Ethnic Studies and Aztlan Modernization Project

Xicano Studies, when done right, does a couple of things: 1) it provides a historical context in which to understand the economic and social situation of Xicanos today, 2) it fixes Xicanos as indigenous to the Southwest portion of this country. Which is why white people are so threaten by it. Because if there is one thing that white people understand its how to say something belongs to you whether it does or not. 

Their own innate nationalism understand that a myth which survived the initial conquest and for centuries lay semi dormant in the Mexicano collective conscious has found fertile ground in the minds of young Xicanos. Myth and reality combined - the point of Aztlan is that it creates (especially within the context of a Xicano Studies program) a legitimate physical location for Xicanos. Aztlan is myth trying to come alive,

 Every cultural group, nation, or people exist within a particular mythic horizon that corresponds to their particular vision of truth. This is the myth they live ... In this respect the myth of Aztlan function to provide identity, location, and meaning for a people who were previously directionless in their collective existential pilgrimage through earth (Pina, 37).

And where does all this European trepidation about the US being split in two by the growing 'Hispanic' populations A few years ago this split was predicted by Prof. Charles Truxillo who was then at the University of New Mexico. Truxillo said in part that

the new country should be brought into being 'by any means necessary,' but recently said it was unlikely to be formed by civil war. Instead, its creation will be accomplished by the electoral pressure of the future majority Hispanic population in the region.

Truxillo is a weird dude. I had the opportunity to hear him speak at the NACCS conference a few years ago in Albuerquerque and it was interesting to say the least. Truxillo is a fascist and an open admirer of fascist like Juan Peron of Argentina and Francisco Franco of Spain. He clearly announced that what the Xicano movement needed was strong leaders of their caliber. Interesting to say the least.

It is important to say that because Truxillo is a fascist, doesn't in any way mean everything having to do with Xicano nationalism is fascist. I know that may seem simplistic but for some reason people mix up fascism and nationalism all the time. It may of course have more to do with the persons own fear of the responsibility that comes along with a strong nationalism than it does the facts of the situation.

Yeah. So Truxillo on a personal level didn't really do it for me. But, I find his ideas, even if I don't share his vision of the reality, intriguing to say the least. Truxillo argues for non violent revolution. Mostly I think because as he says in his 2008 paper The Inevitability of a Mexicano Nation in the American Southwest & Northern Mexico, 

The emergence of an independent Mexicano country in El Norte -- the American Southwest and Northern Mexico will not be achieved through violence or civil war. For who could stand up to the military might of the United States? Instead, one has to imagine a three-fold process by which Nortenos - Chicanos, Mexican Americans, and Northern Mexicanos - slowly move toward a new national consciousness and then aspire for nationhood.

Truxillo points to the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet bloc and the numerous non violent 'color revolutions' that have taken place since then as examples of how this can be done. In reality what Truxillo is pointing toward is the creation of a political party. A popular front that makes it possible to educate and articulate the aspirations of a large group of people.

You see the real threat here is that as masters of war European Americans know all revolution begin with education. Talking, debating, planning. Guns and all the stuff you see in the movies comes much, much later. Books, manifestos, flyers, house meetings are first. Education is always first.

Take a look at the literature being produced by the the Albert Einstein Institute this institute promotes the peace change of power. The founder Prof. Gene Sharp (although denying any formal relationship) has spent most of his life working with the CIA in one capacity or another. His how to overthrow a government book From Dictatorship to Democracy has been translated into dozens of languages and distributed around the world.

In the introduction to this book, Sharp states in part,

In recent years various dictatorship - of both internal and external origin - have collapsed or stumbled when confronted by defiant, mobilize people. Often seen as firmly entrenched and impregnable, some of these dictatorships proved unable to withstand the concerted political, economic, and social defiance of the people ... Although those struggles have not brought to an end the ruling dictatorships or occupations, they have exposed the brutal nature of those repressive regimes to the world community and have provided the populations with valuable experience with this form of struggle. 

Xicano Studies courses need to drop the post modern identity/border crap and start passing out Gene Sharps' from Dictatorship to Democracy (free download from the internet). It is a good all American book that supports the uplifting of the socially oppressed and economically downtrodden all over the world. While it is important to know where we come from - we spend to much time in classrooms trying to get kids to be proud of their history, their identity and not enough planning for the future.

It seems after so many years of frontal attacks and attempted assassinations Xicano Studies has turned in to a cultural crisis management program based on the metaphysical or 'bloodline' transference of culture. I would argue from a materialist perspective that culture is created from the material conditions it arises in and those conditions for millions of young Xicana/os currently dictate some type of action. What that action will be remains to be seen.

What does Xicano Studies teach our kids about resistance to oppression as opposed to recognizing oppression? West German freedom fighter Ulrike Mienhof one of the founders of the Red Army Faction once said 'protest is when I say this does not please me. Resistance is when I ensure what does not please me occurs no more.'

Aztlan Libre!
Mexica Tiwi!

Its time for a Party

Vote Vote Vote Vote Vote.

We live in a time of political upheaval. Across the world the seemingly indisputible authority of the United State government is being disputed on a daily basis. Outside of its border and within - the recent arrest of a paramilitary Christian group in Adrian, Mich., not far from where I live is certainly an indication of how everyday 'normal' white folks are very very very upset with their government.

So how do we handle the ideological force feed we experience around the issue of voting? It appears for many voting has become the default action when it comes to political involvement. How did we come to this pitiful state of affairs regarding participation in the social and political affairs of the nation?

The abdication of personal responsibility through voting (or opting out of voting) has reached epidemic proportions. The ubiquitous 'if you don't vote you can't complain' cliche has taken on the sound of everyday common sense and any proposed solution that doesn't include some type of voting is dismissed summarily. Coupled vote tunnel vision with so-called service learning projects around the country and social action is reduced to painting fences and picking up trash. We've got a real problem!

When legislation designed to disengage a significant portion of the population even further from the political process of everyday life is not only introduced but passed and approved of by the majority of the residents of that state - I hate to break it to you but painting fences isn't going to get it.

When did we give up trying to have a say in our own lives? For the most part the political activities we have access to are monumental failures. Mostly because very few people in our community have ever seen them work for our community. Is it any wonder why the best ideas we can come up with only center on voting and lobbying elected officials. Please understand my point - I'm not saying voting and lobbying elected official doesn't work - I'm saying it doesn't work for us.

I'm also convinced at this point the disenfranchisement we experience daily is a lot our fault. Mostly because we have no presence within the political structure and aren't interacting with the present one or trying create one of our own. Xicanos as a group do not access any of the areas of decision making on a local, state or federal level. It's pretty much a shut out.

We need to get started. We need a party that represents the interests of Xicano, Latinos and Indigenous people in the United States. One that comes up from the grassroots and represents the interests of working people - not the interest of big business and international capitalism.

We start by having local realistic talks about politics and what it means to form a political vehicle that represents the broad interest of our community. It won't be easy. We have a ways to go in terms of identifying our role of complicity in our own economic, social and political oppression. We need ideas about how start this very necessary process of resistance.

Where to start then? Easily available and free on the internet are some materials assembled by Dr. Gene Sharp of the Albert Einstein Institute which could prove interesting. There are two in particular that bear special consideration From Dictatorship to Democracy and Col. Robert Helvey's On Strategic Non Violence two books most likely funded by monies from the Central Intelligence Agency to provide guidance to 'pro-democracy' agitators around the world.

If it works in Georgia and the Ukraine then why not in Arizona, Michigan or Ohio. Its time to step up and get serious about organizing broad based low intensity counter hegemonic responses to these systemic attacks on our community.

Freedom isn't free and neither are people who are hunted based on the color of their skin. 

Understanding Liberation Movements

The political is paramount as a catalyst for social change. The preceding section outlines the necessity of political education and mobilization through an understanding of internal colonialism and its subsequent political critique by Third World ideology. Conservative, liberal and revolutionary scholars agree this critique of colonialism and internal colonialism around the world has helped to develop the will to resist both Corporatism and U.S. political hegemony. Within this internal colonial critique it is clear that without an understanding of why political change must occur all hard work toward change will fail especially in regards to building armed resistance movements.

After the second World War, Third World ideology in the United States springing from the “Third World Non Aligned Movement” connected, at first ideologically and later militarily “aspiring U.S. revolutionaries to the Third World parties and leaders … who were proving that ‘the power of the people is greater than the man’s technology.” Based on the revolutionary axiom that the political education of the nation is the first order of business for those seeking to bring political change including change through armed resistance Mao Tse-Tung wrote, "without a political goal, guerilla warfare must fail, as it must if its political objectives do not coincide with the aspirations of the people and their sympathy, cooperation and assistance cannot be gained."

For the purposes of this paper definitions of seizing of power (or creating political change) will be limited to the idea there are three ways to SEIZE political power: “Revolution, plot (or coup d’etat), and insurgency.” It is important to understand the differences and overlaps of each category and to note that by definition none of these three categories are inherently progressive and in fact may be just the opposite. Also noteworthy for Chicano scholars engaged in the study of revolutionary movements, particularly armed movements, is the amount of literature written by governments and military leaders on how to suppress guerilla and insurgent movements. This large body of research and publication speaks directly to the seriousness; legitimacy, viability and success of these movements particularly post World War II.

For purposes of academic clarity and discussion within this paper we will define these three concepts in the following way: Revolution: “usually is an explosive upheaval – sudden brief, spontaneous, unplanned (France 1789; China, 1911; Russia, 1917; Hungary, 1956). It is an accident, which can be explained afterward but not predicted other than to note the existence of a revolutionary situation … in a revolution, masses move and then the leaders appear.” Plot: “is the clandestine action of an insurgent group directed at the overthrow of the top leadership in its country. Because of its clandestine nature, a plot cannot and does not involve the masses … it is always a gamble.” Insurgency: “a protracted struggle conducted methodically, step by step, in order to attain specific intermediate objectives leading finally to the overthrow of the existing order … To be sure it can no more be predicted than a revolution ... when an insurgency starts is a difficult legal, political and historical problem … though it cannot be predicted, an insurgency is usually slow to develop and is not an accident, for in an insurgency leaders appear and then the masses are made to move … [a] revolutionary situation did not have to be acute in order for a the insurgency to be initiated.”

Although the words revolution and insurgency are used at times interchangeably and often insurgencies develop into revolutions, it is clear from the definitions that military thinkers do not view them as the same thing. The reminder of this paper will concentrate on definitions and theories of insurgency and later on how those theories could be put into operation through present day Xicano community organizing methodologies.

Guerilla warfare is first and foremost a revolutionary war, a political effort and “whereas in conventional war, either side can initiate the conflict, only one – the insurgent – can initiate a revolutionary war.” Revolutionary wars, particularly since the end of World War II, have succeeded in successfully addressing issues of social and economic inequalities the world over. A purposely misleading and unfortunate reaction by imperialist governments and their the capitalist/corporate structure using multinational corporate media outlets have been to cleverly and successfully misrepresent in modern times most revolutionary wars as simple terrorism or the work of the mentally unbalanced for the purpose of securing their own financial investments in Third World countries and Third World communities within the United States.

These different insurgencies are not solely wars of terror or violence, although those are tactics often used by insurgents and counter insurgents. Nor, are they at first wars to gain control of the land, although that is an end goal of guerilla and insurgent movement. No, the first job of the guerilla is political mobilization. Not in the liberal sense of electoral politics, which in most countries where a revolutionary situation is developing means protecting the status quo by the solidifying of the national bourgeoisie, but in terms of, Raising the level of political consciousness of the people and involving them actively in the revolutionary struggle – is the first task of the guerillas; and it is the nature of this effort, which necessarily takes time, that accounts for the protracted character of the revolutionary war.

Insurgencies begin when a group of people under the control of what they consider to be either a colonial or oppressive government have attempted to resolve their issues (whatever they maybe) with the dominant social group but have either failed to do so or are ignored until the point of rebellion which unfailingly “presupposes the existence of valid popular grievances, sharp social divisions, an unsound or stagnant economy, and oppressive government.” Crucial to the success of any guerilla mobilization is the ability to articulate their political grievances in such a way that will persuade others to accept their version of the outstanding political problem or as it was termed by Mao the “unsolved contradiction” within the current political system. This position leaves little room for accusations of outside interference and political agitation, two of the main allegations made by governments against insurgents engage in political mobilization. If one accepts the notion, “revolutionary propaganda must be essentially true order to be believed,” and that “if it is not believed, people cannot be induced to act on it,” then aligning the insurgency as a political outgrowth of one side of the “unsolved contradiction” becomes a reality. So then,

“If revolution is to be understood as a historical, social process, rather than an accident or a plot, then it will not do to consider guerrillas, terrorist, political assassin as deviants or agents somehow apart from the social fabric, irrelevant or only fortuitously relevant to the historical process. Guerrillas are of the people, or they cannot survive, cannot even come into being. Terrorism, while it aroused the popular will to revolt, is at the same time a manifestation of that will, expressing the first surge of the popular impulse toward a new and different order of existence. It may be argued the terroristic movements attract criminals and psychopaths. So they do. But criminality itself is a form of unconscious social protest, reflecting the distortions of an imperfect society, and in a revolutionary situation the criminal, the psychopath, may become as a good revolutionary as the idealist” (Taber).

Military analysts identify classical modern guerilla warfare mainly by two distinct theoretical paradigms. The first is the Chinese/Vietnamese theories of war developed by Mao Tse-Tung and subsequently expanded on by Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap during the Viet Nam War and the Focoismo theory of guerilla warfare developed in Cuba by Cubans revolutionaries and imported throughout Africa and Latin America by the efforts of Ernesto “Che” Guevara. The organizational differences between the two theories are significant, and although they are both ideologies designed to create revolutionary situations within countries, they approach change in society very differently. An explanation of the two theoretical bodies in terms of their similarities, differences and rules of engagement is central to helping Xicano Third World scholars, organizers and activists currently working in the U.S. today develop a better understanding of the way political change is approached, a fuller appreciation of political glam revolution, and the fetishization of resistance by segments of the Xicano/Latino community here in the United States.

Because of the pervasiveness of revolutionary example during the last half of the 20th century a deeper appreciation for the impact of revolutionary political methodologies on organizing efforts within U.S. Third World communities can be seen and should understood in terms of their contribution to change around the globe. It is important to reiterate that revolutionary war is political war or the furtherance of politics by the means of the gun. Revolutionary political war is by all definitions a protracted or long lasting war. There can be no quick solution to revolutionary or guerilla warfare that is good for the insurgent because “it takes time for a small group of insurgent leaders to organize a revolutionary movement, to raise and develop armed forces, to reach a balance with the opponent, and to overpower him.” (Galula, 10) This sense that time is truly on the side of the insurgent is reiterated by Galula when he writes, “revolutionary war is short only if the counterinsurgency collapses at and early stage, With this central theme in mind we begin to understand “the insurgent has no interest in producing a shock until he feels fully able to withstand the enemy’s expected reaction,” (Galula) this is a situation that could go on for years and in fact until intentions are revealed through “subversion or open violence … an insurgency can reach a high degree of development by legal and peaceful means, at least in countries where political opposition is tolerated,” (Galula).

In order to fully appreciate the emphasis on developing the will of the nation to resist and how this emphasis leads inescapably to a peoples war which is the production of “military power as a consequence of political mobilization.” (Marks) an in depth discussion on the theories of Mao Tse-Tung on guerrilla warfare as a primarily political operation concerned mainly with the mobilization of the Chinese people for what he termed “Total Resistance.” This model of resistance was developed by Mao and his generals because the Chinese were not an industrialized power in control of manufacturing resources with which to create the tools of war to fight first against a Japanese invasion of mainland China during the Sino-Japan War and later while combating the nationalist forces of Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang (Taber).

---
Vijay Prashad "The Darker Nations"
Elbaum, Max (2002) What Legacy from the Radical Internationalism of 1968? Radical History Review Issue 82, Winter, p.41
Mao Tse-Tung Primer on Guerilla Methods
Galula, David (1964) “Counter Insurgency Warfare Theory and Practice” Frederick A. Praeger, New York, NY.
Taber, Robert (1965) “The War of the Flea: A study of Guerilla Warfare Theory and Practice” Lyle Stuart New York, NY.
Marks, Thomas A. (2003) “Urban Insurgency” Small Wars and Insurgencies, Vol. 14, No. 3,

WASASE – The Warrior Dance

“Bringing it all together, being indigenous means thinking, speaking and acting with conscious intent of regenerating one’s indigeneity. Each indigenous nation has its own way of articulating and asserting self-determination and freedom…as indigenous peoples, the way to recovering freedom and power and happiness is clear: it is time for each one of us to make the commitment to transcend colonialism as a people, and for us tot work together as peoples to become forces for Indigenous truth against the lie of colonialism” - Taiaiake Alfred.

The Americas are the last and greatest stronghold of European colonialism in the world. The colonial system, especially in North America, has assumed a position of unquestionable legitimacy within the mythology of mankind as a historical homeland for white Europeans. A complete historical revision by white nationalists and the disintegrated condition of indigenous culture, history and resistance both on a personal and national level has allowed a version of history glorifying the colonizer to be taught and presented as canon to generation after generation of invaders. While each successive generation of indigenous people have come more and more as Fanon pointed out and as indigenous people have come to understand about their nation and its situation under this system, “you will never make colonialism blush for shame by spreading out little-known cultural treasures under its eyes.”

Where does the construction of this authentic indigenous identity here in the Americas begin? An important point in all of this is to reconsider Fanon’s statement concerning behavior of colonialism toward indigenous cultures “colonialism did not dream of wasting its time in denying the existence of one national culture after another. Therefore the reply of the colonized people will be straight away continental in breadth.” This is historical process of continental solidarity is an important one to keep in mind. With the destruction of our ancient civilizations many aspects (i.e. Education, religion, family structure) that would have been important to our development both as a nation and as individuals were lost. By including into our own Xicano liberation movement the ideas, theories and beliefs of a pan indigenous effort of “resurgence” Xicanos can begin experience how their own liberation movement can become a part of the greater pan indigenous movement in the Americas through the understanding that “indigenousness is reconstructed, reshaped and actively lived as resurgence against the … processes of annihilation that are inherent to colonialism.”

This indigenous reconstruction and resurgence of will begin with “people transcending colonialism on an individual basis.” It means a fundamental shift in understanding the reality of our situation and rejecting the language and attitudes of oppression and colonization used to support the hegemony of European superiority. It is the internalization of that language of oppression through education and mass media on our part that creates and solidifies in our minds and society in general very specific personality stereotypes that work against indigenous people organizing for liberation.

Creating space for the development of an indigenous identity is paramount to the success of this liberation movement. Alfred writes about “zones of refuge” which in may ways are reminiscent of Mao’s base camps present in liberated zones. Perhaps the basic difference being for most of us there are no formally declared hostilities. He sees these zones as “powerful conceptualizations of a strategic and cultural objective that remains consistent with traditional goals,” of indigenous communities. How we begin to organize around these “zones of refuge and other breaks from colonial rule that creates spaces for freedom” finds a theoretical partner is the idea of low intensity organizing. One-way of thinking about this is to theorize organizing opportunities within the United States as potential revolutionary situations. If this is done correctly then the question of how problems should be addressed can be resolved using revolutionary methodology. Low Intensity Organizing (LIO) is non-traditional approach to solving or reforming issues within the community based on theories of Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) which gained prominence in U.S. military thought during the 1980s.

In practice Low Intensity Organizing would follow the same guidelines as LIC the emphasis being on: political considerations with the stress on ideology and ideals including propaganda and psychological operations; non-organizational and organizational mechanisms are brought into play; “conflict is viewed as a long-term endeavor and therefore strategy and tactics must be flexible and adaptive.” This model adapted by the U.S. government was derived from the theories of revolutionary war discussed earlier and is completely opposite of prevailing methods of organizing within community and labor organizing. In particular, communities, regardless of race or class, working for change have been derailed over and over again by reformist issue and needs base organizing. The following is a beginning discussion of how Low Intensity Organizing might be theorized, “into the category of indirect strategy” and then implemented as “a total strategy in the indirect mode” that views conflict “as having a dual nature” and understands strategy is like music that “can be played in two keys. One is direct strategy and the other is indirect strategy.” LIO is the second and organizes people for change through indirect resistance. Some initial thoughts on how LIO could be discussed are as follows.

LIO is educational: The primary goal of low intensity organizing is to politically educate the people. Since it has been shown that no substantial change or action can be supported to its conclusion without the understanding and support of the community this is the first step. Education and an understanding of their/our personal relationship to the greater structure are paramount. LIO builds structure through political education: Only after the people and organizers have become educated can the physical structures we need to create as a distinct people emerge. Until we work to build these institutions through political education we will be locked into the dominant reactionary activist/protestor paradigm constantly playing out the role of the squeaky wheel. LIO is total resistance: Every facet of the community must be mobilized or attempted to mobilize. LIO maintains: a constant presence and teaches resistance to accepted paradigms, creates new norms, and free spaces for the participant. LIO questions everything beginning with our personal and group relationship to the greater structure.

This is the beginning of an urban insurgency – not one with guns but an educational and organizing insurgency where colonial paradigm is exposed and challenged outside reformist liberal frameworks on a daily basis. In building this popular will to resist insurgents should understand concerning their efforts to educate the people that “revolutionary propaganda must be essentially true in order to be believed… If it is not believed, people cannot be induced to act on it, and there will be no revolution.”

As a nation we are untried. We are unformed and unorganized. We do not yet know the lengths we will go to be free. I have to wonder if we really have the courage to fight this fight to take up the flag against a nation of tested mettle. Xicanos are scared. Within the Xicano movement we expect this unrealistic level of unwavering commitment to everything we propose to believe in and use anything less as an excuse to not participate or bash others if they fall short of the mark we set. The problem is - like most people who profess their undying devotion – far to often we fall short of the mark we set ourselves. Maybe it's not for us, we say. Maybe we're not talented enough or eloquent enough to make a real contribution. Maybe my perceived failure means I don't believe as much as you do.

These are the self-recriminations of 500 years of colonial distortions. When we talk about resistance and what shape or form that resistance will take, we often have a hard time expressing our growing opposition consciousness to our oppression in concrete terms. So in addition to understanding the macro concerns of how we organize for liberation it is important to be clear on the micro or personal level. The concept of warrior is one we all understand although for many of us there may be some unease or discomfort in using this term. But when it is understood in the light of a growing Xicano indigenous liberation movement then we begin to see where we could possibly fit.

Alfred calls the reinvention of this fighting spirit “Wasase – our warriors dance” he clearly outlines the discourse of this awakening.

“Wasase is spiritual revolution and contention. It is not a path of violence. And yet, this commitment to non-violence is not pacifism either. This is an important point to make clear: I believe there is a need for morally grounded defiance and non-violent agitation combined with the development of a collective capacity for self-defense, so as to generate within the Settler society a reason and incentive to negotiate constructively in the interest of achieving a respectful coexistence.”

Getting Smarter -Strategy and Tactics what is the difference?

Is it just me, didn't the last guys who did this win? I mean they won big. Sacked city, ruined culture, women and children enslaved. Was this a good idea or what? Thought of by the great Odysseus whose fame reaches down through the ages to our modern time. While it is pretty clear who ever did this was probably trying to make fun of Mexicans,  I'm not sure they picked the right visual. But it does offer an interesting visual context to begin to talk about strategy and tactics.

Strategy, writes Gene Sharp, the director and founder of the Albert Einstein Institution and alleged mastermind of the non-violent "color revolutions" that swept across Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union, in his book "From Dictatorship To Democracy" is "the conception of how to best achieve particular objectives in a conflict ... strategy is concerned with whether, when, and how to fight, as well as how to achieve maximum effectiveness in struggling for certain ends" (Sharp, 39).

Sharp goes on, "some individuals and groups, of course, may not see the need for the broad long-term planning of a liberation movement. Instead, they may naively think that if they simply espouse their goals strongly, firmly, and long enough, it will somehow come to pass. Others assume that if they simply live and witness according to their principles and ideals in face of difficulties, they are doing all they can to implement them. The espousal of humane goals and loyalty to ideals are admirable, but are grossly inadequate to end a dictatorship and a to achieve freedom" (Sharp, 37). 

Just to be clear. Whether it is deserved or not Gene Sharp is quite a controversial figure. He has been accused by the likes of Hugo Chavez, the Government of Iran and others of playing a significant role in the overthrow of governments across the globe considered unfriendly to the United States. Not to shabby. For those of us purporting to engage in the building of a mass movement reading Gene Sharp might not be a bad idea. In what I would call some very sound advice and as a definite thread in his most wide spread and read publication Sharp is clear among many other things about the need for strategic planning. 

Tactics, according to Sharp are "a limited action, employed to achieve a restricted objective. The choice of tactics is governed by the conception of how best in a restricted phase of conflict to utilize the available means of fighting to implement the strategy ... tactics are always concerned with fighting, whereas strategy includes wider considerations" (Sharp, 40). 

The picture above is an example of a tactic, one used at the end of a seemingly failed strategy. What makes this picture tragically humorous is that it serves to point out our greatest failing as a community, that we as a people do not have a master strategy for political empowerment - only tactics. Which brings us to the news article below. This story tells how Jack Davis, a self made manufacturing millionaire and DEMOCRAT candidate for Congress in New York's 26th district. To some it may seem like beating a dead horse, but look at what is written below. This guys was a Democrat running for U.S. Congress; a millionaire, self made man, business tycoon the type of guy everyone looks up to. Is this guy a crack pot? I mean if this man sat you down at a table and said "I think you can make money, this way" you would take what he has to say very seriously.

Instead this guys says, "I think they'll do it without a civil war. They'll take control of the state government and start voting themselves anything they want." 

Excuse me, but isn't that what democracy is all about? Or is it only okay when we're forced to vote for the only game in town? It is easy for me to say I think this will happen. But imagine the anguish and torment this patriotic old man must have gone through to come to this mind numbing conclusion. He sees something is us we do not see in ourselves. He also see through the eyes of a free person. Free to make his own destiny. 

We don't get it. But men like Jack Davis and Gene Sharp do. It is all about power and how we go about building power to make change. Gene Sharp knows it is possible for the citizens of a government by their non compliance topple that government or at the very least create some political elbow room for themselves. Down load the Sharp booklet, read it and implement it. Who knows, maybe there is something to this advice he's been spreading around the rest of the world for the past 25 years.  

------------News Article------------ 

Davis warns of a new civil war with Southern states
Sees possibility of secession due to Mexican immigrants

By Jerry Zremski NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
Updated: 08/23/08 8:17 AM

WASHINGTON — Congressional candidate Jack Davis, in a speech earlier this year, warned that increasing immigration from Mexico could lead to a new civil war between northern states and Mexican-influenced Southern states that may want to secede from the United States.

“In the latter part of this century or the next, Mexicans will be a majority in many of the states and could therefore take control of the state government using the democratic process,” Davis said in the speech. “They could then secede from the United States, and then we might have another civil war.”

A supporter of one of Davis’ rivals for the Democratic nomination in the 26th district, Jon Powers, posted the video to YouTube. The Powers campaign alerted The Buffalo News to the Davis video.

The YouTube video is labeled as a speech Davis gave at the Center for Inquiry in Amherst on Feb. 1, but a center press release indicates that he spoke there on March 19.

No matter when he spoke, Davis could not have made his point of view on Mexican immigrants any clearer.

“They have an allegiance to Mexico, where they were taught the U. S. fought an unjust war with Mexico and took this territory,” Davis said. “They believe the territory of these states belongs to Mexico.”

Davis did not name specific states that might be prone to succession.

But he appeared to be referring to Texas — which seceded from Mexico, briefly became an independent republic and then joined the United States — and the territories Mexico lost as a result of the Mexican-American War of 1846-48. California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico and much of Colorado were all once Mexican territory, only to become U. S. states after the war.

Asked this week about his speech, Davis said he no longer believed Southern states would be prone to leaving the union in order to assert Mexican control over what is now U. S. territory.

“I think they’ll do it without a civil war,” he said. “They’ll take control of the state governments and start voting themselves anything they want.”

The video of the Davis speech was posted to YouTube on April 14 by Robert Harding, a blogger at the Albany Project blog who supports Powers. He said the video was provided to him by someone who attended the speech.

Powers’ campaign manager, John Gerken, said the speech was very telling.

“I think Jack Davis’ rant says it all: He thinks we are going to go to war with California and Arizona,” Gerken said. “This is probably why his handlers won’t let him debate and hide him from the press.”

Alice Kryzan, an environmental lawyer who is also running for the Democratic nomination to face Republican Christopher Lee in the race to replace retiring Rep. Thomas

M. Reynolds, R-Clarence, was equally critical of Davis.

“Many of these comments are wrong and offensive,” she said. “We should address our illegal problems thoughtfully, not by demonizing anyone.”

Meanwhile, a top official at the National Council of La Raza, the nation’s leading Hispanic organization, termed Davis’ comments “extremely offensive.”

“He’s feeding an environment of intolerance that doesn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants,” said Clarissa Martinez, director of immigration and national campaigns for the organization. “He’s presenting our whole community as invaders — people who want to take over the country.”

In fact, Davis in his speech, said: “Our country has been invaded, occupied and settled by 10 million illegal aliens.”

Davis issued a statement Friday, trying to clarify his earlier comments.

“My remarks at the Center were designed to bring urgency to the conversation,” he said in the statement. “I believe passionately in protecting our homeland and securing our borders. If my language was hyperbolic, the danger it described certainly is not.”

In the Thursday interview where he discussed the speech, Davis said he didn’t recall everything he had said in the speech.

But among the topics he discussed in the speech was his solution for the illegal immigration problem.

“I think building a double wall long the southern border is the least expensive long-term solution to maintaining the heritage of our fathers,” Davis said in the speech on YouTube.

Davis, a 75-year-old Akron industrialist who has vowed to spend $3 million of his own money on the congressional race, plans to stay on the ballot in November — on his new “Save Jobs and Farms Party” line — even if he loses the Democratic primary.

Many Western New York farmers rely on migrant workers from Mexico to bring in the crops.

After hearing quotes from Davis’ speech, John Lincoln, the president of the New York Farm Bureau, said: “The farmers overall would be really concerned about his statement.”

Told what Lincoln said, Davis replied: “He’s not a regular farmer. He’s one of these big guys . . . I’d call him a multinational farmer.”

Lincoln, 70, is a dairy farmer with 200 head of cattle in Bloomfield, a village of 1,258 in Ontario County, southeast of Rochester. Asked if he had ever met Lincoln, Davis said he had not.

Moving Masses

The house meeting is a basic component in community mobilization. This tool allows the organizer to speak on a private basis with potential supporters and activists. This is where all the different aspects of mobilization we have talked about, the rap, list building, etc. come into play. If we are truly serious about building political power and ideological unity then we must make it our business to speak with as many different members of the community as possible.

Setting up the house meeting is done with a high-pressure pitch. Normally calling someone up and asking if you can come over to speak with them about an important matter is the most direct of beginning the conversation. Organizers should not feel constrained to speak only with individuals they know. You never know who will get involved. It is best to let others make that decision for themselves. Our job is to tell them about what is going on. The following outlines the action steps each organizer should follow for setting up and conducting house meetings with in their community.

This idea of conducting meetings at the homes of individuals from the affected community is also a proven and time-honored method of education. The benefits of doing this are immediate and quantifiable. Meeting people where they are the most comfortable is important to their and your success. If they are allowed in the privacy of their own homes to ask unlimited questions surrounded by friends and family then we, as organizers are able to have more meaningful conversations with them about the issues we are organizing around. For most people opening up their house for an educational meeting is a strong first step toward involvement in any issue.

House meeting campaign run in 8 week cycles. During that time the organizer holds a series of meetings in peoples homes. These meetings should have somewhere between 5 - 8 people. It is organized in three parts personal visit, House meeting, Area meeting. At the end of four weeks a mini area meeting should be held where everyone contacted during that time are called and invited to the meeting. At this committees should be established, perhaps even working to recruit individuals who can begin holding house meetings on their own. At the end of eight weeks everyone contacted during the two month period should be contacted to meet and kick off the new campaign. After this a new eight week campaign should begin again.

This is the type of campaign where it is important to develop a rap for (1) personal visit, (2) the house party, and the (3) area meeting.

What to say to set up a personal visit

1. Thank your for agreeing to meet with me.
2. Urgent Situation needs your help.
3. Only with your help can we change the economic downslide of today’s government.
4. Need you to set up a meeting at your house with people that you know we can explain this urgent situation to them.
5. All over the city people like you are having meetings like this.
6. Conservative forces from around the state are working to mislead voters on economic issues. This affects our lives and our children.
7. Give details of moral misleading.
8. Just need a few people.
9. When and what time is good for the householder.
10. Meeting will be only one hour long. Refreshments at the end of the meeting.

Steps to a house party
1. Last for one hour with four parts: Rap, questions, what can you do and invitation to attend area meeting.
2. Each homeowner will invite between 3-6 persons for the meeting – no more than eight,
3. The rap will be given,
4. All questions will be answered,
5. Each person attending will be asked to do three things –
a. give money, b. have a house meeting, c. suggest other people who would be interested in having a house meeting immediately.
6. Everyone is invited to attend and help build for the area meeting.
7. All house-meeting attendees will be data based and contacted on a regular basis

Area Meetings
1. Half hour presentation will take place.
2. Attendees will meet with respective organizers.
3. Each attendee will be asked to join a committee.
4. Mobilization for Fall Event will continue.
5. Take reports from other cities.
6. Discuss the necessity of raising money.

Using this type of organizing methodology could make the idea of a national political party for Xicanos/Mexicanos in the United States a reality. Sooner or later we have to make that choice. Work for ourselves or someone else. Building power within communities is an intentional act of resistance. As resisters we pursue the realization of justice and as organizers we “swim like fish in the sea of the people.” We take from our oppressors by any and all means our acquiescence to their domination. It is not enough to explain the world where we live and struggle. We must re-determine our relationship to this world and rethink our struggle.

Scheduled Departure

Sounds like a bad movie, a very very bad movie.

Most of the discussion around issues facing the Xicano/Mexicano community is focused on immigration and how it is being handled by and rightfully so because the thought of doors to our homes being knocked down in the night while we are dragged in the dead of the night with our families to some unknown detention center is a bone chilling beginning to one of the worst scenarios I can imagine. Separated from our families and children the uncertainly of their safety would be paralyzing. It panics me just to think about it. 

This makes the discussion on how we begin to build a party in the United States placed within a context of real world happenings. 

According to an July 31, ICE press release the "Scheduled Departure" program ran from Aug. 5 to Aug. 22. and, "may be expanded as ICE continues to evaluate the program." The program was piloted in five cities around the country.

Immigration agency scraps self-deportation program

AMY TAXIN / Associated Press | August 22, 2008

SANTA ANA, Calif.—U.S. authorities have drawn sharp criticism for showing up at homes before dawn to capture illegal immigrants who have skirted court orders to leave the country.

A three-week pilot program in five cities was intended to show a softer touch by allowing illegal immigrants to surrender. But after getting only eight volunteers, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the plan doesn’t work.

ICE is ending its “Scheduled Departure” program when the trial period concludes Friday.

“Quite frankly, I think this proves the only method that works is enforcement,” Jim Hayes, acting director of ICE’s detention and removal operations, told The Associated Press on Thursday.

ICE said it hatched the plan to give illegal immigrants more control over their departure and to quell criticism by immigrant advocates that its enforcement efforts were disruptive to families.

“They want amnesty, they want open borders, and they want a more vulnerable America,” Hayes said.

While immigrant rights activists ridiculed the program, they’re now worried its failure will embolden enforcement.

“My hope is it isn’t going to empower them or fuel their enforcement even further,” immigration lawyer Lisa Ramirez said Thursday.

“We do not believe they were really interested in having people turn themselves in,” said Jorge-Mario Cabrera, director of community education for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.

There, but for the grace of God goes I. (wikipedia)

A "more vulnerable America"? The burden of holding the line against the heathen hordes must be almost unbearable for someone like Jim Hayes, acting director of ICE's detention and removal operations who has vowed, "We are going to continue our enforcement of immigration law whether it is convenient for people, or whether it's not conveinent. Congress has mandated that we enforce these laws and that is what we intend to do. (Article)

Noble. Upholding the force of law. This is what makes America great.

So how do we work this out? First by (1) acknowledging we will not protest ICE into submission, because actually it is not about ICE. Remember, "congress has mandated we enforce these laws" so (2)  any changes we force ICE to make are limited reforms. Reforms that bring immediate relief to some people but do nothing to provide long term fundamental change in society. (3) We must develop a different way of looking at community organizing. 

Low Intensity Organizing (LIO) is non-traditional approach to solving or reforming issues within the community based on theories of Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) which gained prominence in U.S. military thought during the 1980s.

In practice Low Intensity Organizing would follow the same guidelines as LIC the emphasis being on: political considerations with the stress on ideology and ideals including propaganda and psychological operations; non-organizational and organizational mechanisms are brought into play; “conflict is viewed as a long-term endeavor and therefore strategy and tactics must be flexible and adaptive.” 

This model adapted by the U.S. government was derived from military anti insurgent theories and is completely opposite of prevailing methods of organizing within community and labor organizing. In particular, communities, regardless of race or class, working for change have been derailed over and over again by reformist issue and needs base organizing. (1)

The following is a beginning discussion of how Low Intensity Organizing might be theorized, “into the category of indirect strategy” and then implemented as “a total strategy in the indirect mode” that views conflict “as having a dual nature” and understands strategy is like music that “can be played in two keys. One is direct strategy and the other is indirect strategy.” LIO is the second and organizes people for change through indirect resistance. Some initial thoughts on how LIO could be discussed are as follows.

LIO is educational: The primary goal of low intensity organizing is to politically educate the people. Since it has been shown that no substantial change or action can be supported to its conclusion without the understanding and support of the community this is the first step. Education and an understanding of their/our personal relationship to the greater structure are paramount. 

LIO builds structure through political education: Only after the people and organizers have become educated can the physical structures we need to create as a distinct people emerge. Until we work to build these institutions through political education we will be locked into the dominant reactionary activist/protestor paradigm constantly playing out the role of the squeaky wheel. 

LIO is total resistance: Every facet of the community must be mobilized or attempted to mobilize. 

LIO maintains: a constant presence and teaches resistance to accepted paradigms, creates new norms, and free spaces for the participant. 

LIO questions everything beginning with our personal and group relationship to the greater structure.

This is the beginning of an urban insurgency – not one with guns but an educational and organizing insurgency where the colonial paradigm is exposed and challenged outside reformist liberal frameworks on a daily basis. In building this popular will to resist insurgents should understand concerning their efforts to educate the people that “revolutionary propaganda must be essentially true in order to be believed… If it is not believed, people cannot be induced to act on it, and there will be no revolution.” (2)

-----Footnotes----

(1) Shultz, Richard H. “The Low-Intensity Conflict Environment of the 1990s” Annals of the American Academy of the Political and Social Science, Vol. 517, New Directions in the U.S. Defense Policy (Sep. 1991) p. 125).

(2) Taber, Robert “The War of the Flea: A study of Guerilla Warfare Theory and Practice” p. 172

Don't let'em fool yah.

This just in from the West Coast. Latinos are the fastest growing population of registering voters. Huh? Who would have thought something like that? A recent article posted on the Daily Bulletin website titled Many Groups Recruit Latinos to Vote brings some important points to the discussion of a political party for Xicanos/Mexicanos and other Latinos in the United States. In part it states,

"There are an estimated 50,000 Latino voters in San Bernardino and Riverside counties who are not registered and many others who do not vote, according to Latino advocacy groups. 

Latinos could play a crucial role in determining not only who winds the presidency, but the fate of local races and ballot measures as well. 'It is very, very critical that we have a voice in being able to elect someone who can best represent our communities,' said Jose Zapata Calderon, a professor of sociology and Chicano Studies at Pitzer College in Claremont."

That is a lot of people interested in participating in the political process. Maybe not the exact process we want them to but participating none the less. We have to ask ourselves seriously - how many of them would work to build a party that represents the Xicano/Mexicano community in the United States. Think about the numbers quoted above. It is not a joke. 

For those of you out there shaking your head, thinking it could never happen consider these next few things. Recently a report titled "The Myth of Widespread Non-Citizen Voting" released by The Truth in Immigration organization has categorically refuted very serious allegations by the Heritage Foundation that "large numbers of non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, are voting in federal elections and could be the deciding factor in November's elections"

The introduction of the report goes on to say the Lou Dobbs segment which broke the news of this "scandal" is based on a report for the Heritage Foundation written by a former recess appointed Federal Elections Commission (FEC) Hans von Spakosky, titled "The Threat of Non-Citizen Voting".

In brief, my point is this. Lots of people are taking the emerging possibility of a Xicano/ Mexicano political organization very seriously. Why don't we? 

What is a simple tool we can use to help our community get more organized? Face to face communication throughout the community about the issues facing us is an important step toward political self reliance. In order to have these beginning conversations we need something called a RAP.

While it may be obvious to you and members of your organization why the issue (or issues) you are working on are important that doesn’t mean everyone can automatically see the issue.
You have to write it down.
What are the main points?
What information is vital and what can wait?
More importantly what do the people in the community want to know?
What are their issues?
What are they talking about to each other?

Can you explain yourself in two minutes or less? When this basic declaration of your ideas and major issues are made to a person or group of people in a mobilization campaign it is called doing THE RAP. Without doubt this is one of the most important tools in any campaign and is a basic element in any organizing effort. 

It is an opening conversation that allows continuity in the communication/message. Often organizers, especially those just starting out, will develop a rap without even thinking about it as a necessary step. They just look it as “what they say to people to get them interested.” The key to success in any project is effectively communicating what you want to accomplish. That may seem a simplistic statement but think about how many conversations you have had in your lifetime where the words “what I mean by that was…” were used. Since we have already established that the political education and mobilization of the community is our primary objective. Clear and concise communication is required to make this happen. Since, community support is not generated overnight and comes only from methodically developing relationships over time and is an integral part of any mobilization campaign. 

You should have a short rap and long rap - something that gets right to the point.
It may seem simple but if no one knows what you are doing then how will you ever accomplish the change you desire. Open communication and transparency in your organizing efforts are important when working with people on a community grass roots level. This keeps the organizing and mobilization efforts you are undertaking with others from becoming isolated from the greater community you are working with. Working in the community is a privilege and a trust.

Communicating with others – Often, the greatest obstacle to successful mobilizing is our inability to effectively communicate about the issues facing the community. Change is all about people understanding each other and how their respective visions of the world work together. If you cannot speak to people in a meaningful way about the change you want that change will never happen.

Use language people can understand –Talk to people at a level you and they are both comfortable with. Inexperienced organizers often try to talk at someone else “level.” This is a mistake. It is arrogant and elitists. What usually ends up happening is “talking down” to people. Big mistake.

Communication demands respect for others – Listening to one another creates respect. The dysfunctional relationships in society we are organizing against stem from lack of communication and respect. This is particularly true in gender power dynamics – people are constantly interrupting each other – constant interruption is a sign of disrespect and a sign you aren’t talking the person talking serious.

Listening is a form of communication – When you take the time to really listen it does a number of things. First, the respect and empathy that you feel for others is immediately recognized. Individuals and groups you are assisting will take your listening approach as a sign of solidarity and willingness to work on the needs of the community from their perspective.

Talk to People - Articulating to others the group's goals will help more clearly define the vision for you and for those listening. The more you do it the better you'll get at delivering your message, and the more powerful the message will become.

Listen To People - Be open and listen to how others respond to the articulation of your vision. You'll know by their response if they understand and support your vision and goals. Use this feedback to make modifications if required.