A Liberal HS Teachers Views on MEChA

and look here on the link below for all the different websites at COLLEGE campuses regarding MECha!!!

http://auto.search.msn.com/results.asp?cfg=SMCINITIAL&srch=5&FORM=AS5&RS=CHECKED&v=1&q=MEChA

Here are just a few words from their "manifesto": > "We, Mechistas commit ourselves to return to our community and contribute to the development of the Chicana/Chicano Nation." (they want back all land that belongs to them, in their opinion,.. but there is more.. read on!!!)

"Finally, as Mechistas, we vow to work for the liberation of Aztlán, leading to socioeconomic and political justice for our Gente. M.E.Ch.A. then, is more than a name; it is a spirit of unity by comadrismo/carnalismo, and a resolution to undertake a struggle for liberation! Tierra y Libertad!"

(The liberation of Aztlan, is the retaking **by any force** what they percieve to be "their Land/Aztlan". They are spreading themselves all over the Nation!!! With that in mind,.. read on!!)

"General membership shall consist of any student who accepts, believes, and works for the goals and objectives of M.E.Ch.A. including the liberation of Aztlán"

"Process of Implementation: 1) Every campus outreach program must be analyzed to see if early outreach and supportive counseling is being provided at surrounding junior high school and high school; demand that Mechistas receive work-study to augment such services at the junior high and high schools;

2) Demand that your campus fund a student run, student initiated summer academic enrichment program for high school students that will be organized by the respective M.E.Ch.A. chapter and that will give Mechistas jobs;

3) Understanding that Chicana/Chicano attrition rates are high on all campuses, demand that the university/community college fund the following educational modules:

stress management, time management, study skills, writing lab, self-esteem, public speaking, critical thinking, Chicana and Chicano Identity/History, library research, a M.E.Ch.A. National Hotline, and free tutoring;

4) Since services are a demand of the university, M.E.Ch.A. must demand that its membership be committed to these services and to academic achievement;

5) Demand that M.E.Ch.A.'s key officers be funded through work-study and offer the rationale that M.E.Ch.A. coordinates youth leadership through retreats and Central activities;

6) Demand that the financial aid office at the respective campus not acknowledge outside scholarships as affecting the final financial aid award from the university and federal/state aid."

(Notice the word "demand" in their manifesto's. If you go visit any website.. you will see it often!)

"National Pride Recognizing that the majority of our Raza are members of the working class, we avow an anti-imperialist analysis that includes Chicana/Chicano self-determination. Chicano self-determination must begin with the recognition of what is implied in using the term M.E.Ch.A.

Essentially, we are a Chicana and Chicano student movement directly linked to Aztlán. As Chicanas and Chicanos of Aztlán, we are a nationalist movement of Indigenous Gente that lay claim to the land that is ours by birthright.

As a nationalist movement we seek to free our people from the exploitation of an oppressive society that occupies our land.

Thus, the principle of nationalism serves to preserve the cultural traditions of La Familia de La Raza and > promotes our identity as a Chicana/Chicano Gente."

This was only part of their papers, and all were carefully written!! But one only need to READ this last paragraph from them to understand their intent and manifesto!!!

Bill O'Rielly made the guest from MEChA address those two words. They indeed mean taking back Arizona, California, Texas and ALL lands they feel are theirs by birthright!!

I only gave a SMALL amount of information.. but you can see they are anything BUT harmless!!! They were very aggressive to the GRINGO's (that was the racist remark they made about the "white/Jewish" conservative kids who were passing out the information about them. Which from what I'm reading was right on!!!) The conservative kids were pointing out their/MEChA's views. And proved, IMHO, that MEChA is a racist bigoted organization. With ill intent on ALL Americans!!

Those who say they are harmless, have their heads DEEPLY planted in sand!! But look for yourselves at the links I provided.

Scary stuff!!! Even worst and more frightening when you see them speak as I did a month or so ago!!!

(Get yourself a cool drink, sit down in a comfy chair and relax, because this is a long one...)

After reading your e-mail about this group of people, I feel compelled to reply because I don't think you fully understand the concept of Aztlan and MEChA. Probably, anything I have to say will not sway your opinions, but I will say it anyway, and hope that you can be open-minded and will want to learn about another culture, in order to promote peace and harmony in our world.

It is my hope that after you read my e-mail, you will want to perhaps retract some of your statements, and will be just as enthusiastic about forwarding this information to all your friends and family, just as you did with your anti-MEChA e-mail.

As you know, I am a Spanish teacher and am fluent in the language. I am also very in touch with the Hispanic culture in the United States, having lived with Hispanics for over a year in New York, working with Mexicans in Hillsboro and Albany, OR and Vancouver, WA and having studied extensively the language and culture of Hispanics in America and in their native lands. I have many friends and acquaintances who are Mexican-Americans (Chicanos). I have a Master's degree in teaching Spanish, which includes not only the language but the culture and the history as well. I know what I'm talking about with regard to this subject.

Aztlan is the name for the land that the Aztecs came from before they migrated to the southern part of Mexico, and settled in Tenochtitlan (modern day Mexico City). Nobody really knows "exactly" where Aztlan was, but there are theories, and some think it was the area that is now the southwestern part of the modern-day United States.

The idea of Aztlan is a cultural one, that many Chicanos cling to, giving them ties to their heritage, a "place" where their ancestors came from, and a "land" they can consider their own. It is a conceptual homeland, rather than a true "geographical location." When they talk of the "retaking of Aztlan," as you are fearing, they are referring to recapturing their own culture and heritage, and hanging onto it, rather than being assimilated into the W.A.S.P. culture of America. They are referring to promoting their own heritage, and delighting in their diversity, and promoting cultural strength and growth within their community, so as not to lose their culture and language. That is exactly what "self-determination" means!

We must remember that this southwestern part of "our" country - California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, and part of Colorado - used to be another country - Mexico. We went to war with Mexico, and as a result of the signing of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, we moved the border of Mexico to the Rio Grande, thus taking about 1/2 of their country for our own. We "won" it. But that doesn't mean that all the Mexicans that were living here, just moved "back" to Mexico. They were in Mexico, but now it wasn't Mexico, it was another country. Still, this was their home, and they belonged here and had a right to be here just as much, if not moreso, than the white settlers who were moving into the area. The Mexicans had been living here for many years before the "Americans" arrived. (I don't like using the term "American" to refer to only those from the United States, as all who live in North, Central and South America are Americans. It's unfortunate that our language doesn't have a word for people from the United States other than American - in Spanish we are called "estadounidenses" or United Statesmen)

Sometimes, it's hard for us to understand what it might feel like to have someone come and take over your home, and demand that you follow their rules, and speak their language, since we have never been conquered. But for the Mexican-American people, this happened twice. They were conquered once by the Spaniards, thus completely changing their Aztec culture into a mixed culture of Spanish and Indian influences, where they had to change their religious beliefs, learn another language, and change their way of living in drastic ways.

Then, a few hundred years later, along come the Americans telling them "you're in our country, speak our language, learn our rules, live our way, or you'll be ostracized, oppressed, swindled out of your land, and more!" This loss of property that I speak of happened extensively, because the people were sent documents informing them that they would lose their land if they didn't follow certain legal steps to keep it. Since these documents were written in English, and the people spoke Spanish, they didn't understand, and didn't know how to fight the American court system, and were thus, removed from their homes, so that "Americans" could have that land.

Perhaps these MEChA people that you went and saw speaking are truly wanting this land back - but can you blame them? I really can't. In the same way, I wouldn't blame the Native Americans if they decided that they wanted their land back either. It's natural to feel that you have a right to take back something that was stolen from you. I am not Chicana, but I, like you, have some Native American blood in my veins, and when I think about the way they were cheated out of their native lands, and killed mercilessly all for the sake of "Manifest Destiny," it angers me, and gives me very little pride in how our great country expanded to what it is today.

I don't know about you, but I can understand how these early inhabitants who were displaced from their homes might be a little bitter about it, and want to "recapture" their homeland, even if it is just figuratively speaking - from a cultural standpoint. I'm sure that the feeling of these Chicanos is that they have been robbed of what belonged to their people - their home. And when I think of what that might feel like, it helps me to understand their anger.

The reason that you sent out this e-mail to warn people seems to be because you too, fear losing your home in the event that this group would try to "take back their land," so it seems logical that you would understand that losing one's home is not a pleasant prospect. You seem to perceive this group as a threat to your way of life. Can you understand that they perceive our society's oppression of their people as a threat to their way of life?

Now, you may be thinking that I'm sounding awfully "anti-American" in my explanation of all of this. I am not. I am proud to be an American as I know you are too. I am proud of our country's strength in banding together after the attacks of 9/11. I am proud when I walk around school and see Anglo kids, African-American kids, Hispanic kids and Asian kids all hanging out together. Of course, this isn't always the case, and there is still separation of ethnic groups, often by their own choice, but when I see that mixing of groups happen, I feel that we are moving closer to Dr. Martin Luther King's dream of a country where we can all live together peacefully, equal in each other's eyes regardless of race, color or creed. I am proud of America's diversity and I am proud of our MANY cultures that exist here and give our country it's "flavor." For what would a great meal be, if it had no flavor? America has been considered a melting pot, but I challenge that idea, and say we are like a fine seven course meal, each course individual and different, but when put together, they compliment each other in ways unimaginable, for an incomparable dining experience. If we were to throw all those courses into a blender - the appetizer, the salad, the soup, the bread, the meat, the vegetables, the dessert - and hit "puree" and then try to eat it, it wouldn't be nearly as appetizing. We mustn't try to be all the same. It would spoil what we have.

A few months ago, when I received this e-mail from you, I did access the web-sites that you included in your e-mail, and I read the MEChA manifesto. I read a letter that was written to a Jewish man who had e-mailed the Aztlan site, and at first reading the response of the "Voz de Aztlan" writer, I was angered at their anti-Jewish comments, but as I read on, I realized that they paled in comparison to the original hate-e-mail to which they responded. The original e-mailer (a Jewish man from New York) called the Mexican race "genetic garbage" and said many other generalistic atrocities that I will not repeat, but that can be read at the site.

I am not justifying the anti-semetic comments by the Voz de Aztlan writer, in any way. What I am trying to say is that both parties were wrong in making generalized statements about one group of people. That is what perpetuates prejudices. One group received a letter attacking their people, and unfortunately responded in kind. Perhaps if we weren't feeling the need to attack each other in the first place because of our differences, we could learn to appreciate our differences and enjoy the fact that they exist.

After reading the MEChA manifesto,it's clear to me, that you took excerpts, removed them from their context, and injected your own ideas, thus presenting them to everyone you sent them to, as factual information. This is pure propaganda, and it is not the way to "educate" people. In doing so, I feel that you have perpetuated the same type of hate mail that you were attempting to fight by sending out your anti-MEChA message. And with reference to your taking issue with the use of the word "demand" throughout the manifesto, I think it's necessary to remember that this group of people is trying to fight oppression, and it's not really possible to do so by asking politely "please stop oppressing our people." They are demanding education - primarily help within the university system to promote their people's job skills and education levels so that they can rise up and stand on their own feet and not depend on the welfare system, etc. I personally find this to be a noble goal, since many anglos complain about all the Mexicans coming to "our country" and living on welfare and government assistance. They are making demands of an oppressive society in order to pull themselves up from the grips of poverty. Isn't that the American dream?

I truly hope that you will reconsider your opinions about these people, or if not that, at least stop sending out such e-mails that are filled with propaganda and sentiments against a group of people, in order to cause others to feel threatened and scare them into harboring ill-will against a group of people.

Until we've walked a mile in the other man's shoes, we have no right to criticize him... and after all, we are all children of God and should feel love for each other, should we not?

I'm sorry I didn't include you in the reply; I meant to. I could probably do a blow by blow on the claims she made, because I've spent a lot of time trying to find out about them, just not right now because I'm at work!

But a few comments further: Some of the 'grievances" are true: many times "mexicans" (in quotes, because they started out as Spanish subjects) were 'cheated' out of their land. But that was not just due to greed on the part of the Americans (although that was real). It was also due to the fact that the Americans had no respect for land grants from the Spanish Crown, even though the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo had said they would be respected. The reason? Because they were a) extremely large (usually 48,000 acres) and b) in many cases had been granted by the Alcaldes and Gobernador just prior to the end of the Mexican-American war, because they knew that they would be offered money for their 'land'.

For instance, Mariano Vallejo, the governor of Northern California, owned much of what is now Sonoma County (about 250,000 acres). At the time of the Bear Flag revolt, American squatters occupied much of his land. After the revolt, he ended up with about 300 acres (still pretty large). The fact is, the land claims were just pieces of paper that the Spaniards could never defend. It was, as I said before, the end game of a failed attempt to lay claim to land the Spanish Crown could not hold (and that, by the way, is the real reason the Americans went to war. They wanted to prevent the British or the French or the Russians from controlling the West Coast, and Mexico was too weak to do it).

The 60,000 number for Spaniards/Mexicans living within the current territorial boundaries of the United States is accurate (well, I've heard 70,000). It should be pointed out that many of those were Spanish immigrants who arrived in Texas from New Orleans between 1800 and 1830, so the claim of "we are the indigenous Aztecs of Aztlan" out of their mouths is utterly ridiculous. Some - like Linda Chavez' ancestors - really were there for centuries: the Santa Fe settlers of 1609. But these were the sons and daughters of the Conquistadors, white Europeans engaging in conquest. I mean, how 'indigenous' does Lovely Linda look? They are ethnically and culturally more similar to Italians than they are to Aztecs.

Which brings up race. Your niece mentioned the "Mexican Race". My comment is - what race would that be? 30% of Mexico are white hispanics, and they run the place (seen any of pictures of Fox, or Hernandez, or Castaneda, Aryn?). I think the rest are 60% Mestizo (white/indigenous) and 10% pure indigenous (I may have these numbers a little out, but i think they are close). My cousins are half-Mexican, but they are blancos ('whites'), or "Gueros", in the street lingo. They are both blond and blue-eyed. Their children look like they are from Oslo. So - where's the race component? The reality is that 'Mexican' is a nationality, not a 'race'.

The Mestizo's claim to be a new race ('La Raza Cosmica'); yeah, whatever. The fact is that they share Mexico with their white overseers (that's what Mexico is: a 14th century feudal hierarchy), and "Mexico" and "Mexicans" are defined by the laws, culture, and history of that land and people, and it is legally, culturally and ethnically distinct from the predominantly northern and western European settlers in the North. There are genetic and cultural links between indigenous groups - undoubtedly the Aztecs are related to other North American tribes, since they descended from the same people who walked south from the Bering land bridge thousands of years ago. But that's all; other than that, they were just another tribe, and the political boundaries imposed since then are now fixed. Unless of course they would like to violently contest them (as they are actually doing right now), in which case we will see if the "Americans" have the will to maintain them.

If your niece would like to direct hate at someone, I suggest the Spaniard upper class of Mexico. It is their construct - the legal code, the race based society, the subjugation of the Mestizo - that has resulted in the evil that is Mexico (and it is evil, if you understand the structure of it). These guys want the U.S. and it's wealth, and they have found the perfect way to get it: send their little "problem" north, and repopulate the place at the expense of the gringos. Later on, show up and take your place as the Alcalde or Gobernador. Label anyone who complains a "racist". Good plan, huh? They aren't stupid. They ran Mexico this way since 1520. They lived well. It's just everyone else who live in utter despair. You might point out to her that that's whose side she's on now: the Hispanic oppressor overlords, whose own personal views are more in line with Franco's Fascists than Lenin and Marx.

A brilliant discussion of Mexican society and government: The Future of Anti-Corruption in Mexico
The sidebars are especially good. When you read them, you will be appalled. Your niece is trying to bring this kind of world to the United States. Funny, but I don't see what's "liberal" about that.

The current wave of "immigration" (they aren't immigrants; they're colonizers. Immigrants assimilate) is due to Mexico's grotesque overpopulation: from 35 million in 1960 to 100 million now. They couldn't feed themselves then and they sure as hell can't now. If we let them, they will simply end up outnumbering us and voting to take what we have built (on the blood of people like you and your husband). That's why the Socialists are all for it; they think the desperate immigrantes will vote for an end to private property, and a dimunition of the society and culture that was America. But when the white hispanics from Mexico - like Fox, Hernandez, Castaneda - start dictating the laws of American society, we will soon see something far worse: a corrupt feudal terrorocracy.

So, here's some more links to the history of the Southwest, prior to 1852 or so (so, including the Mex-American war in 1846).

But first, a short editorial. Aztlan is a fairy tale. It may be an Aztec tribal myth, but as far as applying to the American Southwest, it's crap. As far as I have heard, the real "homeland" of the Aztec tribe was the area of the Mexican state of Nayarit, and is even further alleged to be the Mexican town of San Felipe Aztlan, Nayarit, MX. But don't take my word for it! This is what the University of the Pacific chapter of good ol' MEChA has to say: Just where is Aztlan, anyway? (my title)

That little link may be the only time in their lives that those idiots ever told the truth. The Aztecs were just a dirty little band of killers who tore apart the advanced Toltec civilization, and never got much further after that. Kinda like what their semi-descendants plan to do to us...but I digress.

The history of Southern California pre-Conquest is well developed here: The Indian in the Closet

According to this in-depth study, the statistics are:

number of pre-Spanish (pre-1769) occupation Indians in California (not just Southern California) : 130,000. I think that is where I got my first number.
At the end of Spanish/Mexican rule: 72,000.
Whites (including Spaniards, later called "Mexicans") by 1846: 5,000
He later estimates the "Anglo" population as "10 to one" over the Indian number of 72,000; this would imply 720,000 Anglos, but that number would not be reached, I think until 20 years later. A more reasonable figure in 1852 was probably 300,000 Anglos, mostly in San Francisco and Sacramento.

We'll see if those numbers hold up with other writers. McWilliams admits in section 1. that the actual number of pre-Columbian Indians could have been as high as 700,000 in all of California. His best paragraph on this subject is this:

Engineered by a small caste or group, the Spanish invasion was limited in character. The entire coastal portion of California had been occupied by less than a hundred Spaniards and as late as 1846 the entire "white" population of the state did not exceed 5,000 by comparison with an Indian population of 72,000. But the Anglo invasion was not so much an invasion as an inundation. Under the period of Spanish-Mexican rule, the ratio of non-Indians to Indians was one to ten; under the American rule it quickly became ten to one. Since the Spanish invasion had been along the coast, the hinterland area had been left as a kind of Indian territory. But the Anglo invasion came from the east so that the first contact Anglos had with Indians in California was with the wild or gentile group. Thus Indians fleeing to the mountains and deserts encountered miners and mountain men coming from the east. Since there were no settled Indian tribes in California, a formal Indian frontier never existed. Invading from the east, the Anglos quickly infiltrated the areas which Indians still occupied in the state. As one early pioneer wrote, "Here we have not only Indians on our frontiers, but all among us, around us, with us. There is hardly a farm house without them. And where is the line to be drawn between those who are domesticated and the frontier savages? Nowhere—it cannot be found. Our white population pervades the entire state, and Indians are with them everywhere."

Another source for numbers is here: Chumash Chronology

From this source, the numbers are:

number of Pre-Spanish (pre-1769) occupation Indians in California (not just Southern California): 130,000. But this is in 1542, and the number in 1769 is given as 310,000.
At the end of Spanish/Mexican rule: 50,000 (this is consistent with the previous writer).
Whites (including Spaniards, later called "Mexicans") by 1846: he doesn't say.
Anglo population: best represented by this paragraph:

"In one astounding year the place would be transformed from obscurity to world prominence; from an agricultural frontier that attracted 400 settlers in 1848 to a mining frontier that lured 90,000 impatient men in 1849; from a society of neighbors and families to one of strangers and transients; from an ox-cart economy based on hides and tallow to a complex economy based on gold mining; from Catholic to Protestant; from Latin to Anglo-Saxon." J.S. Holiday, The World Rushed In
.
But he also says:
During the gold rush, the native population of Alta California is decimated. From a population of around 310,000 at the beginning of the Spanish incursion in 1769, there are 150,000 left in 1848. Two thirds of them--100,000 men, women, and children--are killed or otherwise perish during the first ten years of the U.S. takeover; by the end of the decade, only 50,000 natives are left alive. See excerpts from the collection Exterminate Them: written accounts of the murder, rape, and slavery of Native Americans during the California gold rush, 1848-1868.
History books often only report that the gold rush created one of the great migrations in American history. According to author Daniel Bacon, "There was a time in 1849 when the population of San Francisco was doubling every ten days, and San Francisco almost overnight was changed from a pastoral little village into a bustling metropolis." People came from almost every corner of the world. By 1852, a quarter of a million fortune hunters had arrived in California.
The new government pursued a deliberate policy of genocide, to the point of providing bounties on dead natives.

Note the PC interpretation, with the Americans being "exterminatiors". He mentions throughout the chronology the effects of the missions and Spanish disease on the California Indians (150,000 dead according to him), but never bothers to call the Spaniards genocidal. Interesting. I also don't buy his numbers; they seem inflated. 100,000 dead at the hands of 250,000 people from the rest of the world? One out of three murdered, or dead of disease? Hard to buy...

There are other narratives of the period 1769 to 1852, which essentially define the origins of California. The bottom line in all of them is that the Spanish / Mexican period was a brief, abortive attempt by a small group of people that accomplished mostly the decimation of the far larger number of native tribes through disease and murder. No Aztlan here. Just low rent imperialism.

So on to Texas and New Mexico (which includes Arizona). Here is a fairly good webpage, from, of all places, good ol' PBS, the Pathetic Broadcasting System (no agenda on my part, right?): The Borderlands on the Eve of War

This guy puts the total number of Hispanics in the West at about 40,000 (in New Mexico) + 3200 (in California) + 2500 (in Texas) = 45,700. A little low by other estimates, since I have heard up to 7000 in California. But he might be right. Other people with agendas might be intentionally inflating things...his article shows the sparsity of the Mexican population north of La Frontera in 1821, and gives a flavor of the fragility of their settlement, and their fear of the tribes. But then he goes PC at the end and babbles about how frontier Anglos submitted and assimilated and everyone was happy...the underlying agenda. "Give up your culture. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated". Mexicans as The Borg...how silly. One part is worth talking about: how the Indians used the Mexican settlers as a food production outfit. The Apache did the same thing to the Pimas in Arizona. They had it down to a science.

Which brings up the last link (i'm tired!). This talks about the Apache in Arizona. Let me give you the best statement:

Because of the Apaches long hatred of Mexicans, due to the countless cruel acts and wholesale killing of their people, the Mexicans were immediately tied to the wagon wheels while the wagons where set on fire. While the Mexican men cried out during their slow death a soon to be famous warrior was said to take pleasure from poking his lance into the burning Mexicans. This warrior would be unknown to whites for many years but his (Spanish) name was Geronimo and he was about 38 years old at the time.

Read the website here: The Apache Indians Historical Places

This fellow gives you an idea of the real situation between Mexico and the aboriginals of the Southwest. Not the happy face picture concocted in Hollywood and college campuses, or for that matter, MEChA propaganda.

I have two things to say to wrap up. Here goes.

1. I use the word "aboriginal" to describe the tribes of the Americas rather than Native American because I believe that after 10 generations here, my family can reasonably claim to be native Americans. The word American was applied originally to the predominantly Anglo-Saxon settlers of the east coast, so I think it is a misnomer to apply it to people who descended from the groups who walked across the Bering land bridge. In Canada, Aboriginal is the name applied to all the "First Nations". I know that Vets_Husband_and_Wife used to be Native_American_Vet, and I don't wish to be contentious, but I feel it's more accurate this way. I do use "Indian" occasionally out of ease of use. I know it is inaccurate, and possibly offensive, but you seem reasonable. Besides, I have Cherokee in my family...just not as much as you!

2. I mentioned Spanish immigrants to Texas between 1800 - 1830. Without posting a link, I think I need to clarify that by pointing out that most of them settled in what is now the Mexican states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Guanajuato, with the city of Monterrey being the epicenter of their descendants. This was the western end of the historical Mexican area called Tejas. The small number of Spaniards in American Texas is accurate (it's always like 2500 to 3000), because of the nature of the aboriginal tribes and their attacks.

Hope this is informative. Aztlan is nonsense. The real history of the Southwest is far more interesting, and one thing is clear: the current influx of the citizens of Mexico is one of a separate people, coming into a land they never held, never settled, and have no claim on.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.