fact-finding mission had called off the trip.

Meanwhile, thousands of Oaxaca’s teachers marched over 300 miles from their embattled city into the capital on Monday demanding the resignation of Ulises Ruiz.

Now that this sad event occurred, the teachers will not even consider the proposal that would have allowed police to re-enter under federal command and any attempts to ease off on the demand for Ruiz’s resignation is gone.

In other news, Felipe Calderón and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is on schedule in aiding the American empire. With less than two months until Calderón takes over, the IMF is already advising Mexico. If Mexico is hoping to tackle their “ambitious structural reforms” they should consider privatizing the state owned oil company, PEMEX, and they should also modify their current tax structure.

A menos de dos meses del cambio de gobierno, el Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI) recomendó a la siguiente administración federal emprender “reformas estructurales ambiciosas”, entre ellas la posibilidad de que el sector privado participe en las inversiones que realiza Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) y modificar el actual esquema tributario.

También planteó modificar la estructura de gobierno de la petrolera estatal, debido a que, según el organismo, en su forma actual representa una limitación para mejorar su desempeño.

Everything is falling into place – profits are to be privatized, but cost and risk socialized.

Soon after the Mexico’s Electoral Tribunal declared Felipe Calderón President-elect on Sept 5, three of his advisers met secretly with Cabinet ministers, top military brass and North America’s top corporate executives in Canada. The meeting focused on the national security, borders, immigration, military production and the control over North America’s energy reserves.

Tres de los principales asesores del presidente electo, Felipe Calderón, participaron hace menos de dos semanas en un encuentro secreto realizado en Canadá, donde representantes de grandes corporaciones y del estamento militar estadunidense plantearon “profundizar la integración de América del Norte” y crear una “zona segura” de abasto de petróleo para la economía de Washington.

Just to name a few of those who attended the meeting; they were US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld; Mexico’s Secretary of Public Security, Eduardo Medina Mora; and General Rick Hilliers, Chief of Canadian Forces and representing the business sector were executives of Lockheed Martin, Chevron, Petroleos Mexicanos, Suncor Energy, according to Michel Chossudovsky.

In past few months there has been a lot of talk about how there is a secret plan to create a North American Union by dismantling of the borders between Canada, Mexico and the United States, and creating a deeper North American economic integration other wise known as “Deep Integration.”

Deep integration is the dismantling of the border between Canada and the United States. It will affect everything – the economy, social structures, social programs, resources and the environment. It is the harmonization of policies and regulations that govern the foods we eat, the items we buy, and how we live. It is the formation of a new North America that effectively erases the border between Canada and the United States in the interest of trade north of the border and security concerns south of the border.

The idea behind “deep integration” originated from the current North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Canada and Mexico, which came into effect on January 1, 1994. Since the inception NAFTA, the three countries have been on an irreversible path to economic integration.

Before last months meeting between the business and political leaders, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) had already taken steps with its counterparts in Canada (Council of Chief Executives) and Mexico (Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales (Mexican Council of International Affairs – COMEXI) to study the possibility of integrating the three nations. Laying the foundation for the “deep integration,” the CFR produced a report entitled Building a North American Community.

The document called for the creation a single economic space that expands economic opportunity for all people in the region, and the establishment of a security zone that protects the region from external threats while facilitating the legitimate passage of goods, people, and capital.

The task force was lead by former Canadian Vice Prime Minister and Finance Minister John P. Manley; Mexican former Minister of the Treasury Pedro Aspe; and of former Governor of Massachusetts and US Attorney General assistant William F. Weld.

On March 23, 2005, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) agreement was signed formally by President Bush, President Vicente Fox of Mexico, and Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada. Hass, notes:

The Task Force offers a detailed and ambitious set of proposals that build on the recommendations adopted by the three governments at the Texas summit of March 2005. The Task Force’s central recommendation is establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.

One year later, on March 31, 2006, the three heads of state, Bush, Vicente Fox and Steven Harper, the new Prime Minister of Canada, resigned the agreement in Cancun.

The point of this accord was a safety measure to bind Mexico legally regardless whoever became president of Mexico in the upcoming elections. Included in the “security and prosperity of North America” was a guarantee that Mexico’s energy industry will meet the needs of the US market, as well as measures toward forging “a common theory of security,” which means that Mexico will allow any of US Homeland Security measures to be implemented in Mexico.

On Nov 2005, in Mexico City, before members of the US Chamber of Commerce, Felipe Calderón had won over the Bush administration when he told the Chamber of Commerce members that he was in favor of private investment in Pemex, and of weakening the labor unions. He also stated that he supported George Bush’s guest worker program and that he agreed the border needed to be secured or militarized.

One serious effect of the globalization of the economy is the rise of new governing institutions that undeniably serves the interests of private transnational economic power. When truth is mixed in with disinformation, it is becoming hard to decipher who is actually telling the truth or who is spreading misinformation about the future of the North American Union (NAU).

The rationales made against the NAU by Nationalist are filled with extreme, reactionary anti-immigration rhetoric, particularly focusing on jobs taken away by immigrants and national security. What makes it worse; there are sprinklings of conspiracy theories from far right pundits like Lou Dobbs, Alex Jones, Phyllis Schlafly, and Jerome R. Corsi among others.

Their rhetoric against the NAU ranges from paranoia to loosely base arguments. One of the most outspoken and often cited by progressives is Jerome R. Corsi, who happens to be the co-author of the book Unfit for Command with John E. O’Neill. It is hard to take Corsi seriously particularly when he was helpful in keeping the current Administration in power. To make matters worse, Corsi is currently writing a book on the Minutemen Project with Jim Gilchrist as coauthor. Corsi’s argument against the SPP is based on his antagonistic attitude towards undocumented immigrants.

Corsi and his ilk worry about the North American Union is about is the possibility that this country will be integrated with the very people they dislike, therefore, deflecting the legitimate problem of having these type of secret meetings – free-trade.

If there is an invasion, the invasion will come the US and not Mexico. There is specific evidence in National Archives that clearly indicate that the US had an eye for Mexico. In 1904, Brig Gen Tasker Bliss, commander of the U.S. War College, had issued some directives to Admiral George Dewey and the Joint Board; Bliss explained that the wars would likely be aggression masked as defense:

I do not think that when the United States comes to fight it will be for the declared purpose of extension of trade, although that may be the real cause of war and its real object, concealed under an appeal to the Monroe Doctrine.

The fundamental issue, for Bliss, was how to go about this without little the risk of involving another great power from entering into the conflict. Given his options, he deduced that Mexico would be the best place for this:

That the intervention of the United States in Mexico may become necessary, with the least chance of any other foreign complication connected therewith.

Bliss also recommended that the US prepare five contingency plans, the fifth one was the plan for the intervention of Mexico. In April 1912, a Joint Board plan for military intervention in Mexico was approved by the Secretary of Navy. In the next month, President Taft counter-signed the plan. An amended version specifically recommending the “Seizure and temporary occupancy of Vera Cruz and Tampico by the naval forces of the United States” was approved on February 13, 1913, by Acting Secretary of the Navy Winthrop, with counter-signature by President Taft.

One year later, on April 1914, naval forces seized and occupied Tampico and Vera Cruz. The American public was fed and continues to be fed that the Tampico invasion was a response to the Mexican federal forces for not apologizing to Marines who were detained because they landed in Tampico without permission. The excuse given for the invasion of Vera Cruz was to prevent a German ship violating the Monroe Doctrine by delivering military supplies purchased by the Mexican government.

Then, in April 1914, a group of U.S. Marines landed at Tampico to pick up supplies and were arrested by Mexican officials. Although the marines were soon released, Admiral Henry Ti Mayo demanded that the Mexican government apologize formally and honor the American flag with a twenty-one gun salute. President Wilson, who had not been consulted, felt compelled to back Admiral Mayo as a representative of the government. When Mexico’s president, Victoriano Huerta, refused to salute the flag, Wilson ordered the fleet to Veracruz (the marines seized the city) and the army to march overland from Texas to join it.

The invasions had been pre-planned and pre-authorized. The invocation of the Monroe Doctrine was a prepared lie: the munitions carried by the German ship had been loaded in New York City. To provide some insight into on the state of affairs, in 1914, Frederick Starr notes:

It is impossible for us to march to Mexico City, seize it, appoint a provisional president, and withdraw. There is no use of trying to deceive ourselves and others. If we go to Mexico, we must occupy the whole republic. There is no possible alternative. To enter Mexico and occupy will take time, money and frightful toll of human life. It would be unjust aggression. Its final result would involve land grabbing. We would either hold the whole of the republic, or we would cut off the northern states and add them to our area. There are of course plenty who look upon this as our manifest destiny. It is unfortunate if it should prove manifest destiny, because it would spell our ruin.

To add Mexico to our republic or to add the northern tier of states would be infinitely bad for us. It would be the greatest of misfortunes for Mexico and the Mexicans. We are fond of talking of assimilation. We have never assimilated anything. We have not assimilated Arizona and New Mexico after sixty-five years of ownership. We have not assimilated the millions of negroes in the South. We have not assimilated the Filipino, nor the Hawaiian, nor the Puerto Rican. We have not only not assimilated them, we are nationally today the weaker for their presence.

The war for the conquest of Mexico has been much discussed. Some claim that it would require 600,000 soldiers and a period of ten years; others claim that it could be done with 150,000 men and two years’ time. This is not the actual question, but only selfish and commercial features of the problem. It is not the size of the army, nor the expense, nor the time involved which are significant. Far more important is the fact that such a war of conquest is unjust in itself. There is nothing in the conditions of the moment to excuse it. The price of war is not a mere question of dollars and time, — it is more seriously a question of blood and brutalizing. A nation which issues from a war of conquest against a smaller, poorer nation suffers far more than it inflicts. Its ideals, its character, its life are lowered. How heavily has our nation paid for its inglorious war with Spain. Not only did it cost money and time and blood. Its toll of disease and weakened moral fiber is a far more serious matter; and by it we lost those ideals for which our nation stood through more than a century of independent life. This last was the heaviest part of the price.

Between 1918 and 1939 – the US had developed and approved as official national policy three major war plans: a War Plan ORANGE against Japan, War Plan GREEN against Mexico, and a War Plan RED against Canada.

The plan for invading Mexico shows the US attitude towards Mexico with a focus on their oil. The plan states:

“The oil fields of Tampico and Tuxpan are important not only to the commerce of the United States and of the world, but to that of Mexico… The fields are largely owned by American and British interests and are susceptible to great damage by the Mexicans. It is therefore important to seize these fields at once…”.

“The period of active operations will be short, as compared to the period of guerilla operations. The early disbandment of temporary [U.S.] troops is highly desirable. It is the testimony of all well acquainted with Mexican character that any number of Mexicans can be hired to fight against anyone and for any one who will regularly pay and feed them. The Mexican soldier will be cheaper and more efficient against banditry than the American and the cost can be more easily charged against the Mexican government”.

“In addition, an Army can be established that will not be anti-American and which may, for many years in the future, exercise on the Mexican government an influence favorable to the United States”.

George Orwell once wrote, “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” Many do not realize how history can influence our thinking and our behavior, especially political behavior. Since we identify ourselves through history, many governments find it important to control school history curriculums and textbooks. Knowing that psychological methods are used overtly to alter what is known about our history, it does provide insight as to the psychological development of certain individuals or groups of people. The relation between the US and Mexico has never been stable, especially between it comes to migration. In the US history books, Mexico is always displayed as the villain and the reasons for westward expansion have always been romanticized.

Many may now consider this as a moot point since Mexico has entered into a trade agreement, but a conquest does not have to be accomplished through conventional warfare. Three years before NAFTA took effect, José Luis Calva of the National University of Mexico, predicted:

“If the governments and legislatures of the three countries agree to liberalize trade in agricultural goods, U.S. citizens should be prepared to receive some 15 million Mexican migrants. The Border Patrol will be unable to detain them, and even a new iron curtain, rising on the border at a moment when the Cold War has given way to economic warfare among nations, will buckle under the weight of millions of Mexicans thrown off their lands by free trade.”

The essence of the American empire is not territorial control but wresting of economic control from another country and dominating that nation economically. How long will this “peaceful conquest” of Mexico continue to go unnoticed?

x-posted on Para Justicia and Libertad

Yes, the anti-immigrants are being played for a fool and they don’t even know. As anti-immigrant proponents lavish and complimentary media attention orchestrated by rabid nativist crying out how the “Mexicans” are intent on destroying America as we know it, they soon will enter their own matrix of public spin.

Mexican President Vicente Fox has rehired Rob Allyn’s lobbying firm to ease the political sentiment in the US towards Mexicans and the immigration issue. This is the same PR firm and GOP political consultant that helped Dudya defeat Ann Richards for the governor back in 1994. He also worked on both Bush’s presidential campaigns. And he also helped engineer Fox’s 2000 presidential victory and he has close ties with Dudya.

Fox hired Allyn to create a mechanism to sway public opinion in favor of Mexico and Mexican immigrants into the US at the same moment public concern over border security has reached a fever pitch. The timing is impeccable because as Fox reign is over, a new sheriff will take over – Felipe Calderón.
The last time Fox hired Allyn was in December soon after the House passed James Sensenbrenner’s R-WI anti-immigration bill. According to the LA Times, Rob Allyn and his Texas-based PR firm Allyn & Company were hired to target the church, community and business groups to oppose the proposal.

“Our focus is on public opinion, which influences policy outcomes in Congress,” said Allyn, 46, who grew up in Huntington Beach, Calif., and moved to Texas when he was in high school. “There is a huge misperception among the U.S. public about Mexico.”

The irony, these were the same group that were targeted during the 2004 Presidential elections.

During Mexico’s 2000 election, Allyn and the Fox campaign played the Mexican people for a fool when they invented a phony human rights front group called “Democracy Watch” that was suppose to “monitor” Mexico’s elections. It was later revealed by Narco News, the front group was actually soliciting donations from the public and funneling it to Vicente Fox’s campaign. Narco News reported that Allyn and Fox concocted a story that a group of “businessmen” founded “Democracy Watch” and that the members of group wanted to identities a secret because they had “concerns” about being perceived as “anti-government.” After the election was over, Allyn and his co-conspirators gleefully boasted to Dallas Morning News how they enjoy “playing 007” throughout the 2000 election.

For three years, Mr. Allyn and two of his colleagues at Allyn & Co. quietly made forays into Mexico and played a key role in helping shape and hone the message of “change” that maverick presidential candidate Vicente Fox used to dethrone the 71-year-old Institutional Revolutionary Party.

Also helping Mr. Allyn in Mr. Fox’s campaign was his assistant, Mari Woodlief, 31…. Blond and blue-eyed, she traveled under the assumed name of La Señora Hernández. Another Allyn assistant, Michael Portman….

“Whenever I rode around in Vicente’s bullet-proof Suburban the kid inside of me was going wild, playing 007,” recalled Mr. Portman, 25, who has since left Texas for Hollywood where he’s working on a screenplay. “It was total Tom Clancy’s Patriot Games, or Hunt for Red October, the shoot ’em up fantasy with no guns. It was cool, very cool.”

Although Mr. Fox never asked Mr. Allyn to keep his role secret, the Dallas political consultant said he didn’t want to be the center of attention or become a political liability in nationalistic Mexico.

It is interesting that Allyn claimed that Fox never asked him to keep his role a secret, when Fox knows all to well that he and Allyn were in direct violation of Article 33 of the Mexican constitution, which prohibits foreigners from having direct involvement in Mexican political affairs.

It has been far too long that mainstream media has played God with the American public, deciding what’s news and what’s not, what to play up and what to downplay. Therefore, it’s no surprise, to find nativists like Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan or Michele Malkin trying to sell the immigration demonstrations as some twisted plot of an orchestrated plan to take the south and western states away from the US.

But how do you counteract this type of political spin that has already been spun by xenophobic nativist? Simple, the same way firefighters control the direction of a wildfire – setting backfires to consume the fuel in the path of a wildfire.

Back in May, on the same day thousands took to the streets to protest that legislation that would have made illegal immigration a felony, an organization headed by another member of the Bush Junta, Lionel Sosa popped up out of nowhere, his organization – Mexicans and Americans Thinking Together, or MATT.org. When I wrote about MATT.org, I mentioned that Sosa was one of MATT’s co-founders and that the other co-founders, “Mexican businesspersons” were not interested in being identified at that time. The question remains, who is exactly behind Matt.org? It was odd that the other co-founders did not want to be identified considering that; MATT began with $5 million dollars in “seed money.” According to Sosa, MATT.org plans to tackle the immigration reform issue with a bilateral approach by facilitating the dialogue between the US, Mexico and the respective communities impacted and concerned with this issue.

Oddly enough, Sosa’s organization is very reminiscent of Allyn’s faux “Democracy Watch” organization that meddled in the Mexican elections. Like “Democracy Watch”, Sosa’s organization is claiming to have unnamed “Mexican businesspeople” that are refusing to disclose their names by the press.

The immigration issue has become nothing more than a political ploy only to manipulate the public opinion. The real agenda is about keeping the status quo. The real immigration issue for the US is how to continue the strategy of free trade agreements based on open access to markets, favorable terms for international investment, and intellectual property protection. Since the inception of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in the early 90s, the negative impact on labor has been well documented. Since the signing of NAFTA, the number of production jobs in the US that have been displaced between 1993 and 2004 is 1,015,291. Most of these lost jobs were relatively high-wage positions in the manufacturing industry. NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers’ collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits in the US. The US isn’t the only one to suffer, Mexican labor did not benefit from NAFTA either. Wages in Mexico fell significantly and there was a sharp decline in the number of workers holding regular jobs. Structural unemployment remains high and many Mexicans work as casual employees or labor for subsistence wages in the informal economy.

Instead of examining the negative impact of NAFTA, the US insist in keeping the status quo, at the same time hypnotizing people into thinking an army of Mexicans waiting to invade the US. The “Border Wall” only serves two purposes for the Bush Junta: one, to keep the Mexican government in check and the other, paint the Democrats once again as weak on national security. Both played their parts to the tee.

The results of the Mexican election ended up being a Bush win and the Democrats continue to try to one up the Rethugs. Once Calderón was announced president-elect, several events occurred: conservative analysts eagerly placed Mexico in the ranks of nations loyal to the US; Calderón criticized the US for their plans to build the “Border Wall”; and as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have allowed undocumented immigrants driver’s licenses, he said he would rather wait to see how the federal government will handle the immigration issue. It must be noted, Congress had decided to put the immigration in the backburner.

Have you not wondered at the seeming organization, the seeming logical flow of events? How they appear to orchestrated by an unseen hand? Well, they have. William Shakespeare once wrote “All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players.” The only difference, the players are controlled by a puppetmaster. A puppetmaster that is in the oval office right now.

If one thing is for certain, after the mid-term election, there will be no more talk of a border wall, until 2008 when the US will re-exam if there is still a need for the National Guards to guard the border, which also happens to be campaign season for the 2008 Presidential election. Further proof the “Border Wall” is a political issue, soon after the Senate voted in favor of the 700 mile wall, the Washington Post provided insight about what occurred behind the scenes during the Senate debate. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) was promised by GOP leaders they would revisit the issue when Congress returns after the elections after “House leaders” resisted her request to “give the Department of Homeland Security more flexibility in the placement of the barriers.” But the most telling that the “immigration debate” is a shame is Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-AZ statement about the passage of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 [PDF], “It’s a statement for the election. That’s all.”

We, the people, must stop being their puppets. Perhaps living as patsies, as pawns of the New World Order appeals to you, it does not to me. Es mejor morir de pie, que continuar viviendo de rodillas!

It was bound to happen; the chickens will come home to roost. Recently three National Guardsmen shoot up a family carne asada (barbeque) while on a “beer-fueled” joy ride near Eagle Pass, TX.

The last time the US stationed troops along the Rio Grande, a Marine shot and killed a Texas teenager tending to his goats at his home. Back in 1997 when a US military unit called Joint Task Force Six or JTF 6 was asked to assist the Border Patrol in patrolling the borders for drug traffickers, a Marine shot and killed a Texas teenager within sight of his home. Two things resulted from that day – Esequiel Hernandez Jr. became the first civilian killed by US troops since the student massacre at Kent State University in 1970 and Cpl. Clemente Manuel Banuelos became the first US Marine to kill a fellow citizen on US soil.

On May 20, 1997, Esequiel Hernandez Jr. became the first civilian killed by U.S. troops since the student massacre at Kent State University in 1970. His death led to a temporary suspension of military patrols near the U.S.-Mexican border. And in August, the government paid his family $1.9 million to settle a wrongful death claim.

Cpl. Clemente Manuel Banuelos became the first U.S. Marine to kill a fellow citizen on U.S. soil. Four investigations and three grand juries probed the May 1997 shooting. Each concluded that because Banuelos followed orders, he was innocent of criminal wrongdoing. Those who issued the orders were never tried.

Back in July when Narco News reported on this story based on new information from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents provided to Narco News by professor Keith Yearman, Narco News forewarned:

Marines are taught to hunt down the enemy and eliminate him. That’s what you get when you put soldiers on the border. They are trained to kill.

That fact is something to keep in mind as President Bush’s directive of dispatching [some 6,000] National Guard troops to the border is carried out over the next several months.

…If you want to destroy the border, then send in the Marines.

It looks like the chickens are half way home and about to roost. Recently, the Houston Chronicle reported that three National Guardsmen were arrested on Sept 6 on felony deadly-conduct charges for shooting up a family carne asada.

Apparently the three men were bored and used their off-duty time joyriding drunk and shooting up an innocent family outdoor gathering.

… the two-year military mission known as “Operation Jump Start” wasn’t supposed to be such a tedious assignment that highly trained troops would bide their off-duty time with beer-fueled joyriding and reckless gunfire.

Three soldiers from North Texas, at least one of whom had served in Iraq, were arrested the evening of Sept. 6 on felony deadly-conduct charges after several shots were fired from their private vehicle as it passed a family cookout in a modest Maverick County subdivision, officials said.

“Apparently the family was having a carne asada outside and they saw this vehicle drive by, stop in front of the residence and shoot several times. Then they took off and made a U-turn and came back and did the same thing,” Herrera said.

The young men were later found at a convenience store with “two cases of beer — minus three brews” in the car. The Chronicle reports, according Maverick County Sheriff Tomas S. Herrera, “no one was targeted or injured by the gunshots and no property damage was reported” and that “none of the soldiers appeared intoxicated upon arrest.” If the soldiers were not drunk, then they must have known what they were doing.

As the sheriff’s department completes their investigation, the three men have been reassigned to Camp Mabry and the beat goes on. The incident is being called an “isolated incident” and a case of the “boredoms.”

Although County Judge Jose A. Aranda Jr. does agree it was an “isolated incident”, he does question incident as to why they would do it considering that the “community” had “welcomed the troops” with open arms. Considering Herrera said that the young men were not “intoxicated upon arrest,” Aranda’s has the right to be puzzled. However, Aranda provides one possible explanation for this behavior. Life as a National Guardsmen holed up in a small border town is not all what is cracked up to be.

Aranda … sympathizes with soldiers assigned here because entertainment options are limited to restaurants, bars, the Kickapoo casino and the Mexican border town of Piedras Negras, he said.

“You send in a group of people who are actually trained to do something else, you put them behind a desk, you’ve got them stashed away in a hotel. They’re bored and they were out having fun,” Aranda said.

Renewing his claim that troops wouldn’t fully appreciate border culture, Aranda said the soldiers’ random gunfire in the Deer Run subdivision showed insensitivity.

“They don’t understand how our neighborhoods are, and you’re not supposed to be out there shooting on the roads. That can lead to something,” Aranda said.

To call this a case of the “boredoms” and labeling it “insensitivity” is nothing more but playing down to the seriousness of the incident. The three men were not drunk and they knew exactly what they were doing because they came back and did it again. To say that life at the border can make people mad is a load of bull, not were these men are from, they too are come from small TX towns. Here are the regional breakdowns of Texas. Two of the men are from McKinney, TX and the other one is from Saint Jo, TX, which are located in North Central Texas area. Eagle Pass has a population of 22,413 so the is not that much smaller than McKinny with a population of 35,782 and it is definitely ten times bigger than Saint Jo with population of 977. The stir-crazy argument many work for others, but it doesn’t apply to these men.

I guess these three men decided to make an additional option to their entertainment repertoire but this time they were caught. Just like the case of Esequiel Hernandez Jr., the military will investigate, reassign, and hope everything is forgotten. Militarizing the border was wrong back then and it is wrong now. How long can we let this continue? Until innocent people and children are killed, like in Iraq.

x-posted on ¡Para Justicia y Libertad!

The Englishnistas have struck again. First we have the City of Bogota who was demanding that McDonald’s to take down it’s billboard that advertises iced coffee in Spanish because the mayor Steve Lonegan, felt that McDonald’s is sending a message to Spanish-speaking immigrants that they don’t need to learn English. Now it seems that a town in Tennessee (via Mixed Media Watch) has their own idea of an English only policy and a closed minded idea that if somebody is speaking Spanish, they must be illegal. According to the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, several city council members from Springfield, TN are considering banning all Hispanics from their city parks.

“In last month’s Mayor and Aldermen Meeting on July 18, City Manager Paul Nutting and at least one Alderman made negative comments about the large number of Hispanics that populate the park on the weekends.”

“In last month’s city meeting, Alderman Ken Cherry expressed concerns for safety in the parks because of the big Hispanic crowds on weekends. Monday, he admitted his sentiments are not limited to the parks. He said, ‘If I could do what I wanted to do, any illegal alien would be holed up in a barbwire tent and we’d haul them up to where they came from and turn them loose.'”

“When asked to comment on the possibility that not every Hispanic using the park was an ‘illegal immigrant’, Alderman Cherry responded, ‘If they’re speaking Spanish, I tend to think they are illegal.’ … On Tuesday he said, ‘The comment that I made about if they’re speaking Spanish they’re illegal immigrants, that’s probably a little strong. In my mind, that’s an indication that the possibility may…
…exist.'”

“Not all members of Springfield’s Board of Mayor and Alderman, however, are in agreement with Cherry’s position on the issue. Assistant City Manager Gina Holt said, ‘If you polled all seven of them, they’d all have a totally different opinion probably and as a board they have not taken any action yet as far as establishing any policies related to the parks or any other services right now.'”

“Springfield’s Board of Mayor and Aldermen plan to hold a community meeting on September 7 to discuss the issues they’ve encountered with what Alderman Cherry terms the ‘growing Hispanic problem.’ … Assistant City Manager Gina Holt said the goal of the September 7 board meeting is to achieve an arrangement that is fair and equitable for all.”

They provide a couple links to a news video, but I took the liberty to download and upload to YouTude. That is not a misprint, Alderman Ken Cherry literally did say that “If they’re speaking Spanish, I tend to think they are illegal” and that “any illegal alien would be holed up in a barbwire tent.” I wonder if that goes for all gringos who know Spanish. Watch the video.

If there is anybody who has friends who is Hispanic/Latin@ and you didn’t think they are coming after them or if you happen to be a Hispanic/Latin@ and you thought that this anti-immigration did not include you, well –

YOU BETTER THINK AGAIN BECAUSE IT IS BEGINNING TO BE OPEN SEASON ON NATIVE AND FOREIGN HISPANICS!!!

And during these times, the revised version of Pastor Martin Niemoller’s First they came poem by Applied Research Center is very appropriate.

And I Said Nothing (Revisited)
In the United States
They first came for the ARAB AMERICANS
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t Arab American.
Then they came for people from MUSLIM countries
and I didn’t speak up because I was born in the U.S.
Then they profiled PEOPLE OF COLOR as terrorist suspects
and I didn’t speak up because I must not look like a terrorist.
Then they targeted IMMIGRANTS,
and I didn’t speak up because I have legal status.
Then they arrested SOCIAL JUSTICE ACTIVISTS
and I didn’t speak up because I was afraid to get involved.
Then they came for YOU AND ME- –
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

– adapted by Applied Research Center , 2003

How do you whiten US communities that have been historically minority (Hispanic, African-American Asian-American) populations? Right now, El Paso, TX and other major cities throughout the US are being turned into living social experiments: turning its backs of its cultural identities that brought character to certain neighborhoods, which made them unique all in the name of profit. Neighborhoods that had their own flavor that made them unique.

I just got word from my friend Jesús Ochoa by email that the City Council of El Paso is planning to destroy its historic El Segundo Barrio to make way for the corporatist from Paso Del Norte Plan to set up retail outlets, upscale boutique stores, an arena, and a public parking facility all in the name of “downtown redevelopment.”

Truthfully, this is not a new phenomenon. It used to be cool to live in the burbs, but when people realize that living far away wasn’t cool any more, they started  moving back into the inner cities.

Opponents call it “vertical sprawl” — and argue that it brings many of the same problems to communities as traditional sprawl.

Forget the white picket fence; people are trading them in for loft-style apartments, condos and townhomes. All of these cities have been inspired by the theories of Richard Florida, Hirst Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University, a senior scientist with the Gallup Organization, and a Senior Fellow with the Brookings Institution and author of the bestselling book, The Rise of the Creative Class whose notion that cities must become trendy, hip places in order to compete in the twenty-first-century economy is sweeping urban America.

In his book, Dr. Florida argues for cities to flourish they must attract gays, bohemians, and ethnic minorities because they are not only the new economic powerhouses but also additionally the places where creative workers want to live. The creative worker Florida talks about are what he calls “the creative class”. Dr. Florida defines Creative Class as a group of people that are the key driving force for economic development in post-industrial cities around the nation. He breaks the Creative Class into two sections – Super-Creative Core and Creative Professionals. The “Super-Creative Core” includes those in the fields of computers and math, architecture and engineering, the social sciences, education, arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media. The “Creative professionals” encompasses financial planners, doctors and lawyers.

If the Creative Class are to include ethnic minorities then how is would they destroy El Paso? The problem with fluorides ideas it brings about a new form of class warfare because his opinions only benefits the “haves” and not the “have nots.” For example, my city I live in Houston. Florida talks about saving the cities historic areas but it comes with a hefty price – gentrification because to create these hip new cities, the city itself have to institute policies – such as tax abatements for homebuilders – that target thousands of zero income to low income minorities.

It used to be that gentrification was associated with coastal cities such as New York and San Francisco, but now with the new “Creative Class” concept, inner-city neighborhoods from Milwaukee to Raleigh-Durham to Albuquerque are all rushing to become the next new hip city. In Houston, homebuilders have blanketed the city close to downtown with three-story town homes and lofts, significant area being broke such as Houston’s historic Freedman’s Town, the oldest Black community in this city. Freed enslaved Blacks planned and developed a five mile encircled area in 1865 and confirmed it Freedman’s Town, a small community that catered to Black culture and independent existence from a Caucasian society that excluded them.

What was a “proud, self-contained neighborhood,” is no longer in existence because of the city’s urban renewal project. Instead of putting money into the neighborhood, the city split the area in half and sold the land closest to the new hip downtown to private developers to build subsidized homes at prices low income families could not afford in what remained of the Fourth Ward. Now, Freedman’s Town is inhabited by “style-conscious empty nesters and young urban professionals.”

The sense of division that Johnson is struggling to overcome also is apparent in the area’s architecture. The eastern edge of the Fourth Ward — the part sold off to developers — boasts block after block of postmodern town houses. They feature corrugated metal siding in vivid shades of red, blue and “desert sand,” and stunning views of downtown. Most of these buildings are inhabited by style-conscious empty nesters and young urban professionals. Crossing over Buckner Street into the zone designated for affordable housing, the architecture shifts to two-story suburban-style houses on postage-stamp lots. Every now and then, the vista is interrupted by a block of soaring, pastel-colored town houses, blocks [Reverend Elmo] Johnson sheepishly admits his nonprofit had to sell off to raise funds. The old-fashioned shotguns that once gave the neighborhood its character are almost entirely gone.

For Mayor White, most members of the city council and preservationists, the Fourth Ward’s fate represents a signal failure in planning and a cautionary tale for what to avoid in the Third Ward. “It could have been done in a way that retained some of the pluses and had fewer minuses,” says White. Members of Houston’s black community are even more pointed in their criticisms. “This is about erasing the history of the community,” contends [Garnet] Coleman.

Houston lost its opportunity to save part of American history, but El Paso still has a chance to save its historic Segundo Barrio. Like the City of Houston, El Paso is also targeting low-income families – roughly between 5 to 10 thousand low-income families consisting mostly of women and children will be displaced.

In order to lure the new hip crowd, El Paso’s city planners feel they need shed some imaginary racist image of being an old, dirty, lazy, speak Spanish town to some cultural elitist image by branding it as the “New West” with the false notion that Penelope Cruz and Austin’s own Matthew McConaughey are now currently residing in El Paso.

From the email I received:

In the final analysis, the barrio is or has been the home of thousands upon thousands of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, people who have forever marked it with their living culture; for many, it is the home of the Chicano movement, of people who migrated north and west to create the Latino barrios of Los Angeles and Denver, it is the home of gifted muralists and poets, it is the home of political activists, and it the home of many of the first Chicano writers. As the saying goes, the barrio is old, it is proud, it is brave, and it is not for sale.

Nor are its memories of families like mine, and there are thousands of us. Unfortunately, many of us have indeed forgotten our roots: instead of Melitón, the name of choice is now Milton: Jesús has become Jesse, and instead of María, Marie or plain Mary is in vogue. The politics of the now correctly named have also shifted to the right. But surely they must from time to time remember, and to doubt. Or at least, one would so hope.

Let’s help save El Paso. Jesús Ochoa is asking for your help; don’t let El Paso’s Historic El Segundo Barrio become just a distant memory, like Houston’s Freedman’s Town. Please visit his web site – The Boboland Crónicas – or Paso Del Sur for more information on how you can help save El Paso’s Historic El Segundo Barrio before it is too late.

Delegates at the National Democratic Convention (CND) have formally declared Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) as Mexico’s “legitimate president” which he is formally set to take office on November 20 at 3 p.m. at Constitution Square in Mexico City.

The delegates at CND also authorize López Obrador to appoint members to his cabinet, he is also authorized to select where the new capital in will be set up in Mexico and right to act as Mexico’s official and legitimate president. The new government will observe the framework of a democratic republic, whereby the President of Mexico is both head of state and head of government. As President of the new government, he has the right to collect taxes.
The new government will denounce Felipe Calderón as Mexico’s official president and all of his appointed cabinet members and all executive orders of his office.

They additionally decided to publicly reject the current standing Republic and condemn the corruption and privileges of the current regime.

There are no official numbers, La Jornada puts the number at 1,025,724 delegates and El Universal puts the number even at 1,200,000. However, our media has tried to downplay the number. The New York Times puts the number at 150,000.