I found this link to a professor at Cal State Fullerton that is doing research into the Spanish enslavement of Indians in America and Mexico during the Spanish rule. This is his link - http://campusapps.fullerton.edu/news/2005/77_castro.html

I just wonder if anyone else is really tired of hearing about or reading articles from "Chicanos" about how bad the Spanish were. As I wrote to tell Mr. Castro, the Chicano movement has done nothing but to villify the Spanish. Every political movement needs a bad guy it seems, and for the Chicano movement it is the Spanish. And it irks me a little to think that this guy is gaining wealth and notority for doing research and teaching this crap. Any thoughts??

What makes you assume that his research is wrong? Do you seriously think he's getting wealthy from this research? Apparently, Yale seems to think that the history of slavery in our country is worth studying. How does that threaten you? How do you know he's "teaching this crap?" and what crap is that? What are you afraid of? Do you think these researchers are making this stuff up? I don't know much about "Chicano" studies, but I do know that, statistically, our Mexican-American students don't succeed in school as much as they could. Anything that has the potential to help us understand a culture's history could be a good thing. Perhaps there is a political agenda at work here (I'm ignorant of these details in this case), but you can rest assured he's not getting rich off of this research. Unless, of course, he writes a book, and the "anti-Chicano studies" lobby if there is one, goes on CNN/Fox/MSNBC to complain--that would give him tons of publicity, and millions would go out and buy the book. This is why Al Franken really loved Bill O'Reilly and Fox after they sued him over "fair and balanced." When news of the lawsuit hit the press, Franken's book skyrocketed to the top of the best-seller list and stayed there quite a while!
So, if you're really concerned--keep up your dialogue with the researcher, so you'll learn about his work, and perhaps help him balance out his own views if they seem to be biased; but you might want to watch out for how much promotion your protestations might create!
I, for one, will probably follow his research now. Enslavement of Mexican indigineous people is something I hadn't really heard of.

aidance,

no need to go on a rampage I think - relax buddy :p but I think since you referenced on more than one occassion that you are ignorant of these things and do not know much about the Chicano movement that you should perhaps do a little more reading on the subject prior to giving your opinion.

However, let me get you started with your education of this subject: Mexican-American does not equal Chicano. Chicano is a specific movement with a political agenda, one of which is to claim that all of the Southwest, including Arizona, New Mexico, California and Texas rightfully belong to Mexico. This belief within the Chicano Movement is known as the Aztlan Plan. Chicano teachings tell students that the land was stolen from them by America through American aggression.

Furthermore, Chicano readings teach that the Spanish were villians that raped, murdered and stole all of the wealth from Mexico, and this is the reason for Mexico's poverty. Did these things happen, sure in some cases. But the Chicano Movement has villified the Spanish to no end. And unjustifiably so. Every political agenda needs a "bad guy" and the Chicano Movement has selected the Spanish as their bad guy.

Aidance, your other ramblings about how this affects me and what does it matter if this type of research is done is essentially meaningless, so I won't adress it. But I will say that political movements such as these are dangerous - because it is a social political movement that is teaching this "crap" to Mexican-American students in universities throughout the Southwest in order to convert their thinking into Chicano-thinking and identity.

Read some more, and then get back to me.

Alando, you are maybe not from the Southwest USA ? The reason I say this is because the word "Chicano" describes or incapsulates not a "specific political agenda" but rather a group of people, "Mexican Americans" as opposed to "Mexicanos" who were born in Mexico. The word Chicano is used by many to describe others as specifically of Mexican heritage but born and raised in the USA, and also when I grew up in the east side of Los Angeles it described sometimes a person who had maybe a gangster type personality or wild side. A person of Mexican heritage who was upwardly mobile and affluent would usually not describe themselves as a "Chicano" unless he was with friends from the old neighborhood and then it was used like the Italian American word "Paisan" in an affectionate way.
In the 60's many political groups used the word "Chicano" as a rally call to action but the word is not inherently political.

I always have a problem with those from any political spectrum that attempts to re-write history, using twenty century values.

Spanish were not villains; they were conquers and did what any other European power did at that time and centuries before. Was not the power Mexico the Aztecs before the Spanish show up and did the same thing to their fellow city states including human sacrifices?

Calling the Spanish villain, is really calling them victors, because the losers were doing the same thing to their less powerful neighbors.

I read the article and I do not see anything to object about. If he wants to research what slavery the Spanish did, there was slavery in Mexico before the Spanish show up. So I say his research is bias.

Bill

Fulano,

Actually I am from the Southwest - California/Arizona.

I do agree with this part of your post:

Fulano said:

and also when I grew up in the east side of Los Angeles it described sometimes a person who had maybe a gangster type personality or wild side. A person of Mexican heritage who was upwardly mobile and affluent would usually not describe themselves as a "Chicano"

That has been my experience also - that those Latinos or Mexican-Americans from low SES, barrios and that are gang-bangers or idealize gang bangers like to refer to themselves as Chicanos. Mexican-Americans and Latinos from middle-class or higher generally do not use that term to identify themselves.

And do you think that this is coincidental - that the poor, the "have-nots" would identify with a term like Chicano, which teachings talk about white oppression, American aggression and Spanish evilness? The answer is, of course not! The Chicano movement from the 1960's preached hatred and militantness, similar to the Black Panthers. The militant part of the Chicano movement I think was basically stamped-out in the 1970's along with the Black Panthers, thankfully. But the teachings and writings live on, of course! That part is fine - I support free speech. But, when every university is the Southwest has a "Chicano Studies Dept" that research crap like this guy Castro is doing, and American tax dollars go to pay for this type of research, then I have a problem with it.

Furthermore, you have young Mexican-Americans at universities that are being taught that this is their heritage. And Mexican-Americans already are seemingly in need of an identity. So those in the Chicano Movement, much like the way a cult operates, prays upon these poor, lost, angry youths in need of an identity. But ultimately the Chicano movement is not just a word to identify that you are Mexican-American. The Chicano Movement has its roots in anti-white, anti-American and anti-Spanish sentiment. And I do not see, especially after reading Mr. Castro's research from the Chicano Studies Dept at Cal State Fullerton, where this has changed!

Bill from NYC - bias is exactly the correct word! If you are to read some Chicano writings they will have you thinking that the Aztecs were some peaceful noble people living in a jungle and the evil Spanish came along and destroyed their utopia! Haha...never mind all of the human sacraficies and defeating their other Indian opponents in battle and cutting their hearts out of their chest while the person is still alive. And you are exactly right about the slave trade in Mexico - it pre-dates the Spanish. Indians such as the Aztecs enslaved other Indians. So, Mr. Castro's research bias? - Absolutely!

The dictionary definition for chicano is "an American of Mexican descent." This, of course avoids the negative connotations to which Alano and others refer. I found a more informed description:

Chicano
A relatively recent term that has been appropriated by many Mexican descendants as unique and therefore reflective of their unique culture, though its first usage seems to have been discriminatory. The most likely source of the word is traced to the 1930 and 40s period, when poor, rural Mexicans, often native Americans, were imported to the US to provide cheap field labor, under an agreement of the governments of both countries. The term seems to have come into first use in the fields of California in derision of the inability of native Nahuatl speakers from Morelos state to refer to themselves as "Mexicanos," and instead spoke of themselves as "Mesheecanos," in accordance with the pronunciation rules of their language (for additional details, refer to the file MEXICO on this same subdirectory). An equivocal factor is that in vulgar Spanish it is common for Mexicans to use the "CH" conjunction in place of certain consonants in order to create a term of endearment. Whatever its origin, it was at first insulting to be identified by this name. The term was appropriated by Mexican-American activists who took part in the Brown Power movement of the 60s and 70s in the US southwest, and has now come into widespread usage. Among more "assimilated" Mexican-Americans, the term still retains an unsavory connotation, particularly because it is preferred by political activists and by those who seek to create a new and fresh identity for their culture rather than to subsume it blandly under the guise of any mainstream culture.

These departments of "Chicano Studies" would do well to rename themselves to something less politicallly loaded, if they are truly interested in supporting unbiased research on Mexican-American history and culture. There could well be researchers trying to do just that, but they are stuck in the "Chicano Studies" departments which were created in the 60's and early 70's. The Mexican-American population is a very important group to our country's future. We would do well to support unbiased research on this part of our country's history (and present).

The words we use to label ourselves and others evolve and change. Hence, the progression: colored people, blacks, African-Americans.....Have you noticed that it is alright to refer to "people of color" but not "colored people"?

Again, ALando the word and or term "Chicano" was in use way back in the 30's and 40's and used to describe someone who was a Mexican American as opposed to someone who was born in Mexico. The term was used usually to describe a young "vato" if you will , from the neighborhood or "varrio" as we called them in the LA area. And the word "Chicano" and or "Chicano Movement" was actually co-opted by "political activist's" in the 60's who in reality had never, during, and if ever growing up in the "varrio" used the term "Chicano" to describe themselves until it was fashionable or politically correct!
The word is still a popular term that is used to describe or identify oneself or another in the neighborhoods of LA and other areas of the Southwest. Example: "Hey Bobby, who is that new family that moved in the house up the street? Answer: "There OK Paul, I met them yesterday and they are "Chicanos" from San Bernardino!
So to sum this up for whoever is interested, the term "Chicano" does not necessarily connote a political term but is a descriptive term used for many years by people mainly in the Southwest US and Mexico.
Chill out!

aidance said,

These departments of "Chicano Studies" would do well to rename themselves to something less politicallly loaded, if they are truly interested in supporting unbiased research on Mexican-American history and culture. There could well be researchers trying to do just that, but they are stuck in the "Chicano Studies" departments which were created in the 60's and early 70's. The Mexican-American population is a very important group to our country's future. We would do well to support unbiased research on this part of our country's history (and present).

Yes, exactly! And I forgive your attempt at bashing me earlier and misspelling my name! Haha...

fulano,

Can we assume that you are a "vato" from the "varrio"? Haha... I am familiar with all of these terms you are referencing, but you are wrong when you say that Chicano is simply an American of Mexican descent. No, it's not. Maybe at one time it was, but not since the Chicano Movement of the 60's - since then it has become associated as a militant and anti-American word.

So, as a Chicano, fulano, do you also hate the Spanish or blame them for all of Mexicans problems?