alibi online

Back Issue Browser | Personals | Crossword Answers | Staff | Advertisers | Advertise With Us
Free Will AstrologyAlibi's Personals
 
News/Opinion
 V.19 No.34 | August 26 - September 1, 2010 
 
| PRINT | EMAIL |

Letters

We Are Spanish

Dear Alibi,

I write to express my disagreement and disappointment with Estevan Rael-Gálvez of the National Hispanic Cultural Center regarding comments he made in Joseph Baca's interview with him [Feature, “The Accidental Historian,” Aug. 19-25]. Specifically, I am astounded (although not surprised) to know that someone in Rael-Gálvez's position, as director of a center supposedly dedicated to preserving Hispanic culture, would say that the Spanish heritage of New Mexico is "fantasy" and "somewhat of a fabrication." If this is actually what Rael-Gálvez believes then I can only say that this guy should be fired because he is doing the Hispano people of New Mexico a great disservice of trying to suppress our history. Any historian knows that New Mexico was settled by the Spanish beginning in 1598 and that the Hispanos of today are the descendants of those Spanish families. This is not only historical fact but the Spanish culture is alive and well in New Mexico today, in the Hispano people of our state, our communities, our traditions, our values, language, customs, in our state of mind and cultural consciousness.

Rael-Gálvez, as NHCC director, is unfortunately in a position to try and influence people but he cannot change history and he certainly will not succeed in denying the Hispano people of New Mexico our heritage and history. The only fantasy and fabrication I got from the interview with him were with his beliefs, which go against the historical record, both written and oral. I suppose Rael-Gálvez also believes the pilgrims were from Germany rather than England or that John Adams was the first president of the United States and not George Washington. It is truly unfortunate that the director of the NHCC is someone who tries to deny the history of his own people. But this type of thing has happened before with other cultures having a sort of propagandist who tries to change a people's history for whatever reasons they may have. Despite his academic credentials, Rael-Gálvez proves that having a bunch of college degrees does not automatically equate intelligence or sound reasoning. It seems the NHCC truly has left the fox in charge of the hen house.

A. M. Martinez

Public Comments (6)
  • NHCC Director  [ Thu Sep 2 2010 1:19 AM ]

    Some articles require a response because they are so blatently political. It is too bad that the Alibi reporter didn't pick-up on this; but, guess he is probably young and impressionable. The reporter responded to the readers' comments by stating that the NHCC director has years of research under his belt and that he was once the State Historian. All this to give credibility to the director's POV(point of view). That is all that it is.

    While it may be true that the director has logged in many hours of research(we don't get a Ph.d for nothing)it is evident by the director's contentions that his knowledge of New Mexico is skewed by his obvious politicized attitude towards its social history.

    His political argument is the very same bent being circulated today by some of us who have have been through ethnic studies classes. I too learned the same idealogy in all my ethnic studies classes. At some point I got to questioning what I was being taught. I can attribute that to the "critical thinking" classes that other professors drummed into my head. Looking back now it was one of the most useful and important class I took during all those years in academia. This training is the one edge given a researcher. I guess it does not apply in all schools of thought.

    It may be true that doctorates types cannot be told what to think; but by the same token, it is fundamentally "unethical" for them to tell gullible students and citizens what to think and believe based on their political bent. Why? Because the sad truth is that generally people do believe academic types without question. This is where I departed company with Raza studies and their political bent.

    One example that comes to mind is the notion of AZTLAN. It does not exist...it is a fiction...a made up story that is being promoted as truth. In spite of this there are those across the country and in Albuquerque, unfortuntely, very well educated academics and politicians, who act upon this nonsense. I guess it is used as a mantra or vision upon which to focus. Or, perhaps it is a political drumbeat of sorts.

    The other truth is that behind all these political jabs lie deep seated resentment. It's about a century and a half worth of resentment. Furthermore there's alot to be said about biting the hand that feeds you, if you get my drift.

    Since we are discussing the history of New Mexico the following are "historical accurate" facts that explain, are not politicized notions and cannot be disputed.

    1.. Mexico, as a political entity did not exist before 1821. The fact that the Spanish named our piece of dirt Nuevo Mejico does not mean it has been Mexican turf for 400 years. To indicate otherwise is misleading and a fabrication.

    2. We may argue that some New Mexicans are direct descendants of Spanish/indigeneous ancestry. We may not argue that it was "Spanish/indegeneous/Mexican ancestry before 1821 simply because Mexico did not exist as a political entity.

    3. The fact that the descendants of Spanish/Indian colonists acquiesced to Mexican citizenship does not also mean that New Mexicans are,thereby, Mexican descendants in perpetuity. That was eight generations ago. In fact there is no substantial evidence, save for a few New Mexicans, who even participated or cared about the Mexican War. They were to busy trying to survive.

    4. Recall that Mexico owned the entire SouthWest for 27 years. Only 27 years! That's one generation! Therefore, how can we argue that we have been a mix of Mexican for 400 years? That's quite a stretch even for a weak argument. So, it follows that before 1821 there were no Mexican citizens, nada, zilch,zippo.

    5. After the Mexican War the US occupation gave rise to what we call nowdays, "those with an Mexican immigrant history." Today much of the population of southern New Mexico do indeed have a "recent immigrant history." It is being promoted as "A Border Consciousness." One gains this type consciousness by taking Border Studies classes usually taught through ethnic studies departments. That began after the Pancho Villa era about three-four generations ago and on to the present. However true that might be for some it does not make all Nuevo Mexicanos Mexican descendants. That is the history of that particular population.

    I think it would be a good idea for us to research our own family genealogy. In that way we will not be swayed by the notions of others who speak for us and tell us who we are.

    If some of us have a Mexican immigrant history, that's fine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having this history. But,if we don't, please refrain from attempting to shove itdown our throats to suit your political bent. Hope that's clear. Thank you!

    6. The one thing I can say for certain is that resentments run deep. Here we are a century and a half later still fighting over who we are. While it is true that we have alot to be resentful about, it is very underhanded for some to attempt to influence and sway the Nuevo Mexico community to gain momentum for their political bent simply because they know that most people tend to believe without question.

    Let's get out there and conduct our own research. Who are you? Only you can decide.

    Last edited [9/2/10 1:45 AM]
  • Who is Spanish?  [ Fri Sep 3 2010 1:42 PM ]

    You are what the consensus of the greater group of people who share said identity think you are. That is to say, if Spaniards think you are Spanish, you are Spanish.

    Some Spaniards are going to say, "If you were not born and raised within the modern political boundaries of the state of Spain and carry her citizenship, you are not Spanish." Personally, I think that is a piss-poor definition. If that were true, there are a lot of North African Muslims who can barely speak Spanish, have no Spanish heritage, and observe virtually none of her customs who would qualify in their eyes as Spanish.

    To be Spanish is to be an inheritor of a suite of cultural markers that include language, religion, food, ritual, and a host of other traditions and blood-line. To possess at least most of these, in my view, would make one a candidate for beinng identified as Spanish, or at least Spanish-with-qualifications (i.e. Spanish-American).

    In my opinion, there is considerable evidence that a certain population of New Mexicans qualify on that basis.

  • I call bullshit.  [ Fri Sep 3 2010 2:06 PM ]

    All three of you are Americans.

  • Response to Othila  [ Fri Sep 3 2010 4:02 PM ]

    Just some thoughts. Not criticisms.

    Arguments that center on "group consensus" and "contemorary political opinions" as expressed in your comment are not "historical accuracy" which is what I was attempting to discuss. There is a fundamental difference. The first two reflect what is circulating around today as "theories" and that have yet to stand the test of time. Historical accuracy on the other hand-is factual.

    Cultural markers (terms used in cultural anthro and socio) are used to identify and attempt to prove a point of view. There are, however, stronger arguments we can make to prove a point beyond a reasonable doubt.

    If we carry the arguments you articulated to their logical conclusion that would mean that the New Mexican gringos who practice Catholicism; hang a rosary on their rear-view mirror; have Virgin de Guadalupe tattoos; eat chalupas-chile-and menudo; speak Mexican Spanish; love to dance to Banda music; and, prefer to hang around the Mexicanos--are by consensus, Mexicans.I do know some!

    The above are certainly cultural markers that gel together to form a group consensus. Or, maybe that's not where you were going with your comments. Think about it.

    Let's keep it simple. That way we don't have to get bogged down on intellectual "bla bla bla" jargon to "esplain" (accent intended).

    We might just consider doing our genealogy. That would trump markers and consensus.

    FYI: I believe that the responses to the "cuckoo tree POV" made by the director of the NHCC was about "ancestry." The comments were not to assert a claim of being Spanish.

    Last edited [9/3/10 4:18 PM]
  • Yes, we are Americans  [ Fri Sep 3 2010 4:42 PM ]

    I am ethnoracially New Mexican. People have the inalienable right to identify themselves ethnoracially as they wish but the identification is not and cannot be arbitrary. An ethnoracial group need not accept an individual as one of them simply because the individual wishes to identify with it.

    The individual's choice of ethnoracial identity is and must be, in the final analysis, a collaborative effort between the identifying individual and the identified group. In a society where ethnoracial mixing is common the problem is complex because of the differing racial, ethnic, cultural, ancestral and language standards that individuals and ethnoracial groups apply both to themselves and to others.

    But to blatantly shout, "You are all Americans!" is disingenuous. Of course, we are Americans! Being American is a citizenship identification. It is not an ethnoracial identification. We are Americans having a conversation about ethnorace and ethnoculture in a unique American setting. Madmammajamma is obviously not an American!

    I agree with Chalupa, "Lets keep it simple". I am an ethnoracial New Mexican. That is simple enough. My racial, ethnic, cultural, ancestral and linguistic heritages are nobody else's business but mine and my chosen ethnoracial group, los Nuevo Mejicanos, the ethnoracial New Mexicans whose Spanish ancestry goes back to 1598 and the founding of the viceregal New Spanish provincial kingdom of la Nueva Méjico.

  • Racy subject  [ Sat Sep 4 2010 7:04 PM ]

    quote "An ethnoracial group need not accept an individual as one of them simply because the individual wishes to identify with it."

    Our President chose to fill out the census form that the rest of us did. The results were publicized by Robert Gibbs, Spokesman. He marked the Race box "Black".

    I have seen pictures of his biological Mother. She was whiter then me. So were his Grandmother and his Grandfather that raised him to the point he became a Man. I also believe, like the other writer, that he took liberties in designating himself that way, when "Mixed Race" was an option. He can lawfully designate himself any race he wants to. If he feels more comfortable as a Black Man, that's fine with me.

    I'm not sure he filled out his Census form truthfully, and it never sends a good message to the American people if you are disingenuous about anything, including the Race you choose to adopt.

    Regards

    Mike.

LOGIN to alibi.com above  
or sign up to post a comment  
 

Advancing Leyenda Negra , Pushing Anti-Spanish Themes, Denigrating Catholicism—All in a Day’s Work

Dear Alibi,

Was anyone else as dismayed by the recent Alibi interview of National Hispanic Cultural Center Executive Director Estevan Rael-Gálvez as I was [Feature, “The Accidental Historian,” Aug. 19-25]? Really? It is if Fray Angelico Chavez had never lived! A "mere" two centuries of Spanish occupation? 1598 to 1846, a mere blink of the eye! One must take into account that the Alibi is politically and culturally left-leaning, i.e., it misses no opportunity to advance Leyenda Negra, anti-Spanish themes and denigrate Catholicism. But I would have thought the Executive Director of the NHCC would have done his part to set some of the historical inaccuracies about the Spanish heritage of New Mexico straight. I was mistaken.

Now one of the straw men advanced by certain people is that some New Mexico Hispanos claim to be of "pure Spanish blood" (whatever that may mean). There is no doubt we carry the genes of our Native American "abuelitas." I am very proud of them.

No, we are not European but neither is a Yankee New Englander British. Why is [it] perfectly acceptable for them to acknowledge their English heritage but we are not allowed to acknowledge and claim our Spanish heritage?

My ancestors were Catholic in culture and religion—Hispanos, whose roots and heritage were deeply embedded in the Iberian Peninsula. There is no shame in that. We do not have to deny that nor claim that we are of "pure Spanish blood" to acknowledge and accept that.

Does anyone expect better from the executive director of the NHCC? I think I do.

Samuel Dominguez

Public Comments
    LOGIN to alibi.com above  
    or sign up to post a comment      
     

    Interviewer Joseph Baca responds: Both letters decrying Dr. Rael-Gálvez’ statement ignore that his viewpoint is based on years of research as state historian, not just his opinion as head of the NHCC. At no point in the interview did Rael-Gálvez deny the heritage of New Mexico Hispanos. It is important for readers to know that this excerpt was part of a much longer interview that occurred over days, in which he noted explicitly that Spain was critical to our understanding of New Mexico, but it was only a part of what shaped our heritage—and only a part. The larger point made by Rael-Gálvez was that identity is extremely complex, an inclusion of all histories, a "converging streams," as he says, and not an elitist notion of a Shangri-La-like Spanish homeland.

    Public Comments (1)
    • I am an ethnoracial New Mexican  [ Wed Sep 1 2010 3:50 PM ]

      I am an ethnoracial New Mexican. That is as simple as it can get and it does. Mr. Rael-Gálvez may fantasize about "converging streams" in his daydreams and in his nightmares but does that does not alter the fact that I am of Spanish descent going back to 1598 and the founding of New Mexico. The invocation of a "Shangri-La-like Spanish homeland" is transparently a hoax, a straw man to be knocked down and a distraction.

      The reality is that all Americans lack ethnocultural rights under a flawed Constitution whose authors' priority was continuing the genocide of the Amerindians in their westward expansion and the preservation of African slavery to harvest their cotton and tobacco crops.

      The Ethnoracial Amendment emerges as the only viable socio-cultural alternative for the American people if they wish to preserve and defend the sovereignty of the United States as a viable nation-state in the face of an unrelenting British imperial assault on its economy, on its republican political institutions and on its social democracy.

      The Ethnocultural Amendment renews America by returning her to her ideals and to her roots as proclaimed in the Declaration of 1776 and the Constitution of 1789. That return must, however, be done with full consciousness of and an understanding of the nation's triad of original sin (the genocide of Amerindians beginning in 1609, the enslavement of Africans beginning in 1619 and the ethnicide of European Americans beginning with Spanish Americans in 1846).

      An amendment to the Constitution, an addition to the Bill of Rights, an ethnoracial amendment: the Ethnocultural Amendment - No citizen shall be denied or deprived of the right to an ethnoracial identity; no citizen shall be denied or deprived of the right to belong to an ethnoracial group; no ethnoracial group shall be denied or deprived of the right to ethnocultural sovereignty.

    LOGIN to alibi.com above  
    or sign up to post a comment      
     

    A Rainbow of Vandalism

    Dear Alibi,

    Regarding Patricia Sauthoff's article and interview with the alleged "rainbow artist" [Arts Feature, “Rainbow Warrior,” Aug. 12-18]: Is it art or vandalism? It doesn't matter if it's art. If it is permanently painted on someone else's property, private or public, and without the owner's permission, it's vandalism. No excuses. It's vandalism.

    That the city should indeed be paying more attention to other cleanup jobs or other crimes is irrelevant and a spurious argument. If it's on somebody else's property without permission, it's still vandalism.

    It doesn't matter that the (in my opinion) pathetic monstrosity at Sixth Street and Central is abandoned, and taken over by the city. The property still belongs to someone else who did not give permission to have this done to it, therefore it is vandalism.

    The wall at Union Square and Central, on the other hand, is part of a building that is not abandoned and is private property. And the wall seems to be made of well-kept vintage brick. Now it's ruined. That is vandalism.

    And, just for the discussion, are these rainbow paintings art? One of the definitions of kitsch is something which puts itself forward as art by attempting to generate a positive emotional response it does not deserve. I believe these rainbow paintings could fit that definition. Actually, they look like advertising for a house paint manufacturer, or maybe illustrations for a greeting card. By the way, art must also be well-crafted. At Union Square and Central it is sloppy and spattered down below.

    Besides, even if this person had painted on these walls a Sistine-caliber art work, if it's on someone else's property without permission, it's still vandalism.

    The real challenge to an artist would be to have displayed the rainbow without damaging the property in any way. Perhaps unfurling wide weighted ribbons or something, which could quite easily be removed. Of course, then we still have to address the fact that getting up on the roof without permission is trespassing.

    The Fractal Foundation has put up rather large banners (that are easily removed) of interesting and colorful artwork by students and others on the sides of buildings with full permission. Why can't this person? Involving students, it would then be a welcome creative service to others.

    I think the thing I dislike most is this person's dewy-eyed self- justifications. There are lots of ways for any artist to offer good feelings and creativity and beauty to others that do not include vandalism. The same sort of justifications are used by the graffiti taggers. Occasionally some of that is quite good, although most of it is terrible. But once again, it doesn't matter if it's good or not. If it's on someone else's property without permission, it is vandalism.

    Peter Grahame

    Public Comments
      LOGIN to alibi.com above  
      or sign up to post a comment        
       

      Double Rainbow, Oh My God

      Dear Alibi,

      [Re: Arts Feature, “Rainbow Warrior,” Aug. 12-18] Yes, Yes, YES! In one elegant gesture the Rainbow Warrior illustrates, celebrates and personifies two of our world’s, no, our universe’s, basic elements: gravity and light. Bravo to whoever created them. Additionally the rainbow streaks bring joyful color and thoughtful contrast to slabs of otherwise nondescript, derelict buildings. If the U.S. Supreme Court can deem the burning of our American flag to be an expression of free speech and, therefore, protected under the Constitution itself, how could this be any less? Instead of protest it celebrates, instead of a violent expression it is a positive message and improves the urban landscape. Really! Shouldn’t the First Amendment apply equally to protesters and artists alike? If I were to sit on a jury judging the individual responsible, I don’t believe there could be any evidence to dissuade me from my view.

      Lew Critchfield

      Public Comments
        LOGIN to alibi.com above  
        or sign up to post a comment          
         

        Rainbow Branding Albuquerque

        Dear Alibi,

        [Letters, “Responses to Last Week’s ‘ Rainbow Warrior’ Arts Feature,” Aug. 19-25] Alright, the city should fine the artist for not getting a permit, then turn around, hire him, buy the paint and let him at the other eyesores. This could be a great signature for Albuquerque!

        Bluedragon

        Comment from alibi.com

        Public Comments
          LOGIN to alibi.com above  
          or sign up to post a comment            
           

          Dreams

          Dear Alibi,

          [Re: News, “Blueprint for a Dream,” Aug. 12-18] This story isn’t about drug cartels, lawsuits or putting hits on government officials. How do you hold a 7-year-old accountable to “breaking the law” being brought to this country and staying? The Dream Act is NOT a way for all the people that commit or bring crime into this country to gain citizenship. If for STUDENTS with good character and a good record to have a chance to live the American Dream in the only country they know and love. What kind of crime is Maria, a graduate student, committing by trying to excel in her field of choice and be willing to contribute to our economy? Doesn’t the U.S. already grant legal residency and citizenship to well-educated immigrants that come from all over the world and contribute to our economy already? What is the difference here? Is it the fact that Maria isn’t from France, India or China? Is it that she is a Mexican and this country has grown to hate “fence hoppers”?

          LiveLaughLove

          Comment from alibi.com

          Letters should be sent with the writer’s name, address and daytime phone number via e-mail to letters@alibi.com. They can also be faxed to (505) 256-9651. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium; we regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter. Word count limit for letters is 300 words.
          Public Comments
            LOGIN to alibi.com above  
            or sign up to post a comment              
             
            W!ld Moon Leather Designs
            Design by Wine
            Join our mailing list for exclusive info, the week's events and free stuff!
             

            • Select sidebar boxes to add below. You can also click and drag to rearrange the boxes; minimize, maximize and close using the little icons on each box. To re-add a box you closed, return to this menu.
            • Because you are not logged in, any changes you make to these boxes will vanish as soon as you click to another page. If you log in, the boxes will stick.
            • alibi.com
            • Latest Posts
            • Most Active Stories
            • Latest User Posts
            • Highest-Rated Posts
            • Most Active Users
            • Web Exclusives
            • Latest User Blogs
            • Latest Chowtown Reviews
            • Recent Rocksquawk Discussions
            • Recent Classifieds
            • This Week's Alibi Picks
            • Albuquerque
            • Duke City Fix
            • Albuquerque Beer Scene
            • What's Wrong With This Picture?
            • Reddit Albuquerque
            • ABQ Journal Metro
            • ABQrising
            • ABQ Journal Latest News
            • Del.icio.us Albuquerque
            • NM and the West
            • New Mexico FBIHOP
            • Democracy for New Mexico
            • Only in New Mexico
            • Mario Burgos
            • Democracy for New Mexico
            • High Country News
            • El Grito
            • NM Politics with Joe Monahan
            • Stephen W. Terrell's Web Log
            • The Net Is Vast and Infinite
            • Slashdot
            • Freedom to Tinker
            • Is there a feed that should be on this list? Tell us about it.
              Beard
              Beard • 6.1.2013
              home | feature | news | film | music | art | food | classifieds | personals | staff | lo-fi | search
              © 1996-2013 Weekly Alibi webmaster@alibi.com

              Mobile version