Few would have expected the the hardscrabble town of Yuma, Arizona to produce much in 1927. A mere outpost in the barren stretch of desert separating California's snow capped mountains from the bountiful plains of the Midwest, it was not exactly a hopping locale.
Yet, one of the greatest leaders that the American labor movement has ever known, and probably will ever know, was born there and then. César Chávez began farm work during his teenage years, after the Great Depression claimed his family's business. This was put on hold during World War II, in which he served in the Navy. When he returned to his home state, he saw that his fellow migrant workers were receiving low grade pay for high caliber labor. Resolving to better their situation, he became a political activist. This led to the formation of the Community Service Organization in 1952, which strongly and successfully championed the rights of Latin Americans.
Chávez recognized early on that one of the biggest threats facing legal laborers were illegal aliens. With the latter's presence diminished, the demand for the former would rise exponentially, entailing better wages. After cofounding the National United Farm Workers Association, today known simply as the United Farm Workers, in 1962, he directed union efforts toward educating workers about their civil liberties. He also helped organize remarkably effective strikes and boycotts of agribusinesses abusing their workers. Through all of this and far more, national awareness was raised about the plight of migrant laborers in the West.
Despite Chávez's successes in politics, tackling illegal immigration proved to be far more difficult. UFW members did everything from alerting the Immigration and Naturalization Service of illegals' whereabouts to picketing the offices of that agency demanding a serious crackdown. By 1973, problems with illegals had grown so dire that the union literally manned the Mexican border in order to stop those crossing it unlawfully. These actions, while symbolic of a powerful labor force, were not ultimately successful.
Article comments
1 - Glenn Contrarian
And Joseph continues on his line of attack that illegal immigrants are the greatest threat this democracy has ever faced.
Joseph, you'd easily be among the best on this website...but what's happening is that you are not only sticking to one issue, but you're refusing to defend any of the frankly ludicrous assertions you've made concerning that issue.
I don't know if this will help, but a couple of people complained a couple years back that I was a one-issue contributor, for most of my articles concerned race. It didn't matter how right or wrong I was, but that I was becoming one-dimensional (but at least I did my utmost to defend my assertions). So as passionate as I am concerning the issue of race, I forced myself to write articles on a greater variety of subjects...and because of that, at least in my own eyes I'm a better writer than I was before.
Let me pass that particular lesson-learned on to you, that you've proven yourself capable of being so much more than a one-trick pony...but right now, you're stuck on one issue and you're not even attempting to defend your assertions concerning that issue.
2 - Joseph Cotto
Glenn,
When the rest of the series on my hypothetical city is posted, you will find that, in my view, corporate greed is the threat which causes the threat of illegal immigration. On this subject, as a matter of fact, I would say that our views are none too dissimilar. In any case, Cesar Chavez was a great guy. I would have imagined that you held his legacy in a more favorable light, with him being a landmark labor leader and all. As far as being a one issue writer is concerned, it is safe to say that my plethora of articles here at Blogcritics tells a different story. Speaking of a different story, I will be moving on to a new series very soon. You should find it to be particularly interesting.
3 - Glenn Contrarian
Joseph -
As I inferred in my comment to your previous article, your refusal to defend your statements and your insistence to the effect of "you'll all see what I mean after all the articles are published" smacks of you just wanting a free pass from defending the assertions in your articles.
4 - Jordan Richardson
Yeah, it's a bit of a weird tactic. A 10-part series on a website like this takes a lot of moxie, especially when you're asking readers (some of whom may simply pop in from time to time) to take into account the whole scope and/or wait until "all is revealed."
5 - Joseph Cotto
Glenn,
No free pass requested, and I am certain that none would be given by the readers here anyhow. Rightfully so; one of the things I like about Blogcritics is its political diversity. Once the final segment has been published, however, I will answer as many questions as possible.
Jordan,
There is no other way, honestly. Answering each question in each article would be counterproductive for two reasons; much of the content in the ensuing steps would be given away and chances are that a great deal of comments will be addressed in the articles yet to come. I see, though, how keeping up with the series can be very inconvenient. I apologize for this, but, at the expense of reiterating myself, there are no alternatives.
6 - Glenn Contrarian
Joseph -
As I said, if it turns out the way you say it will, I'll sincerely call it brilliant.
7 - Dr Dreadful
I've never quite seen what all the fuss was about Chavez, especially since, if Joseph's assessment is accurate, he ultimately failed in his aim of protecting farm workers and their union.
It might be worth noting that in the era he grew up in, legal immigrants and even those of Mexican ancestry who had been born in the US were routinely (and illegally) deported to Mexico to make way for white refugees from the Dust Bowl. Not sure if he had a hand in stopping that: he was probably too young at the time.
Here in California, Chavez is a huge deal. His birthday is a state holiday, and like Martin Luther King there are statues of him everywhere and hundreds of streets, parks, schools and just about anything else you can think of are named after him.
Unlike King, however, whose legacy is plain to see today, Chavez's seems to have been rolled back almost completely.
8 - Igor
Chavez succeeded greatly in the early days. He convinced urban dwellers to not buy California table grapes and exacted a penalty on the growers. He also got the short-handled hoe banned from the fields (growers cut the hoe handles short so workers would have to stoop over and the boss could see they were working from the road; anybody standing up was assumed to be loafing).
A lot of the growers were from confederate states, or their sympathizers, and viewed mexicans as the new n*ggers.
One of Chavez' problems to solve was the Braceros, immigrant mexican laborers created during WW2 so American boys could be sent to war, which persisted to about 1960. They were methodically looted by growers and banks (Wells Fargo collected 10% of their wages from growers for 'retirement' funds that never materialized; imagine that, crooked bankers. Who woulda thought it?).
Chavez, like so many leaders, was betrayed by his own coterie, who were more interested in becoming rich, like the growers they met with, not so much with walking the dusty fields and roads meeting their membership.
It is always so. Which is why Mao created the "5th of May" camps during the Cultural Revolution, which, as usual, was subverted by commie crooks to punish intellectuals instead of lazy bureaucrats.
I'm afraid that the Serpent Brain is dominant in humans and will lead to our demise, perhaps in a gigantic H-bomb exchange that destroys all life on earth.
Oh well.
9 - Marc Grossman
Thank you, Joseph Cotto, for your piece on Cesar Chavez. I knew him the last 24 years of his life, serving much of that time as his press secretary and personal aide. But it is factually incorrect to argue he believed undocumented workers were the biggest threat facing farm workers.
Under Cesar, the UFW opposed making it illegal for employers to hire undocumented workers in 1973, long before most labor groups acted. The UFW helped enact the amnesty provision of the 1986 immigration law through which 1 million farm workers became legal residents. The union’s landmark AgJobs bill has earned the broadest bipartisan backing of any immigration reform proposal before Congress.
Still, some people falsely claim the UFW is or has been against undocumented workers. So there is no misunderstanding, everyone should clearly understand the following: There are two separate and distinct issues"immigration reform and strikebreaking. Don’t confuse them!
Immigration reform is separate and distinct from the issue of strikebreaking. No legitimate union permits its strikes to be broken by anyone. So what Cesar and the UFW always sternly opposed was strikebreaking by anyone, not undocumented workers.
Marc Grossman, communications director, Cesar Chavez Foundation
10 - Igor
But, not to worry! Don't be a Gloomy Gus!
The "life" that we seem to adore so much (even if only for the glorious beauty in sacrificing it on so many Grand Battlefields) is rather easily created by happenstance flashing a few lightning bolts through an atmospheric soup of methane and nitrogen, etc., as Urey and Miller showed in 1953.
It just takes a little patience, and while the earth and sun may only have a couple billion years to go, the greater universe has much longer.
Patience. Who knows? Maybe next time happenstance will do better!
11 - Glenn Contrarian
Marc #9 -
Whoo...every once in a while when one of us is spouting off on a topic on a blog, someone who truly knows what they're talking about shows up and politely gives us an education. My moment came when I was throwing doubt on Edwin Hubble's redshift observations. This is Joseph's moment. I can understand somewhat how he must feel.
Thank you, Marc, and we hope to see more of you here.
12 - Joseph Cotto
Glenn,
Patience now; only three steps have been posted, leaving seven to go and an article supported by actual facts wrapping it all up.
Dr Dreadful,
In a sentence, Chavez's legacy is that of a trailblazer who brought attention, relief, and legal representation to a group which had none beforehand. He set the ball rolling in terms of rural labor rights. This is reason enough to remember him fondly.
Igor,
Chavez's story is much like life itself; high ambition and smashing successes weighted by unfortunate accidents or total failures. Nonetheless, his life was far more productive than most people's, which is why his works are celebrated.
Marc,
I commend your career in the labor movement, as well as the ongoing efforts of the UFW to provide rural laborers with the means for a better life. I did say that Chavez found illegals to be "one" of the greatest threats, not "the". Undoubtedly, the greatest threat he saw for his fellow workers was the mentality of farm owners who exploited them regardless of their legal status. Chavez being against illegal immigration was because he correctly believed that they depressed wages.
When amnesty could be given, however, in a manner that would not automatically result in salary decreases, he was not opposed to it, which explains his support of Simpson-Mazzoli. The UFW, as you mentioned, is unconditionally opposed to strikebreaking, and it just so happened to be that illegals were the ones breaking the strikes. One cannot blame them solely for doing this, as they were desperate people taking an opportunity presented by those farm owners that the UFW knew to be exploitative.
In any case, thanks for your interest. I wish you and the UFW good fortunes in standing up for the rights of farm workers.
13 - Marc Grossman
In the early 1970s, when some demanded the United Farm Workers check the legal status of farm workers laboring under union contracts, Cesar refused, declaring, "Our job is to represent good, hard-working people no matter who they are."
The UFW, under Cesar's leadership and that of his successor, UFW President Arturo Rodriguez, has always taken the work force as it exists, not as someone would like it to be based on ideology. Beginning in the 1980s, the farm labor work force became more and more composed of undocumented workers. Today, it is largely Latino, immigrant and undocumented. Throughout these years, Cesar and the UFW organized workers, obviously including many who were undocumented. When Cesar pushed through California's pioneering 1975 law granting organizing and collective bargaining rights to farm workers, he saw to it that protections were extended to everyone, regardless of immigration status. So how could he have been against undocumented workers?
Thank you again for highlighting Cesar's life and work as we observe this year the 50th anniversary of his decision to begin building the farm worker movement. For more on Cesar, the movement's history and its ongoing struggles to help farm workers and other low-income working people, please visit United Farm Workers and Cesar Chavez Foundation.
Marc Grossman, communications director, Cesar Chavez Foundation
14 - Glenn Contrarian
Joseph -
As I stated above, I had my moment of public education here on BC, and now you're having yours. You're disputing someone whose career is deeply entwined with Cesar Chavez' legacy. Google him as I did and you'll see the results.
Grossman is speaking from a position of easily-verified professional knowledge and experience. If you cannot provide proof that he is wrong - and you have yet to provide a single reference showing such other than "I Just Know It" - then it puts you in a rather unflattering light.
I recommend that when it comes to what you've posted about Cesar Chavez, you take your lumps and own up to the fact that none of us have a perfect understanding of history. By doing so, you will NOT detract from the overall thrust of your series (as much as I disagree with it), but just admit that you had made the simple human error of including an historical inaccuracy.
One last thing - I always say that a buddy tells you what you want to hear, but a friend tells you what you need to hear. Hopefully you'll see the above advice as coming from a friend, for that is certainly how it's meant.
15 - Joseph Cotto
Marc,
As I said before, Chavez had no personal animosity whatsoever toward illegal immigrants. His own statements on the subject speak for themselves:
"Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., in 1979, Cesar Chavez " president of the United Farm Workers union, which at the time was fighting an uphill fight to organize agricultural workers because illegal immigrants were being widely employed as strikebreakers " demanded that the federal government take seriously its duty to keep illegal immigrants out of the fields and out of the country. He boldly stated that if “my mother was breaking the strike and if she were illegal, I’d ask the same thing” (Chavez, 1979, p. 2 of Question and Answers). The reason, he explained, is that picket lines and unions are about wage levels and employment opportunities for workers. Combating illegal immigration is about economic issues: “it’s not a political game.” “People are being hurt and being destroyed with the complicity of the federal government,” he added."
Glenn,
I thank you for your insight on the matter, as well as telling me what you think I should know as a writer, rather than want to. I did not claim that any of Marc's statements were not rooted in fact. Even a cursory glance at Chavez's history would demolish such an argument. However, my assessment of Chavez being opposed to illegal immigration when it resulted in depressed wages is equally supported by the former's own statements. Of course, Chavez did not feel this way out of some nativist sentiment, but fear of strikebreaking. In the end, though, the threat he undeniably saw as most dire was that posed by farm owners exploiting laborers of legal and illegal standing.
16 - Joseph Cotto
CORRECTION: I was just reading over the article, and noticed that I made a mistake in the comment above. I wrote that "Chavez being opposed to illegal immigration when it resulted in depressed wages is equally supported by the former's own statements". I should have wrote that "Chavez being opposed to illegal immigration when it resulted in depressed wages is equally supported by the latter's own statements".
In short, I was referring to Cesar Chavez's statements.