The Chávez issue: Information and analysis

Sean Cruz at Blogolitical Sean posts helpful information relevant to César Chávez and his ethnicity. Including:

1. The terms “Latino” and “Hispanic” do not necessarily describe the same people.

6. “Hispanic” and “Latino” do not indicate any particular ethnic or national orientation.

7. César Chávez’s ethnicity was neither “Hispanic” nor “Latino,” except in the broadest sense.

8. His ethnicity was “Mexican American” and “Chicano.” From the ground up.

9. None of the participants in the discussion, nor any of the City officials, appear to recognize this distinction.

9. “Latinos” and “Hispanics” are not necessarily either “Mexican Americans” or “Chicanos.”

10. Chicanos are Chicanos. There is no substitute. This is the essence of our identity.

11. The Portland State Department of Chicano and Latino Studies recognizes the difference between the two cultures. Educate yourselves. Here’s the link.

That information is helpful to me, and I encourage you to read more on Sean’s blog. His post below the linked one is long, with many nuggets of history I didn’t know. One good thing that could still come out of this debacle is if some people learn more… about the ethnicity labels ascribed to people, about the Portland City Code, about the history of Portland and/or heroes, to give a few examples.

We also need to think about and learn from the underlying currents swirling in this process, though. Here are ten of my thoughts:

1. The core issue is not really about a street name – any street. It’s about who has power, and who can influence those with power.

2. In the VisionPDX process, people who haven’t felt part of neighborhood involvement in the past were encouraged to participate, and did.

3. Those new participants perceived that group advocacy can be a significant influence on members of the City Council, and veteran activists had renewed hope their constituency would become more recognized and more powerful.

4. The group wishing to honor Chávez was given the understanding by the five Councilmen that after a few meetings to inform other community members of their desire to rename Interstate, Council would approve their request.
[Update 11/18/07 – see comments clarifying]

5. The Council had no right to make that promise, given the law in the Code setting out the process for street renaming.

6. The advocates for the renaming then discovered what established groups such as Neighborhood Associations already know:

* No one entity within a particular subgroup speaks for everyone who considers themselves in that subgroup

* City Council doesn’t always do what you want

* Vocal opposition will sometimes cause City Council to not do what you want

* Council relatively often ignores the considered opinion of community groups providing recommendations, even those of their own designated committees such as the Planning Commission

* Council members are elected to make decisions however they choose, within the limits of the law

* Council sometimes ignores the rules in the law, and if nobody calls them on it, they get away with it

* When the Council doesn’t follow the law, citizens disagreeing with their decision have a better chance of changing it than when there are no rules broken

7. Four Councilmen are trying to respect the work of the advocates by selecting an alternative street to name for Chávez, as if dealing with the name is the only problem they are being asked to address. There are three. The other two core issues:

* The process and law in the Code for street renaming

* The advocates’ request is now more “Hear us! Show we have power!” than “Rename a street to honor César Chávez.”

The Mayor continues to ignore the process problem, but his vote seems to show he understands the second issue is the one on under the table.

8. Those opposing the choice of renaming Interstate and now 4th also want an answer to “Hear us! Show we have power!”. For them, the process and law in the Code are tools to achieve their core goal of “Don’t mess with my life by changing the name of this street”.

9. The process/law in the Code matters to some people who aren’t invested in whether/which street should honor Chávez. It is again a more fundamental issue of how we make decisions in Portland, rather than this particular decision.

10. Confusion over who wants what, and how they might get it, has opened a Pandora’s box of contention. Racism in Portland is out in the open – read blogs and comment boards other than here, if you doubt that. Reaction to racism is further complicating the process issue, as some people take sides on the street renaming question based on their reaction to the racism argument and/or to their belief in what is fair, justice, affirmative action. Racism is but one way people are divided into Us and Them – other raw and exposed wounds include disregard for people in North and Northeast Portland, and there being one set of rules for the public, another for elected officials and those inside their circles. Another citizen group has realized that public involvement in Portland takes a lot of time, volunteers often get verbally abused, and it may get you very little at the end of a process.

So what now? I think the City Council should call a time out. There is no rush to move ahead with renaming a street that the advocates for Chávez don’t support, and that has not been reviewed by residents and businesses along it (including those in Chinatown). It’s not about a street name now, anyway. It’s about power, respect, community involvement, elected officials following the law. Those values are not going to be furthered by a top-down street renaming vote on Wednesday.

Happy Thanksgiving.