Anti Latino Bubbles

We must pop these the minute we see them. Let's prevent others. Do you have any to add to this list? Send them to me...

We are in the year 2002, and we still must run into material like the poem below...After reading it, see if it encourages you to succeed even more...Besides, does this ignorant person realize what would happen if there were no Latinos in California? California would not be the world's 5th largest economic power, that's what!


I come for visit, get treated regal,
So I stay, who care I illegal?
I cross border, poor and broke,
Take bus, see employment folk.

Nice man treat me good in there,
Say I need to see welfare.
Welfare say, "You come no more,
We send cash right to your door."

Welfare checks, they make you wealthy,
Medicaid it keep you healthy!
By and by, I got plenty money,
Thanks to you, American dummy.

Write to friends in motherland,
Tell them come as fast as you can.
They come in rags and Chebby trucks,
I buy big house with welfare bucks.

They come here, we live together,
More welfare checks, it gets better!
Fourteen families they moving in,
But neighbor's patience wearing thin.

 Finally, white guy moves away,
Now I buy his house, and then I say,
"Find more aliens for house to rent."
And in the yard I put a tent.

Send for family quick like bunny,
Then they too draw the welfare money!
Everything is mucho good,
And soon we own the neighborhood.

We have hobby-it's called breeding,
Welfare pay for baby feeding.
Kids need dentist? Wife need pills?
We get free! We got no bills!

American crazy! He pay all year,
To keep welfare running here.
We think America darn good place!
Too darn good for the white man race.
If they no like us, they can go,
Got lots of room in Mexico!

Note: My apologies to all those legal immigrants who came in search of freedom and followed the rules. That's how my ancestors got here too! From "The Valley Citizen ," July, 2002

Disturbingly true...

30 Aug 2001 18:25:25 EDT
Subject: The Price of a Mexican (Embargoed til 8/31)

COLUMN OF THE AMERICAS by Patrisia Gonzales and Roberto Rodriguez

A friend of ours over for breakfast started sobbing when we told her that a South Texas rancher who shot an unarmed Mexican from behind was fined $4,000, put on probation and set free. "No valemos nadaaaaa," she said. Her tearful words need no translation.

Her reaction moved us. Actually, it shook us. We stopped to say a prayer for the slain Eusebio de Haro and his family. It was no hyperbole when we recently wrote that in the U.S-., a dog's life is worth more than that of a Mexican.

The Sam Blackwood trial in Brackettville, along with the countless murders and needless deaths that have been occurring all along the U.S./Mexico border (since before we were born) illustrates this. The only difference is that nowadays, they're also occurring elsewhere in the southern United States -- where 3 million Mexicans/Central Americans live -- a place not normally associated with anti-Mexicanism.

It's a wonder that this May 2000 murder and recent outrageous court decision is even news. It's right out of a '50s western in which the gunslinger brags about the number of cowboys he's killed -- "not counting Mexicans." The fact is, for killing a Mexican, Blackwood was convicted simply of a misdemeanor "dangerous conduct" charge.

The context no doubt will help explain this travesty. As reported in the San Antonio Express-News, a rancher friend of Blackwood, testifying about encounters other ranchers have Áwith migrants, said: "We usually tell each other about our woes, about our wetback problems."

One can sincerely empathize with these woeful ranchers: $4,000 is a hefty sum to be paying for helping to exterminate wetbacks. That's the message many of us, including ranchers, hear daily, don't we? -- from billboards to talk radio hosts; from draconian propositions to vigilantiism. After years and years of dehumanizing Mexicans, of a vicious anti-immigrant campaign by people in and out of government, we see the result. This killing came at the same time that Arizona ranchers were recruiting vigilantes nationwide to help do the work of the "migra," or U.S. border patrol.

Despite the completely unprovoked nature of the shooting, Blackwood didn't even stand trial for murder. According to testimony by de Haro's friend, Javier Sanchez, they had stopped at Blackwood's ranch for a drink of water. The rancher refused; then after they left, he tracked them down and shot de Haro from behind. De HaÊro, bleeding to death, asked the rancher: "Why did
you do that? I didn't do nothing."

The dehumanization of Mexicans is so ingrained here that when migrants are killed or found dead -- which is often -- they are rarely referred to as Mexicans. They are called illegal aliens, or illegals
or even wetbacks. (If they're wearing suits, regardless of nationality, they're often upgraded to
Hispanics.) Usually, they aren't named. And when it involves an unjustified killing, especially by a law enforcement officer, forget about it. If it's vigilantes, it's usually "self-defense," and aggravated assault is about the most serious charge one can expect. Often, they're cheered on by like-minded

Bob Rivard, editor of the Express-News, pondered in a column recently about what would have happened if de Haro had killed Blackwood? That's a rhetorical question in Texas, the death penalty capital of the world.

That's why the dog reference. Just recently, in a road-rage incident, a northerÕn California man was appropriately given a three-year sentence for killing a dog. But for rage against a Mexican? Less
than the price of a used car.

For those who often ask why we use the word "dehumanization," rather than "racism," this case provides the answer. To dehumanize (including, but not limited to reasons of race) is to degrade, stereotype, caricaturize, trivialize, devalue, humiliate, invisibilize, alienize, scapegoat, criminalize and demonize. In effect, it's to make one less than human, not simply in society and the media, but also inside of a courtroom.

That's why Blackwood isn't the sole culprit. Like a "Los Tigres Del Norte" song, which proclaims that migrants die twice unless buried in their homeland, de Haro was killed twice. The second time
was when the grand jury charged Blackwood with a misdemeanor.

Adding insult, the jury could have given the rancher a year. But apparently he was needed in the free world.

To Blackman, we ask: Why did¿ you kill him? He didn't do nothin' but walk through "your" land. To the jury: Why did you even bother fining him? He was just taking care of our wetback problem. To the Justice Department: Any chance of prosecuting Blackwood on federal civil rights violations? COPYRIGHT 2001 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

What do you think of this? ---

"Dear Dame Edna, I would very much like to learn a foreign language, preferably French or Italian, but every time I ! mention this, people tell me to learn Spanish instead. They say, "Everyone is going to be speaking Spanish in 10 years. George W. Bush speaks Spanish." Could this be true? Are we all going to have to speak Spanish?" -Torn Romantic, Palm Beach

"Dear Torn, Forget Spanish. There`s nothing in that language worth reading except Don Quixote, and a quick listen to the CD of Man of La Mancha will take care of that. There was a poet named Garcia Lorca, but I`d leave him on the intellectual back burner if I were you. As for everyone`s speaking it, what twaddle! Who speaks it that you are really desperate to talk
to? The help? Your leaf blower? Study French or German, where there are at least a few books worth reading, or, if you`re American, try English." Vanity Fair magazine (Feb.2003)

Send your thoughts to the editors at: <>

Oakland Tribune - Whites-only scholarships are nothing new

Sunday, February 22, 2004 - AN amusing habit of young people is their tendency to think that their generation came up with every idea that sounds in any way cool.

Such must have been the goofy mindset that's inspired a student group at Roger Williams University in Bristol, R.I., to offer a scholarship for which only white students need apply.

"Evidence of bleaching will disqualify applicants," says the scholarship application, which requires a recent photo "to confirm whiteness" and an essay on "why you are proud of your white heritage."

This is new? I'm old enough to remember when whites-only educational opportunities were quite common in this country -- and they were not a joke.

As you might have guessed, this scholarship is a joke, but only partly. It is intended to protest affirmative action. It is offered by the college's College Republicans, whose president, Jason Mattera, 20, has been juggling phone calls and e-mail inquiries ever since news wires picked up the story from The Providence Journal last Sunday.

The scholarship's amount grew from $50 to $250 over the weekend and continued to grow like a telethon's tote board after sympathizers got the word through various news media. Ah, who says the media never aid conservative causes?

Mattera, a junior from Brooklyn, says it is white students today who are feeling the lash of discrimination, wielded against them by scholarships for non-whites. "We think that, if you want to treat someone according to character and how well they achieve academically, then skin color
shouldn't really be an option," he told the Journal.

Yet, Mattera, who is of Puerto Rican descent, is himself a recipient of a $5,000 Sallie Mae Fund scholarship for Hispanic students.

How does he square accepting a scholarship for non-whites with his opposition to preferential treatment for non-whites? Well, Mattera apparently believes the myth that only unqualified people benefit from affirmative action. He told CNN's Daryn Kagan, for example, that his Hispanics-only scholarship was OK because he earned it with his excellent grade point average, not "just because I'm Puerto Rican."

In fact, when affirmative action works the way it is supposed to, it does not guarantee results to the unqualified because of their race or ethnicity. It only opens doors to enable a broader pool of people to prove how qualified they are.

For that reason, among others, neither the university nor the leaders of the state's Republican Party want anything to do with Mattera's whites-only scholarship. Patricia Morgan, the state's GOP chairwoman, called the scholarship "disturbing."

Besides, if scholarships were the standard for what amounts to discrimination today, a lot of people, not just whites, would have reasons to feel resentful. Take a look at just a few of the other groups
that found receive preferences under currently available scholarships simply as a consequence of their condition of birth:

LEFT-HANDED STUDENTS: The Frederick and Mary F. Beckley Scholarship will award up to $1,000 to left-handed students who will be attending Juniata College, Huntingdon, Pa.

LITTLE PEOPLE: The Little People of America association offers a scholarship for its members, who must be 4-foot-10 or less in height.

TALL PEOPLE: Tall Clubs International offers a $1,000 scholarship to women who must be at least 5-foot-10 and men who are at least 6-foot-2, presumably in their stocking feet.

JUST-AVERAGE PEOPLE: The David Letterman Scholarship, established by the late-night TV star, awards scholarships to telecommunications students at his alma mater, Ball State University, who are "average students who nevertheless have a creative mind."

CATHOLICS NAMED ZOLP: The aptly-named Zolp Scholarship offers full tuition for four years at Loyola University in Chicago for Catholic students whose last name happens to be Zolp, as documented by their birth certificate and confirmation certificate. First-name Zolps need
not apply.

ANYONE NAMED SCARPINATO: Full attendance at Texas A&M University is available for anyone whose last name is Scarpinato---by birth or by marriage, so you still have a chance to marry into this scholarship.

DESCENDANTS OF ALUMNI: There are lots of these, of course, but one of the more unusual enables selected incoming freshman at Hood College the opportunity to pay the same first-year tuition as their alumnus parent or grandparent. Without inflation.

TWINS AND TRIPLETS: Lots of these, too. But one of the more unusual is offered by Lake Erie College in Painesville, Ohio, where each twin gets the scholarship in alternate years.

Alas, I would not have qualified for any of these scholarships, even if I had married a Scarpinato.

But resentment is a waste of time. Instead of worrying about somebody else's opportunities, Mattera and Company should take advantage of the opportunities they have.

Clarence Page writes for the Chicago Tribune. E-mail
<> .

This article has already received major criticism by professors, business people, the general public as well as the Wall Street Journal.

> Subject: More on Huntington: Hispanic Immigration Threatens U.S.
> By David Glenn - - - - From the Chronicle of Higher Education

> <>

Critics Assail Scholar's Article Arguing That Hispanic Immigration Threatens U.S.

High levels of Hispanic immigration threaten to disrupt the political and cultural integrity of the United States, according to a controversial new article by the political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, who is the chairman of Harvard University's Academy for International and Area Studies.
In the essay, which will be published next week in the March/April issue of Foreign Policy magazine, Mr. Huntington warns that the United States faces the loss of its "core Anglo-Protestant culture" and may soon be divided into "two peoples with two cultures (Anglo and Hispanic) and two languages (English and Spanish)."
A leaked copy of the article beg! an to circulate among scholars on Monday and immediately drew heated criticism.
Rodolfo O. de la Garza, a professor of political science at Columbia University, said Mr. Huntington's arguments "more closely resemble nativist ravings than scholarly assessments." Mr. de la Garza and other critics said Mr. Huntington was far too pessimistic in his accounts of Hispanic families' rates of educational progress and English-language acquisition.
Mr. Huntington's article, which derives from his forthcoming book Who We Are (Simon & Schuster), scheduled for publication in May, argues that Hispanic immigrants are much less likely to assimilate into mainstream U.S. culture than were the European immigrants of the early 20th century.
He bases his pessimism on six propositions, each of which is controversial. Those propositions are as follows:
* Latin America is geographically contiguous to the United States, which means that Hispanic im! migrants need not make a large psychological leap when they migrate here.
* Never before has such a large proportion of immigrants to the United States spoken a single non-English language.
* Never before have so many immigrants come into the United States illegally.
* Latin American immigrants are strongly concentrated in particular regions, which will impede their assimilation.
* Hispanic immigration is likely to persist at high levels, in contrast to European immigration, which was truncated by restrictive legislation and the two world wars.
* Mexican-Americans, with some justice, feel that the Southwestern United States, which was torn away from Mexico in 19th-century wars of conquest, is still their territory, and their feeling of ownership will prevent them from emotionally absorbing full U.S. citizenship.
Mr. Huntington concludes by predicting that America may soon become an officially bicultural country like Canada or Belgium, albeit a less successful one, because "the differences in culture within these countries ... do not approximate those between the United States and Mexico."
He also argues that Hispanic activists are foolish to believe that assimilation can proceed in both directions, and that the United States could be successfully Latinized: "There is no Americano dream. " There is only the American dream created by an Anglo-Protestant society. Mexican-Americans will share in that dream and in that society only if they dream in English."
On Monday, critics of the article attacked both its factual premises and its analytic framework. In a letter to the editors of Foreign Policy, Andres Jimenez, director of the University of California's California Research Policy Center, wrote that! the article was "misinformed, factually inaccurate, inflammatory, and potentially injurious to public policy because of its potential for being used as a further baseless rationalization for anti-immigrant and anti-Mexican politics."
In an interview, Mr. Jimenez said that Mr. Huntington was wrong to suggest that Hispanic families place a lower value on educational achievement than do native-born Americans. He cited a January 2004 study by the Pew Hispanic Center, which found that Hispanic parents are more
likely to attend PTA meetings and to help their children with homework than are white or
African-American parents.
He also argued that Mr. Huntington was foolish to describe the history of Hispanic families' educational and labor-force status without acknowledging the history of formal and informal segregation in the Southwest. As recently as the 1950s, he noted, the State of Texas maintained separate schools for Hispanic students, which did not continue past the sixth grade.
Mr. de la Garza, of Columbia, said in an interview that Mr. Huntington's fear that Hispanic immigrants would maintain strong loyalties to their countries of origin was not grounded in empirical fact. Mr. de la Garza cited a 1998 study by the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, a nonprofit research organization in Los Angeles, that, he said, demonstrated that Hispanic residents of the United States have a relatively low level of engagement with the politics of their home countries and are much more oriented toward events in the United States.
James P. Smith, a senior economist at the RAND Corporation, said in an interview that Mr. Huntington's analysis appeared not to distinguish fully between the experiences of first-generation immigrants and those of their children and grandchildren.
"It's not unique to him," Mr. Smith said. "He's using the convention of the field, and I think the convention of the field is methodologically flawed."
A more precise analysis would show that Hispanic immigrants have actually made rapid progress from generation to generation, Mr. Smith argued.
He added that he saw no reason yet to believe that the United States was becoming a binational society. "To say that some time in the future we might become like Canada, and that we should keep our eye on separating the country that way -- that's fine. But I don't think we're there yet," he

Mr. Huntington was preparing to travel on Monday, and was not available for comment. He is no stranger to controversy. His 1996 book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (Simon & Schuster), became a best seller after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In The Wall Street Journal, Francis Fukuyama called the book "dazzling in its scope and grasp of the intricacies of global politics."
Not everyone agreed. In a 2001 essay, the late Edward W. Said, who was for many years a professor of comparative literature at Columbia, suggested that "a great deal of demagogy and downright ignorance is involved in presuming to speak for a whole religion or civilization."
Guillermo Nicacio - Senior Organizer - Latino/Hispanic Projects
People For the American Way/PFAW Foundation
2000 M Street, NW Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036
1-800-326-7329 ext 2316 *

COLUMN OF THE AMERICAS by Patrisia Gonzales and Roberto Rodriguez
For years, right-wing ideologues have littered the country with anti-Mexican billboards and filled the airwaves with other kinds of hate-filled propaganda. But now, it's not just nut cases or hate-radio "discussion leaders" anymore -- academics and legislators have also entered the fray.
The least of what they call for is the full militarization of the U.S./Mexico border. And yet, these ideologues -- who warn us about the Balkanization of the nation and the coming "Reconquista" of the U.S. Southwest -- insist they're not bigots. They say they're not anti-Mexican, but rather,
anti-illegal immigration, pointing to the absence of the word "Mexican" in anti-illegal-immigrant legislation or initiatives nationally as proof. Great. Equal opportunity hatred.
Truthfully, anti-illegal-immigrant fervor begets an anti-immigrant climate, which in this country targets brown faces. Here, brown translates into Mexican -- all 25 million of them. (Paradoxically, many of them scurry about looking for that one drop of European blood to claim they're actually
white, which the Census Bureau is only too happy to oblige in this anti-browning process, to escape that rampant dehumanization.)
Since bigots can't tell the difference between Mexicans and Central and South Americans, add another 15 million "other kinds of Mexicans" into the mix.
Lies, the bigots cry out: We don't hate anyone; we just think illegal immigration is ruining America. And then along comes Victor Davis Hanson's book "Mexifornia" in 2003. The author, of course, was not trying to stir up fears or hatred against Mexicans. It's just that "Illegalfornia" doesn't quite pack the same punch.
Now comes Harvard's Samuel P. Huntington, who continues to advance the theory (Foreign Policy magazine, March/April 2004) that Mexicans pose a fundamental threat to the cultural and political integrity of the nation. And once again, there's lots of scurrying -- not to denounce the unadulterated bigotry, but to prove that Mexicans can and are assimilating. It's a big day for
pie charts and diagrams.
In this discussion, it is assumed that assimilation is nirvana and that there's a consensus as to what values should be assimilated. For instance, are immigrants supposed to adopt trickle-down economics that favor the rich, militarism, interventionism, cultural chauvinism and racial supremacy?
Enter well-known anti-illegal-immigrant crusader Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. Last week, in a strike against "the cult of multiculturalism" (there's another nice racial code word), he entered into Congress a resolution that affirms the importance of Western Civilization to the nation's heritage
and origins (talk about more loaded code words). More scurrying (memories of the Inquisition)?
What's next? An official language and an official color? So what is it about Mexicans that so bothers this country?
No doubt their color -- perhaps a reminder of their indigenousness. And Mexicans do serve a useful purpose in the politics of blame.
Traditionally, if there's a problem, blame Jews or Blacks, Asians or American Indians. Such finger-pointing is generally no longer in vogue, though it's seemingly still acceptable to blame Mexicans, as there's no price to pay (though don't forget to use the code term "illegal aliens"). But as we're now seeing, the pretense is over. And don't forget to call them "Hispanics" when you want them to go to war or want their votes.Incidentally, anti-Mexicanism is no longer limited to rednecks.
While it's sad to see anyone adopt these attitudes, it's painful to see people of color pitted against each other, to turn on each other and, in this case, also adopt the same anti-Mexican attitudes: They're taking our jobs, they're aliens, and they're a threat to this nation, etc. (It must feel good to blame others.) And yet, most tragicomic is that no one seems to hate Mexicans more than people of Mexican origin. They're the ones doing the fastest scurrying -- trying to prove that they're genuine, loyal and patriotic Americans ... and even white. It's called self-loathing (though with a bit of societal assistance).It's also a feeble attempt to escape the rampant bigotry that's once again threatening to engulf the nation. As it is, many have assimilated the racial politics of blame and are also currently pointing fingers at Arabs and Muslims and feeling good about it. Some call this internalized oppression.
Perhaps Sen. John Edwards and Harvard's Huntington have it right: There are two Americas and two cultures. If people of Mexican, Central and South American origin are expected to assimilate, then perhaps they should assimilate not into Fortress America Inc., but into the one that respects all peoples and cultures and honors and treats all people as full human beings.

* If you would like to see Column of the Americas in your newspaper, please call/write your local editor. Also, contact our editor, Greg Melvin at Universal Press Syndicate or 1-800-255-6734. Column of the Americas is available at Universal's website every Friday at:

Gonzales & Rodriguez can be reached at 608-238-3161or -- PO BOX 5093, Madison, WI 53705. For speaking availability, bios, publications and other info, call/write us or visit:

* Gonzales is the author of The Mud People: Chronicles, Testimonios & Rembrances ($19.95, Chusma House, ISBN: 1-891823-05-1). For ordering info, go to: or email: She can be reached at: Rodriguez is the author of Justice: A Question of Race - Bilingual Review Press ( brp/backlist/bio/RRod1j.html). He is also the author of the E-books The X in La Raza and Codex Tamuanchan: On Becoming Human ( Both are coeditors of
Cantos Al Sexto Sol - Wings Press (

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: MEChA ought not to listen to Bruin Republicans
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 21:50:38 -0700 (MST)
From: Robert Vazquez <>
Reply-To: ------To: AztecaNet <>

Daily Bruin Editorial: Tuesday, March 09, 2004

For the last few weeks, UCLA's chapter of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicana/o de Aztln has endured an unfair barrage of insults from a fringe group ofcampus conservatives.

Having been repeatedly called un-American and racist, even compared to Nazis, MEChA should feel no obligation to accept Bruin Republicans' call for a debate Friday. Bruin Republicans has simply proved unworthy of MEChA's time.

If a group of UCLA students had legitimate concerns about MEChA, hopefully MEChA would be willing to explain its mission and purpose -- after all, it does receive more student money than any campus group. Every indication is that MEChA would be willing to do so.

But Bruin Republicans seems less interested in soliciting debate and more interested in name-calling. The group began its "all-out media blitz" by distributing fliers comparing MEChA to Nazis, using the swastika, a painful and inflammatory symbol. Members unraveled a banner on Bruin Walk saying MEChA was student-funded racism. They implied that MEChA advocates
seceding from the United States . a preposterous notion about a group whose primary concerns are campus outreach and retention. All this occurred after only minimal attempts were made to actually contact MEChA. And now Bruin Republicans wants a debate?

There's something clearly wrong with the way Bruin Republicans is conducting itself. It levels the most painful insults and most absurd allegations and then pretends all it wants is a rational discussion. (Would anyone expect President Bush to stand in the same room as John Kerry if Kerry were to call Bush a Nazi?)

MEChA has already explained numerous times that it no longer subscribes to all parts of the document Bruin Republicans is criticizing, and that its members do not embrace its more radical provisions. That is more than an adequate response to a childish exhibition on the part of Bruin

One of the saddest elements of this whole saga is that Bruin Republicans is giving campus conservatives a black eye. At a university as liberal as UCLA, there is plenty of room for reasonable conservatives to find criticism and challenge the status quo.

For better or worse, Californians have embraced a moderate Republican governor who articulates a message of togetherness. It's too bad Bruin Republicans-- which uses shock communication to divide the community-- has not learned from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's success.

And until Bruin Republicans decides to take a more moderate and less militant approach, MEChA should not be bothered by it-- as hard as that might be.

As for UCLA students, if they somehow believe MEChA is a clear and present danger, that the group has declared war on the United States, and that comparisons to Nazis are well taken, then they should tune in to Bruin Republicans.

But those who can see through the facade of this absurd campaign should afford Bruin Republicans the right to free speech, but nothing else. Reasonable people should ignore this divisive group and let it wallow in its pitiful corner of campus irrelevance until it can be more productive.

For a full chronicle of "Daily Bruin" related articles, search out their archives at:

Note that you can actually email your view point at:


Shaman Winter, page 90 (Rudolfo Anaya, 1999, Warner Books, New York, has a good passage about the "brown" scare in the USA.

Ir a Como México no hay dos

Volver a La Alianza de Hayward

Volver a hayward

 © jfcz29/v/04