Was Cesar Chavez a right-wing racist?

[boneyard bill]

If you're against granting amnesty to illegal aliens and insist that the U.S should enforce its borders with Mexico, there's a good chance you'll be labeled a racist these days, and you will almost certainly be labeled a right-wing extremist. But that doesn't change the fact that Cesar Chavez, the founder of the United Farm Workers, and hero to Latino Americans to this day, held exactly that view.

Today is Cesar Chavez’s birthday, celebrated as a state holiday in California, and an optional holiday in a few other states. Chavez has been held up as a symbol of race pride and open borders. A hagiographic film has just been released, and President Obama used the occasion of a screening at the White House to push “immigration reform.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374564/happy-border-control-day-mark-krikorian

What neither the film nor the president mentioned was that Chavez, founder of the United Farm Workers union, was a fierce opponent of illegal immigration and supporter of tight border controls. That’s why it’s fitting to observe March 31 each year as National Border Control Day, in honor of the farmworker leader.

So how about it? Should we make March 31 "Border Control Day?" And what about all those charges of racism and extremism? And isn't Obama basically lying when he says we need to pass immigration reform to honor Chavez?

 

[Derec]

Just like with Martin Luther King and "not the color of one's skin" it will be claimed that you misunderstood ...

 

[SimpleDon]

If you're against granting amnesty to illegal aliens and insist that the U.S should enforce its borders with Mexico, there's a good chance you'll be labeled a racist these days, and you will almost certainly be labeled a right-wing extremist. But that doesn't change the fact that Cesar Chavez, the founder of the United Farm Workers, and hero to Latino Americans to this day, held exactly that view.



So how about it? Should we make March 31 "Border Control Day?" And what about all those charges of racism and extremism? And isn't Obama basically lying when he says we need to pass immigration reform to honor Chavez?

It depends on why a person opposes open borders. The right wing is split on illegal immigration. The classic Republicans actually supported lesser to no penalties for employers who hired illegal immigrants which was one of the major factors in the large jump in illegal immigration after the Reagan amnesty bill was passed in the early 1980's. They saw it as another way to suppress wages in the US. The classic red neck right winger is not so much demonstrating racist tendencies as they are demonstrating xenophobia, the fear of foreigners.

On the other hand Chavez was a labor leader. He didn't want to encourage immigration because it would under cut the wages of the members of his union. He certainly wasn't a racist or a xenophobe. He certainly would disagree with either of the right wing's reasons for supporting, suppressing wages, or opposing, xenophobia, illegal immigration.

It is simple once it is explained.

.

 

[Underseer]

If you're against granting amnesty to illegal aliens and insist that the U.S should enforce its borders with Mexico, there's a good chance you'll be labeled a racist these days[...]

Does that sound unreasonable to you?

Good. Then perhaps you are on the road to figuring out the real reason you get called racist. (Hint: making up answers doesn't help.)

 

[Underseer]

If you think I am going to correct you on this point, you are mistaken. The propaganda peddlers you listen to worked very hard to confuse you on this point, and correcting you would only help you get more Latino votes in the next election.

 

[Zeluvia]

Oh you silly people. Republicans wanted to put their own spin on history in a Resolution to Honor Chavez, and the Democrats said no, and now they are crying and screaming this talking point, but even Fox News Latino tells the full story:

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/po...oring-farm-worker-rights-leader-cesar-chavez/

His cousin, Manuel Chavez, oversaw an effort called the “wet line,” which involved setting up dozens of tents along the U.S.-Mexico border and staffing them with about 300 members of the United Farm Workers, the union he helped found. The union workers stopped border crossers and tried to deter them from entering the U.S.
Other labor unions, at the time, typically also opposed illegal immigration, seeing it as competition.
But Chavez and other union officials later softened their stance – particularly as union membership declined – and backed amnesty programs and sought to recruit undocumented immigrants as union members.

Their problem is that there are too many people still alive that Remember These Things. They just need to wait about 40 more years to rewrite this history.

Chavez was a labor leader and a Union Man, first and foremost.

 

[boneyard bill]

It depends on why a person opposes open borders. The right wing is split on illegal immigration. The classic Republicans actually supported lesser to no penalties for employers who hired illegal immigrants which was one of the major factors in the large jump in illegal immigration after the Reagan amnesty bill was passed in the early 1980's. They saw it as another way to suppress wages in the US. The classic red neck right winger is not so much demonstrating racist tendencies as they are demonstrating xenophobia, the fear of foreigners.

On the other hand Chavez was a labor leader. He didn't want to encourage immigration because it would under cut the wages of the members of his union. He certainly wasn't a racist or a xenophobe. He certainly would disagree with either of the right wing's reasons for supporting, suppressing wages, or opposing, xenophobia, illegal immigration.

It is simple once it is explained.

.

You should say it's simple once it's explained away. First of all, if Reagan's policies were aimed a providing cheap labor to American business, what are Obama's policies aimed at? Are they not two peas in a pod on this issue? Secondly, on what basis do you claim that proponents of border security are motivated by xenophobia? Is that not simply a stereotype on YOUR part? Ross Perot quite blatantly argued that open borders was costing Americans high-paying jobs. Lou Dobbs, the current leading critic of open borders, makes the same argument.

Indeed, the most common argument that I have heard is that we tried an amnesty and border security deal before, and we got the amnesty but not the border security so we want the border security first this time. Undoubtedly there are some people who just think we have too many Mexicans already, but that's the kind of argument you might hear at a local bar. It isn't something you hear from politicians or mainstream commentators. And who ever dares to use the term "wetback?" No one that I can think of except Cesar Chavez.

- - - Updated - - -

Does that sound unreasonable to you?

Good. Then perhaps you are on the road to figuring out the real reason you get called racist. (Hint: making up answers doesn't help.)

It is totally unreasonable to attribute to someone motives that they do not express, and you have no reason to believe other than your own prejudices. But if it were reasonable, then one would have to label Chavez a racist. That is exactly my point.

 

[boneyard bill]

If you think I am going to correct you on this point, you are mistaken. The propaganda peddlers you listen to worked very hard to confuse you on this point, and correcting you would only help you get more Latino votes in the next election.

I was fully aware of Chavez' position on this issue before I ever read this article and have even mentioned it before on these boards. I brought it up here, because the news article provides evidence for my claim. But, of course, my real point is that liberals enjoy calling other people racist to pump up their own sense of moral superiority and to avoid having to deal with the facts of the issue. It's easy just to dismiss your opponents position as racist, but it is also an extreme example of intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

 

[Zeluvia]

And the US government:

The first mention of the term in The New York Times is dated June 20, 1920.[4] It was used officially by the US government in 1954, with Operation Wetback, a project which was a mass deportation of illegal Mexican immigrants

The real reason "we" want border security is because most of "us" can't tell an Arab from a Mexican and are scared shitless since 9/11, and also that little drug war going on in Mexico, and just because "we" like to be shitheads.

Amnesty worked fine last time, and would have worked even better if the penalties on Business owners who Hire Illegals hadn't been watered down to the point of being ineffective. With our current levels of technology, there is no reason we can't start actually holding businesses responsible, even for whom they Sub-Contract out too. Because no matter what way you want to spin it, or if you are talking about drugs or people, the Border situation is one of Supply and Demand, and the Free Hand of the Market at work.

Meanwhile, in Reality, Mexican border crossings are way, way down. Partly because of that Nasty Little Drug War. You know, the one that has killed 120,000 people and is being fought with guns from the US.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/illegal-mexican-immigrant-numbers-down-as-more-migrate-back-to-mexico/

And you found a Mexican who called other Mexicans "wetbacks" and you think that in any way excuses the systemic racism of the Republican party? Sorry dude, that is like black people calling other black people the N word. It doesn't count.

But I agree, instead of Chavez day, we should rename it "Hispanic Union Day".

 

[boneyard bill]

Oh you silly people. Republicans wanted to put their own spin on history in a Resolution to Honor Chavez, and the Democrats said no, and now they are crying and screaming this talking point, but even Fox News Latino tells the full story:

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/po...oring-farm-worker-rights-leader-cesar-chavez/




Their problem is that there are too many people still alive that Remember These Things. They just need to wait about 40 more years to rewrite this history.

Chavez was a labor leader and a Union Man, first and foremost.

Whoever said he wasn't? It's also clear that he was willing to use force and intimidation to keep illegal aliens out of the country, and only shifted his position when he saw that he was losing power that way.

But if it was OK for Chavez to try to prevent "wetbacks," as he called them, out of the country with forceful tactics, why must people who try more modest means, like "lighting up the border" be branded as racists? If it was OK for white working folk to oppose illegal immigration in Chavez' day, why is it "racist" for those same people to oppose it today?

 

[laughing dog]

I was fully aware of Chavez' position on this issue before I ever read this article and have even mentioned it before on these boards. I brought it up here, because the news article provides evidence for my claim. But, of course, my real point is that liberals enjoy calling other people racist to pump up their own sense of moral superiority and to avoid having to deal with the facts of the issue.

Since you are not a liberal and since you have demonstrated that you have a "unique" notion of what liberal means, what is source of knowledge about why "liberals" call other people racists.

It's easy just to dismiss your opponents position as racist, but it is also an extreme example of intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

Not if the opponent is a racist.

 

[boneyard bill]

Since you are not a liberal and since you have demonstrated that you have a "unique" notion of what liberal means, what is source of knowledge about why "liberals" call other people racists.
Not if the opponent is a racist.

Do I need to go further than these boards to find examples?

 

[laughing dog]

Do I need to go further than these boards to find examples?

I have no idea what need you feel. Are you seriously claiming that there are not racists or that sometimes people who are called racists are actually racists? Or you under the delusion that conservatives or teabaggers cannot possibly racists?

 

[boneyard bill]

I have no idea what need you feel. Are you seriously claiming that there are not racists or that sometimes people who are called racists are actually racists? Or you under the delusion that conservatives or teabaggers cannot possibly racists?

It's quite simple, just because someone makes a statement that you disagree with, doesn't make them a racist. A person who opposes racial preferences in hiring, for example, isn't necessarily a racist. In fact, there was a time when supporting such a position automatically made you a racist. But these days, non-discrimination in civil rights has been replaced with the principle of "who's ox is gored." Above all, opposing the latest political fashion, whether it be amnesty or gay marriage or abortion doesn't make you a racist or a homophobe or a sexist. There are good arguments for opposing these things, and resort to name-calling is not a refutation. It is evidence of a lack of one.

 

[lpetrich]

I think of illegal immigrants as gate-crashers. I think that a big problem with this issue is that all too many opponents of illegal immigration associate their opposition with xenophobia. But I think that it's possible to oppose illegal immigration without being a xenophobe, and non-xenophobic opponents of illegal immigration ought to challenge the xenophobic ones about that.

 

[Zeluvia]

It's quite simple, just because someone makes a statement that you disagree with, doesn't make them a racist. A person who opposes racial preferences in hiring, for example, isn't necessarily a racist. In fact, there was a time when supporting such a position automatically made you a racist. But these days, non-discrimination in civil rights has been replaced with the principle of "who's ox is gored." Above all, opposing the latest political fashion, whether it be amnesty or gay marriage or abortion doesn't make you a racist or a homophobe or a sexist. There are good arguments for opposing these things, and resort to name-calling is not a refutation. It is evidence of a lack of one.

I can't think of any good arguments for opposing gay marriage, abortion, or amnesty that aren't rooted in something irrational. But go ahead, shoot....

 

[Underseer]

I can't think of any good arguments for opposing gay marriage, abortion, or amnesty that aren't rooted in something irrational. But go ahead, shoot....

It's a variant of the same bizarre, modified argument from authority fallacy rightists like to use in discussions about race (e.g. "There were blacks fighting for the South in the Civil War, therefore slavery was not harmful to African-Americans").

 

[GenesisNemesis]

There are good arguments for opposing these things

I'm going to guess one of those arguments is "muh tradition".

 

[laughing dog]

It's quite simple, just because someone makes a statement that you disagree with, doesn't make them a racist. A person who opposes racial preferences in hiring, for example, isn't necessarily a racist. In fact, there was a time when supporting such a position automatically made you a racist. But these days, non-discrimination in civil rights has been replaced with the principle of "who's ox is gored." Above all, opposing the latest political fashion, whether it be amnesty or gay marriage or abortion doesn't make you a racist or a homophobe or a sexist. There are good arguments for opposing these things, and resort to name-calling is not a refutation. It is evidence of a lack of one.

No one claimed that everyone who opposes racial preferences or more lenient immigration is a racist. However it is quite possible that someone who does oppose racial preferences or more lenient immigration is a racist. You wrote "But, of course, my real point is that liberals enjoy calling other people racist to pump up their own sense of moral superiority and to avoid having to deal with the facts of the issue." Ironically, your response does not address the issue that sometimes calling someone a racist is valid because the person is a racist. Or did you make that comment to pump up your own sense of moral superiority?

 

[Underseer]

No one claimed that everyone who opposes racial preferences or more lenient immigration is a racist. However it is quite possible that someone who does oppose racial preferences or more lenient immigration is a racist. You wrote "But, of course, my real point is that liberals enjoy calling other people racist to pump up their own sense of moral superiority and to avoid having to deal with the facts of the issue." Ironically, your response does not address the issue that sometimes calling someone a racist is valid because the person is a racist. Or did you make that comment to pump up your own sense of moral superiority?

The ones who need to be persuaded (Latinos) are never going to find his argument anything but laughable, and he doesn't understand why because the argument was only meant to convince him. It would probably be better for all concerned if you just encouraged his delusions, at least until after the next couple of elections.