The same right-wing populist fears that fueled the Cold War anti-communism, rallied against the Civil Rights Movement and brought about the armed citizens militia movement in the 1990s have reappeared with an elaborate conspiracy theory about the reconquering of America – La Reconquista – the idea that Mexicans are invading America to reclaim it for Mexico.

Recently, Media Matters reported that G. Gordon Liddy, on his nationally syndicated radio show, stated that undocumented immigrants from Mexico “want to reconquer America.” From Liddy’s June 5 radio show:

LIDDY: Well, now, America’s a free country. And everyone who is here legally has the protections of the Constitution, and one of them is the right to gather together peacefully to petition government, you know, with respect to any grievance that you might have. Now, I don’t have any problem with that. What I have — the problem –

LIDDY: Now, wait a minute. Now, the problem that I have is with people who come over here and instead of wanting to become Americans, you know, fly the American flag, learn English, and so forth, they want to fly the Mexican flag, they want to speak Spanish, you know, and other varieties of illegal alien. And that’s — that is what distinguishes these people from the previous immigrants. Previous immigrants said, “Man, we can’t wait to get out of” — you know, whatever the country was they came from. “We can’t wait to get to the United States. We want to be Americans, we want to learn English, and, we want, you know, the best for our children,” and what have you. And they proudly displayed the American flag. Not so, especially these illegal aliens up from Mexico and what have you. They want to reconquer America, they say. They have this outfit called the Reconconquista [sic] or something of that sort, whatever it is in illegal alien.

The tone of the national debate over immigration is being set by organizations deeply rooted in hate. Too many people, from the media to community leaders, have stood aside with other hateful sources updating their tactics of Jim Crow for the more sophisticated media environment of the 21st century.

Millions of Americans are exposed to the conspiracy theories, either through television or through the Internet. The question is where did the “reconquering” idea originate? One possibility could be traced back to 1917 when Arthur Zimmermann sent his infamous telegram to Mexico’s President Venustiano Carranza, at the height of World War I, known as the Zimmermann Telegram. The telegram offered to form an alliance between Germany and Mexico, while trying to remain neutral with the US. However, if US were to enter the war, the Mexican government would agree to enter the war to support Germany, while trying to persuade the Japanese government to join the new alliance. Germany also promised to provide Mexico with financial assistance and the restoration of its former territories of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona to Mexico. It was in this telegram that the word reconquer was used.

We intend to begin on the first of February, unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we propose an alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement in detail is left to you. [emphasis mine]

You will inform the President [of Mexico] of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States of America is certain and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves.

Please call the President’s attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace.

Most people assume that it was the sinking of the Lusitania that brought the United States into World War I. However, some will ague that was this message that helped draw the U.S. into the war. The military alliance’s main purpose was to keep the US out of the European conflict by convincing Mexico and Japan to attack the US.

The sentiment at the time, both anti-German and anti-Mexican sentiment in the United States was high – Americans where still angry over the loss of Americans lives in the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 by a German U-boat and because of Pancho Villa’s recent raids into US border towns. The idea that the part of United States would possibly go back to Mexico, had Mexico complied with offer, was not very popular with the American people and did not bode well for President Woodrow Wilson.

Maybe one possible explanation for the strains between Latinos and Whites, especially in the Southwest, could be that Carranza did consider Zimmerman’s offer. Carranza assigned a general to consider the realities of a Mexican takeover of their former provinces. The general concluded that it would not work because taking over the three states would definitely cause problems and possibly war with the US; Mexico would also be incapable of accommodating a large Anglo population within its borders; and Germany would not be able to supply the arms needed in the hostilities that would surely arise. On April 14, Carranza declined Zimmermann’s proposals, by which time the US had already declared war on Germany.

Currently, right-wing pundits associate “reconquista” with El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán, the manifesto that is considered to be founding document of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA). However, according to Jorge Tapia, MEChA has its founding based on a conference held in Santa Barbara, CA, El Plan de Santa Barbara, El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan and ideas from other student organizations. In fact, “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán” was not just instrumental in the founding of MEChA, but it also became the framework of the Chicano movement.

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 Aztlan 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….With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation.

In reality, El Plan is a manifesto that appeals to nationalism as a way to achieve a self-awareness and self-esteem. El Plan never asked for the return of lost territories back to Mexico. So where did the idea of “Aztlán” come from? The concept of Aztlán began with the poet Alurista in a 1969 Denver Youth Conference that was organized by Corky Gonzales. He was one of the first poets to establish the concept of Aztlan in his writings. In an interview, Alurista said:

And while still calling California “occupied Mexico,” the poet disavows any lingering territorial claims. “People call California, Arizona, Nueva Mexico and Colorado Aztlán, but really, Aztlán is wherever we are. We don’t recognize borders. It’s more a matter of cultural/political identity. When I say this is our land, I don’t mean that we own it. Who owns anything?”

Aztlán was a spiritual concept, which was meant to unite all Chicanos/as. The reality is that Latinos are not a homogenous group and throughout the US one can find divisions within the same Latino sub-groups in the Southwest. There are considerable differences between Latinos in each State because each sub-group has their own history of discrimination and oppression. Because of this, there are consequences. Such as, Tejanos see themselves differently from those in New Mexico, Arizona and California. Maybe because Mexico lost Texas first, this probably explains why the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo is not celebrated in the state. Nuevo Mexicanos, in New Mexico also view themselves different from those in Arizona and California and vice versa, however these states have a common history, they were established from the Treaty. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
In other words, “Aztlán,” is a spiritual concept that we, as Latinos/as, have a spiritual homeland.

It is not just right-wing pundits who are fanning the flames of strife; there are prominent anti-immigrant activists such as Barbara Coe of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, John Vincent of the American Immigration Control Foundation, and Rick Oltman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform who are avid supporter of the reconquista conspiracy theory and are vehemently anti-Latino. The growing backlash against illegal immigration is creating an atmosphere of antagonism toward all Latinas/os. And many of these hate groups are eager to exploit mainstream fears.

When a society is undergoing change or turmoil, social movements can arise out of an idea that the idealized nation as being destroyed by foreign ideas. This can involve with the idea that the subversion is part of a conspiracy. In a healthy society, only a handful of people will actually consider conspiracy theories seriously. However, when conspiracy theories create a mass following, as a society, we should view this as a red flag because it is a clear indication that something is amiss in society.

Conspiracy theories about Mexico re-conquering lost territories have already seeped into conservative circles. It is just a matter of time it will make its way into progressive political circles. This not only is a waste of time and energy, but it undermines the struggle for human rights. It is important for people of all political stripes to denounce conspiracy theories as toxic to democracy.

x- posted on Scholars and Rogues

The ad shows a historical map of the Mexico before Texas’ Independence and the Mexico-US War of 1846-48 had occurred. The offending map showed when the American Southwest – Texas, California, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and part of Wyoming – as we know it, belonged to Mexico. It was not until the signing of “Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo” that not only ended the war, but also defined our present-day borders.

The ad was created by TBWA’s Mexican advertising firm Teran/TBWA. A year ago, Absolut vodka’s embarked in a new campaign strategy, breaking away from the old bottle series. The new Absolut World campaign invites the consumers to imagine their idea of a perfect world; a world that possibly wouldn’t take place but only “in an Absolut World.” The ad was solely geared toward the Mexican market.

According to Roger Dooley, Founder/President of Dooley Direct and author of the Neuromarketing blog, Absolut’s new campaign message is hoping to convey that “Absolut vodka is the closest thing to perfection one can find in this world.” In other words, since the ad was solely geared toward the Mexican market, “unspoken message” was although Mexico will never regain their lost territories, “but you CAN appreciate the perfection of Absolut;” hence the “In an Absolut World” slogan across the map.

As to whether the ad campaign worked in Mexico is still unknown. What is known, the “unspoken message” was not received well here in the United States. Whether the controversy began with Laura Martinez’s blog post honoring the death of her mother or Los Angles Times writing an article about the ad, the end result is the same – wingnuttia falling off it’s hinges.

This all began when conservative columnist Michelle Malkin decided to use the ad to whip up anti-Mexican sentiment by dubbing the ad “Absolut Reconquista.” Soon after, the US media outlets noticed the ad. The outrage by the nativist over this ad has caused inspired an anti-immigrantion, FIRE Coalition, to start anti-Absolut website called AbsolutlyNot.com.

The group also created a new web ad depicting an “Absolut World” as today’s borders with a giant fence between the US and Mexico. The nativist group is also asking people to boycott Absolut Vodka and is demanded that person who approved an ad be fired.

All this has caused Absolut to withdraw the ad and make an apology on its consumer hotline and website after it evoked a barrage of paranoia, racist and xenophobic complaints.

In no way was the ad meant to offend or disparage, or advocate an altering of borders, lend support to any anti-American sentiment, or to reflect immigration issues. – Paula Eriksson, VP Corporate Communications, V&S Absolut Spirits

However, one does have to wonder, knowing the tension between the two countries regarding the immigration issue, one does have to wonder why TBWA would create this ad. Was it simply a case of bad judgment as Evelyn Schlatter of High Country News suggested? Or does this go beyond the immigration issue and the outrage that is taking place is merely faux outrage as Randy LoBasso suggests.

One thing is for sure, in the world of today’s economic and political systems, we are continually bombarded with advertising. Every waking moment, some company is trying to persuade us to by their product. Absolut Vodka is no different. Absolut prides themselves for being edgy, for being able to make “the evening news” so it can get “thousands of articles and countless sound bites of free exposure on TV.”

Did this marketing ploy really come with a price? According to Michael Dawson, author of The Consumer Trap, marketing plays a central role in our lives. It shapes the choices we make, our thoughts, feelings, and even our culture. Marketing specialists are very frank about their purpose: to generate profit by manipulating people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

Corporate marketing is a trillion dollar juggernaut run by the power elite with the sole purpose to marginalize us into action. Even if we believe we an can be immune to such manipulation, we are not. Advertisers have spent billions of dollars developing and testing ways to influence us.

Whether the advertising company or Absolut Vodka expected this kind of reaction from wingnuttia, will never be known. But one this is for certain, sadly, even the nativists have a say in Mexico’s “Absolut World.” As the former Mexican dictator Porfirio Diaz said a century ago: “Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States!”

Chávez stood for equality, justice, and dignity for everybody. The people to whom Chávez dedicated his life did the work that almost no one else wanted to do. The situation is similar today: it is primarily immigrants from Mexico and Central America who do the dirty work in the hidden world of slaughterhouses that produces the neat packages of beef or bacon, which we buy in sanitized supermarkets. However, there are forces out there who want to tarnish Chávez’s record. One of those groups happen to be the immigration foes. Some claim Chávez was opposed to “illegal immigrants,” however, I and others would disagree. In the summer of 1968 Peter Matthiessen met Cesar Chávez and wrote an article about him for The New Yorker. Matthiessen noted that “half of the members of Chavez’s union are not United States citizens.”

Like many people whose dedication to a cause is total, Matthiessen noted, Chávez could be intolerant of those whose commitment was less than his. Yet for the most part, his dedication seemed ferociously selfless. Chávez could be “single-minded to the point of ruthlessness,” as some who worked with him confessed. Matthiessen noted that Chávez’s lieutenants neglected to tell him about some of their tactics that might make Chávez look like a hypocrite.

Regardless what some may think about this man, Chavez is still hailed as one of the country’s greatest civil rights leaders. Happy Cesar Chavez Day!

“We can choose to use our lives for others to bring about a better and more just world for our children. People who make that choice will know hardship and sacrifice. But if you give yourself totally to the non-violence struggle for peace and justice you also find that people give you their hearts and you will never go hungry and never be alone. And in giving of yourself you will discover a whole new life full of meaning and love.” – Cesar Chavez

Cesar Chavez’s Commonwealth Club Address (Click to hear his speech)

[Text version of the speech]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lee, Mrs. Black, ladies and gentlemen. Twenty-one years ago, this last September, on a lonely stretch of railroad track paralleling U.S. Highway 101 near Salinas, 32 Bracero farm workers lost their lives in a tragic accident. The Braceros had been imported from Mexico to work on California farms. They died when their bus, which was converted from a flatbed truck, drove in front of a freight train. Conversion of the bus had not been approved by any government agency. The driver had tunnel vision. Most of the bodies laid unidentified for days. No one, including the grower who employed the workers, even knew their names. Today, thousands of farm workers live under savage conditions, beneath trees and amid garbage and human excrement near tomato fields in San Diego County; tomato fields, which use the most modern farm technology. Vicious rats gnaw at them as they sleep. They walk miles to buy food at inflated prices and they carry in water from irrigation ditches.

Child labor is still common in many farm areas. As much as 30 percent of Northern California’s garlic harvesters are underaged children. Kids as young as six years old have voted in states, conducted union elections, since they qualified as workers. Some 800,000 underaged children work with their families harvesting crops across America. Babies born to migrant workers suffer 25 percent higher infant mortality rates than the rest of the population. Malnutrition among migrant workers’ children is 10 times higher than the national rate. Farm workers’ average life expectancy is still 49 years, compared to 73 years for the average American.

All my life, I have been driven by one dream, one goal, one vision: to overthrow a farm labor system in this nation that treats farm workers as if they were not important human beings. Farm workers are not agricultural implements; they are not beasts of burden to be used and discarded. That dream was born in my youth, it was nurtured in my early days of organizing. It has flourished. It has been attacked.

I’m not very different from anyone else who has ever tried to accomplish something with his life. My motivation comes from my personal life, from watching what my mother and father went through when I was growing up, from what we experienced as migrant workers in California. That dream, that vision grew from my own experience with racism, with hope, with a desire to be treated fairly, and to see my people treated as human beings and not as chattel. It grew from anger and rage, emotions I felt 40 years ago when people of my color were denied the right to see a movie or eat at a restaurant in many parts of California. It grew from the frustration and humiliation I felt as a boy who couldn’t understand how the growers could abuse and exploit farm workers when there were so many of us and so few of them.

Later in the 50s, I experienced a different kind of exploitation. In San Jose, in Los Angeles and in other urban communities, we, the Mexican-American people, were dominated by a majority that was Anglo. I began to realize what other minority people had discovered; that the only answer, the only hope was in organizing. More of us had to become citizens, we had to register to vote, and people like me had to develop the skills it would take to organize, to educate, to help empower the Chicano people.

I spent many years before we founded the union learning how to work with people. We experienced some successes in voter registration, in politics, in battling racial discrimination — successes in an era where Black Americans were just beginning to assert their civil rights and when political awareness among Hispanics was almost non-existent. But deep in my heart, I knew I could never be happy unless I tried organizing the farm workers. I didn’t know if I would succeed, but I had to try.

All Hispanics, urban and rural, young and old, are connected to the farm workers’ experience. We had all lived through the fields, or our parents had. We shared that common humiliation. How could we progress as a people even if we lived in the cities, while the farm workers, men and women of our color, were condemned to a life without pride? How could we progress as a people while the farm workers, who symbolized our history in this land, were denied self-respect? How could our people believe that their children could become lawyers and doctors and judges and business people while this shame, this injustice, was permitted to continue?

Those who attack our union often say it’s not really a union. It’s something else, a social movement, a civil rights movement — it’s something dangerous. They’re half right. The United Farm Workers is first and foremost a union, a union like any other, a union that either produces for its members on the bread-and-butter issues or doesn’t survive. But the UFW has always been something more than a union, although it’s never been dangerous, if you believe in the Bill of Rights. The UFW was the beginning. We attacked that historical source of shame and infamy that our people in this country lived with. We attacked that injustice, not by complaining, not by seeking handouts, not by becoming soldiers in the war on poverty; we organized.

Farm workers acknowledge we had allowed ourselves to become victims in a democratic society, a society where majority rules and collective bargaining are supposed to be more than academic theories and political rhetoric. And by addressing this historical problem, we created confidence and pride and hope in an entire people’s ability to create the future. The UFW survival, its existence, were not in doubt in my mind when the time began to come.

After the union became visible, when Chicanos started entering college in greater numbers, when Hispanics began running for public office in greater numbers, when our people started asserting their rights on a broad range of issues and in many communities across this land. The union survival, its very existence, sent out a signal to all Hispanics that we were fighting for our dignity, that we were challenging and overcoming injustice, that we were empowering the least educated among us, the poorest among us. The message was clear. If it could happen in the fields, it could happen anywhere: in the cities, in the courts, in the city councils, in the state legislatures. I didn’t really appreciate it at the time, but the coming of our union signaled the start of great changes among Hispanics that are only now beginning to be seen.

I’ve traveled through every part of this nation. I have met and spoken with thousands of Hispanics from every walk of life, from every social and economic class. And one thing I hear most often from Hispanics, regardless of age or position, and from many non-Hispanics as well, is that the farm workers gave them the hope that they could succeed and the inspiration to work for change.

From time to time, you will hear our opponents declare that the union is weak, that the union has no support, that the union has not grown fast enough. Our obituary has been written many times. How ironic it is that the same forces that argue so passionately that the union is not influential are the same forces that continue to fight us so hard.

The union’s power in agriculture has nothing to do with the number of farm workers on the union contract. It has nothing to do with the farm workers’ ability to contribute to democratic politicians. It doesn’t even have much to do with our ability to conduct successful boycotts. The very fact of our existence forces an entire industry, unionized and non-unionized, to spend millions of dollars year after year on increased wages, on improved working conditions, and on benefits for workers. If we were so weak and unsuccessful, why do the growers continue to fight us with such passion? Because as long as we continue to exist, farm workers will benefit from our existence, even if they don’t work under union contract. It doesn’t really matter whether we have 100,000 or 500,000 members. In truth, hundreds of thousands of farm workers in California and in other states are better off today because of our work. And Hispanics across California and the nation who don’t work in agriculture are better off today because of what the farm workers taught people about organization, about pride and strength, about seizing control over their own lives.

Tens of thousands of children and grandchildren of farm workers and the children and grandchildren of poor Hispanics are moving out of the fields and out of the barrios and into the professions and into business and into politics, and that movement cannot be reversed. Our union will forever exist as an empowering force among Chicanos in the Southwest. That means our power and our influence will grow and not diminish.

Two major trends give us hope and encouragement. First, our union has returned to a tried and tested weapon in the farm workers non-violent arsenal: the boycott. After the Agricultural Labor Relations Act became law in California in 1975, we dismantled our boycott to work with the law. During the early and mid ’70s millions of Americans supported our boycotts. After 1975, we redirected our efforts from the boycott to organizing and winning elections under the law. That law helped farm workers make progress in overcoming poverty and injustice.

At companies where farm workers are protected by union contracts, we have made progress in overcoming child labor, in overcoming miserable wages and working conditions, in overcoming sexual harassment of women workers, in overcoming discrimination in employment, in overcoming dangerous pesticides, which poison our people and poison the food we all eat. Where we have organized these injustices soon passed in history, but under Republican Governor George Deukmejian, the law that guarantees our right to organize no longer protects farm workers; it doesn’t work anymore.

In 1982, corporate growers gave Deukmejian one million dollars to run for governor of California. Since he took office, Deukmejian has paid back his debt to the growers with the blood and sweat of California farm workers. Instead of enforcing the law as it was written against those who break it, Deukmejian invites growers who break the law to seek relief from governor’s appointees. What does all this mean for farm workers? It means that the right to vote in free elections is a sham. It means the right to talk freely about the union among your fellow workers on the job is a cruel hoax. It means that the right to be free from threats and intimidation by growers is an empty promise. It means that the right to sit down and negotiate with your employer as equals across the bargaining table and not as peons in the fields is a fraud. It means that thousands of farm workers, who are owed millions of dollars in back pay because their employers broke the law, are still waiting for their checks. It means that 36,000 farm workers, who voted to be represented by the United Farm Workers in free elections, are still waiting for contracts from growers who refuse to bargain in good faith. It means that for farm workers child labor will continue. It means that infant mortality will continue. It means that — It means that malnutrition among children will continue. It means the short life expectancy and the inhuman living and working conditions will continue.

Are these make-believe threats? Are they exaggerations? Ask the farm workers who are waiting for the money they lost because the — the growers broke the law. Ask the farm workers who are still waiting for growers to bargain in good faith and sign contracts. Ask the farm workers who have been fired from their jobs because they spoke out for the union. Ask the farm workers who have been threatened with physical violence because they support the UFW, and ask the family of Rene Lopez, the young farm worker from Fresno who was shot to death last year because he supported the union as he came out of a voting booth. Ask the farm workers who watch their children go hungry in this land of wealth and promise. Ask the farm workers who see their lives eaten away by poverty and suffering.

These tragic events force farm workers to declare an international — a new international boycott of California grapes, except the three percent of grapes produced under union contract. That is why we — That is why we are asking Americans, once again, to join the farm workers by boycotting California grapes. The newest Harris Poll revealed that 17 million Americans boycotted grapes. We are convinced that those people and that goodwill have not disappeared. That segment of the population which makes the boycotts work are the Hispanics, the Blacks, the other minorities, our friends in labor and the Church. But it — But it is also an entire generation of young Americans who matured politically and socially in the ’60s and the ’70s, millions of people from — for whom boycotting grapes and other products became a socially accepted pattern of behavior. If you were young, Anglo and/or near campers during the late ’60s and early ’70s, chances are you supported farm workers.

For 15 — 15 years later, the men and women of that generation are alive and well. They are in their mid 30s and 40s. They are pursuing professional careers, their disposable incomes are relatively high, but they are still inclined to respond to an appeal from farm workers. The union’s mission still has meaning for them. Only today, we must translate the importance of a union for farm workers into the language of the 1980s. Instead of — Instead of talking about the right to organize, we must talk about protection against sexual harassment in the fields. We must speak about the right to quality food and food that is safe to eat. I can tell you the new language is working, the 17 million are still there. They are responding not to picket lines and leafleting alone, but to the high-tech boycott of today, a boycott that uses computers and direct mail and advertising techniques, which has made — which has revolutionized business and politics in recent years. We have achieved more success with a boycott in the first 11 months of 1984 than we achieved in the last 14 years, since 1970.

The other trend that gives us hope is the monumental growth of Hispanic influence in this country. And what that means in [is] increased population, increased social and economic clout and increased political influence. South of the Sacramento River, Hispanics now make up now more than 25 percent of the population. That figure will top 30 percent by the year 2000. There are now 1.1 million Spanish-surnamed registered voters in California. In 1975, there were 200 Hispanic elected officials at all levels of government. In 1984, there are over 400 elected judges, city council members, mayors, and legislators. In light of these trends, it’s absurd to believe or to suggest that we are going to go back in time as a union or as a people.

The growers often try to blame the union for their problems, to lay their sins off on us, sins for which they only have themselves to blame. The growers only have themselves to blame as they begin to reap the harvest of decades of environmental damage they have brought upon the land: the pesticides, the herbicides, the soil fumigants, the fertilizers, the salt deposits from thoughtless irrigation, the ravages of years of unrestrained poisoning of our soil and water. Thousands of acres of land in California have already been irrevocably damaged by this wanton abuse of nature. Thousands more will be lost unless growers understand that dumping more and more poison from the soil won’t solve their problems on the short or on the long term.

Health authorities in many San Joaquin Valley towns already warn young children and pregnant mothers not to drink the water, because of nitrates from fertilizers which has poisoned the ground water. The growers have only themselves to blame for an increasing demand by consumers for higher-quality food, food that isn’t tainted by toxics, food that doesn’t result from plant mutations or chemicals that produce red luscious-looking tomatoes that taste like alfalfa. The growers are making the same mistake American automakers made in the ’60s and ’70s when they refused to produce small economical cars and opened up the door to increased foreign competition.

Growers only have themselves to blame for increasing attacks on the publicly financed handouts and government welfare: water subsidies, mechanization research, huge subsidies for not growing crops. These special privileges came into being before the Supreme Court’s “one person, one vote” decision, at a time when rural lawmakers dominated the legislature and the Congress. Soon, those handouts could be in jeopardy as government searches for more revenue and as urban taxpayers take a closer look at front programs and who they really benefit. The growers only have themselves to blame for the humiliation they have brought upon succeeding waves of immigrant groups that have sweated and sacrificed for a hundred years to make this industry rich.

For generations, they have subjugated entire races of dark-skinned farm workers. These are the sins of growers, not the farm workers. We didn’t poison the land. We didn’t open the door to imported produce. We didn’t covet billions of dollars in government handouts. We didn’t abuse and exploit the people who work the land. Today the growers are like a punch-drunk old boxer who doesn’t know he’s past his prime. The times are changing; the political and social environment has changed. The chickens are coming home to roost, and the time to account for past sins is approaching.

I am told these days farm workers should be discouraged and pessimistic. The Republicans control the governor’s office and the White House. There is a conservative trend in the nation. Yet, we are filled with hope and encouragement. We have looked into the future and the future is ours. History and inevitability are on our side. The farm workers and their children and the Hispanics and their children are the future in California, and corporate growers are the past. Those politicians who ally themselves with the corporate growers and against farm workers and the Hispanics are in for a big surprise. They want to make their careers in politics; they want to hold power 20 and 30 years from now. But 20 and 30 years from now, in Modesto, in Salinas, in Fresno, in Bakersfield, in the Imperial Valley and in many of the great cities of California, those communities will be dominated by farm workers and not by growers, by the children and grandchildren of farm workers and not by the children and grandchildren of growers.

These trends are part of the forces of history which cannot be stopped. No person and no organization can resist them for very long; they are inevitable. Once social change begins it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read. You cannot humiliate the person who feels pride. You cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore. Our opponents must understand that it’s not just the union we have built — unions like other institutions can come and go — but we’re more than institutions. For nearly 20 years, our union has been on the cutting edge of a people’s cause, and you cannot do away with an entire people and you cannot stamp out a people’s cause. Regardless of what the future holds for the union, regardless of what the future holds for farm workers, our accomplishments cannot be undone. La causa, our cause, doesn’t have to be experienced twice. The consciousness and pride that were raised by our union are alive and thriving inside millions of young Hispanics who will never work on a farm.

Like the other immigrant groups, the day will come when we win the economic and political rewards, which are in keeping with our numbers in society. The day will come when the politicians will do the right thing for our people out of political necessity and not out of charity or idealism. That day may not come this year. That day may not come during this decade, but it will come someday. And when that day comes, we shall see the fulfillment of that passage from the Book of Matthew in the New Testament: “The last shall be first, and the first shall be last.” And on that day, our nation shall fulfill its creed, and that fulfillment shall enrich us all. Thank you very much.

During the Superbowl this year, SaleGenie just went a bit too far. They ran two commercial during the Super Bowl that borders on racism. The first animated cartoon depicted an Indian, by the name of “Ramesh,” who is considered to be the worst “salesman” at Acme Widget. His boss, Hank Bulleymonge, comes down on Ramesh to double his output or he is fired. However, Ramesh is worried and explains to his boss, in a crudely done stereotypical Indian accent that if he is fired he will not be able to feed his SEVEN KIDS! Which the boss states, he does not care.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The second commercial features a couple of panda bears, Ching Ching and Ling Ling, who are having trouble getting customers into Ling Ling’s Furniture Shack. Ching Ching decides to call the Panda Psychic to seek help. The psychic Panda suggests that they contact Salesgenie.com for 100 free sales leads. And like the first commercial, the commercial was obviously trying to capitalize characters’ synthetic stereotypical “Chinese” accents.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Salesgenie.com president Vinod Gupta has recently apologized for his two offensive SuperBowl ads, according to the New York Times. Gupta told the Times he did not think the commercials would have offended anyone.

“We never thought anyone would be offended,” said Mr. Gupta, who developed and wrote both commercials himself.

“The pandas are Chinese,” he said. “They don’t speak German.”

Mr. Gupta also told the Times he was going to continue to run the Salesgenie commercial featuring “Ramesh” because most of the complaints had to with the pandas than Ramesh. Although this may seem like a minor victory, however, it is sad that it had to come to consumer complaints for this to occur. It is even more troubling that Gupta still is unable to comprehend as to why his commercials are considered offensive.

The fact is stereotypes can have substantial implications in a domain such as race relations. When one thinks of racial prejudice, it is often attributed to African Americans or Latinas/os, because Asian Americans are typically thought of as being America’s “model minority.” However, as my good blogamigo Kai at Zucky has documented, Asian Pacific Americans also experience racial prejudice.

The problem with these commercials is not that the accent is a poor imitation, but it continues to perpetuate the stereotypes of Indian and Chinese people in the US. In other words, the racial cues embedded in the commercial will only continue evoking negative associations among Asian American. While some would make the argument that the commercial was meant to raise a giggle and that people shouldn’t so quick whip out the ‘R’ word for someone making fun of your accent. In fact, Gupta, who is of Indian descent, makes this argument.

“People have been making fun of my accent for years,” said Mr. Gupta, who described himself in the interview as half-Indian and half-Jewish. “And I love it.”

Of course, the stereotypes and jabs aren’t always so blatant, though they can be just as unsettling. True, there are people who do think a Ghandi-like Indian accent or a Chinese “ching chong” are hilarious, but, the sad truth is, they are missing the point. When a stereotypes are repeated, those stereotype do become the norm and a frame of reference for a person’s entire cultural group and ultimately it becomes more difficult to avoid the stereotypes and clichés from our current racially biased system.

Understanding racial cues is very important, because depending how we interpret these cues will shape our opinions towards members of racial and ethnic groups. When commercials like these air, they tend to make explicit references – either by visual or auditory cues – to race, which then trigger racial thinking by activating past information held within our long-term memory about that racial and ethnic minority group. In other words, racial attitudes are primarily based on personal experiences, salient facts or events.

While one might be inclined to dismiss as being absurd, studies within the field of social psychology have found this to be true. In Malcolm Gladwell’s book, “The Tipping Point,” Gladwell explores and explains the complexity of social behavior with compelling and supporting examples. Gladwell writes that social problems are like a virus, he writes, “Ideas and products and messages and behaviors spread just like viruses do,” (20). Gladwell explains that messages don’t just go in one ear and out the other but makes an impact. He considers the power of context to define how events are perceived. In his book, he mentions the case of Bernhard Goetz, the individual who shot four youths who menaced him on a New York subway in 1984. Because the shooting came at a particularly crime-ridden period in the city’s history, Goetz was regarded as a hero.

What Gupta doesn’t realizing, even though the ad did not make any visual or explicit verbal references to race, the racial cues embedded within the commercial does activate racial thinking among people of color – especially Asian Americans – and White Americans. It is this kind of denial that is the root cause for the disparity we currently are having in this country between whites and people of color. And it is this type of behavior that explains why people feel they can continue mocking the appearance and the behavior of people of color.

We must continue questioning the reasons people are able to twist reality in such a way that conforms to contemporary socio-political “norms.” We must continue to put on Vinod Gupta to stop running both commercials. If, not, we must mobilize a campaign to boycott not only Salesgenie.com but also InfoUSA.

Despite every plea made by religious leaders such as Pope Benedict XVI, this holiday has nothing to do with religion. The fact is Christmas fuel consumerism because the principle message being told during the holiday season is to buy, spend, and consume.

The commercialism of Christmas is not a recent phenomenon. In 1850, Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote a lament that reflected a common sentiment: “There are worlds of money wasted, at this time of year, in getting things nobody wants, and nobody cares for after they are got.”

We’ve brainwashed ourselves to “give” into a mechanical generic holiday system instead of giving our hearts and souls to a worthy cause that the real Christmas represents.

This holiday season is a time when we should ponder the message of Charles Dickens’ timeless classic, “A Christmas Carol.” Most of us who grew up with it as children as being a story about the miser Ebenezer Scrooge, who cares about nothing but money and is visited in his house on Christmas Eve by three ghosts – the Ghost of Christmas Past, the Ghost of Christmas Present and the Ghost of Christmas Future. They make Scrooge see the error of his ways.

It is not surprising that everyone takes joy in Scrooge’s redemption, because it allows us to find the kernel of compassion, of humanity within us. However, many of us miss the true message Dickens was trying to convey. Understanding the conditions under which working-class people lived became based on his experiences, the scene with Christmas Present with the two orphans, Ignorance and Want is the central focus of the story. From Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol:”

‘They are Man’s,’ said the Spirit, looking down upon them. ‘And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it.’ cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city. ‘Slander those who tell it ye. Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse. And abide the end.’

‘Have they no refuge or resource.’ cried Scrooge.

‘Are there no prisons.’ said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words. ‘Are there no workhouses.’

Championing the causes of the poor and oppressed, Dickens personified ignorance and want as twins because Ignorance and Want are the twin evils of humanity. How we act and behave towards one another in society plays a vital role in lives of the poor and the oppressed. Yes, all of us! The orphan twins symbolized the plight of the poor and the causes of their poverty as well as humanity’s obligation to them. In addition, of the two, Ignorance is the greater evil.

When you look at the bigger picture, it is fear and need and want and anxiety that drives this country. Moreover, it is these fears that have caused our culture of cruelty that currently exists. Today, in his Year-End Press Conference, President Bush continues to push the illusion that Americans are at risk.

BUSH: As you all know, I’ve said this many times from the podium, I do believe in the universality of freedom. I believe if people are given a chance to be free, they will do so. I understand some don’t believe that. It’s kind of like, “We’re the only ones who can be free.” It’s kind of the ultimate isolationism, isn’t it. And the question then is: Is it in our nation’s interest to help others realize the blessings of liberty? And clearly the Bush foreign policy says it is, because I believe it’s going to yield peace. And it’s particularly important given the fact that we’re in an ideological struggle against people who use murder to achieve political objectives. And we faced these kind of people before in our past. And the question is: Does it make sense to confront them? And if we forget the lessons of September the 11th as a nation we will be naive or blind to the realities of the world. And the best way to confront these folks in the long term is to defeat their ideology with one based upon hope, and that’s one based upon liberty, and that’s what you’re watching unfold. It’s necessary work, and it’s hard work. And it requires determination and effort and commitment. And so, part of our efforts is to convince others: one, the nature of the world in which we live; two, that we’re in an ideological struggle; and, three, we will prevail because we’ve got the ultimate weapon against those who can’t see anything but terror and murder as the way forward, and that is freedom.

This is not a coincidence. Today Christmas is such a vital part of our economic system that Wall Street monitors the season as an indicator of the nation’s economic viability. Currently, the national mood is absorbed in the illusion that Americans are at risk and that they are in danger from terrorists abroad. While it is true that America has plenty of enemies, people in this country believe in the illusion created by this country that their hatred is toward us and not towards those who continue banging the drum of fear to achieve their political objectives. Rather than making sacrifices during a time when our economy is fragile, people today are being told that the best way to help economy is to go about their business and spend money as if nothing was wrong.

What better time to get out that message than the Christmas holidays. Why? Because not only is Christmas celebrated by gift giving; but we are also compelled to do so, not necessarily out of the kindness of our hearts.

This year, the average individual US consumer is expected to spend $817 on holiday-related shopping, according to the National Retail Federation’s 2007 Holiday Consumer Intentions Survey. Last year, consumer spending on holiday gift spending totaled $450 billion and in the previous year, consumers spent a total of $438.6 billion. Although it is being reported that sales are down this year, yet, the forecast for this year, sales are still expected to see a 1.5 percent increase from a year ago.

As Christmas has become entwined with shopping, American consumers are encouraged to spend, while at the same time, they are being told to save money. In the end, consumer debt continues to grow. Recent statistics show 3 in 5 Americans (59%) incurred credit card debt when shopping for Christmas presents. According to the NRF 2007 survey, 40.1 percent of shoppers, up from 39.1 percent last year, will rely on debit and check cards to make purchases.

In our contemporary framework, the term “giving” equals buying rather than giving meaning providing. And this is the crux of the problem. Pure market capitalism does not respect traditions or religion. The market doesn’t care if you are rich or poor. All that matters is how to make the best profit possible from selling to the public. It is a system that believes that humankind exists only for the money that can be made through exploitation and intimidation.

It is Ignorance that turns a blind eye on a world full of “Little Matchstick Girl,” with an attitude that we aren’t their keepers. It is Ignorance that continues to play self-deluding word games for the sake of an ideal self-image. In truth, if we dare to look it, as Nietzsche said, the abyss stares back.” When this happens it is easier to avert our eyes and bury our heads in the sand and turn a blind eye to our moral cowardice, because it is their poverty makes us feel uncomfortable, their illnesses that disgust us, and the apparent hopelessness of their lives that scares us.

At a time when everyone invokes and acclaims progress, solidarity and peace for all, people continue to die of hunger and thirst, disease and poverty. It is Ignorance that has ignored those who continue to be enslaved, exploited and stripped of their dignity. It creates an environment where victims of racial and religious hatred are hampered by intolerance, by discrimination, and by political interference. It creates an environment that rationalizes the numerous assaults and rape to women like Jamie Leigh Jones and Kathryn Bolkovac by companies like Halliburton, KBR, and DynCorp International through physical and moral coercion. And it is Ignorance that has turned a blind eye to the numerous threats and harassments to thousands of immigrants by the Border Patrol, ICE, and the US.

You could say that the adverse nature within us that causes us to be contrary to what is righteous. However, it is our greed, our selfishness, our self-importance, our materialism and our aversions to Godliness that has taken us down a darker path – a path is sociopathic. We are living in a pluralistic society that has created a climate that protects all variations of irresponsibility and irrationality. It is draining the economy, bankrupting the country, and making a psychotic mess of our political process. The twin evils of humanity have consumed us like a cancer. Make no mistake; this country seeks to control the world for its own political and economic interests and we are its collateral damage as many misguided flag-waving zealots rally to a jingoistic cause. And as we open our gifts this Christmas and singing songs of “peace on earth,” just remember, thousands of innocent children will either spend their Christmas in some private detention facilities located this country and millions of families will continue to be blown up by our bombs because they shall forever roam in the dark alleys of our indifference.

We have become deaf and blind to the truth: we help create this economic, political, and legal systems that is stepping on the backs of the poor and the oppressed.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Aztlan North [John Derbyshire]

Incidentally, while hobnobbing with those Midwesterners at Storm Lake, Iowa — their surnames mostly taken from the Stockholm, Oslo, and Berlin phone books — I heard a couple of times the remark that in this little corner of rural Iowa, the student body in the schools is half Hispanic. The remark was passed in a polite, diffident and non-condemnatory way — of course! this is Iowa — and when I tried to probe, people just retreated into niceness (“These Mexican restaurants are really great!”)

Still, I found it hard to believe, surrounded as I was by Lundqvists and Muellers. In an idle moment, however, I looked up the stats on GreatSchools.net. Sure enough, the “Student Stats” on GreatSchools for Storm Lake show percentages Hispanic as:

• High school: 32
• Middle School: 43
• Elementary schools: 53, 66, 63, 53.

Say what you like, that is truly an invasion. Why on earth are we letting this happen?

In order to understand the concept of Aztlán, it is important to understand the historical experience of Chicanas/os, an experience that has been rendered invisible by institutional discourses in the US. Stereotype, of Mexican Americans as “dirty, lazy, drunken, cruel, violent, treacherous, fanatical, priest-ridden, ignorant, and superstitious,” which were formed in early interactions between Anglos and Mexicans helped to foster exploitative practices which continue today.

The concept of Aztlán was originated by the poet Alurista in the year 1969 at the conference organized by Corky Gonzales in Denver. In an interview, Alurista said:

“People call California, Arizona, Nueva Mexico and Colorado Aztlán, but really, Aztlán is wherever we are. We don’t recognize borders. It’s more a matter of cultural/political identity. When I say this is our land, I don’t mean that we own it. Who owns anything?”

Aztlán was a spiritual concept which was meant to unite all Xican@s. Derbyshire’s post is nothing more but a racist appeal from the far right.

Moore was furious over Gupta’s report, the interview ended up becoming a heated debate, which forced Wolf Blitzer again (video) to continue his interview the next day. However, the war of words between CNN and Moore did not end there, the debate continued on “Larry King Live” (VIDEOS: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3). complex citations for each of the assertions made in his movie,

During that week, Moore used his website to addressed each assertion made by Gutpa by posting citing the sources he used to make his movie, plus a line-by-line rebuttal of each of the “corrections” made by CNN, adding links to original source material.

CNN was forced to admit that they did indeed “fudge” at least two of the facts in their coverage of my film and have apologized for it. These are the two facts that CNN used to try to discredit Moore.

Misinformation #1: Gupta states that in the movie Sicko, Cuba spends $25 per health care capita.

“Moore asserts that the American health care system spends $7,000 per person on health. Cuba spends $25 dollars per person. Not true. But not too far off. The United States spends $6,096 per person, versus $229 per person in Cuba.” (Video Time Frame: 1:44)

I mention the video time frame because Gupta admits it was an error, however, he also blames it on a “transcription” error for its mistake on Larry King Live.

GUPTA: — Yes, we made a mistake, Larry, with regards to the per capita spending for Cubans. Michael correctly — he said $251 in the movie. We said $5, misquoting him $25 per capita in the piece. And that was a mistake of ours. It was an error of transcription and it’s — we want to get these facts and figures right, as a doctor and a journalist, so we corrected that. But we wanted to make sure we just made that very transparent. (Video time frame: 0:28)

Even though Gupta apologizes to Moore on his blog “Paging Dr Gupta,” the day after the big “Gupta-Moore fight” on Larry King Live, Gupta continue distorts the facts.

He cited an unsourced BBC report when talking about per capita Cuban spending. That same report also talked about US per capita health spending, but he apparently didn’t like that number, so instead he used a projected number from a different study. I worry that comparing apples and oranges purposely, and perhaps needlessly, muddy the argument. To be clear, I got a number wrong in my original report, substituting the number 25, instead of 251. It was not deliberate, but an error of transcription. I felt awful it happened. I did correct it and apologize.

Michael Moore used another of data to back up the “unsourced BBC report” that Gupta was referring.

As for Cuba – Dr. Gupta and CNN need to watch ‘SiCKO’ first before commenting on it. ‘SiCKO’ says Cuba spends $251 per person on health care, not $25, as Gupta reports. And the BBC reports that Cuba’s per capita health expenditure is… $251! (Keeping Cuba Healthy, BBC, Aug. 1 2006.) This is confirmed by the United Nations Human Development Report, 2006. Yup, Cuba spends $251 per person on health care. As Gupta points out, the World Health Organization does calculate Cuba’s per capita health expenditure at $229 per person. We chose to use the UN numbers, a minor difference – and $229 is a lot closer to $251 than $25.

The fact is, CNN attempted to mislead the public by not citing Moore correctly to create confusion. However, when CNN was caught, they tried to blame it on a transcription error. This is not the first time a news media tried to place blame else where for their mistakes. Back in April during the Virgina Tech shooting, Michael Sneed of the Chicago Tribune falsely reported that the shooter was not only a Chinese immigrant but also a possible terrorist. Sneed later blamed it on a faulty report that are usually made available to law enforcement agencies.

Misinformation #2: CNN’s second attempt to discredit ‘SiCKO’ by using a biased expert to discredit the film. Gupta had tried to fool their public by innocently trying to pass off Paul Keckley, as a seemingly unbiased “health expert.” Moore busted CNN by revealing CNN’s “healthcare expert” Keckley was not unbiased, but happens to be “a person from a think tank group who is a big Republican contributor.” When caught, Gupta lied on national television and claimed Keckley’s “only affiliation” was with Vanderbilt University.

What Gupta tried to hide was that Keckley left Vanderbilt in October 2006 to work for the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, a think tank headed by former Bush Administration official Tommy Thompson. The center advocates private, for-profit enterprise in the health care arena and the “consumer-driven” solutions advocated by the Bush Administration. In addition, Keckley founded and ran a business whose customers included Blue Cross of Tennessee and Aventis Pharmaceuticals.

After realizing they were caught they finally did come clean and admit Moore was correct – “Moore is correct. Paul Keckley left Vanderbilt in late 2006. That is the affiliation Gupta referenced on ‘Larry King Live.’”

The attack on Moore is not a surprise, given the corporation’s complete dependence on advertising dollars from other corporations that know how to use the power of that money to shape news. And it’s no secret that our primary perceptions of the world are filtered through the cloudy lenses of international entertainment and appliance industries. What is interesting is how we quickly forget that CNN is owned by Times-Warner, ABC television network by Walt Disney Company, NBC by General Electric, CBS by National Amusements, and Fox News by Fox Entertainment Group and News Corporation when we are actually watching the news.

But in a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, the role of the mass media is to “amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society.” As we are constantly being bombarded with obvious corporate messages — in advertisements, commercials, and the like – we as Americans are going a transformation in the way we perceive society and, thus, perceive our own lives.

Because as Wolf Blizter put it – “we have commercials [CNN] is a business, obviously.”.

There seems to be an offensive ad running loose around the net called “Shoot The Rapper!” The advertisement features an animated rapper that resembles 50 Cent and a photographer whose camera you have to position to “shoot the rapper.” If you can, “You will win $5000 or 5 ringtones guaranteed.”

Actually, this is not the first time this has appeared. During the horrific events at Virginia Tech earlier this year, the ad was frequently spotted on MySpace, alongside the profiles of Virginia Tech students who happen to have lost their lives in that horrific tragedy. Peter Krasilovsky, on his “Local Onliner” blog was the first to notice this in his post about the Virginia Tech shootings.

Krasilovsky began complimenting the New York Times for its interactive feature about the victims until he noticed the banner ad on one of the student profiles on MySpace.com.

I was looking at one student’s MySpace profile, and noticed the rotating banner ad: “Shoot the Rapper, win $5,000.” I hope MySpace deletes the ad soon.

Shawn Gold, Chief Marketing Officer for MySpace, told Online Media Daily that said he was “unaware of the regrettable placement and that its occurrence was completely random.”

“That’s a random network ad that runs throughout our site, and it’s not connected contextually because we don’t place banner ads contextually on MySpace,” said Gold.

Added Gold: “It’s inappropriate if the ads are running on those profiles, and we can eliminate them from our network if that’s the case.”

During that time, there was an outcry for websites like MySpace to become more responsible with their advertising. On Poynter.org, Peter Zollman stated that “media should have advertising standards” in order to prevent instances like this from happening again.

The time has come for a company with the global reach and influence of Fox Interactive Media to set some real standards in advertising, and send advertisers with such a delightful message as “Shoot the Rapper” into the trash heap. Or make them choose a better message. Or a worse Web site.

The Internet has become a vast network of information that offers users a sense of connectivity in addition to multi-media content. In this manner, the social nature of the Internet has become the latest rage, with the increasing use of social-networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace, owned by NewsCorp and the deep pockets of media mogul Rupert Murdoch, available not only for personal use but for professional networking as well.

It is not a secret that Wall Street are cashing in on this phenomenon, according to eMarketer, MySpace and Facebook will account for 72% of U.S. social network ad spending in 2007 and an ever greater 75% in 2008. It is estimated by 2010, spending will hit $2.15 billion. It seems that advertising is a major problem with social networking sites because many advertisers rely on “contextual advertising.” This is where ads you view on a web page are delivered based on the content of a web page that’s being viewed. In other words, the ad system sees what you are viewing on any web page because it has already examined the words on those page or through other factors. The system then delivers up in some fashion an ad that’s related to that topic.

What makes this ad very disturbing are the cross hairs that are supposed to look like camera but it seems pretty obvious as the African American cartoon figure walks across the red carpet, while they are ducking and dodging at the same time, the goal is to shoot the rapper. The crux of the matter, many remain ignorant of the true nature of this issues – the attack on the hip hop culture.

Hip Hop music is a product, produced by giant corporations for mass distribution to a carefully targeted and cultivated demographic market. What the public sees, hears and consumes is the end result of a process that is integral to the business model crafted by top corporate executives. The artist, the song, the presentation – all of it is a corporate product.

So it is not surprising to see that this ad did not go over very well within the hip hop community. Hip-hop artist, Rasheeda, told A-list Magzine about the “hypocrisy one deals with living in this country every day.”

“[This is] a perfect example of the hypocrisy one deals with living in this country every day. They fire Don Imus, then say Hip Hop is to blame. We grow up watching action movies and then are told Gangsta Rap is bad. We have shows like ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire’ and then wonder why kids don’t want to work at McDonalds…It’s only a matter if time before Anderson Cooper is interviewing Jim Jones about MySpace, watch and see.”

The anti-social aspects of commercial hip hop are perceived as a “Black” problem, rather than the entertainment corporations that created and profit from them. However, let it be understood, this truth DOES NOT EXONERATE sexist hip-hop from its shameful contribution to the debasement of women.

According to Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report, the major record labels actively suppress positive hip hop by withholding promotional support of both the above- and below-the-table variety. Ford revived how one of the corporate labels conducted a study that discovered that “tweens,” the demographic slice between the ages of 11 and 13, were the most “active” consumers.

Early and pre-adolescents of both genders are sexual-socially undeveloped – uncertain and afraid of the other gender. Tweens revel in honing their newfound skills in profanity; they love to curse. Males, especially, act out their anxieties about females through aggression and derision. This is the cohort for which the major labels would package their hip hop products. Commercial Gangsta Rap was born – a sub-genre that would lock a whole generation in perpetual arrested social development.

It is a multibillion-dollar industry, accounting for one of every five records sold in America. Although the faces of hip-hop are predominantly Black and the Black community the real power-players are Universal Music and Viacom who are pushing on what gets produced and promoted in hip-hop. It is also part of the existing domestic/neo-colonialism in which the which mass media is playing a leading role.

Like Latina/os, African Americans must also sell their labor cheaply and be willing to conform themselves to the needs and will of an elite in order to “succeed.” The pervasiveness of violence, misogyny, conspicuous consumption, and product promotion in hip-hop is the systemic need produced by the music industry. In our society today, ethnic culture is used as a form of social control, that which becomes “pop culture” in that it suddenly becomes the norm. Dr. James Peterson, founder of Hip Hop Scholars, LLC and assistant professor of English at Pennsylvania State U. at Abington further explains how the banner ad is an assault on African Americans culture:

“The mainstream media are doing everything they can to assassinate the character of our culture…The ad takes on more popularity now because of the backlash and the systematic attempt to kill Hip Hop by scapegoating it for all of the ills of American society, including gun violence, misogyny and racism….We need to redress Anderson Cooper, Jason Whitlock, and Oprah Winfrey. These folk are taking out rappers for real – not in some animated advertisement.”

The fact is, this banner ad is bordering on of eliminationism by using coded language to mask its true intent, definitely an underhanded advertising tactic. Eliminationism, according to Dave Neiwert of Orcinus, is behavior that is meant to shut down any type dialogue for the purpose of “outright elimination of the opposing side, either through complete suppression, exile and ejection, or extermination.”

Even though a camera is used to “shoot” the rapper and not the “gun” one would expect, the desired effect is to trigger a perception in which the person assumes a weapon would be used if they click the ad. Considering a camera is used when they actually play the game, the advertising company actually played on an average person’s own prior conditioning and frame of reference with the use of the cross hairs, which is the trigger that actually fools the person. The advertising company is able to get away with it because to the paparazzi photographer viewing the page, it is nothing more but a reference of taking the rappers picture.

It is these malicious tactics that we must focus. As people criticized MySpace, nobody actually questioned the company that made the ad. As a result, the ad continues to float around. One could compare this ad to the internet video game “Border Patrol” that was also floating around the Internet where the object of the game is to “kill as many ‘wetbacks’ as possible as they cross the US border. If we are really want to make a change in our society, we must not be afraid to go after those who are making and pushing this poison on us.

The three Guardsmen are assigned to border duties along the Texas-Mexico border as part of Operation Jump Start, President Bush’s initiative to place 6,000 Guard troops at the border to help local and federal authorities with immigration enforcement.

According to the criminal complaint, the arrests followed after a routine stop last Wednesday evening at a Border Patrol checkpoint near Cotulla in La Salle County, TX. National Guardsman Jose Rodrigo Torres was driving a white Ford passenger van when agents stopped the vehicle for an inspection. As the approached the van they found 24 illegal aliens hiding in the back of the van. Torres was wearing his military uniform when agents found him driving the immigrants. Once Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agents arrived, Torres told ICE agents that he had been recruited by National Guardsman Sgt. Julio Cesar Pacheco to transport the immigrants. Torres also stated that he had already transported undocumented immigrants about seven times before that night, and Pacheco would pay him $1,000 to $3,500 per trip. Three of the passengers in Torres’ van identified him as the driver, according to the criminal complaint. They also said that they paid $1,500 to $2,000 to be smuggled into the United States, according to the complaint.

The complaint states that Torres was able avoid immigration inspection at the checkpoint with the assistance of a third National guardsman, Sgt. Clarence Hodge. According to Torres, Hodge would approach the “van to make it appear that they were doing National Guardsmen business.”

The criminal complaint also stated that Torres told agents that the three guardsmen would communicate via text messaging to coordinate the smuggling. ICE agents found a text message conversation between Pacheco and Torres. The message was instructing Torres that the trip was a go and that he would be paid $3,500 for the delivery.

… Pacheco to Torres on Wednesday reading, “ok it sounds pretty good but we need to take 24 people to make that happen and you will get 3500 does that sound good (sic).”

Torres responded via a text message on the same day reading, “24 will b tuff 2 fit but ill try (sic).”

Hours before Torres was detained by Border Patrol, a message from Hodge to Torres asked if he wanted to make a transport on June 8, … Torres wrote, “Tell them ill only do 1 @ no more than 20 people @ $150 a person and I want 2 leave at 1930 hrs and ill go 2 San Antonio if they want (sic).”

Families of the guardsmen are said to be in shock of the arrest according the Houston Chronicle. According to Pacheco’s family, Pacheco, served in Germany, Kosovo and Iraq over four years in the Army. Pacheco was awarded the Purple Heart for injuries he suffered in Iraq in 2004.

However, this is not the first time troops from Operation Jump Start are accused of illegal activity. Back in September, three other soldiers were arrested on charges that they opened fire in a district near Eagle Pass. According to local police, the guardsmen claimed that boredom was at the heart of a joyride with two cases of beer and a loaded 9 mm pistol.

The fact that there are US agents who are willing to smuggle either undocumented immigrants or drugs across the border for profit or some other illicit motive is not new. What bothers me; two of the guardsmen are Latino and given the anti-Brown sentiment that is running rapid in the US, what they just did was adding more fuel to the reconquista fable.

TPM Media, of Talking Points Memo, were the first to break this story, which they posted a video clip of the gaffe on YouTube. In the video, TMP’s Joshua Micah Marshall contended that only a few weeks ago, FOX portrayed black people as fraudulent voters. FOX told USA Today that it was an “inadvertent error” and said it would issue an on-air apology for running stock footage of Rep. Conyers while reporting on the indictment of Rep. Jefferson on bribery charges. Fox has put all the blame on a 22-year-old production assistant; whom the network claims hurriedly grabbed the wrong videotape. Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum told viewers.

“Yesterday at this time, news of the indictment of the Congressman William Jefferson came down. We mistakenly ran the wrong video to accompany this story, and we apologize for that error.” [See video]

In reaction to FOX News’ on-air apology, Conyers said the FOX News was insincere and its inaccurate reporting should not be tolerated, especially when dealing with people of color, according to RAW Story. Conyers also said that the mistake was to be expected by a network known for being the exact opposite of its motto – “fair and balanced.”

“Fox News has a history of inappropriate on-air mistakes that are neither fair, nor balanced. This type of disrespect for people of color should no longer be tolerated. I am personally offended by the network’s complete disregard for accuracy in reporting and lackluster on-air apology,” said Rep. Conyers in a statement sent to RAW STORY.

In an article in BusinessWeek, Melanie Roussell, Conyers’ press representative, said the Conyers was very upset that Fox’s on-air mea culpa did not say specifically what the blunder was nor did they mention his name.

It was reported that Fox’s Washington bureau chief was mortified by the error and had called Conyers’ office personally to apologize. He said he spoke to a press secretary and asked what he could do to make things right, including coming to Conyers’ office to apologize in person. He said that no one returned his e-mail. However, according to Jonathan Godfrey, communications director for the House Committee on the Judiciary, he received Wilson’s messages several hours after FOX News aired their apology. Apparently, Wilson had offered his apologies approximately two hours before the on-air apology broadcast. MacCallum again issued a correction for Jefferson/Conyers error. This time around, MacCallum acknowledged Fox News had mistakenly aired video of Conyers during its segment on Jefferson and apologized to Conyers for the mistake.

On Monday, in our report on the indictment of William Jefferson, in error we aired some video of Congressman John Conyers of Michigan. That tape was labeled “a meeting about William Jefferson” and it was mistaken as video portraying Mr. Jefferson. We regret this mistake. We in no way meant to suggest there was any connection between the Jefferson indictment and Congressman Conyers. We have extended our apology privately to the congressman, and we do so here as well. [See video]

This is really a serious matter because this is not the first time and it will not be their last time they mix up African-American elected official. In fact, the whole notion of “all those non-white people look same” is typical stereotyping, which should have been refrained in the first place. The truth that FOX News twice is appalling, just because Wilson could not contact Conyers before they offered their first apology, it would have been common sense to apologize to him directly and mention their error.

Nevertheless, this is Faux News, so nothing is surprising. Not when they are willing to keep an overt racist like Bill O’Reilly who is openly advocating for a “white, Christian, male power structure” here in the US. First of all, O’Reilly used an article done a known Latina conservative, Linda Chavez, to justify his claim. Instead of acknowledging that Chavez is voicing the same concerns that we on the left are voice, Latino Fear and Loathing, he asserted that the open border people want to destroy the “white Christian male power structure.”

O’REILLY: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you’re a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you’ve got to cap with a number.

MCCAIN: In America today we’ve got a very strong economy and low unemployment, so we need addition farm workers, including by the way agriculture, but there may come a time where we have an economic downturn, and we don’t need so many.

O’REILLY: But in this bill, you guys have got to cap it. Because estimation is 12 million, there may be 20 [million]. You don’t know, I don’t know. We’ve got to cap it.

MCCAIN: We do, we do. I agree with you. [See video]

The fact that McCain did not stop O’Reilly or openly disagree with him, says a lot. Silence does speak volumes and I found that McCain’s silence to be an expression of prejudice. I am truly happy that Conyer’s stepped up and called out FOX News the way he did. I am even happier that he did not even back down like most Democrats who do after showing they have a backbone.

If there were ever a time to step up, that time is now. We need to ensure that we will not let them get away with this crap. No matter what your race or income level, you know is just plain wrong. Nobody is going to change the status quo for us, only we can do it. Let’s start making the first step together.