It’s not a coincidence when governments choose and pick certain men as icons, name buildings and streets after

them, or elevate them to holiday status. These people, in some cases, are seen as prime examples of what the

rulers want us to emulate; the kind of behavior they hope the masses will follow blindly and accept as heroes of

change. But, in fact, these figures are most likely helping to promote and maintain the status quo. In the case of

Cesar Chavez, it included activities such as assisting the government in keeping “wetbacks” out of America’s

work force and the exclusion of immigrants in the struggle to participate in becoming unionized.

For those of us that walked the picket lines with Cesar Chavez and UFW members in the 1970’s, particularly the

Safeway markets in East Los Angeles, the following facts will tend to dampen the nostalgia of our youth. But as

adults, we must now decipher the past and create wisdom for new generations to learn from Cesar Chavez’

shortcomings and the errors about the mistreatment of vulnerable immigrant workers. Chavez, like many before

him, is not a symbol of drastic change as much as he is a protector of keeping the system the same.

Today we see the Minutemen on the US/Mexico border in the states of Arizona and California. Their purpose is to

keep out illegal aliens, not spacemen but immigrant workers, from crossing the border. We can not overlook the

new hysteria of racism, nor can we accept that which discriminates against immigrant workers based on

ethnicity and poverty. Can you imagine Cesar Chavez helping them? You should, because that is what was going

on in 1979 when Chavez and the United Farm Workers launched a campaign on the Arizona border to keep

Mexican workers from entering America. There was a 100-mile long stretch of land called the “wet line” that

turned into a dangerous place for undocumented immigrant workers. They only searched for something

humankind has been looking for since the beginning of time – a warm place to sleep, a meal, a job, a place to raise

a family, a place that welcomes them with compassion, and not the gun-toting Minutemen of today or like the UFW

in 1979 who beat them as they attempted to cross. (New York Times, February 7, 1979)

The acceptance of the illegal status of some immigrant workers plays into the hands of those who wish to keep

workers divided and perpetuate the scapegoat theories that persist in newspapers across the country. The

working class remains divided on the issue, placing greater tensions among Mexicans and other Latinos against

native-born Chicanos and African-Americans in the workplace. It is unfortunate that Chavez pursued and

contributed to that line of thinking and his legacy haunted him then, as it does us today.

“Most all California farm workers have people in their families who have trouble with their legal status, so any

union trying to organize them cannot risk taking the side of the I.N.S., the hated migra. Yet the UFW sometimes

supported the use of the migra against scabs, sacrificing long-term respect for a possible short-term gain.” (The

Nation, Cesar Chavez Ghost: The Decline and Fall of the UFW, Frank Bardacke)

Even the greatest labor activist of our time, Bert Corona, spoke out against the anti-immigrant tactics of Cesar

Chavez and the UFW.

“Later in the 1960’s, when I began to organize undocumented immigrants full-time in the Hermandad Mexicana

Nacional, I did have an important difference with Cesar. This involved his, and the union’s, position on the need to

apprehend and deport undocumented Mexican immigrants who were being used as scabs by the growers…We

supported an open immigration policy, as far as Mexico was concerned, that did not victimize Mexicanos because

they did not have documents. We did not support deportation of people.” (Mario T. Garcia, Memories of Chicano

History, The life and narrative of Bert Corona, UC press, 1994)

What Cesar Chavez and those in the Minutemen Project failed to see is that immigration is the foundation of our

society. Franklin D. Roosevelt expressed it this way, “Remember, remember always that all of us…are descended

from immigrants and revolutionists.”

Harvard economist George J. Borjas explains, “We should keep in mind that someone who decides to leave their

country in search of better opportunities will be especially ready to make an effort and utilize all of their resources

and talents to move ahead.” (Migration, a Positive Balance) Borjas’ question of the day: “Why does the host

country benefit? Because the market wage equals the productivity of the last immigrant hired. As a result,

immigrants increase national income by more than what it costs to employ them. Put differently, all the

immigrants hired except for the last one contribute more to the economy than they get paid.” (Economics of

Migration) This gives good capitalists a reason to allow the flow of immigrants from Mexico. So it is easy to see

why even President Gorge Bush said of the Minutemen, “I’m against vigilantes in the United States of America.”

Bush wants immigrants so corporations can exploit them for cheap labor. Chavez wanted them out to protect the

UFW, instead of including them and making them part of the labor struggle. And the Minutemen do not want

Spanish-speaking immigrant workers doing work nobody else wants, in schools sitting next to their children or

see them at the local doctor’s office when they are sick.

Cesar Chavez, like the Minutemen, needed to see the human value and advantage of helping immigrant workers

become part of the fabric of society, rather than excluding them for their plight.

The frame work for keeping immigrants out of America is against the natural historical tendencies to seek out a

better life. We must reject accepting the randomness of being born anywhere on Earth as our only home, as an

absolute determinate for defining legitimacy or legality. The mosaic of civilization lies in the great migrations of

people. Human movements and their cultures cannot be dictated by governments, as much as they would like us

to believe it. The Berlin Wall could not separate us; The Great Wall of China was not long enough; Palestinians and

Israelis continue fighting to end this separation, because history is about where we have been, where we are

going and what happens when we arrive.

As long as our children are taught in school that the heroes of governments, whose names are on buildings and

streets, are examples they should follow, the longer it will take to make revolutionary change. The changes must

come by breaking down how the state apparatus promotes these international antagonisms through nationalistic

fervor, which leads to each state believing that they are more superior, leading to arrogant and false images over

immigrant workers.

We need change that welcomes all immigrants to a new land. What Chavez missed was that a revolution fights for

all people’s rights, regardless of how a government or union chooses to label them, and that all workers are

entitled to justice.

Thank you to Chuck O'Connell for pointing out a few of the conflicting positions that Chavez embraced.

-Robert Bracamontes

The historical record is clear, and fairly well known: Cesar Chavez opposed undocumented workers in the U.S. That's hardly news. But by ending the story in the 1980’s, Bob has told only half the story, and not the most relevant part. And his half-told tale has left a bitter taste in many people’s mouths.

The UFW of the 21st century has actively supported guest worker programs and rallied against deportations and immigration raids. Dolores Huerta, oft-forgotten co-founder and First Vice President Emeritus of the United Farm Workers of America, fought for a decade for farm worker amnesty, and saw it come to fruition in the Immigration Act of 1985. She actively engaged in support for the DREAM Act. She’s lent her name to the Dolores Huerta Center for Worker Rights, which routinely helps undocumented workers through governmental bureaucracy.

Repeating well-known history for its own sake is of little value. The historical institutionalization of Cesar Chavez, like the historical re-make of M. L. King, Jr.'s record and the Constitutional authors, sets them up as guides for today speaking from a world of the past, complete with sound bites and standard press lines for the issues confronting us. It is only when the historical record is seen in its context and adjusted to the lens of the present that it has meaning to the living. Can anyone really believe that Chavez would have stood with the Minutemen? Of course, that’s absurd on its face. But that’s what comes of calling on farmworkers of the last century to answer the issues of today.

Chavez believed at the time that he waa acting in the historical tradition of the labor movement, especially the socialist-influenced labor movement, of fighting attempts by employers to smash unions by bringing in contract laborers or immigrants allowed in expressly for the purpose of breaking a strike. Certainly the question of whether the stand he took was wise or just can be debated. But his motives cannot; he was trying to protect the organizing rights of desperately poor workers. He was old enough to remember the Bracero program and the terrible harm it did. And the motives of people at the time who claimed to be protecting the "rights" of poor immigrants to cross picket lines and take jobs where they would be worked like 19th century Russian serfs can certainly be questioned.

Having Known Cesar and been a part of the UFW, I can state that he opposed the use of undocumented workers by agribusiness to undermine the work of the union.

He wanted Mexico to understand the struggle of Chicanos and for Mexicans to assist by not buying into the roles of scabs. He was criticized for his stance on undocs, but many failed to see that it was the US government he held responsible for exploiting undocs to defeat the union.

He also opposed violence of any kind and if incidents of violence broke out against undocs, it was not ordered nor condoned by him.

For yours and everyone’s information, Cesar is not a Mexican hero he is a Chicano hero.

¡Viva la Causa!

Because politics make for strange bedfellows. And with the relatively recent backing of the IRCA, he certainly would have. He is no hero of mine, nor are the poliTRICKS that normally associate with those of UFW.

the UFW can keep their virgen of Guadalupe, their democratic party, and their whole coconut, conformist platform altogether.

Cuauhtemoc. Now that's a REAL HERO! Someone who undertook major TORTURE just to keep his mouth shut.

Cuitlahuac. Another HERO who endured SMALL POX and ultimately DEATH just to save our REAL FLAG!

Malinalxochitl. I leave that up to YOU ALL to do YOUR homework. Right, Leslie?

Answer these.

Why hasn't Mexico made the US accountable for breeching el Tratado de Guadalupe-Hidalgo?

Why are Mexicans coming to Aztlan after we Chicanos fought for our rights?

Why is Mexico so screwed up?

Don't critize Chicanos when you haven't done a single thing to improve conditions in Mexico. Are you waiting for Chicanos to save Mexico too?

Mexicatiahui said, "I leave that up to YOU ALL to do YOUR homework. Right, Leslie?"

And I don't my indigenous history like I should, no doubt. But I try to undo my Euro-American learning with pointers like yours whenever I can. So thanks, I'll check out all three of the ancestors you mentioned, especially Malinalxochitl, who's new to me.

But especially, I thank you for bringing them into the discussion. That's not for me to do, I think, but they certainly belong here.

After receiving many different responses to my last article, “The Truth About a Mexican Hero,“ I have written the following reply. A special thanks to all of you who let me reprint your emails here, as we all try to understand the query of, “The Truth about a Mexican Hero.” I hold all of you who sent emails in the highest regard and hope that we can always speak to each other in a free and unrestricted forum that is lacking today in the mainstream media. I would like to acknowledge the following professors for taking the time to participate in this dialogue and article about a sensitive issue in the Chicano movement: Mario Barrera of Berkeley, Noam Chomsky of MIT, Chuck O’Connell of UC Irvine, and Jorge Mariscal of UC San Diego. Read it all at www.onlinewithbob.com

to hell with aztlan, another lie built upon lies.

you do not represent us white man(xicano/mex/spanish/colonial)

written in response to the UFW contract agreement with Gallo wines of Sonoma;



So now that the UFW organized Gallo boicot is over, is Gallo committed to discontinuing use of toxic and carcinogenic pesticides?

Am not going to celebrate with a bottle of Gallo wine. Am continuing the Gallo boicot due to their continued use of pesticides. If anything i would support local organic vinyards that care enough about their workers to cease any direct exposure to pesticides. Smaller farms usually get to know their workers personally, an impossibility with large corporations like Gallo. The UFW can help workers on organic farms also, though the need may not be as strong there as the naturally oppressive Gallo corporation. Gallo's operation is inherently unsustainable and they are unable to discontinue use of pesticides. Pesticide drift from Gallo vinyards continues to enter the lungs of people thoughout Sonoma. The UFW may compromise on certain issues, however abolition of pesticide exposure to workers isn't on their list of "realistic expectations."

"Farmworkers who are exposed to toxic pesticides on an ongoing basis are at greater risk for cancer, birth defects, depression and other diseases, as well as work-related injury. Under current U.S. pesticide law, farmworkers are not treated as equals with the rest of society. Pesticide cancer and other disease risks are permitted to be ten times higher for farmworkers than the general population."

above from Beyond Pesticides;

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/news/daily_news_archive/2005/07_19_05.htm

We can continue to expect immigrant grape pickers employed by Gallo to be exposed to toxic and carcinogenic pesticides. Maybe their pay raise can pay for ineffective chemotherapy treatment for cancer? Doubt it..

If any Gallo wine bottle ever enters my hands i'll smash it on the ground without purchasing it in honor of all the people who died of cancer from pesticide exposure while working in Gallo's corporate vinyards..

Gallo vinyards needs to be shut down and land redistributed to the surrounding community and immigrant grape workers. Migrant workers can own and profit from the land they work, they'll treat it better than a corporation..

This may seem unrealistic for the UFW also, yet in an anarchist free state this would be the most likely outcome. The ecosystem, people and the economy would benefit from the removal of corporate vinyards from Sonoma and elsewhere..

As Castro would say, Viva la revolucion!



luna moth

these migrant pickers could always work in another field so to speak, or just stay South of the border and Gallo wouldnt poison them.