(
) Crocodile Tears: Accessory to a Crime “This is not 1993”, Nov 14, 2014
We
went through a phase where the word relative was overused and often abused.
There was no right or wrong; everything was relative to how a person felt.
Admittedly, I went through this phase when it became a fad. However, the older
I got the more I realized that relativism actually worked against progressive
change – that there was right and wrong and that our actions matter. Words
mattered and there is a difference between a duty and an obligation, right and
privilege.
There
is a thin line between committing a crime and being an accessory to it. For
example, you are with a person and he murders someone and you do nothing to
stop it, you are an accessory to it. I just read in the paper that a man who
took a photo of a woman getting raped and did nothing is getting charged with
being an accessory. It is not relative.
When
I learned that California State University Northridge was negotiating a deal
with the University of Mexico (UNAM) on numerous occasions I warned the
administration that Mexico had a horrible human rights record and that signing
such as agreement without voicing objections could come back to bite them in
the ass, which has happened in the case of the 43 disappeared normalistas. I
naively believed that Latinas/os in the administration would alert their
superiors -- I guess they did not care.
Since
then I have been trying to interest people in getting their universities to
break official ties with the Mexican government and its institutions. The human
rights violations in South Africa did not come to the forefront without the
intervention of progressives here, who put pressure on the South African
government through divestments and the appeal to human rights.
Originally
this piece was going to be more pointed because talks with Provost Harry
Hellenbrand have not gone well – to the point that I walked out. However, in
deference to my colleagues who want to make one last try, I will withhold fire
on the state of campus politics. Se vale my colleagues have inverted a lot of
time.
So
I am isolating this piece to current events surrounding Mexico and Latin
America. Admittedly because of pressure on the administration certain changes
have occurred. They are small, but we see more items on Latinos appearing on
the CSUN Web Page, for instance. A Latino here and there has been employed;
however, CSUN still has not said it was wrong or that it was going to do
something about it.
Meanwhile,
it has taken President Dianne Harrison well over a month to comment on the
normalistas. Yesterday she posted this message on the CSUN Wen Page:
Statement from CSUN President Dianne F.
Harrison
The California State University,
Northridge community shares the horror felt around the globe at the tragedy of
the 43 missing college students from the state of Guerrero, Mexico, who are
feared dead. CSUN has a long history of being an international university, and
we recognize the connections we have to countries near and far. My sympathies
are with the families of these students, who sought to improve their lives and
their community through education. I urge the leaders of Mexico to thoroughly
investigate and put an end to this senseless violence so that all students have
the opportunity to learn in a safe and socially just environment.
With
all due respect to the President of the University, this is mendacious. Like
they used to say “You can't have your cake and eat it (too).” Logically you
cannot be for something and against it. This statement is reminiscent of
President Harrison’s statement when she suspended the Greeks from recruiting
new members largely because of the death of Armando Villa, 19, who was pledging
the Zeta Mu Chapter of Pi Kappa Phi. Villa was found dead in a ditch without
shoes or water during a fraternity hazing mishap.
I
am not blaming CSUN or Harrison for Villa’s death but I know for a fact that
they knew that hazing was occurring and that the system was broken. However,
fraternities are a key support group generally supporting the President’s
projects and their alumni are very prominent in raising funds. You draw your
own conclusion.
In
the case of Mexico, human rights violations and the role of the United States
is no secret. Just google it and you’ll get enough material to write a book. I
have refused to pursue a Fulbright because the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) funds them. In 1991 I almost got killed
because I refused to travel to El Salvador with a USAID delegation. However,
today CSUN is taking grants from the CIA and there are plans to pursue Homeland
Security funding.
My
value system will not allow me to rationalize this. Harrison and the presidents
before her could have done something about the abuses of the fraternity system
but like Pontius Pilate, they washed their hands.
I
do not have time to review the UNAM controversy and indeed will delay it for a
more opportune time. With this said, I realize that many UNAM faculty are
among the most radical in Latin America as are its students. However, UNAM does
live in a separate bubble. It is a Mexican institution controlled by the
Mexican state just like CSUN is not a separate entity.
You
have to separate the professors from the institution. Many professors and
students at CSUN would not agree with the treatment of the Chicana/o Studies
Department, but they can only control what they know and the administration has
obfuscated the facts.
But
this does not absolve us from the duty to act as we did during the Vietnam War
and we failed to do so in all of the intervening wars. Injustice is injustice.
Some
people do not know any better. People like Provost Harry Hellenbrand and
Harrison should. They have a higher duty than those who are ignorant or lack
access to the facts. Others such as Douglas Carranza and Beatriz Cortez have to
be singled out because they know better. They know that Mexico'sa
countryside is full with the graves of Central Americans seeking what they did
when they got here – freedom from violence.
However,
when I brought up these points Carranza and Cortez accused me of being
nationalistic in my opposition to the UNAM Center and my criticism of Mexican
President Enrique Peña Nieto. They in turn tried to separate research and
scholarship from the political applauding Harrison and the deans who were
attempting to privatize CSUN.
Fortunately,
they failed to divide the Latino communities because alumni such as Siris
Barrios and Mónica Novoa have a historical memory and came to the defense of
Chicana/o Studies.
Hopefully
our differences with the administration will be resolved; however, in
conscience I personally cannot do so until there is a resolution of the total
package. As mentioned, I told the administration and anyone who would listen
about the violation of human rights in Mexico, the impact of the American
funded and sponsored War and Drugs.
However,
they refused to listen because we were Mexicans and because of greed. Like the
case of Armando Villa this cannot be swept under the rug – the administration
did this during ZBT controversy when the fraternity was insistent on singing a
fraternity drink song that reveled in the rape of a 13-year old Mexican girl
named Lupe. Resolutions censuring the ZBT were withdraw, and CSUN ended up
paying in access of $100,000 for the ZBT's legal expenses.
This
is not 1993, we have learned from history, and we should not tolerate
imperialism whether in academe or abroad.
RODOLFO
F. ACUNA Crocodile Tears: Lynching’s of Mexicans HispanicVista.com June 16,
2005
http://www.hispanicvista.com/HVC/Opinion/Guest_Columns/062005Acuna.htm
The
U.S. Senate just the other day issued an apology for its history of inaction on
lynchings. It acknowledged decades of obstruction. The Senate heard testimony
from more than 150 descendants of lynching victims. More than 200 anti-lynching
bills had been introduced, three passed the House and seven U.S. presidents
lobbied for such laws. Tellingly, Congress has
never apologized for slavery. HISTORIA: El linchamiento de los mexicanos
Rodolfo F. Acuña
La Opinion
19 de junio de 2005
Hace pocos días, el Senado federal se disculpó por su
falta de actuación a lo largo de la historia contra los linchamientos. Admitió
décadas de obstrucción. El Senado escuchó el testimonio de más de 150
descendientes de víctimas de linchamientos. Más de 200 proyectos de ley fueron
presentados contra los linchamientos, tres fueron aprobados en la Cámara de
Representantes y siete presidentes de Estados Unidos hicieron presión para que
se aprobaran dichas leyes.
Increíblemente, el Congreso nunca ha pedido disculpas por
la esclavitud. Se ha documentado que un total de 4,742 estadounidenses fueron
linchados entre 1882 y 1968, de los cuales 3,452 eran afroamericanos. La
senadora Mary L. Landrieu (demócrata, de Louisiana) apoyó el proyecto de ley
luego de leer la obra de James Allen, Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography
in America (Sin refugio: fotografías de linchamientos en Estados Unidos).
Superando la ironía, algunos conductores de programas radiales de derecha han
aclamado este acto, comparándolo con las maniobras dilatorias que los
demócratas emplean actualmente para evitar el nombramiento vitalicio de jueces
de derecha.
Con relación a este hecho, esta semana he recibido varias
llamadas interesantes de periodistas. Un escritor de Los Angeles Times me llamó
acerca de la información en El Clamor Público, un periódico en español
publicado en Los Ángeles de 1855 a 1859. Es el 150 aniversario del periódico y
el Times quería recordar su existencia.
El 15 de junio, recibí un correo electrónico de Armando
Mígueles, uno de los principales peritos en periódicos en español del siglo
XIX. Armando hizo comentarios acerca de un artículo publicado por el Washington
Post, señalando la ironía de las acciones del Senado. Indicó que en un período
de cuatro años en El Clamor Público solamente, contó 80 linchamientos de
mexicanos, chileno, peruanos, indígenas y negros en California. No está claro
si el libro de Allen incluye esta fuente y si las cifras no contemplan aquellas
de los periódicos en español de Texas, Nuevo México y Arizona. Por ejemplo, los
archivos del Instituto Tuskegee, considerados los registros más completos
acerca de las víctimas de linchamientos, enumeran los linchamientos de 50
mexicanos en los estados de Arizona, California, Nuevo México y Texas.
En The Lynching of Persons of Mexican Origin or Descent
in the United States, 1848 to 1938 (El linchamiento de personas de origen o
ascendencia mexicana en Estados Unidos, de 1848 a 1938) de William D. Carrigan
y Clive Webb, aparecen cifras diferentes: entre 1848 y 1928, según Carrigan y
Webb, la muchedumbre linchó por lo menos a 597 mexicanos. Esta cifra no incluye
muchos incidentes de otras formas de violencia masiva. Esto es significativo,
considerando que la población mexicana era pequeña en comparación a la
población negra.
RODOLFO F. ACUNA Crocodile Tears: Lynching’s of Mexicans
HispanicVista.com June 16, 2005
http://www.hispanicvista.com/HVC/Opinion/Guest_Columns/062005Acuna.htm
The
U.S. Senate just the other day issued an apology for its history of inaction on
lynchings. It acknowledged decades of obstruction. The Senate heard testimony
from more than 150 descendants of lynching victims. More than 200 anti-lynching
bills had been introduced, three passed the House and seven U.S. presidents
lobbied for such laws. Tellingly, Congress has
never apologized for slavery. HISTORIA: El linchamiento de los mexicanos
Rodolfo F. Acuña
La Opinion
19 de junio de 2005
Hace pocos días, el Senado federal se disculpó por su
falta de actuación a lo largo de la historia contra los linchamientos. Admitió
décadas de obstrucción. El Senado escuchó el testimonio de más de 150
descendientes de víctimas de linchamientos. Más de 200 proyectos de ley fueron
presentados contra los linchamientos, tres fueron aprobados en la Cámara de
Representantes y siete presidentes de Estados Unidos hicieron presión para que
se aprobaran dichas leyes.
Increíblemente, el Congreso nunca ha pedido disculpas por
la esclavitud. Se ha documentado que un total de 4,742 estadounidenses fueron
linchados entre 1882 y 1968, de los cuales 3,452 eran afroamericanos. La
senadora Mary L. Landrieu (demócrata, de Louisiana) apoyó el proyecto de ley
luego de leer la obra de James Allen, Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography
in America (Sin refugio: fotografías de linchamientos en Estados Unidos).
Superando la ironía, algunos conductores de programas radiales de derecha han
aclamado este acto, comparándolo con las maniobras dilatorias que los
demócratas emplean actualmente para evitar el nombramiento vitalicio de jueces
de derecha.
Con relación a este hecho, esta semana he recibido varias
llamadas interesantes de periodistas. Un escritor de Los Angeles Times me llamó
acerca de la información en El Clamor Público, un periódico en español
publicado en Los Ángeles de 1855 a 1859. Es el 150 aniversario del periódico y
el Times quería recordar su existencia.
El 15 de junio, recibí un correo electrónico de Armando
Mígueles, uno de los principales peritos en periódicos en español del siglo
XIX. Armando hizo comentarios acerca de un artículo publicado por el Washington
Post, señalando la ironía de las acciones del Senado. Indicó que en un período
de cuatro años en El Clamor Público solamente, contó 80 linchamientos de
mexicanos, chileno, peruanos, indígenas y negros en California. No está claro
si el libro de Allen incluye esta fuente y si las cifras no contemplan aquellas
de los periódicos en español de Texas, Nuevo México y Arizona. Por ejemplo, los
archivos del Instituto Tuskegee, considerados los registros más completos
acerca de las víctimas de linchamientos, enumeran los linchamientos de 50
mexicanos en los estados de Arizona, California, Nuevo México y Texas.
En The Lynching of Persons of Mexican Origin or Descent
in the United States, 1848 to 1938 (El linchamiento de personas de origen o
ascendencia mexicana en Estados Unidos, de 1848 a 1938) de William D. Carrigan
y Clive Webb, aparecen cifras diferentes: entre 1848 y 1928, según Carrigan y
Webb, la muchedumbre linchó por lo menos a 597 mexicanos. Esta cifra no incluye
muchos incidentes de otras formas de violencia masiva. Esto es significativo,
considerando que la población mexicana era pequeña en comparación a la
población negra.
No comments:
Post a Comment