Apr.17

electoral-vote.com

Dem 47

   

GOP 53

This Week in Freudenfreude: The California Gambit?

We believe we said we'd provide an update as to how (Z) dealt with Cesar Chavez in lecture, once that lecture came up. Well, this week was the week.

For background purposes, understand that in this segment of the History of California, there are a series of lectures on ethnic and cultural groups—Native Americans, Asian Americans, Mexican Americans and African Americans, in that order. They all follow a similar template:

1. Story of key figure(s), which serves as an introduction to the lecture
2. History of that group in California, roughly from the Gold Rush to the mid-20th century.
3. Discussion of some historical methods question, appropriate to that particular group
4. Story of one or two key historical events centered on that group
5. Bringing the story of that group up to the present day

Before this week, the Mexican-Americans lecture looked like this:

1. Story of Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta
2. History of Mexican Americans after the Californio era, with a focus on segregation.
3. Discussion of autobiography as a historical source—strengths and weaknesses
4. In-depth discussion of the Zoot Suit Riots of 1943
5. The United Farm Workers and other post-war activism (MEChA, UNO, etc.)

The new version of the lecture was altered in two ways. First, at the end of the introduction, a portion was added about the new revelations, how they very definitely clear the "this is the truth" bar, how this was a common phenomenon in activist movements like this, and why women like Dolores Huerta remained silent—they feared they would be disbelieved and very possibly persecuted, and they also did not want to hurt the movement.

Second, the section on autobiography was tossed, and replaced with a section entitled "Historical Villainy," with the focus being "How do historians deal with people who are reprehensible, but also important?" There were three parts to that section:

1. It is easy, in a college classroom, to deal with someone who is evil, and who did evil (but important) things. Like, for example, Adolf Hitler. It is really not that much harder, in a college classroom, to deal with a bad person who did important things that were not evil—a person like George Washington, or Christopher Columbus, or Chavez. You discuss the important thing or things they did, you make sure to give a frank (though possibly brief) of their misdeeds, and that is that. This is necessary all the time in a California history course—Junípero Serra, David Starr Jordan, Hiram Johnson, Earl Warren, Jerry Voorhis, Richard Nixon, etc.
   
   
2. By contrast, (Z) has no idea what you do with younger students, because he has only ever taught at the university level. The students in the class, many of them aspiring teachers, gave their thoughts. The general consensus was that you have to tell the full story, even to younger students, albeit in an age-appropriate way. It is also useful to give parents a heads up when you are going to deal with touchy topics.
   
   
3. Though (Z) has much experience dealing with controversial figures in class, Chavez was extra difficult, for numerous reasons. The students in the class were able to infer those reasons, even before (Z) volunteered them. In no particular order: (1) The news about Chavez is fresh, and everyone is still adapting to it; (2) Chavez' victims, at least many of them, are still alive; (3) There is a race and class component here that is not present with someone like George Washington, (4) Chavez' crimes happen to connect with what is looking to be the dominant social issue of our time, namely #MeToo and the long-overdue reckoning over sexual misconduct and sexual violence perpetrated by powerful people against those not able to resist.

You have to have something to put on screen for each part of the presentation, and for the third and final portion of the "historical villainy" section, (Z) did a screen capture of the Los Angeles Times' report about how all the various Chavez monuments and memorials are being stricken. (Z) did not notice, until the slide was up on the big screen, that at the moment he screen-grabbed it, there was a breaking news story... about Eric Swalwell. So, it was two lechers for the price of one. One might call that serendipity, if Chavez' and Swalwell's misdeeds were not so odious. If anyone wants to see a (low-res) version of the PDF, it's here.

That leads us to the pi**ing contest that went on in the Senate yesterday. John Cornyn has introduced a bill that would shut down the Cesar E. Chavez National Monument in California. The bill was brought to the floor of the Senate by unanimous consent, but actual passage was blocked by Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), because he believes that the monument needs to be re-imagined, not destroyed. In Heinrich's view, Chavez should be removed, but the story of the farm workers should stay. Otherwise, the Senator argues, you'll be left with nothing that honors the workers' story. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) was outraged by all of this, and shared a characteristically thoughtful Mike-Lee-style comment, accusing Heinrich of an Epstein-style cover-up.

We think that Heinrich's position, which he explained clearly and with patience, is very reasonable. You can certainly bet big money that if a monument to a brown person is reduced to dust, this presidential administration will not rush to make a replacement. Meanwhile, we are not 100% certain what the motivations of Lee and Cornyn are, but we very seriously doubt that they are primarily motivated by their desire for justice for the victims of sexual crimes. After all, they've been pleased to turn a blind eye to the aforementioned Epstein matter. The name of the Cornyn bill, the No Funding to Honor Crime Scenes Act, does nothing to move us off of that position. That's a show-horse name, not a work-horse name, and one designed to whip people into a lather, especially since Chavez' crimes obviously did not actually take place at the monument that currently bears his name.

And that, at long last, brings us to the actual subject of this item. While the Senate has been posturing, the legislature of California—you know, the state that is allegedly a badly run mess—is actually doing something useful here. Shortly after the Chavez news broke, several members of the state legislature, with Assemblymen David Tangipa and Juan Alanis taking the lead, have put together a piece of legislation called The Rural Farmworker Women's Health Act.

The bill is simple, and is modest in its aspirations. It would instruct the California Department of Public Health to partner with local nonprofits to provide women fieldworkers with free menstrual hygiene products. Sometimes, these workers are laboring many miles from any sort of restroom or store, and are not in much of a position to carry a purse or backpack. They might also not be in a position to afford these items.

The only thing that surprises us about this legislation is that it's necessary, and was not implemented years ago. Barring some hitch that does not occur to us, we almost cannot imagine the bill failing to secure passage, and to get the signature of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA). Readers will notice that we did not put the party affiliations of bill sponsors Tangipa and Alanis, the way we would normally do. We deliberately did not look them up, because we'd really like to believe that this is something that goes beyond politics, and that both Republicans and Democrats in California can agree upon. And we think that this legislation, which will serve to do some small-but-real good in the lives of the very population that Chavez victimized, is a really great response to these new revelations. A tip of the hat to the two Assemblymen and their co-sponsors.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)