There are written records that predate email.
The response to political factions going “what about Cesar Chavez” is “we took the name from everything once it was public knowledge what was up”. Yeah, I know, poor consolation. Took inexcusably longer than it should but as they say with other subjects, the best time to do something about a problem was when it started, the second best time is today.
(But… experience tells us that keeping things quiet as long as possible only makes your organization look WORSE in the end. Why don’t people get it )
And that’s what can become the challenge: dealing with the beloved myth, and important ideas that it represents, when we learn that the real person was, at a minimum, highly flawed.
Hiding the below to not make this a complete hijack:
Summary
Several have mentioned Columbus Day / Indigenous Peoples Day upthread, and this is the challenge around Columbus. Many historians now believe that Columbus was a pretty awful person, particularly in regards to how he treated the indigenous people he encountered.
But, a number of Italian-American groups have been vigorously fighting against renaming Columbus Day, because the day has become a de facto “Italian-American Heritage Day,” and removing his name from the day takes away (in their view) a day which is important to their heritage and ancestry.
I took a graduate level course on the Civil Rights Movement. In one class discussion, we were speaking about the decision to allow children on a particular March even knowing the liklihood of violence was high. The organizers of the March included Martin Luther King, Jr. Unlike most other class discussions, where we were eager to give our opinion, he professor had to badger us because nobody wanted to criticize King. To criticize King was to criticize the Civil Rights Movement. It’s so difficult to offer any negative opinion on a person who has been deified all your life.
Or Dolly Parton.
That sounds a bit like saying that people who get vaccinated against deadly diseases are self-harming with temporary fatigue and/or fever symptoms and/or sore arms, compared to the anti-vaxxers who avoid having to go through any of that.
When the left acknowledges and repudiates misconduct, even by those we may previously have regarded as heroes, we’re strengthening our “ideological immune system” against future misconduct. When the right lets their heroes get away with crime and abuse, they invite more crime and abuse, and wind up being routinely associated in the minds of others with crime and abuse.
I don’t see any way to make this work with real people without being willing to bury unpleasant truths that surface later. Most of us don’t seem willing to do that. What is difficult, then, is to back away from praising the person while still holding up for admiration the good works they presumably did. Then there’s the issue of where the balance lies – how good was the good stuff, compared to how bad was the bad stuff, and do we just have to drop all praise of the person altogether.
Myths used to be made up, not based on real people. Personifying ideals can be useful shorthand, until it backfires.
Maybe we need to add disclaimers to all the myths we make and deifications we do, about which qualities and actions we are praising and how we don’t know what other things they might have done that were not admirable, or were even downright evil.
It would need to be a caveat in any commemoration. I suppose we’d also be forced to make a distinction between conduct we consider immoral or evil in hindsight, and conduct that was already considered evil or criminal by society even when it was happening (i.e. no excuse of not knowing better)
BTW:
“The Catholics”? Or some group of Catholics somewhere? I can see Chicano families or parishes having shrines for his memory, but not as a general thing.
Of course, it’s a bit too late in this instance since Chavez died in 1993, and most of the people around him are near-dying or also dead. The time to do anything was 50 years ago. As for the UFW, it doesn’t seem to be in that great a shape either. Membership and influence are both way down from their peak.
Until they do. Ask the Murdaugh family.
I actually saw her in passing a few years ago - I was working at a law firm that was quite politically connected on the lefty side and had large immigration and civil rights practices. She came and met with some of the partners. I can’t remember the details (I wasn’t part of the meeting) but she seemed pretty energetic and lucid then. It wasn’t all that long ago.
(Have also been texting tonight with a former colleague, who had dinner with her when working for a local Hispanic social justice-focused nonprofit. Her impression was that Ms. Huerta was sharp as a tack and she believes the stories 100%.)
I don’t know directly, just that somebody built a very Catholic-saint sort of shrine for him.
Oh, you must not be too familiar with Mexican Catholic shrines… this would be almost a too sedate one.
No, but seriously, that’s the memorial garden at his gravesite in what is now the very official (and soon to be renamed?) US Fed Guvment Cesar Chavez National Monument, at his former home and HQ. So of course his burial place would look Catholic.
The primitivist style of artwork seen there (including the crucifix) is something I grew up surrounded by in the Vatican II-era church. Originally inspired by Rouault, I think, but here more inspired by indigenous Mexican art.
There is so much evidence in this case - which is really quite unusual - that based only on what the Times uncovered I think if this case had gone to criminal trial it would be a slam-dunk conviction. It’s rare to have corroboration to this extent.
I was impressed by the NYT handling of this story. It wasn’t salacious, it centered survivors, and yet it clearly communicated the heartbreak involved.
The coverage of this issue matters to me and I have to believe it matters to a lot of women.
Yes, after reading the original story, I have to agree. Sadly.
My question is Why now?
Exactly. It was 50 years ago, Chavez died 33 years ago. Why now?
Distraction from something else?
Because five years ago the New York Times got tipped off, so they started an investigation. And then they went to Huerta for comment and she apparently decided she didn’t want to die holding this secret.
That’s the best answer I’ve got for you. Trauma runs on its own timeline. Sometimes nonsensical and often inconvenient.
My overwhelming impression is that this is something Huerta, perhaps out of guilt over not saying anything sooner, wants to get off her chest before she passes on. Beyond that, my conspiratorial sense suggests that, because the UFW seems to be a mostly ineffectual shadow of what it once was, many activists prefer that it die so they can start over with a vibrant new farm labor organization unencumbered by the Chavez-related baggage. Finally spilling the dirty secrets about the UFW’s most well-known founder makes it a lot easier to pull the plug.
I don’t know the exact situation with activists over there, but this also seems plausible. Maybe the tip came from another organization outside UFW, or someone in UFW who wants a change.