Tancredo went to Miami and declared it a Third World Country. He compared his reception to that he would have received in Havana and talked about the "thugs" who opposed him.
So Brownsville got off light in the Tancredo mauling. Tancredo's level of viciousness is unusual for someone holding public office, but it is certainly not new to the American scene.
I remember undisguised fear, hatred and bigotry even as a child in McAllen. It was just OK to tell the Jewish kids that they had to answer for killing Jesus. It was also OK to speak openly about the laziness and tendency to steal that was part of the Mexican character. Racist jokes and skits were part of Church entertainment. We did not see any African-Americans, but where they fit in this scheme was clear.
I had little trouble assuming that I was most likely superior to a Mexican or a Jew. I heard this in polite society. Some of the kid's parents talked about these things. Not usually when a Mexican or a Jew was around, but when it was just us, then it was fine. It would not have been wrong if we were not among ourselves, just impolite.
This was not universally true. A visiting preacher talked about the song, "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world, red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world." He had been a missionary where there were children red or yellow or black or brown and he didn't like this racism. The parents were polite to him too, but there was discussion that he had "gone a little native" with all the time he had spent in other countries.
It would also turn ugly. We had fights based on race. The older students bragged about driving into the Mexican part of town with a blank pistol to shoot at people point blank out of the car window just to enjoy their fear.
There is no reason to believe Tancredo himself would ever be a vigilante. He has the mantle of respectability and at a certain level of power, it is easy to keep your hands clean.
But the vigilante man is fixture of the American landscape. Modern so-called "minutemen" organizations guarding the border in their lawn chairs and coolers are not yet particularly menacing, but they can get there. Tancredo went out and told the forming minutemen organization that they were "genuine American heroes."
Writer and historian Mike Davis in his collection of essays, In Praise of Barbarians:
The vigilantes are back. In the 1850's they lynched Irishmen; in the 1870's they terrorized the Chinese; in the 1910's they murdered striking Wobblies; in the 1920's they organized "Bash a Jap" campaigns; and in the 1930's they welcomed Dust Bowl refugees with tear gas and buckshot. Vigilantes have been to the American West what the Ku Klux Kan has been to the South: vicious and cowardly bigotry organized as a self-righteous mob.
Davis describes Tancredo's genuine American heroes:
In any event, they turned out 150 sorry-ass gun freaks and sociopaths who spent a few days in lawn chairs cleaning their rifles, jabbering to the press, and peering through binoculars at the cactus-covered mountains where several hundred immigrants perish each year from heatstroke and thirst.... Confronted with the Minutemen and the hundreds of extra border patrol sent to keep them out of trouble, campesinos simply waited patiently on the Sonora side for the vigilantes to get sunburned and go home.
The Minutemen had apparently imported themselves for their show. The greater danger arises when the local interests get riled. Steinbeck describes the process like this:
Men who had never been hungry saw the eyes of the hungry....They said, "These goddamned Okies are dirty and ignorant. They're degenerate, sexual maniacs. These goddamned Okies are thieves. They'll steal anything. They've got no sense of property rights."
And then:
The local people whipped themselves into a mould of cruelty. Then they formed unites, squads, and armed them--armed them with clubs, with gas, with guns. We own the country. We can't let these Okies get out of hand.Perhaps the story that King Christian X of Denmark donned the Star of David to protect the Jews of Denmark is apocryphal. But the idea is solid. If the City of Brownsville were to build even a short and inexpensive wall north of the city, we could give a concrete repudiation to Tancredo.
8 comments:
I saddens me that the debate related to all forms of bigotry and racism has been effectively silenced in this country.
Nearly 18 years ago I was let go from my first job out of law school. I was invited by my boss to go to Easter services at the Baptist Church in River Oaks in Houston. During a preservice Sunday school they were celebrating the conversion of a 13 year old Jewish boy to being a Baptist. I asked how they thought the parents of this boy felt now that he was not going to complete his Jewish transition into adulthood? They laughed and sad one less Jew - I walked out - Monday morning I was fired.
As we all know I am real angry with Obama - we cannot and should not run from this ugly part of who we are.
People who were racist long before the Civil Rights movement were just a product of a flawed society. But after the Civil Rights movement took center stage, and Kennedy's speech to the nation in 1962 endorsing the Civil Rights Bill, and after its passage in 1964, there were no excuses. I have always felt that anyone who was a racist or segregationist later than 1962 [on charitable days I would say 1964] should be politically dead, like the ex-Nazi's in post-war Germany. But they weren't, at least not in the Republican Party. Trent Lott should have been politically dead. Jerry Falwell, who claimed moral superiority to everyone, would have been shunned under my definition. Even GHW Bush would be for opposing the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 and trying to defeat the only southern proponent of it, Ralph Yarborough, by playing the race card in the Senate race that year. {He did later support the Open Housing Act of 1968 as a House member, though}. I'd throw in anyone who was a Mormon before 1978 (the year they quit officially discriminating against blacks) unless they were demonstrably fighting within the church to change that.
Mr. Stapleton,
I am no lawyer.
But didn't the great Federal Judge Reynaldo G. Garza call for a second river defense of the homeland. Wasn't the second river opinion basically supported by the appellate courts.
Maybe Tancredo has legal and logical basis in what he says about building a northern wall.
Furthermore for argument sake, let's say "the Mayor" is correct in saying that the Northern Wall would violate the flawed Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. Wouldn't he also say that the Sarita and Falfurias Checkpoints violate the treaty as well since they are a checkpoint subconsciously causing us valley folk to feel second class citizens.
Even further more still, since "the Mayor" loves and is endeared by Mexico, would he chastise them for violating the spirit of the said Treaty by calling for an end to their second river checkpoints along the way Monterey?
Isn't the said Treaty a call for a border and wouldn't you also say the wall and the second rivers just a way to adhere to border the Treaty created?
Just some random thoughts.
V
For tactical efficiency given the criteria Sector Chief Vittello and Congressman Hunter described it would be much easier and cheaper to start the wall at the Sarita checkpoint and cross the ranch land between Sarita and Falfurrias than to run it along the river. No need for bends, curves or topographical adjustments, just one long straight shot. Also DHS will have plenty of visibility after they clear the path next to the fencing to facilitate apprehension of undocumented migrants.
Then we can check out and in when we want to go visit family and friends who have moved away. We already look much like the DMZ so why not formalize the situation for all to see. Simple, practical and effective, and it would allow us to keep our homesteads, environmental corridors, our historical sites and our economic development plans for the river, all contained in our own semi autonomous region.
Food for thought.
Hobbs
Mr. Hobbs,
Good thought but then we would be an occuppied territory, right?
Wouldn't we then be part of Mexico as claimed by the Two Loco Mayors?
V
Stop whining! And why do you publish?
El Coyote
Mr. El Coyote,
I don't know who are you are talking to but I figure I might be able to give you an answer.
I don't know because bloggers can.
First Amendment? A place to vent?
Take your pick.
Either way, it is therapy as I believe Mr. Stapleton has mentioned before.
V
RG V.
We would not be part of Mexico because the placement of a security line/fence to the north of us would not affect the international boundry. States do not cede land by placing defensive structures within the boundries of their own land.
The placement of a fence north of us would allow DHS to maintain status quo here or even open the region up as a free trade zone b/c they would have a "secure" line of defense to the north.
The area would then be essentially a buffer zone in which goods and services could be provided with less restriction, ie. a regional duty free zone. Economically the prosects are wide open. Just an idea.
Hobbs
Post a Comment