Posted by Tina
I guess over the weekend Google chose to celebrate and acknowledge the work of Cesar Chavez in lieu of tipping their gooogley hat to Christianity. That’s okay, it’s their choice to do as they please but, as The Daily Caller points out today, Chavez wasn’t always on the lefty side, at least in terms of immigration. He was strongly against illegal immigrants back in the day:
As a labor leader, Chavez realized that uncontrolled immigration undercut his workers’ bargaining position-as late as 1979 he inveighed against “illegal alien strikebreakers” before Congress…
You can always count on progressives. Lacking grounding in basic principles, and true to form, they just make the rules up as he they go along.
Numbers USA has the Chavez testimony:
For so many years we have been involved in agricultural strikes; organizing almost 30 years as a worker, as an organizer, and as president of the union–and for all these almost 30 years it is apparent that when the farm workers strike and their strike is successful, the employers go to Mexico and have unlimited, unrestricted use of illegal alien strikebreakers to break the strike. And, for over 30 years, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has looked the other way and assisted in the strikebreaking.
I do not remember one single instance in 30 years where the Immigration service has removed strikebreakers. We have observed all these years the Immigration Service has a policy as it has been related to us, that they will not take sides in any agricultural labor dispute. They have not taken sides means permitting the growers to have unrestricted use of illegal aliens as strikebreakers, and if that isn’t taking sides, I don’t know what taking sides means.
Today the man would be labeled a racist…if he were a white conservative or, god forbid, a Tea Party supporter.
Meanwhile the debate continues on immigration control with Obama pushing for a quick fix (Remember the Healthcare fix…shudder) for his legacy. Marco Rubio is slamming on the brakes following reports of a near done deal.
I’m not in a big hurry for another lousy piece of legislation pasted together behind closed doors for politics. If it’s going to be done it should be done right!
Tina: “I guess over the weekend Google chose to celebrate and acknowledge the work of Cesar Chavez in lieu of tipping their gooogley hat to Christianity.”
Chavez was a Christian. Well, a radical Catholic with some pretty extreme beliefs, but still.
“Chavez wasn’t always on the lefty side, at least in terms of immigration. He was strongly against illegal immigrants back in the day:”
That doesn’t make him “not on the lefty side.” His anti-immigration sentiment was heavily influenced by his lefty beliefs on unions.
“You can always count on progressives. Lacking grounding in basic principles, and true to form, they just make the rules up as he they go along.”
This is a non-sequiter. What you really seem to be saying is that all liberals are supposed to agree on everything, all the time, even across a span of about 50 years.
Chavez was a very complicated man. The Atlantic has a great article today showing his many contradictions, and his turn to crazytown in the latter part of his life. But we don’t tend to judge heroes in this country based on their least flattering attributes.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-madness-of-cesar-chavez/308557/?c=upworthy
Hilariously, Michelle Malkin initially reported that Google was honoring Hugo Chavez, and a lot of idiots believed here.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/louispeitzman/people-who-think-google-is-honoring-hugo-chavez
“Chavez wasn’t always on the lefty side, at least in terms of immigration. He was strongly against illegal immigrants back in the day.”
Jack, this criticism sort of makes sense if race was the determining factor in Chavez’s position, but it wasn’t. Economic self-interest was the thing.
That a farm workers/employees’ is opposed to the employer/consumer’s is a given, but if the employee and the consumer are the same person, the opposing interests must be compromised or your ecomony is in the dumper.
It also, unhappily, is starting to look very much like race is the determining factor in all of your determinations. Tsk.
Chavez has become a sort of folk hero due to the leftie media – even back then. If you had to deal daily with farm workers, the majority did NOT want Chavez meddling. Those workers could make more money being paid by the piece – or box, or bushel or whatever they harvested than they could earn with the hourly wage Chavez wanted.
If you could get hold of one of those union contracts Chavez wanted, you’d see that the big beneficiaries of farm labor “reform” was the UFW and NOT the members.
A lot like unions are today . . . . . .
Chris: “What you really seem to be saying is that all liberals are supposed to agree on everything, all the time, even across a span of about 50 years.”
Libby: “It also, unhappily, is starting to look very much like race is the determining factor in all of your determinations.”
Let’s see, from the liberal/progressive perspective there are two possibilities behind my intent…I’m racist or I think liberals have to or always agree on things all the time.
What? Leaving aside the ridiculous charge of racism I can’t think of a time when liberals, for all the squabbling, ever did anything but fall in line when it comes to the vote…lock step!
Basic principles never enter their minds! You know, basic things, like upholding laws or standing by the basic idea that laws are in place to keep order.
Basic principles and ideas are not in the liberal/progressive mind set. It’s all politics and activism all of the time. They are not grounded and thus…
A progressive like Cesar Chavez was against illegals coming across the border when it didn’t serve his union activism. Those farm workers from across the Rio grande were nothin’ more than scabs! But once he firmly established the union, then suddenly those same farm workers coming to America illegally were fine and dandy (now they had worth…he could sign them up). And anyone who was against their illegal entry MUST BE a racist; it’s the only possible explanation.
Boggles the mind.
Progressives are against vouchers because of the teachers union but a great many of the elites send their kids to private schools and, as it turns out, so do teachers. Vouchers are not considered on the basis of ensuring a good education but on how they would harm the union hold…and break up a system of power and money for democrats.
It isn’t about doing the right thing or doing what will work. It is about power and money.
J great points!
It seems to me that until Chavez came along Americans and Mexicans got along pretty well in this country, whether farm worker or next door neighbor. But wherever progressives go they breed resentment, distrust, animosity, and division and there sure has been a lot of that since the sixties.
Activism is by its very nature meant to stir up trouble and pit one group against another. Money and power are the motives and some poor person becomes the pawn in the scheme. Seems to me if we could rid ourselves of the influence of these progressive extremist leaders a lot of our problems would cease and people might even get back to the business of creating opportunity and work again.
Tina: “What? Leaving aside the ridiculous charge of racism I can’t think of a time when liberals, for all the squabbling, ever did anything but fall in line when it comes to the vote…lock step!”
I honestly don’t know what you get out of being so loudlu, proudly ignorant.
“It seems to me that until Chavez came along Americans and Mexicans got along pretty well in this country, whether farm worker or next door neighbor.”
Bahahahahaha
“But wherever progressives go they breed resentment, distrust, animosity, and division and there sure has been a lot of that since the sixties.”
As opposed to before the sixties, when America was a land of racial harmony!
I used to think Libby overused the racism charge, but Tina, when you say things like Americans were more free prior to 1935, or imply that racism wasn’t a major problem in this country until the 1960s, what the hell else do you expect people to think of you? Those are incredibly racist things to say! You don’t get to say horrible things like that and then clutch your pearls whenever it’s pointed out to you that you have some seriously racist ideas.
Chris: “I honestly don’t know what you get out of being so loudlu, proudly ignorant.”
Empty, ignorant response.
“Bahahahahaha”
Empty, ignorant response lacking in experience over time.
“As opposed to before the sixties, when America was a land of racial harmony!”
Ignorant, off point response.
The sixties are over…get over it!
“…when you say things like Americans were more free prior to 1935…or imply that racism wasn’t a major problem in this country until the 1960s…”
That is not what I was saying; that is your interpretation which falls from a limited class conscious mind and the activist saturated box you live in.
“Those are incredibly racist things to say!”
BS.
“You don’t get to say horrible things like that and then clutch your pearls whenever it’s pointed out to you that you have some seriously racist ideas.”
I know, it’s really horrible to suggest that in very general terms people got along better before progressive commie activists started telling blacks and Mexicans that all Republicans hate them and then lured them promises of freebies, convincing them that because republicans hate them so much they don’t have a shot at life without that big government help. Then when communications opportunities opened up and Republicans started pushing back, including successful blacks, those same race baiting progressives target them and set out to completely destroy them. Political manipulation of the minority segment of the population, taking advantage of the crisis Southern Democrats created through the very REAL RACISM of the sixties South, is manipulation not inclusion or caring. Your PC crap was built on a flat out lie.
Go peddle your PC crap somewhere else I’ve run out of patience.
“Empty, ignorant response.”
Yours was an empty, ignorant comment. If you can’t think of one time liberals have not voted in lockstep response–even though you, yourself, brought up a recent time they have done so *two days ago*–then you’re not even trying.
“Empty, ignorant response lacking in experience over time.”
It was an empty, ignorant comment when you said “It seems to me that until Chavez came along Americans and Mexicans got along pretty well in this country, whether farm worker or next door neighbor.”
I mean, does that require an actual rebuttal? Does anyone else here not understand why this is so hilariously wrong?
“Ignorant, off point response.”
No, it was a valid, satirical critique against your constantly repeated assertions that racial division in this country increased after the 1960s, when segregation was ended.
“The sixties are over…get over it!”
Non-sequiter.
I wrote: “…when you say things like Americans were more free prior to 1935…or imply that racism wasn’t a major problem in this country until the 1960s…”
You then wrote: “That is not what I was saying; that is your interpretation which falls from a limited class conscious mind and the activist saturated box you live in.”
Tina, they are your *exact words.*
Last week, you wrote on another article:
“Prior to 1935 the people of this nation were much freer than we are today.”
That’s racist! Do I really need to explain why? It makes you sound as if you are only talking about white people when you say “Americans.” Black Americans, Asian Americans, and others certainly were not more free before 1935 than they are today. Nor were women, which makes your statement sexist as well.
Chris: “…you, yourself, brought up a recent time they have done so…”
Name it so I can defend my position…or would you rather just continue to throw stink bombs?
“Does anyone else here not understand why this is so hilariously wrong?”
Tell me Mr. smarty pants how many years experience do you have to discuss such things? Not all of us lived in Mississippi! After WWII most people were capable of living and working side by side without animosity and trouble. Good manners and civility made it possible. It wasn’t perfect but considering the big melting pot we were living in it was working pretty well. (The South is the exception; a black spot that needed addressing). My grandfather, born and raised in Georgia, worked with another machinest in Los Angeles…a black man. My mother worked in the grocery store in New Mexico with several men of Mexican heritage who were butchers. Our schools were less mixed than today but mixed none the less and we all played together.
But I was talking about government involvement in our lives. We are less free today generally than we were at any time in our history.
You are incapable of making a general comparison about economic and regulatory conditions that affected Americans, which is what I was talking about, because you are so focused on race. Is it possible for you to acknowledge that most Americans were less burdened by government involvement? Is it possible for you to think without bringing issues of race or gender into the conversation?
“That’s racist!”
It could be racist if I had been talking about the things that directly affected minorities only…horrible things to keep them down. I wasn’t! I was talking about tax laws and regulations that burden business and workers and affected all people.
The US government and most state governments have grown incredibly, especially since the sixties, making all citizens less free…and that is a fact….it has nothing to do with race. Which isn’t to say that a great many of the things that we have implemented since the sixties have ensured that blacks and minorities remain hopelessly dependent on government rather than depending on themselves…and flourishing.
You want to know one good reason that the black community has a high unemployment rate? They were lured into government programs…“I’ll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” Lyndon Baines Johnson about the Great Society plan, according to Ronald Kessler in his book, “Inside the White House”.
“which makes your statement sexist as well.”
Women lived as they wished and as the times and tradition dictated. When they wanted more they worked to achieve more. WWII changed a lot. The fact that a bunch a screeching women ran around in the sixties demanding rights is irrelevant. Women are in the workforce in larger numbers today because they were encouraged to go to college and they worked hard to make it happen.
It’s a damn shame they can’t realize it isn’t really easier for men. Men face prejudice and competition when attempting to rise in business or practice too.
My parents raised me by the golden rule and to judge others by the “content of their character”. It is absolute truth for me that we all came from the same source and, as brothers and sisters, we all deserve love and respect. If that isn’t good enough for you, Chris, then I suspect you have a perception/communication problem.
Tina: “Is it possible for you to acknowledge that most Americans were less burdened by government involvement? Is it possible for you to think without bringing issues of race or gender into the conversation?”
It isn’t possible to have a serious, informed opinion about government involvement in people’s lives prior to 1935 *without* bringing issues of race or gender into the conversation. That’s because race and gender were huge factors in government-assisted (and in many cases, mandated) discrimination. For example, government was MUCH more involved in people’s sex lives prior to 1935; most states had laws about what consensual sex acts married couples could engage in, and also had laws against even distributing *information* about contraception. Which leads into another example: obscenity laws were much stronger back then, so free speech was more tightly restricted by the government. States were allowed to ban books they found offensive, which included many literary classics. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states, and interracial couples were looked upon with suspicion. Countless black men were falsely accused of raping white women, and when a town thought themselves too classy and forward-thinking for a lynching, they used the power of government as a tool to imprison and, in many cases, murder the accused.
It is not at all clear to me that Americans were less regulated prior to 1935. The personal lives of Americans were regulated in ways that we are, thankfully, free of today. You are correct that there are more regulations on businesses, but many of those regulations actually help *secure* freedom. The invention of child labor laws, the 40-hour work week, and laws ensuring a fair wage helped workers gain freedom from oppressive working conditions.
When you use tax law and business regulations to argue that Americans were more free prior to 1935, you’re revealing a very myopic and privileged definition of freedom.
Of course it’s possible Chris, when civil rights isn’t the only thing that consumes ones mind.
You are right about the bigotry and the laws that were very restrictive. I don’t dispute any of that. My point is about government getting bigger and more intrusive:
Compliance costs are what it costs businesses and taxpayers to comply with regulations each year. That cost hits people of all classes and races.
Pie charts comparing 1947 to 2010 can be found here (scroll down). A good way to show you one reason that people working in the private sector are not seeing their wages rise…no matter their race.
See also here and here.
You are still consumed entirely with equal rights issues. I lived during much of what you have read about…no need to lecture. I will tell you that my very poor mother lived next door to a black couple who were very kind to my mother and her little brothers when they had very little to eat. Her father, my grandfather, used to sit on the porch and talk with his old war buddies from the civil war (fought for the North) about going after those that were doing the lynchings. I have first hand knowledge about how ordinary people lived. In many ways they were all in the same boat. I’m clear that what we read in books about slavery and discrimination, a sad and terrible part of our history, doesn’t tell the whole story. History tends to focus on the big things but all that was lived during those times were not the same. I honestly think things would improve if we put less emphasis on rights and started thinking more about opportunities.
Tell you what, I won’t “clutch my pearls” (boy are you off base) if you won’t cry racist ever time you open your mouth…can you do it? I doubt it…you seem to think any other way.
I repeat my original OPINION: “…wherever progressives go they breed resentment, distrust, animosity, and division and there sure has been a lot of that since the sixties.”