The news about Chavez is a good illustration, for me at least, of the juxtaposition of evidence vs. understanding. For nearly my whole life, Cesar Chavez was one of the good ones, and he was nearly untouchable. The last few days have been tough for me to reconcile this newly disclosed evidence with what I believed for decades.
Yeah, as was said, you have to beware staking your ideals and causes to an individual, however much our human instinct craves embodiment.
Every hero, every idol, will take hits. And better they do, than to have to provide feel-good sanitized versions of history.
And it would fit the timeline how by now we are 30+ years past his lifetime so by now organizers in and out of the movement have “grown up” without him.
As to why not bring it up when it happened…. can only think, 50 to 60 years ago was a tough world in which for a woman or girl to stand and make such accusations, and like Huerta has said herself they perceived the risk that it would be used to destroy the movement as an even greater harm. Women were (in many circles still are) strongly socialized and conditioned to adopt a sacrificial role in such situations.
(We know, appalling as it may sound to us now, that until very recently sexual assault was viewed by many as a sort of inherent “occupational hazard” of Living While Female that you just have to deal with. Hell, some still do feel that way.)
I was not alive until the 80s but what Huerta is talking about, the pressure not to make waves, is still the dynamic that exists in many families where abuse is disclosed, just on a smaller scale. And I think that pressure often comes from the pressure that was placed on previous generations. It self-perpetuates. If I accept that this happened to you, what does that mean about what happened to me? If I demand justice for you, how can I face that justice was never demanded for me?
We have to draw this stuff out and end this cycle. I really think putting it out there and making it a matter of public dialogue is the only way to get through to people - and by people I am talking about women who have been conditioned to sacrifice for whatever greater good that society, or a family, deems to be more important than her safety and healing.
In the Star Trek TOS episode where the transporter splits Kirk into a good half and an evil half, Evil Kirk nearly rapes Yeoman Rand, and her reaction when Good Kirk finds out is to apologize to him for potentially getting him in trouble.
It clearly was a common way of thinking at the time.
That makes me wonder if Chavez was being blackmailed because of his proclivities. His leadership of the UFW during the last 10-15 years of his life became increasingly insular and erratic as the union’s influence and membership declined.
Hmmm, This makes sense.
Crap on a cracker. Someone has started a petition to change Cesar Chavez street in San Francisco to Chuck Norris street, and I’m afraid it will catch on because of the coincidence of the timing of Norris’ death, and because so many people don’t realize what an asshole he was.
Soon we’re going have to start genetically engineering people incapable of badness just so we can name streets after them.
Was he? Yes his political views were from my POV abhorrent, but I’m not sure that defines “asshole”?
I wouldn’t want a street named after him, or anyone just by way of being a celebrity, who didn’t really accomplish any good for the world or country, but there are many streets named after figures whose politics I dislike.
There seems to be evidence that he was homophobic, which makes him an asshole as far as I’m concerned, especially if he used his fame and fortune to push that point of view. It also makes him a very undesirable public figure for things to be named after.
Politics is arguing about tariffs, how to tax people and businesses, how much we should fund NATO, stuff like that. Politics is not arguing that LGBTQ people don’t deserve rights. That’s being an asshole.
That will go nowhere. San Franciscans that weren’t aware he was homophobic (and many already do) will know soon enough if this generates any chatter. It would have zero chance of passing.
Confession time: I still think of Cesar Chavez as Army Street, because I’m older and in my college days I had a close friend that lived off of it in the Mission. So I drove on it constantly. By the time the name changed in 1995, I was only rarely driving on it and I probably haven’t now in twenty years. So it is stuck in my head as ‘Army’.
Which is not necessarily the name I would suggest reverting to 30 years later.
Sure, he had different political views than most of us. So what?
Exactly.
I think we should focus on crimes being committed by people who are currently in power rather than be diverted by crimes that were committed by a person who died over thirty years ago.
I mean Elaine Brown, former Black Panther Party leader said exactly that. But fuck her - she’s wrong.
I’m not seeing a lot of attention being diverted from current crimes to these old ones, beyond acknowledging them with appropriate action, such as changing the names of public spaces so as not to celebrate a man who, among genuine achievements, was a rapist. I’m not seeing, among the millions of people outraged by Trump administration actions, anyone being less outraged because they transferred some of it to Chavez.
In short, there is room in “our” attention for both, with appropriate levels of anger and action.
Addressing the issue lets us draw a distinction from those who would actually reelect a known living rapist like el donald.
“But whatta bout Trump?”
“But whatta bout she waited 50yrs to make the claim”
“But whatta bout why didnt she call the cops when it happened?”
I believe the victim.
The guy did a lot of work for farm workers and is a rapist.
In my experience, no matter when a victim comes forward, people will think it’s the wrong time.
This is such a frustrating attitude. What do you think it says to current perpetrators and their victims when rape is ignored because it happened in the past?