April 27-
May 3, 2008
The Chicano / Latino Experience in the
United States
and Our Similarities with the People of
Venezuela
By
Dr. Jess G. Nieto
Executive Director
Heritage of
America
Educational & Cultural Foundation
Chicano & Latino
Scholastic & Leadership
Academy
Professor- Department of
Chicano & Latino Studies of
California
State
University
Long Beach
President of Nieto & Associates: Marketing & Advertising & Cuatro Vientos Internacionales, Inc.
1004 H Street Suite F
Bakersfield
,
California
93304
Tel: 661- 325-5098
FAX 661- 322 3212
It is indeed an honor for me to be able to be part of the
first Chicano / Latino delegation to visit
Venezuela
. Not only is this a joyful
experience for me but it also reminds me of the enormous responsibility this
delegation has in opening the doors for further relationships, dialogue, and
collaborations with our friends of this beautiful country.
I am proud of our Mexican and Latino roots in the
United States
, and I am also proudly painfully aware of the hardships, struggles, and
horrible problems our group has had in our country.
But I am also keenly aware of the many triumphs, achievements,
sacrifices, and contributions our ancestors had made to the founding and
development of our country.
I live in
Bakersfield
,
California
in the state of
California
which is in the
San Joaquin
Valley
(or
Central Valley
as it is also known). The Valley
contributes to the wealth of the state of
California
through its agriculture and petroleum industry, making it, if it were a county,
the country with the 7th or
8th largest economy in
the world. And yet in the midst of
all of this wealth, the Chicanos and Latinos constitute the largest group of the
population in
California
(46%) and the
San Joaquin
Valley
at 55% and
56% in
Kern
County
. The
Bakersfield
School District
which is the largest kindergarten through 8th grade school district
in the state has 74% of its students classified as Hispanic or Latino.
It should be stated in this “land of plenty,” if the
San Joaquin
Valley
was a state of the Union, the Valley would be the 49th state out of
50 with
Mississippi
being the lowest, and in fact, the
San Joaquin
Valley
has been referred to by social science writers as the Appalachia West of the
U.S.
The
San Joaquin
Valley
would be classified as a “developing nation” or a Third World country with
the inherent characteristics is has in the Valley!
Chicanos and Latinos represent the population group with the least
income, the least education, the highest levels of unemployment and
underemployment, the most poverty, the
highest levels of communicable disease in the nation, higher levels of
alcoholism than any other group, the highest levels of drug abuse, and highest
levels of teenage pregnancy in the country.
To repeat, all of the indices that would qualify this region as an
“undeveloped country” or as a
Third World
nation are present here in this “land of plenty.
Our people have fought these economic and political
inequalities in government and in other social sectors like in education.
The lack of protection for Chicano and Latino workers, especially in the
agricultural field, lead to many examples of exploitation, injustices, and
unfair treatment. It has been only
since the decade of the 1960s when the efforts of farm labor organizer Cesar
Chavez and the United Farm Workers led to improvements for farm workers.
Chicanos and Latinos were segregated in schools and other
public places and it was not until the late 1960s and early 1970s that
desegregation began to occur after horrific battles against the white controlled
establishment.
Changes in the political electoral process did not begin to
occur until the late 1970s and early 1980s, and there is still a great deal to
do in this arena in obtaining political representation for our people.
The battle has just begun although Chicano and Latino populations now
constitute the majority of many cities, counties, and it is the largest ethnic
group in the state of
California
.
We believe that it is necessary is to link up with other
groups in this nation and certainly with other countries to seek the development
and establishment of models of interrelationships to work for mutual benefit.
We must think of ways in which we can work in ways that can be of mutual
benefit. I am hopeful that we
can achieve this historic type of relationship.
It is this bittersweet experience and historical memory
that we have that ties us closer to our Venezuelan brothers.
Both of our countries were part of a historically important part of the
independence movement against
Spain
. Although the dream of
Venezuela
’s Simon Bolivar, one of the most important figures of the War for
Independence
by Nueva Espana, was not fulfilled in a united America Latina due to the
fragmentation of the hemisphere into territories and countries, nonetheless, we
share a shared important historical commonality of struggle and eventual triumph
of achieving national independence.
We also share the experience of the Yankee’s Manifest
Destiny in which los norteamericanos sought to control and develop North America
from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans even though
Mexico
’s
northern territories
stood in the way. This missionary
zeal was deeply ingrained in the American psyche.
Americans believed from the earliest times when John Wintrop proclaimed
his dream of building a “city upon the hill” to which the world would look
at
America
for guidance and inspiration, that Americans developed a sense that they were a
special people. This “Manifest
Destiny” made many Americans believe that God had selected them to be a
“special people” with the inalienable right to secure, populate, develop,
and control lands occupied by inferior “savages,” or non-whites.
A poem by Rudyard Kipling encouraged this missionary fervor when he
wrote:
“Take
up the White Man’s burden
Send
forth the best ye breed,
Go
bind your sons to exile
To
serve your captives’ need;
To
wait in heavy harness
On
fluttered folk and wild.
Your
new-caught sullen peoples,
Half
devil and half child.”
Mexico refused to sell California in 1846 to President
James Polk and the United States, so true to
his presidential campaign that if he could not obtain California and other
Mexican territories “por la buena” (through purchase and other persuasive
means), then he would use force (“por la mala”) to forcibly take California.
Since
Mexico
refused these imperialistic overtures, President Polk orchestrated a minor
military skirmish in a disputed area between the
Nueces
River
and the
Rio Grande
River
which was the boundary between the
Republic
of
Texas
and
Mexico
, and persuaded the U.S. Congress to declare war on
Mexico
in 1846 because
U.S.
troops had been attacked the
U.S.
This incident was incredibly
similar to the
Gulf
of
Tonkin
incident when President Lyndon Baines Johnson positioned American warships in
the
Gulf
of
Tonkin
off the coast of
Vietnam
to be “attacked” after the
U.S.
had bombed the North Vietnamese and instituted acts of terrorism, sabotage, and
political assassinations. A
number of
U.S.
members of Congress opposed the imperialistic Mexican War including future
president Abraham Lincoln.
In two years after three invading armies swept into
Mexico
, including
California
, the Yankees defeated the Mexican armies and through the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo forced
Mexico
to turn over half of her land, including
California
,
New Mexico
,
Arizona
, and large parts of
Colorado
, and
Utah
. Through this war of aggression,
Mexico
also lost over 70% of her natural resources.
So the
Mexicanos living in these territories who suffered through this conquest were
given a second class status as
residents and citizens, and experienced a total deterioration of their
political, economic, cultural, and language rights even though there were
sections of the Treaty that were to protect these interests. My own family, that
of Manuel Nieto and his descendents who settled in California in 1769 and who
eventually owned over 300,000 acres of land in Southern California lost
everything by 1870 through the U.S. courts and unscrupulous official and
unofficial acts of the new laws, government, and the swarming Yankees who took
over the land and completely overturned and swallowed up all existing laws,
traditions, and customs that protected the Mexican populations.
As Chicanos, we understand the foreign policies the
United States
has practiced in America Latina. In
addition to the acts of aggression against
Mexico
and its remaining citizens abused by the new order in the new “Southwest,”
many other historical events demonstrate the demand by the Yankees to spread
their brand of domination and influence. The
Spanish American War, and the suppression of a nationalist movement in the
Philippines
to obtain independence after the
United States
obtained the islands through the defeat of
Spain
, further fueled the betrayal of the traditional American traditions. These
groups included former President Grover Cleveland, industrialist Andrew
Carnegie, labor leaders, writers, and other well known Americans.
This large contingent of American idealists spoke out against this change
in foreign policy and urged other peoples and nations the right for “self
determination” that Americans so deeply cherished.
Although the United States had proclaimed Latin America to
be free of European interventions and entanglements through the Monroe Doctrine,
the U.S. hypocritically proclaimed that it had the right to protect itself and
its’ interests in her backyard.
Due to the triumphs in the Mexican War, the Spanish
American War, and the defeat of Philippine guerrillas, the moderate urgings of
the American idealists were quickly drowned out in the
United States
when other sectors of American life resonated with optimism, ambition, energy,
and the desire to spread the American ideals.
A new group of Americans called for the acquisition and control of new
resources, markets, and opportunities for the American corporations while at the
same time calling for the overthrow of other Latin American governments to
impose “real republican democratic” institutions and practices.
Hence, American troops under President McKinley moved to depose a Cuban
nationalist movement and government, and President William Howard
Taft acted to depose the government of
Nicaragua
to help promote “real patriotism.” Earlier
during the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt, he had indirectly
contributed towards the overthrow of President Jose Santos Zelaya of Nicaragua
and used the “Roosevelt Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine which stated that
the
U.S.
had the right to intervene in any country of the
Western Hemisphere
that needed intervention. (The
Monroe Doctrine in 1823 stated that the United States would not tolerate any
attempt by any European power or nation to control the destiny of a nation or to
“influence the course of events in the Americas.”)
The Roosevelt Corollary in 1904 stated in part:
“Chronic
wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of
civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention
by some civilized nation, and in Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United
States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the U.S., however reluctantly, in
flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an
international peace power.”
U.S.
administrations at the beginning of the twentieth century had no feelings of
regret in instituting these types of action and intervention in America Latina.
These acts were also influenced by feelings of racism.
In countries where the people were of a “colored” or of mixed bloods
(miscegenation), these new leaders of the
U.S.
believed that these inferior peoples were in need of guidance from the more
enlightened whites of
America
. Hence, the whites of
America
had a moral obligation to control these peoples with the result that systemic
repressions and exploitations occurred. Incidentally
speaking, these were the policies and practices that Afro-Americans and Mexicans
(and other ethic minorities of color) had inflicted upon them and hence,
suffered in the
United States
.
Hence “regime change” operations became commonplace in
the twentieth century for the United States in Latin America if the action
justified its mission of “Manifest Destiny,” resources and markets
acquisition, and the overthrow of inferior governments that were not “real
republican democracies.”
Chicano / Latino groups in the
United States
have struggled since 1846 to retain and win their rightful rights as citizens
of the
United States
. Although there have been many
victories, these have not come easily. As
Chicanos and Latinos in the
United States
, we understand the paternalistic policies that have been instituted in
Latin America
. The
United States
has actually been unfit and unsuited to rule other governments or countries.
In the majority of cases, the
U.S.
has not understood the nationalistic movements of these countries, and its
desire to maintain politically stable governments and environments to protect
its economic interests has made it incompatible to promote the needs of these
countries and their societies. In
addition,
America
’s obsession with the idea they are uniquely endowed to bring progress and
virtue to other nations and peoples has become a part of the American national
identity. Being favored by God, has
convinced them that by bringing their political and economic system to others,
they are doing God’s work. The
conviction that capitalism and individual political choice as President George
W. Bush stated that it is “right
and true for every person in every society.”
In reality, the
United States
has acted in the intervention of other countries for self-centered motives and
interests.
However, many of the
United States
sponsored interventions in many instances using clandestine operations by the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have produced generations of patriots from
their countries who articulate their frustration and revolt against American
interests in their countries.
Many of these patriots are then called “terrorists,”
“revolutionaries,” or “subversives” by the
U.S.
for what these people believe is the defense of their sovereignty and national
interests.
The fact is that American foreign policy and of the
Administrations from Polk to Bush have deluded themselves into believing that
the
United States
has the right to intervene in other countries and that their citizens would
immediately rush to embrace American forms of government, values, and economic
systems. The reality is just the opposite where the majority of countries which
been intervened or invaded reject the American presence and influence and in
many instance initiate movements of resistance and opposition.
The United States in turn sponsor groups within that nation with military
and economic aid to quell the dissatisfactions, rebellions, and opposition.
These efforts by the
United States
in turn creates greater movements of rebellion, violence, and opposition.
During the last decade, the
United States
has ignored Latin America (except for the economic and military it provides to
Colombia
to combat the drug trade). According
to a recent speech to the Organization of American States in
Washington
D.C.
. by Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, Latin America is still growing on
average of 5% per year, and has lured more than $125 billion from
India
and
China
. It is within this historical
framework of
United States
aggression (and to some extent non-attention to Latin America in the last
decade) that
Venezuela
and its President Hugo Chavez has faced the beginning of the twenty-first
century.
President Chavez has survived a take-over by dissident
military personnel supported by the
U.S.
and by
U.S.
television and radio media stations sponsored by the
U.S.
to whip up support for his “resignation” which all American newspapers
reported after this “resignation lie” had been spread to all
U.S.
media by the U.S. State Department. The
coup leaders bungled their operation within 48 hours, and because Chavez was not
murdered, the truth became known to
the world. He escaped his captors,
and returned proclaiming the truth of what had happened.
In actuality, there is still a continuation of
U.S.
sponsored activities to promote the demise of the Chavez administration.
The
U.S.
media has used words like “dictator,” “autocrat” “crazy,” and
“anti-democratic.” President
Chavez has in turn instituted policies to protect his country from the onslaught
of attacks from the
United States
. Why is the Unites States attacking
Hugo Chavez?
The answer may partially lie in Chavez’s efforts to
reject
America
’s neocolonial efforts to use its will and foreign policy to extend their
global reach politically, economically, and socially.
This in the past has also been known as “expansionism,”
“imperialism,” and now “neocolonialism.”
Neocolonialism has
been used in the late 20th century
by critics of developed countries' like the United States,
particularly in Latin America and their involvement in the developing world
(like Laatin America). Opponents of neocolonialism, like President Hugo Chavez,
argue that existing or past international
economic
arrangements were created and used
to maintain control of developing nations.
The term Neocolonialism can combine a critique of current actual
colonialism (where some states continue administrating foreign territories and
their populations in violation of United Nations resolutions and a critique of
modern capitalist
businesses involvement in nations which were former colonies or are developing
nations. Critics of neocolonialism contend that private, foreign business
companies continue to exploit the resources of post-colonial peoples or
developing nations, and that this economic control inherent to neocolonialism is
akin to the classical, European colonialism
practiced from the 16th to the 20th
centuries. In broader usage, current especially in Latin
America, Neocolonialism may simply refer to involvement of powerful
countries in the affairs of less powerful countries. In this sense, "Neo"colonialism
implies a form of contemporary, economic Imperialism:
that powerful nations behave like colonial powers, and that this behavior is likened
to colonialism in a post-colonial world.
President Hugo Chavez argues that this is the motivation of the
United States
, and the challenge of his efforts in
Venezuela
and in other Latin American countries, is to confront this hegamony and
dominance of the
United States
. This, of course, is emphatically
opposed by the
United States
because its foreign policy is merely what many have called the “enforcer”
of Wall Street interests.
As Chicanos
and Latinos in the
United States
, members of our delegation understand these historical patterns of
relationships between the
United States
government and its foreign policies of intervention and neocolonialism.
We therefore express our solidarity with the people of Venezuela and
their right to determine their own self destiny, and their right to establish
political, economic, and social/cultural programs for the benefit of the
majority of its’ people. A very
sacred principal to Chicanos is that it is necessary to guard against the
“tyranny of the majority,” and to protect and to safeguard the rights of
minorities which we, as Chicano and Latinos, have historically struggled and
fought to maintain and protect.
It is our
intent that we are able to open new avenues of communication between our two
countries and peoples, especially between our U.S. Chicano and Latino
populations and
Venezuela
. We are optimistic that we can be a
bridge of dialogue and understanding, of the establishment of new and
beneficial relationships and programs of a mutual nature between
Venezuela
and the
United States
. We believe that this is only
the first visit to
Venezuela
to plant the seeds of goodwill, and this to be followed by other visits to
harvest the results of our mutual labor.
Return
to Venezuela Page
