Was Cesar Chavez a right-wing racist?

[Bomb#20]

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...

Well, there are respectively non-racist, non-homophobic and non-sexist reasons for opposing those things, but, other than opposing marriage altogether, what reason can you think of to oppose gay marriage that isn't sexist?

 

[boneyard bill]

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.

That's my point. I certainly doubt that Chavez opposed illegal immigration because he was xenophobic. So if he had good reasons, why can't others?

- - - Updated - - -

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....

You just confirm my point. People who disagree with you can't be rational, and since gay marriage, abortion, and amnesty are also moral issues, they can't be moral. Typical liberal mind-set. We are right because we are moral and since we are moral their can't be any rational arguments against us. As if morality itself was not subject to debate.

- - - Updated - - -

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").

First of all, the argument you use as an example isn't an argument from authority. Secondly, you also confirm exactly what I've been saying. You haven't offered any arguments in opposition to what I actually stated. You just responded with the usual smear. They're rightists so they must be both racist and wrong.

 

[boneyard bill]

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?

If someone makes a racist remark, it's perfectly proper to call them out on it. But to suggest that they are racist simply because they oppose the latest position of the black caucus does not make they racist. The last public person that I can recall making a racist remark was the woman on MSNBC. (I don't remember her name. MSNBC is so utterly intolerable that I never watch it). She had to apologize, but that was the end of it. If she had been a conservative, we'd still be hearing about it.

I do not claim that most of the political views that I hold are based on a moral underpinning. A few are, but most are simply what I believe to be the most practical route.

 

[boneyard bill]

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.

I don't think Latinos would find the fact that Cesar Chavez opposed illegal immigration laughable. I'm not sure that most Latinos even favor illegal immigration. After all, if they had to get here legally, why shouldn't everyone else? It's Democrat politicians who want to make this into a racial issue in an effort to pander to the Latino vote. Meanwhile, of course, the real reason they support amnesty is because big business is for it, and that's where they look for campaign contributions. But it was LBJ who ended the Bracero program, the first guest worker program, that big business now wants re-instated as well.

 

[boneyard bill]

Well, there are respectively non-racist, non-homophobic and non-sexist reasons for opposing those things, but, other than opposing marriage altogether, what reason can you think of to oppose gay marriage that isn't sexist?

I think gays would claim that opposition to gay marriage is homophobic, not sexist. But, if gay marriage is supposed to be about equality for gays, then what about those gays who don't want to get married? If marriage is a discriminatory institution, then wouldn't the proper response be to amend those marriage laws that discriminate against single people whether gay or straight? So gay marriage isn't really about inequality. Gay marriage is about making homosexuality respectable. The problem is that gay marriage had to become respectable to get gay marriage passed in the first place. So what's the point of re-defining marriage and altering that institution fundamentally for no practical purpose?

But I'll give you credit for at least asking for a rational argument instead of claiming that a rational argument can't possibly exist as others on this board have done. Of course, in doing so, they have simply proven my point.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

boneyard bill

But you implied there is at least one good argument for opposing gay marriage that isn't sexist. Do you hold that there is one other than an argument against marriage?

Also, you implied that there is a good argument against abortion. In context, that seems to mean allowing abortion, not just some specific instances of abortion. Could you provide a good argument, or link to one?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I think gays would claim that opposition to gay marriage is homophobic, not sexist. But, if gay marriage is supposed to be about equality for gays, then what about those gays who don't want to get married?

what about them?

If marriage is a discriminatory institution, then wouldn't the proper response be to amend those marriage laws that discriminate against single people whether gay or straight?

and what does that have to do with denying gays the right to marry? If there is some law that says 48 year olds can't buy chocolate ice cream, the response need not be since chocolate ice cream is fattening, in order to be fair let's ban chocolate ice cream.

So gay marriage isn't really about inequality.

yeah, it is.

Gay marriage is about making homosexuality respectable.

and? is that bad? Is that your killer argument, your aha moment?

The problem is that gay marriage had to become respectable to get gay marriage passed in the first place. So what's the point of re-defining marriage and altering that institution fundamentally for no practical purpose?

because my kid should have the right to marry and love and raise a family with whomever he chooses. That's part of his pursuit of happiness. Or should he be denied his happiness because you say your tradition matters more?

But I'll give you credit for at least asking for a rational argument instead of claiming that a rational argument can't possibly exist as others on this board have done. Of course, in doing so, they have simply proven my point

what point?

You made a muddled argument lacking logical flow that in the end appeals to tradition.

You are like the t-ball player who swings and misses the ball, then runs to third base, and then won't get off the bag because he wasn't tagged out.

 

[SimpleDon]

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.

I am sorry, but this is a thread about Cesar Chavez and the question of whether or not he was a right wing racist.

My point was that there are a lot of reasons to oppose open borders beyond just being a right wing racist, which would be more properly properly called a right wing xenophobe.

This is pretty much the opposite of me claiming "that (all) proponents of border security are motivated by xenophobia?" Only the right wing racists, your characterization by the way, are motivated by xenophobia.

Not only do Lou Dobbs and H. Ross Perot oppose open borders because it suppresses the wages of American workers, and more to the point of the OP, this was the reason that Cesar Chavez was opposed to them. Not because he was a right wing racist, the absurd proposition of the OP.

I don't see anything in Obama's motivations that he wants to under cut the wages of American workers. He supports border security and is spending a lot of money to do it. And certainly providing a legal status to the illegals in the country now will raise their wages and those of American workers.

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.

This is an argument that would be most effective against someone who opposes better border security. I don't see anybody in the discussions about the problem who opposes more border security.

The people who would gain from open borders would be those who gain from suppressing the wages of the American workers. And the illegals who cross the border too, of course.

These people don't want to leave their country, their cities and their families to come to the US to work. The best way to stop the cross border illegal immigration would be to encourage the Mexicans to reduce the income inequality in their country to provide their people with better paying jobs in their own country. This would be a hard argument for us to advance since one of the major parties in this country and nearly one half of the country who support them still advocate increasing the income inequality in this country.

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.

This is your evidence that Chavez was a right wing racist, more exactly that he was a right wing xenophobe?

I think that he was using the term to refer to their legal status, not because he hated or feared them.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I am not sure what part of my explanation you are addressing here.

But once again, there are perfectly valid reasons for opposing open borders other than being a racist or a xenophobe. Including the reason that Chavez did. He felt that it under cut the wages of his union members, a reason that you acknowledge is a valid one. Why do you think that his motivation was his prejudices and not this?

.

 

[SimpleDon]

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.

Your claim is that Chavez was a racist. But you believe that calling people a racist avoids having to deal with the facts of the issue?

Do you feel morally superior, not to mention intellectually lazy? And dishonest?

Do you read this stuff you write before you post it?

 

[laughing dog]

If someone makes a racist remark, it's perfectly proper to call them out on it. But to suggest that they are racist simply because they oppose the latest position of the black caucus does not make they racist.

I agree. But how do you know that is true in any particular instance?

The last public person that I can recall making a racist remark was the woman on MSNBC. (I don't remember her name. MSNBC is so utterly intolerable that I never watch it). She had to apologize, but that was the end of it. If she had been a conservative, we'd still be hearing about it.

That claim is a reflection of your beliefs about reality but not about reality.

I do not claim that most of the political views that I hold are based on a moral underpinning. A few are, but most are simply what I believe to be the most practical route.

What practical route does 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." take?

 

[Zeluvia]

Originally Posted by boneyard bill View Post
I do not claim that most of the political views that I hold are based on a moral underpinning. A few are, but most are simply what I believe to be the most practical route.

So, your beliefs are Practical, does that make people that oppose them are "impractical"?

So what are practical reasons for opposing amnesty, abortion, and gay marriage?

 

[SimpleDon]

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?

So what you are saying is that you believe that the people who support improved border security are being called racist and if they are being called racist then Chavez is by that that token should also be called a racist. But you don't believe that he is a racist, you are just trying to reverse the argument that anyone who opposes open borders is a racist

That is a somewhat shaky progression but I do understand it better.

No, I think that the vast majority of people who oppose open borders are afraid that it will take jobs away from legal residents and not because they are racists or xenophobes. I think that the vast majority of racists and xenophobes oppose open borders for the same reason, not primarily because of their prejudices.

If indeed opponents of open borders are being labeled as racists, a proposition that you haven't established by the way, then it is unfair, as is calling Chavez a racist.

It is inconceivable to me that majority of conservatives or Republicans are personally racists. I just don't believe it. I know too many of them, I was personally involved in the party here in suburban Atlanta.

But if anything that is more of a condemnation of the last half century's history of the party than if they all were massive racists. Because they have built their political strength by playing off the prejudices of different groups in society and it started with racism and racism continues to this day as a part of their appeal. Their basic message is that the government is helping others to get ahead of you. You are hard working people who are making it on your own but "those people" that the government is helping are lazy and stupid and wouldn't be doing better than you except for the government's help. So vote for us and we will fu*k you all over equally, without prejudice, to further increase the wealth of the already wealthy.

It is all the more hypocritical because they are not actually personally racist, but they are willing to pretend to be to achieve their own goals. Still a lot of their message depends on the faint echos of racism.

But back on subject your reversing of the argument fails for the reason that you would readily agree with, the people who oppose open borders are not racist because they oppose open borders. There are a lot of good reasons to oppose open borders.

If indeed that was the point of this whole exercise then I have to say that you succeeded by failing.

.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think gays would claim that opposition to gay marriage is homophobic, not sexist.

Why would their opinion concern us? We're discussing reality, not perception, yes?

But, if gay marriage is supposed to be about equality for gays, then what about those gays who don't want to get married? If marriage is a discriminatory institution, then wouldn't the proper response be to amend those marriage laws that discriminate against single people whether gay or straight?

I lost you. That sounds like a component of an argument against marriage in general. Is there an argument in there somewhere for allowing men to marry women but not allowing women to marry women?

So gay marriage isn't really about inequality. Gay marriage is about making homosexuality respectable. The problem is that gay marriage had to become respectable to get gay marriage passed in the first place. So what's the point of re-defining marriage and altering that institution fundamentally for no practical purpose?

I'm not following what you think the relevance is of whatever gay marriage is "about". Are you suggesting that if you can show proponents of gay marriage have a bad reason for wanting it, that's a good reason to not let them have it? It isn't. But whatever. I don't really care whether they think it will help make homosexuality respectable. To me gay marriage is about the same thing pot legalization is about: making the government stop treating the Constitution as so much toilet paper. Current marriage law is a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment. Doesn't obstructing the ongoing erosion of western civilization's commitment to rule of law count as a practical purpose?

Be that as it may, why do you think gay marriage alters the institution fundamentally? It strikes me as a trivial change compared to allowing polygamy, which societies go back and forth on without obvious disaster.

But I'll give you credit for at least asking for a rational argument instead of claiming that a rational argument can't possibly exist as others on this board have done. Of course, in doing so, they have simply proven my point.

That seems to be a reference to this...

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....

You just confirm my point. People who disagree with you can't be rational, and since gay marriage, abortion, and amnesty are also moral issues, they can't be moral. Typical liberal mind-set. We are right because we are moral and since we are moral their can't be any rational arguments against us. As if morality itself was not subject to debate.

How's that again? She didn't say you can't be rational; she said she couldn't think of a rational argument for those views, and invited you to educate her.

Besides, since when does being subject to debate bear on whether a topic has rational arguments on both sides? Evolution is subject to debate too; this doesn't make creationists non-idiots.

 

[SimpleDon]

It's quite simple, just because someone makes a statement that you disagree with, doesn't make them a racist.

Agreed. But is this happening? Do you have examples? It seems to be an unsupported proposition from you. Where are the people who say that opposing open borders means that you are a racist?

Traditionally the largest opposition to any increase in immigration, legal or illegal, has been from the labor movement. The greatest support for immigration has come from the business community in order to help keep down the wages that they have to pay. This is largely a voice of the Republican party and conservatives, not liberals and the Democrats.

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.

There was a time, say about four hundred years, when supporting racial preferences in hiring or in granting someone freedom and basic human rights made you a racist. I don't believe that racial preferences in hiring or college admissions have been very effective. Not the least of all because the Republican administrations haven't enforced them very vigorously. But their purpose is not racism, it is to reverse the effects of four hundred years of legal racism. If you or anyone else can argue that they have succeeded, that we have equal outcomes as well as equal opportunities then there would be a case for doing away with them. Or that you can come up with a different way to succeed then tell us what it is. Until then we would seem to be stuck with racial preferences and the glacially slow, inter-generational progress that they provide.

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 would disagree with you on gay marriage. There is no reason to get involved in the sex lives of others. Especially if you are an atheist and don't believe in an imaginary sky spy who will pass judgment on how well you followed the ramblings of long dead sheep herders that by some miracle of history survived until today.

And yes, there are reasons to oppose abortion, no matter how you cut it you are ending at the very least a potential human life. But it is not and never has been considered murder. And conception, the only effective way to reduce the number of abortions that we have found, is not abortion or murder either. All of the storming against abortion by the right is not to eliminate abortions, it's to once again make them illegal, nothing more. And to make them a crime far less serious than the murder that they claim. It will do nothing more than to force abortion back underground, the rich can go to other countries, the number of the Catholic abortions, D&Cs will go up and more women will die in the hands of amateur abortionists. The only reasonable path is to keep abortion legal and rare, not as a form of birth control, only as a last resort. Make contraception widely and easily available. Don't force anyone to take contraception. Don't force anyone to have an abortion.

Amnesty is the only practical course. And the crime that they committed is only a third class misdemeanor, less serious than a speeding ticket. The people that we grant it to should be the ones that have established households, have families and jobs. People who have dedicated themselves to this country.

The right wing's position on these last two doesn't make them sexist or xenophobic, just impractical. The right wing is widely homophobic.

Being in the right wing doesn't make you a racist. But almost all of the traditional racists are in the right wing. The right wing accommodates racists and actively solicits their support. It is enough to dismiss them on this single fact alone.

 

[arkirk]

What's with this sacred border thing anyway? Human beings should be free to roam the earth, especially if they are driven out of their homeland by economic forces. We need to adopt a different (non-nationalistic) attitude toward all our brothers and sisters. When a hungry face appears at our border do we ever ask ourselves WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?

People generally flee lands where there is hunger and poverty and oppression. These people are rightfully called refugees. We have refugees in this country who have no refuge. They are called homeless. Are we ever going to get it right and stop all this heavy handed judgmental shit against people called "foreigners?"

The OP had a link to the National Review, a well known right wing rag. Chavez was an American. He also was a labor leader. If there was no exploitation in Mexico, we would not be seeing these people trying to escape unlivable conditions in their homeland. Why do we treat immigrants like we do? It certainly is not because our country cannot support them. It is certainly not because we don't want our beds made and our fruit picked and our dishes washed. This entire immigration issue is a red herring.

I have a solution to the problem. Allow the U.S. government to buy land in Mexico and assist these refugees in making communities for themselves. The land should be close to our current border. When the communities become well established, allow them to Annex to the United States. These lands would have different rules than those the Mexican Government has employed which caused the refugees in the first place. The emphasis would be on establishing stable communities that provided themselves the services a modern community should have...like water, food, housing, and education. If the Mexican government is so incompetent that it cannot adequately serve its people, then it should yield control of lands and people it cannot adequately govern.

Such an idea will no doubt raise hackles on American and Mexican 1%ers I am sure. I am just saying when you have a problem, you should not make your first option and approach violence, and exile. These people have to go somewhere and live somewhere...or face a cruel life with disease and death their constant expectation. Clearly the carnage in Mexico is unacceptable. Let's look at this problem with new, not so judgmental eyes and see if there isn't an alternative to handcuffs, drones, and bullets in the back.