Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.
I think Mr Bustamante has some questions to address in his campaign for governor of this state considering his past involvement with MEChA. [For The People, all. Outside (or Other Than) The People, nothing.] That is a phrase used by Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán, or MEChA. Apparently, Cruz Bustamante was a member of MEChA during his student days at Fresno State. I think Mr Bustamante has some questions to address in his campaign for governor of this state considering the Plan Espiritual de Aztlán:In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlán from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny.
tacitus has done all the heavy lifting on this one, and I recommend reading his post for lots more detailed information and references to more. From the definition of the term Chicano [as opposed to Mexican American or Hispanic; a person who "lacks self-respect and pride"], to the call for cultural nationalism, El Plan de Santa Barbara as a part of the basic philosophy of MEChA indicates an alarmingly racist attitude. ["MEChA, when said aloud sounds quite like the phrase "mi hija" or "my daughter."] Bustamante uses the term "Mechista" when saying he "wasn't the most radical Mechista" during his school years. Even the least radical Mechista still has a lot more questions to answer than someone whose father was a Nazi and who has been vetted, cleared, and honored by the Wiesenthal Center. Particularly in light of certain slips. Interesting and useful historical context concerning an earlier plan which may have inspired El Plan de Santa Barbara, called El Plan de San Diego by Clayton Cramer. ThanQ! The Insta-Fodder
I am a junior at the University of San Diego, and a MEChista downright. I have a problem with people easily misunderstanding MEChA and pressuring Bustamante about his past as if it were some criminal past. MEChA is a student organization. An organization and students alike evolve with time. This evolution takes place and MEChA becomes what it needs to in order to survive. As a tangible example, MEChA de USD, my MEChA, has a totally different agenda and direction than MEChA from San Diego State, UCSD, and every other MEChA in existence in the rest of the country. Unless you have personally been involved with MEChA and been to a statewide or nationwide conference, you will not be able to understant the people that make up MEChA and the purpose it fulfills.
Posted by on 09/01/03 at 05:04 AMIsidro;
I am not quite sure what “MEChista downright” means and I’m sorry to hear about your problem. However, I don’t think that people are pressuring ol’ Cruz as if he had a criminal past but more as if he has a current idealogical inconsistency. If he wishes to become governor of the current state of California, he must answer questions about his beliefs and his associations with an organization that states it is “conscious ...of the brutal “gringo” invasion of our territories.” Overt racism and the idea that California belongs to Chicanos alone would, in my mind, disqualify Mr Bustamante from consideration for any office in this state. This is the question being put before him, awaiting an answer.
OTOH If, what you say is true, “MEChA becomes what it needs to in order to survive,” the organization has ceased to hold actual values and is currently meaningless. This has no bearing on Mr Bustamante’s situation, for he belonged when MEChA had substance.
As to your third point: could you actually be proposing that a junior at UCSD would have to have been to a statewide or nationwide conference of, say, the KKK before he would be able to understand the people that make it up or the purpose it fulfills? Come, now, sir. Naivete to that extent becomes simple ignorance.
Posted by Claire on 09/01/03 at 08:28 AMAnd, Isidro, please explain this:
“Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.”
Don’t forget that some of us “gringas” hablamos espanol, tambien. Y tenemos dictionarios.
Posted by Claire on 09/01/03 at 09:04 AMSi Ud tiene un diccionario puede explicarlo tan facil, no? (Lo siento, but I can’t get accents and question marks right doing HTML by hand).
If you truly speak Spanish then you understand that Por almost never means “for”. It almost always means, “by”, “through”, or “because of”. If you wanted to say “for” as in directed towrds, or ownership of, you would use para. You would do that because that por and para thing gets beaten out of any serious first-year Spanish student pretty early on.
So the meaning is not, “For the race everything. Outside the race nothing”. It’s really more like: “Through us all, everything. Without us nothing”, or “Together we accomplish everything, apart we can do nothing”. Or more succinctly: “united we stand, divided we fall”.
So there you go.Posted by Jon Gallagher on 09/05/03 at 02:56 AMIf you truly speak Spanish then you understand that Por almost never means “for”. It almost always means, “by”, “through”, or “because of”.
That’s bullshit. It often means those other things, but it certainly doesn’t “almost never” mean for. Definitely depends on the context.
Posted by Homer on 09/07/03 at 05:33 PMHomer is correct in that the proposition “por” certainly means “for” depending on the context, as in “lo hago por ti” (I do it for you). Check the Diccionario de la Lengua Española at www.diccionarios.com and you’ll see 26 meanings of the word, of which both #6 (through) and #20 (for) apply. All 26 meanings are equally valid and they aren’t listed in order of importance, by the way.
Posted by Val on 09/08/03 at 04:18 AMI didn’t learn Spanish in school. I learned by living with a friend from Caracas, and later from other friends.
My interpretation of “para” was closer to “for the purpose of” than “for.” My usage was not questioned by those with whom I spoke, and my friends were accustomed to correcting my mistakes as they hated it when I sounded like a dumbass.
Posted by Claire on 09/08/03 at 07:18 AM“Por” y “para"--y’all are wrapped around the axle about mere semantics. It’s La Raza, stupid! The Race. Which race? ThEE Race, the Brown Clowns who wish to wear feathered headdresses, turquoise and eagle claw necklaces, and cotton loin cloths poised over a Mexican Princessa de Aztlan atop a mountain, seeking to reign supreme over their lost Shangrila which resembles Tijuana. Bustamonte is the Anglicized version of the Mexican state-of-the-art corrupt politico who screws his boss in the back while promoting his own agenda. Y soy mejicano!
Posted by on 09/09/03 at 04:47 AMAndy,
Don’t tell me that you’ve fallen for that old saw about “mere” semantics! Words are tools. When building a thing, choosing the tools appropriate to the job governs whether the thing being built sinks or swims. Could a sleek, elegant racing boat be built using only a hammer? Could a house be built using only an electron microscope and an egg beater?
Words are the tools used to capture, manipulate and communicate thoughts and perceptions.
As to your decidedly racist description of a racist organization; it strikes me as attempting to use a jammed 9mm to fight someone attacking you with a jammed 9mm. I think it might be more effective to drop the jammed weapon of racist invective and fight racism without allowing oneself to become racist in the process. See what I mean, honkey-oppressor-boy?
I do tend to agree with you about Bustamante: I wouldn’t feel all that comfortable with him standing around behind me.
Posted by Claire on 09/09/03 at 09:32 AM
Next entry: Careful, Ahnold
Previous entry: The Boy Is a Joy!
