You are on page 1of 13

THE CHICANO MOVEMENT AND RODOLFO GONZALES DIANA-ELENA BONCESCU University of the West Timisoara Introduction The second

half of the 20th century marked the beginning of numerous social and political changes in the United States of America. A new world was emerging out of the shell of tormented times mastered by racial and ethnic conflicts. The fallacy of the melting pot demonstrated especially through the increasingly intense fight for civil rights of the Afro-American minority. Less visible internationally but equally important in terms of demands and impact was the struggle of the Mexican-American community, determined to assert their identity whithin the American society. The mid 60s split the movement into the Mexican-American and the Chicano who became a controversial topic in all respects due to their alleged radicalization. The Chicano movement has been a subject of debate for both segments of the civil society: the minority they emerged from as well as the majority they address. The former criticize it for the adulteration of the Mexican-American identity and for compromising their efforts to obtain civil rights while the others consider it to be a considerable threat to the American sovereignty. The aim of this paper is to establish the role that Rodolfo Gonzales assumed in the Chicano movement and whether his successful enterprise crossed the bounderies of a legitimate fight for civil rights, consequently placing the movement onto an extremist position that condemned the Chicano to marginalization. In the light of the recent tendency of the international scene to emphasize the rights of the minorities the discussion over the limit between ethnicity and

sovereignty is of great importance and relevance. How far a minority can go in order to assert their identity without endangering the stability of the country to have adopted them is a sensitive question that needs to be addressed even if it causes discomfort. At the same time the United States have assumed the role of a universal model in terms of democratic policies and the manner they decide to deal with such sensitive matters could and will set a precedent. My enterprise will start with a brief account of the attempts to define the Chicano in connection to the different perspectives on the origin of the movement, step meant to establish the premiss of the evolution of the Chicano fight. The attention will afterwards focus on the events that took place in the 60s and the impact Rodolfo Gonzales had in shaping the movement. Finally the Case Study will analyse the ideas and claims included in the Plan of Aztlan in order to determine whether the document is a civil rights manifesto or an anti-American enterprise meant to challange the sovereignty of the United States. The method I relied on thoughout the study is qualitative data analysis, which allowed me to identify the elements present in El Plan de Aztlan that subscribe in either category. The interpretation of my findings, encompassed in the last section, is meant to offer an objective perspective on the matter. The Chicano identity and the origins of the movement There is great importance placed on the Chicano identity as the main source of legitimacy for the movement. This is what clearly distinguishes them from the Mexican American, thus captivating the public attention. The definition assumed by the Chicano is connected to the word etymology that is also symbolic for the birth of a new raza, race, from the ashes of an oppressed nation.

Most of the scholars agree that the term Chicano originates in the word Mexicanos that suffered alterations due to its faulty pronounciation (Hartley, 2005:1). An important detail is that at the beginning the term had clear negative connotations. Thus the Mexican-Americans used it to refer to the newly arrived immigrants, while the Mexicans resorted to it to designate a low class and poor moral person (Gamia, 1930:43). From this particular point of view it is accurate to consider the term Chicano as unifying for a certain category of people who did dot fit in the society and were equally rejected by the Mexicans as well as by the Americans. They were people with no identity. This reality changed with the mid 60s when the word was taken up by a segment of the Mexican-American civil rights movement and became a source of ethnic pride as it designated a distinctive raza (Hartley, 2005:2). The new race assumed a double identity as direct descendants of the native Americans on the one hand, and of the first Spanish settlers on the other hand. The Indian identity traced the Chicano origin back to the old Aztec civilization while the Spanish descendance placed the historical account much later. In this respect the controversy exceeds the mere discussion over the double identity assumed by the Chicano only to transfer onto the territory of the debate concerning the beginnings of the Chicano resistance movement. Some scholars tend to push it back in time until Columbus first attempt to land in the Americas, others believe the movement emerged in 1521 with the defence of Tenochtitlan, the present New Mexico, against the Spanish invadors while a part of them argue that we cannot speak about the beginning of the Chicano movement sooner than the end of the Mexican-American war in 1848,

war in which Mexico lost a significant part of its north territory to the United States (Rodriguez, 1996:1). I consider that the understanding of the beginnings of the Chicano movement is related to the acceptance of their distinctive identity. In case the Chicano are agreed upon as a race of Indian-Spanish descendance its resistance could be regarded as having emerged in 1521 but if we decide to view them as Mexican-American then it is accurate to state that the movement started at the end of the Mexican-American war. However, there is general consensus between the scholars in terms of the modern Chicano movement brought into the mainstream in the mid 60s with the significant contribution of Rodolfo Gonzales. The double identity of the Chicano was intensively capitalized by Gonzales thus becoming a source of power but also of controversy. Rodolfo Gonzales and the Chicano movement A short biography The nineth child of a family of immigrants from Chihuahua, Gonzales was born in Denver, Colorado, on June 18, 1928. Even though the death of his mother, the Depression, as well as growing up in Eastside Barrio, a tough neighbourhood, created a lot of obstacles for Gonzales as a child, he had the sense of identity and the pride of being a Mexican, values instilled in him by his father. Therefore, Gonzales took his destiny into his own hands and graduated high school at the age of 16, quite a performance considering he had to work in the beet fields while studying (Ensslin, 20052). Gonzales was soon faced with disappointment for the first time when he had to give up his engineering studies at the University of Denver after only one

semester due to his impossibility to support the financial cost. As a consequence he decided to go into professional boxing, which brought Gonzales considerable success and fame as a winner of a Golden Gloves title and the National Amateur Athletic Union title. In 1988 he was inducted into the Colorado Sports Hall of Fame. Still the most important moment was probably the year 1953 when Gonzales retired from the ring. He now afforded to dream of more and the Chicano were an important part of his vision (Ensslin, 2005:3). Owner and manager of a popular eatery and a bail bond company in Denver, Gonzales decided to fight segregation that remained an every day reality by political implication. Therefore he joined the Democratic Party within which he directed the Colorado Viva Kennedy campaign in 1960 (Mariscal, 2005:1). As a reward, Mayor Tom Currigan appointed him to head the Denver Neighbourhood Youth Corps in 1965. However, the Democratic Party proved not to be the answer Gonzales had been hoping for, as the situation did not improve. After a disagreement with Currigan, Gonzales was fired. Consequently he started looking elsewhere. Finally Gonzales realized that the so much needed help was to be found home, therefore the Crusade for Justice was born in mid 60s (Mariscal, 2005:2). In the late sixties and early seventies, Gonzales organized and supported high school walkouts, demonstrations against police brutality and legal cases. An important step taken was the attitude against the war in Vietnam, publicly asserted in 1966, one year before Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.. Gonzales then portrayed the America he believed in, a country rather humanitarian than hostile. There was hostility not only on the front but also at home. To fight the later, Gonzales led the Southwestern contingent at the Poor Peoples March in

Washington where he issued his Plan of the Barrio, addressing housing, education, barrio-owned businesses and the restitution of pueblo lands and forming the Congress of Aztlan in order to achieve the goals of the Chicano. (Ensslin, 2005:3) Gonzales great ambition was to unite Chicano youth and to create a continuity of the Hispanic tradition both culturally and politically. The outcome of his vision was the Annual Chicano Youth Liberation Conference providing the Chicano youth from all over the United States the opportunity to share their views. The first conference, held in 1969, marked the birth of a daring idea of reconfiguration of Aztlan, in other words the decolonization of the Mexican American. The mythic idea of Aztlan was extended into the Spiritual Plan of Aztlan or El Plan de Aztlan (Rodriguez, 1996:4). The Plan played a crucial role as it marked the beginning of the ChicanoIndian alliance, alliance that called for a common, stronger voice more than ever. The moment arrived at the second Chicano Youth Conference, in 1970, when Gonzaless vision came one step closer to becoming reality by the formation of the Colorado Raza Unida Party. The partys platform addressed critical issues such as education, economy, justice, immigration and women rights (Wikipedia, 2007). We have to understand that liberation comes from self determination, and to start to use the tools of nationalism to win over our barrio brothers, stated Gonzales in his 1969 speech What Political Road for the Chicano Militant? (Gonzales, 1969). At that time Gonzales was already an icon. His poem I am Joaquin could be considered a red thread that mobilized the national spirit of the Chicano. I am Joaquin, written in 1965, was published in all barrio newspapers

and copies were displayed everywhere as a statement of identity and a tribute to the Chicano history (Wikipedia, 2007). Gonzales understood that education could greatly contribute to the selfdetermination and identity of the Chicano therefore, Gonzales founded a private school in 1970, Tlatelolco, which has become a community of scholars, as well as a gathering place for cultural events (Mariscal, 2005:2). The assimilation was not a viable option for Gonzales. In his speech Message to Aztlan, delivered on September 16, 1975, at the Colorado State Capitol Building, Gonzales, addressing all the people of Aztlan, said: dont be afraid to lose false friend(Gonzales, 1975). He encouraged people to take matters into their hands and to seek not mercy but fair political representation. He believed that the system that has enslaved the minds and the bodies of those who are confused enough to believe it (Gonzales, 1975) had to be changed and the most powerful tools in doing that were education and political action. Different perspectives on the legitimacy and importance of the Chicano movement There are two equally important aspects to be taken into account in a debate whether the Chicano movement had a negative or a positive impact on the civil rights fight of the Mexican-American. On the one hand, Rodolfo Gonzales succeded to bring the movement into the mainstream thus drawing the attention of the American society and of a large part of the minority itself who were for the first time unified and consequently more powerful. In the same respect the Chicano movement marked the beginning of the recorded Chicano literature and film as well as of an alternative educational system (Hartley, 2005:5). Moreover,

the social, political and economic problems facing this minority were addressed in an organized and efficient manner. On the other hand, what seemed to be a viable solution soon became a reason for conflict. The line between self-determination and nationalism was suddenly too thin to be clearly distinquished. The violence between the militants and the authorities escaladed and the movement began to be perceived as an aggression at the address of the United Sates as a nation. The Chicano did not simply claim their rights to be respected but they considered themselves the real owners of the land in the South West of America. Such an attitude is considered a dangerous example of anti-American feelings in the Hispanic community by some of the American scholars such as David Montgomery. El Plan de Aztlan is considered a proof of the intention of the movement to recover Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico by immigrating in increasingly large numbers until the area is to be claimed the region for Mexico (Montgomery, 2002:3). Case study: El Plan de Aztlan The document is the foundation of the movement for the eliberation of Aztlan, the ancient territory of the Aztecs assumed as forefathers by the Chicano. As far as the Spanish heritage is concerned, its claim only reinforces the legitimacy of the Chicano enterprise. The Plan starts with a clear reference to the Americans as gringo invadors only to continue with a statement that has often been used to accuse the Chicano of separatism: we do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent. Still there is no clear reference to the government of the United States. Another controversial statement the statement included in the Plan according to which nationalism is the common denominator of the people of

Aztlan meant to mobilize them. Whether nationalism in the perspective of the document designates a radical attitude or it simply sends to accepting ones identity is a matter of choice to be made by the reader. Nationalism is the tool while La Causa is the aim. La Causa refers to gaining control over the economic, cultural, social and political life of the community. The use of the word control could be regarded with suspicion, taken the development of the idea in a later section of the document under the heading Organizational Goals. There are seven aspects in which the Chicano are called upon for action in this respect: Unity, Economy, Education, Self-Defence, Culture and Political Liberation. From the economic point of view the control refers to taking the land over from the Americans who are regarded are exploiters. An interesting specification is made concerning the system of values imposed by the United States that is based on materialism which is to be replaced with humanism by the Chicano. A second step to be taken is defending the land with the help of defence units. There is no clear reference made to who these units consist of or what actions they can perform. The attention given to the Unity,Culture and Education of the Chicano subscribes in the legitimate civil rights that any minority is entitled to require from the government of the country they live in. The Chicano claim total freedom of expression in terms of cultural products as well as an alternative educational system allowing the young generation to aquire their ethnic values. As for the Institutions, the claims included in the document apply to any democracy in general as the main concern of the Chicano is to maintain lucrative institutions that are representative for the people they serve. In the same respect the Political Liberation emphasizes yet another legitimate solution for control

through representation other than by the Republican or the Democrat parties. The political action is to be taken by a Chicano party. Regarding the Self-Defence there is one observation that leaves room for criticism. The idea of reconsidering juvenile delinquency in terms of revolutionary acts clearly sends to the violent conflicts between the Chicano youth and the authorities. However, no further explanation is given in the text to the criteria or the situation in which this reconsideration is justified. This could seem as encouragement to unlawful acts against the institutional system of the United States. The document is concluded by action measures that the Chicano could take in order to achieve their goals. These measures synthetize the body of the Plan including the public awareness, nationalism as a tool for self defence, economic control over the means and products, educational programs designed to fulfill the needs of the Chicano community, political representation through a national party of the Chicano, community organization and mobilization and political autonomy for the Chicano. Conclusions There are two observations to be made. On the one hand the language of the Plan is closer to literature than to a political statement. The document abounds in methaphors that are subject to interpretation. It could be the interpretation of the Republicans as well as of the Chicano themselves. Either could use the Plan to justify their actions at a certain moment. On the other hand the Plan has a very general approach, therefore it lacks necessary specifications made to clarify the intentionality of certain remarks made about the ownership of

the land, the political autonomy of the Chicano or the refuse to comply with the law system in particular cases such as public demonstrations. The double identity assumed by the Chicano due to Rodolfo Gonzales militant actions is certainly an argument that empowered the claims contained by El Plan de Aztlan, however, the factor of unity on any basis does not change the nature of the document significantly. In my opinion radicalization is not a direct consequence of the alleged Indian-Spanish heritage but it could as well be an option for a faction of the Mexican-American resistance. An argument to support this possibility is the Mexican-American war that caused Mexico a large part of its land that is still considered by many locals as rightfully Mexican. The discussion, therefore, evolves around another aspect. The personal, subjective tone of the Plan offers numerous possibilities to approach the matter. The fact that the Chicano movement was almost destroyed in the 80s by the succession of violence between the militants and the authorities stands as an example for the unfortunate outcome of an enterprise that lacks control and organization. A mass of people is prone to impulsive actions as long as the means and aim are not clearly outlined.

References

El Plan de Aztlan in Mecha de Tejaztlan [Online}. Available: http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/mecha/archive/index-old.html [1998. April 30]. Ensslin, C. 2005. Chicano Movement Was a Turning Point for Denver in Denver Rocky Mountain News [Online}. Available: http://www.denver.rmn.com/millenium/0921mile.shtm [2005, April 15]. Gamia, M. 1930. Mexican Immigration to the United States: A Study of Human Migration and Adjustment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gonzales, R. 1969. What Political Road for the Chicano Movement? in Columbia American History [Online}. Available: http://cahotest.cc.columbia.edu/dbq/11103.html [2005, April 10]. Gonzales, R. 1975. Message to Aztlan in Columbia American History [Online}. Available: http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/dbq/11103.html [2005, April 10]. Hartley, G. 2005. Iam Joaquin: Rodolfo Gonzales and the Retroactive Chicanismo in Corky Gonzales and Retroactive Chicanismo [Online}. Available: http://epc.buffalo.edu/authors/hartley/pubs/corky.html [2005, April 15]. Mariscal, J. 2005. The Rising of a Legend in Counterpunch [Online}. Available: http://counterpunch.org/mariscal04152005.html [2005, April 15]. Montgomery, D. 2002. Mexican Anti-Americanism in America in Frontpagemag [Online]. Available:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4957 [2002, December 6]. Rodolfo Gonzales in Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia [Online}. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodolfo_Gonz%C%A1lez [2007, May 3]. Rodriguez, R. 1996. The Origins and History of the Chicano Movement in The History of Chicano Movement [Online}. Available: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/tochtlu/ChSt168.html [1996, April].

You might also like