withdrawn for now
Is the UFW still considered to have the clout and influence it had during the 60s and 70s?
Well, I’m sure glad I never got that si, se puede tattoo back when I was working with immigrants.
For a number of reasons. But also this one.
When I was a kid in California, the state removed Columbus Day as one of the holidays that was a day off school, and replaced it with Cesar Chavez Day.
I suppose they’re gonna have to do something about that now.
Like taking away the name of a man that may of sexually abused some women, and putting back the name of a man that raped, killed and enslaved thousands?
Yeah, I imagine there might be some place re-naming before too long. (Plaza de Cesar Chavez in San Jose for example)
Regardless of the historical figure involved, I’ve always felt that nobody is perfect. When our heroes disappoint us, it can be devastating.
I’d be hard pressed to name a historical figure who would stand up to the values of 2026.
Rape is of course a serious violent crime. It was a crime in the 1960s as it is today. So I’d would add this historical fact (allegation?) to the history books while still lauding him for his work with the UFW. Both are true.
Thomas Jefferson is a slave owning rapist. I still think he did some good things.
It is not an either/or situation. Condemn the bad things and laud the good things.
Not sure how you came up with that from what I said.
Raping 2 is acceptable but you draw the line at thousands?
Sacramento also has a Cesar Chavez Plaza right in downtown. Lots of events are held there.
And this is why it is unwise to name stuff after people - what happens if the person you are honoring by naming a street, park, school, airport, library, etc. turns out to be a schmuck?
People are flawed. Our ‘heroes’ (however you define them) have made mistakes, done bad things, and may have histories that could be, at least in part, reprehensible. Nobody is Doug Forcett. The difficulty is that we culturally tend to canonize these heroes and then their histories come to light. The problem with pedestals is that it can be a long way down when they fall.
It is called a sense of perspective. One man may have raped 60 years ago, while another is impeached twice, convicted multiple times, is sexually skeevy to the nth degree and yet is elected President twice. They are thinking about removing the name of the former from institutions and streets, while the latter…well, just Wiki the names of places named after Trump.
I am not saying that Chavez should be excused, because he shouldn’t. I am just saying that some need a major overhauling of their perspectometer.
What does Trump have to do with this?
Is anyone here arguing that Donald Trump isn’t as bad as Cesar Chavez? It’s hard to understand what you’re objecting to here.
The fact that this is being covered and discussed at all?
I am 100% certain you have only sympathy and support for the victims, and disdain for the abusers. So please understand that I have no intention of criticizing your point of view, which I imagine quite closely resembles my own.
Having said that, I’m not comfortable with your use of language. What you wrote seems to imply (to me - maybe I am reading too much into your words) that, if only these underlings had removed their blinders and taken a more objective look, they wouldn’t have been so “impressed” and they might have spoken out against their abuser.
That implication isn’t fair. First, in some cases we are talking about children (if the NYT article is correct, Chavez started assaulting one person when she was 13), so it’s not reasonable to expect their “impressions” to be mature.
Second, even in the case of adult women, those “impressions” of power were no doubt totally accurate. The reason they didn’t speak out against their abusers wasn’t necessarily because they were “impressed” by power, in a bedazzled sort of way. It was because they understood that no one would believe them.
Granted, sometimes the women involved in such situations are indeed “impressed” - poor Monica Lewinsky, who against all odds matured into an awesome person, as far as I can tell, was foolishly enamored of Bill Clinton.
And an initial thrill someone might have at being shown attention by a powerful male probably does factor in to the initiation of many abusive situations. Still, it’s the man’s fault for cynical using that dynamic to his advantage. I wouldn’t want to say anything that blames the girl/woman.
I kind of get what Czarcasm is saying. When the left shines a full spotlight on its heroes’ misdeeds, and the right doesn’t, then it does feel kind of like political self-harm for the left, in the sense that the left is basically doing something that will get less voters to vote for them. It’s like disarmament of sorts, or akin to a sports team saying, “I want the referees to focus lots of attention on my fouls or rule violations while my opponent gets to have his fouls/violations fly under the radar,” it makes the likelihood of defeat unintentionally greater. I’m not sure what his proposed alternative is though.
There’s no ethical alternative.
We just have to suck it up and accept that being liberal means your intellectual honesty will bite you in the ass sometimes.
The way Huerta describes her experiences is textbook trauma psychology. I can’t look away from that.
The contrast in response is a positive thing.
What would be much worse is making excuses and/or belittling victims, which most on the Left have apparently learned is a bad idea.*
*see Bill Clinton, whose actions while in power seem almost quaint nowadays.
Everything is going to end up being “Fred Rogers’ _________”
I say anything named after Chavez currently can and should be renamed after Huerta.