EduBlog: Oso Blanco b.k.a. “Robin the Hood”

The Case

Byron is a wolf clan Cherokee/Choctaw raised in New Mexico, his Indian name is Oso Blanco and he became known by the authorities as “Robin the Hood” after the FBI and local gang unit APD officers learned from a CI that Oso Blanco was robbing banks to send thousands of dollars worth of supplies to the Zapatista Rebels of Chiapas on a regular basis during 1998 and 1999.

I am serving 80 years in Beaumont federal Penitentiary for bank robbery and firearms violation. I robbed from the banks and gave to the Hood and indigenous warriors. I was dubbed by the FBI as Robin The Hood. For my info on me all you need to do is Google my name you will find both the lies of main stream media and some independent interviews where I was able to give my accounts of the situation. Do this and then write me if your still interested in me helping others.

I guess when I get down to basic hope-
I just want people to be free-
and realize and discover the powerful
elements of the Great Creator-in all things living.
Free from destructive energy sources.
Free from political religious formats of control.
Free from lies.
Free from toxic chemicals.
Free from fast food.
Free from sin.
Free from the masters of political sheep control.
Free from gasoline.
Free from coal.

Free from TV and all the tech junk.
Free from make up.
Free from drugs.
Free from alcohol.
From all the things we humans have
locked our selves in…
Help the sick-the poor-the old-the handicapped.

I myself come from a violent wild west background and if I can
find a loop (hope) hole to compassion then a lot of people can
learn to think positive and take effective action.

Sometimes I feel the lonely pain and separation from my community and people. I’m locked down in a room. A cement cell 23 hours except twice a week or three days I get no recreation – 24 hours! I did not kill anyone, yet I was treated as a killer – because I defended my life. They got on a mic and told reporters I was the most dangerous criminal in NM. They claimed I was a junkie, they said I was a gang member – useless to the world. . . Now I’m like a free wolf. Chained to the floor like a sad dog, lonely in the cage. Being told, ‘hey wolf that’s your home for 80 years’. This is insane. Who have I killed – nobody. Who have I raped – nobody. Its unjust, the cost, the price of not only a revolutionary fighter but also the price of being a political prisoner.

- written in Leavenworth 2004 -

 

Byron is a wolf clan Cherokee/Choctaw raised in New Mexico, his Indian name is Oso Blanco and he became known by the authorities as “Robin the Hood” after the FBI and local gang unit APD officers learned from a CI that Oso Blanco was robbing banks to send thousands of dollars with of supplies to the Zapatista Rebels of Chiapas on a regular basis during 1998 and 1999. Chubbuck is now serving 80 years at the US Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas, for bank robbery, aggravated assault on the FBI, escape and firearms charges. Byron engaged federal agents in a gun battle on August 13th 1999 at his home in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Although Chubbuck escaped, he was arrested later that day and sentenced to time in New Mexico’s state Penitentiary. After serving just over a year in New Mexico, he escaped from a prison transport van and almost immediately began robbing banks. He was recaptured a short time later. Byron never used a gun in any bank robbery, but he has a long history of living by the gun and will not hesitate to use it on the agents of repression or the occupiers of Aztlan whom force false laws on the true people of this land. Byron is not asking for monetary support, he’s only asking that people become aware of indigenous people’s issues. In an interview Oso Blanco claimed: “I am still able to hold my head up high and feel the gratification for my work in a world where money, power and destructive industries are regarded far above humanity, indigenous and impoverished peoples and cultures. I cannot help that I got deeply into my work….” A Few words from Byron: I guess when I get down to basic hope- I just want people to be free- and realize and discover the powerful elements of the Great Creator-in all things living. Free from destructive energy sources. Free from political religious formats of control. Free from lies. Free from toxic chemicals. Free from fast food. Free from sin. Free from the masters of political sheep control. Free from gasoline. Free from coal. Free from TV and all the tech junk. Free from make up. Free from drugs. Free from alcohol. From all the things we humans have locked our selves in… Help the sick-the poor-the old-the handicapped. I myself come from a violent wild west background and if I can find a loop (hope) hole to compassion then a lot of people can learn to think positive and take effective action.

Joline Gutierrez Krueger The Albuquerque Tribune “Utter Chubbuck”:

For the first time since his Albuquerque capture, the bandit known as Robin the Hood speaks out. About his respect for women. About those “minor” bank robberies. About earmarking drug profits for the poor people of Chiapas. And Byron Shane Chubbuck makes this vow: “I can’t be stopped forever.” Two hours after escaping from a prison transport van, Byron Shane Chubbuck was relaxing in a Motel 6, knocking back a beer, eating Burger King and watching TV coverage of the havoc he had wrought. And smiling a lot. It was all good, he said, except for the hamburger. “I told my people, ..We are New Mexicans. It’s Blake’s Lota Burger from now on,’” he said. “We’ve got to support our home state burger joint.” Loyalty, even for a local sandwich, is big with Chubbuck, whose bold bank robbery style and quixotic tales of aiding the poor with his ill-gotten gains earned him the name Robin the Hood – and 40 years in federal prison. Come Oct. 15, when Chubbuck is expected to be sentenced on additional charges stemming from that van escape last December, the 34-year-old bad boy of bank robberies could face an additional 40 years. Or more. But Robin the Hood will not go quietly. And, if he has his way, not for so long. “I can’t be stopped forever,” Chubbuck said recently in phone interviews and letters from his cell at the U.S. Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado. “I will not be broken in my spirit of determination and will power. And if I were to escape again I’ll naturally be polite doing it, never hurting anyone, while smacking the federal government across their face of hypocrisy.” For the first time since he aired his jailhouse blues and his bravura last February on an Albuquerque radio rock station – an interview that ultimately led to his capture two days later – Chubbuck is speaking out about what he did while on the run, his reasons for robbing banks and the bullet that brought him down. “My life story is very full, long and complex,” he said. “I only wish someone would take an interest in the real story revolving around these 20 minor bank robberies and my reasons.” Somewhere therein lies the truth, big and bold like Chubbuck himself. Disarming charmer You either hate Byron Shane Chubbuck or you love him. And if you love him you might hate that you do. Or you might feel guilty. Or duped. “It was like, oh, my God, is this the same cute guy I knew?” said Carolyn Butterfield, an old girlfriend of Chubbuck’s from his mid -1980s Colorado days when he sported Marlon Brando leather and called himself a solo poet/sing-songwriter/artist. “If you meet him, you’re instantly charmed,” she said. “There’s a charisma about him, a magnetism.” Women staffers at Albuquerque’s Project Share, which feeds the poor, had also been charmed by the handsome stranger who arrived on their doorstep in 1997 as a federal parolee needing to do community service. They also were suspicious. “He was too good to be true,” said one woman there, who agreed to allow The Tribune to use the Project Share name but not her own, saying the situation was too sensitive for her to be connected so publicly to Chubbuck. “You could not have met a nicer guy. He was so helpful to us here, a total workhorse. People loved him here.” Chubbuck, whom they knew as “Blanco,” was the first to shake a hand, stock a shelf or serve a homeless person, she said. He knew to ingratiate himself with the staff, particularly the single women, sometimes taking 25 or more of them to elaborate lunches at Romano’s Macaroni Grill. “Everything was big with him,” she said. “He could never do just a little. He had to do it huge. “When bread or paper supplies dwindled, a massive donation of the needed goods would suddenly arrive. “He’d just say he knew some people and boom, there it was,” she said. “We joked that he probably was in the Mafia.” Chubbuck told them only that he was “connected.” While he was serving the hungry at Project Share, Chubbuck was also serving as jefe and social conscience of a local gang. “He’d tell us, ..Just because you’re in a gang doesn’t mean you’re bad,’” Brew Town Chris Perez said. “He always told us to be good examples, do positive things, help old people and like that. He’d do it, too. If he saw some homeless guy on the street begging for a dollar he’d give them $100.” In turn, Chubbuck said he found his brothers, his carnales, men and boys who would lay down their lives for him and the causes he said he championed. Siempre con honor, he told them. Always with honor. “When I found my brothers I was granted a chance to use my creative ideas to instill in the hearts of gangsters passion for a cause, compassion for the desperate and slick ways to make more money with the money we were rounding up,” Chubbuck said. Those slick ways would become his claim to fame. And his demise. Easy money Chubbuck said he never feared robbing a bank. “After I was past the first door, it was too late to turn back,” he said. He said he doesn’t remember how many banks he has hit but notes that Albuquerque isn’t the only place he has plied his nefarious trade. “I can tell you the FBI knows about one in Denver and some in Dallas,” he said. Chubbuck insists he robbed his first bank to help pay off a drug debt for a relative. The others, he said, paid for food and supplies for the indigenous people of the Mexican state of Chiapas. Chubbuck said he was in Mexico around 1998 looking to score two drums of ephedrine for making methamphetamine – the same activity that had gotten him sent to prison five years before – when he decided to pay a visit to a woman whose card he had kept since 1997 when he had seen her at a protest rally in Downtown Albuquerque. The woman was in Guatemala City caring for impoverished and broken children – Guatemala street children. “It touched my heart,” he said. “It made me want to be like her, help people like she did. “Chubbuck said he gave her $3,000. “I could only afford to buy one drum after that,” he said. Chubbuck said he began robbing banks, sometimes two a day, never brandishing a gun and always attempting to charm tellers with his polite polish and his handsome swagger and his talk about how the money would help feed starving children. But Rudy Espinoza, regional security officer for Wells Fargo banks, said Chubbuck was not as winsome as he thought. “I will tell you that his efforts were not without emotional consequences. “Espinoza said. Many of the tellers he interviewed after a Chubbuck heist asked to be relocated, retired or sought counseling, he said. Chubbuck said he purchased marijuana with the bank loot and then sold it, tripling and quadrupling the initial amount. The profits went to the Chiapas cause, he said; the rest went to him. “I’d keep about $10,000 and go help people in my barrio or spoil my wife, “he said. Robin the Hood’s run seemingly ended in August 1999 in a shootout with FBI agents at his Southeast Heights home. He pleaded guilty in October 2000 to the shooting and robbing an unprecedented 14 banks across Albuquerque. He received a 40-year sentence. Two months into it he was gone. Out Chubbuck says there was no master plan, no team of accomplices waiting in the wings for him to make his daring escape Dec. 21, 2000, from a prison transport van on its way back to the Santa Fe County Detention Center from a hearing in Albuquerque. “I didn’t go with some diabolical plan,” he said. “They’re making me out to be some mastermind. I was just desperate. I was getting beat up. I was getting gassed. I had to get out of there, and I had to tell people about the treatment we were getting in jail.” The van was nearing the intersection of Second Street and Monta§o Road Northwest when Chubbuck used a smuggled key to free himself from his handcuffs, waist chains and leg shackles, and kicked out a van window and the steel-bar grate covering it. “When I first got away from the van I ran to the ¹hood,” he said. “I didn’t know where I was going.” Chubbuck said he jumped over fences, cutting a hand already bloodied from the van escape. He exploded into the front door of a home in the 200 block of Gene Avenue Northwest, startling Stephanie Angus, 28, and a friend, her mother and her young children. “I said: ..Please help me. The cops are trying to kill me,’” he said. “I told her ..I need a ride out of the ¹hood right now.’ I did not command her to do anything. I asked and pleaded. I have respect for women, and when you’re looking at a woman as pretty as Ms. Angus, you better have respect.” Angus, he said, was his angel. Stephanie Angus said she was terrified. But Chubbuck’s charm and honest manner left her with an odd compassion for her captor, she said. “Looking back, it was the scariest experience of my life,” Angus said in a recent interview. “But I don’t think he was a bad person. I don’t think he would hurt anybody.” Chubbuck said Angus and her friend drove him out of the North Valley and the grip of a tightening dragnet. “I almost cried right in front of them because they had been sent by God,” he said. “They gave me $20 and a water and Chap Stick. I told them who I was and what I just did and what I’m about, and I asked them to pray for me.” After stays at a Motel 6 in midtown Albuquerque and at another “safe place,” Chubbuck said he stole a blue Camaro Z28 with a snowboard inside and drove to El Paso. “I saw myself in their paper, too,” he said – disappointed that, like the Albuquerque media, the El Paso newspaper was running a mug shot of a pudgier, surlier, shaved-head Chubbuck bloody and bitten from an earlier encounter with a police dog. After crashing the Z28 into a pole, Chubbuck said he made his way on foot for the next four days to Cuidad Juarez and later to Chihuahua, where he had friends. Eventually, he said he settled into a $300,000 home he had been paying off in Juarez. One day he hoped to share the home with his wife, Leticia Antillon, and their two sons, Carlos, 12, and Eduardo, almost 2. It all might have worked, too, had Chubbuck not returned to Albuquerque and resumed his Robin the Hood ways. From Jan. 12 to Jan. 30, at least six bank robberies were tied to Chubbuck, two more to his associates. Chubbuck said he had been forced to leave Mexico and return to Albuquerque after being robbed himself. Thieves broke into the home in Juarez, he said, taking radios, scales, BB guns and $11,000 in cash. “I give them credit,” he said. “They were pretty darn smart.” Chubbuck said he returned one last time to retrieve his wife and children. “The plan was to sneak back and get a multiband radio to my wife,” he said. When things were ready, I would give her the word and say, ..Babe, pack up the truck and the kids, it’s time to go.’” But Chubbuck could not sneak back silently. Going public Realizing and relishing the notion that he was now the hottest news in town, Chubbuck decided to use his notoriety to spread his gospel of aiding the poor, thwarting the government and fingering Santa Fe County Detention Center officials he said had made his incarceration so miserable. He chose as his conduit the unlikely T.J. Trout, long time morning drive-time disc jockey at KZRR-FM (94.1). Chubbuck wrote Trout several letters and asked fellow gang member James Thompson to send them off. He also spoke with Trout by phone Feb. 5. The conversation was broadcast several times the next day. But Chubbuck said he hadn’t expected Thompson to deliver his letters personally to the radio station and risk being identified. “I hit the roof when I found out,” he said. “I said: ..Are you kidding me? Oh, my God.’” Thompson’s image was captured by surveillance videotape at the radio station. Early the next morning, Chubbuck was in custody and in a hospital bed with a bullet wound through his chest, courtesy of the Albuquerque police. End of the line Last June, jurors took 35 minutes to reach guilty verdicts against Chubbuck on charges of escape, brandishing a firearm during a violent crime and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Then they had lunch. It was an anti-climactic ending to one of the more colorful criminal episodes in recent New Mexico history. A juror was reported as saying the defense simply rested its case without providing any statements or a version of the events that happened that night. Chubbuck still fumes over that. He remains angry at his attorney, Gary Mitchell, a longtime and well-respected Ruidoso lawyer who has served as counsel for some of the state’s most notorious felons. “He’s a snake, a con man and a sellout,” Chubbuck snarls. He accuses Mitchell of failing to seek a motion for a change of venue, for not seeking a motion to suppress testimony he had given under morphine while hospitalized. And for not having lab tests – fingerprints, DNA, blood – performed that might have proven Chubbuck never touched the Tec-9 semiautomatic weapon Albuquerque police said he aimed at them in the flurry of his Feb. 7 capture. “The state is not required to dig up exculpatory evidence – that’s my lawyer’s job,” he said. “And he seemed to refuse to accomplish or even try to take it on in order to fight the police claims.” Mitchell, though, said Chubbuck had a hand in every decision. “Obviously, I did the things I thought were in the best interest of my client after conferring with my client about those,” he said. “You don’t represent Chubbuck without Chubbuck being totally involved.” Chubbuck could be sentenced next month to up to 40 more years for the three new convictions. Six charges of bank robbery were previously dismissed to streamline the process, prosecutors have said. Prosecutors have also said they might seek a life sentence under the federal “three strikes” law, which targets repeat offenders. Mitchell is filing a motion seeking to be fired as Chubbuck’s attorney. It is Chubbuck’s request. But he won’t soon forget his charismatic client. “Shane’s a very interesting character,” he said. “If in fact he was robbing banks to give the money to poor people, well, that’s a little bit different scenario than somebody robbing banks to feed a drug habit. And you sort of like guys like that. We Americans are like moths to a light bulb when it comes to that kind of stuff.” Prison, again Letters from strangers, girls mostly, arrive for Chubbuck in prison, a small reminder of the charm he exudes, even from behind bars. He spends much of his time writing letters, poems, his life story. He makes ceramics. He prays for strength from the Great Creator. He has friends in prison. He cries that he hasn’t seen his sons since he arrived. He rails that he must be imprisoned longer than those who kill. Already he has been accused of concocting an escape plan, this one involving a helicopter, he said. He makes no apology for the crimes he has committed, no promise that he wouldn’t do it again if given the chance. “I am still able to hold my head up and feel the gratification for my work in a world where money, power and destructive industry are regarded far above humanity, indigenous and impoverished peoples or cultures,” he said. “I cannot help that I got into my work.”

The robber generally plundered the rich, the governments generally plunder the poor and protect those rich who assist in their crimes. The robber doing his work risked his life, while the governments risk nothing, but base their whole activity on lies and deception. The robber did not compel anyone to join his band, the governments generally enrol their soldiers by force. .. The robber did not intentionally vitiate people, but the governments, to accomplish their ends, vitiate whole generations from childhood to manhood with false religions and patriotic instruction. (By Leo Tolstoy)

Oso Blanco/White Bear/Yona Unaga

I seek to inspire All warriors to work out a lot and get in top shape.

 

White Bear and Greg                     White Bear and Leonard Peltier

 

White Bear, Leonard Peltier and Tom Manning

The Cause

  

These words were sent to the Brown Berets:

1.) Ancient Indigenous spirit beings are Helping us. So are star beings all over the universe.

2.) People are born into New lives, “again” who were fighting the same enemy we fight in modern times. This age that they fought 500-300-250 years ago.

3.) Our goal is NOT to fix America. Our goal is to save the Earth and our Aztlán seed- “DNA”.

4.) Love is the Key. Prayer is the Doorway. Inside the Human/god/Heart is a vast, vast universe.

5.) Everyone must get in top fighting shape. Run-workout-survival trips in the desert and mountains.

6.) As long as we Believe and be true and loyal the Beings will help us.

7.) DO NOT use drugs at all! ZERO. “Small Alcohol”, is ok BUT NOT smart!

8.) Color of skin or eyes does NOT matter. Warriors of Aztlán are still who they are in spirit.

9.) There are many “signs” that pop up to tell you we are on the good track together in “relation”. These things, signs are spiritual. They are clues to keep us on “point”- in focus.

10.) We are in the Earth Plane to learn knowledge for our spirit, so we can save All life. To gain the steps, tools and energy to enter, higher thought.

We live many lives- some progress, some become more and more dumb and non-spiritual. NO COMPASSION, NO SEXUAL CONTROL, DOG BEHAVIOR.

WE are not like that, WE are back in Aztlán in “this life” to do the End Work for All life.

Brothers and sisters

The Southwest and most of Oregon – is Aztlán, a place – a land – a nation – a sacred zone that has been hidden from the scholars of history, the indigenous Mexica youth. Thanks to the Freemasons, the Vatican and Mormons high in the ranks of the Salt Lake Temple. Who are masons too. Brothers and sisters this is our Land and Its time the truth be let out for all to see. Aztlán is unlawfully occupied. But I need not explain all the treacherous ways they came trespassing upon Holy, set apart Aztlán. The days for that are over. Because now the destructive way of Life or existing as slaves in our Grandfathers own Land, is killing everything. – the way they control us is robbing the life from us – masking our Indigenous powers and massive medicine. We live easy yet “empty” we are “lazy” yet a very unhealthy lazy spiritually – emotionally – physically – and we must set our selves Free. We must return – the New Aztlán is now.

We shall no longer kill Mother Earth and everything else just to have modern technologies and pay for death as tax slaves. We shall rise up refusing to be slaves to commerce and political lies, in our own Land. “We shall be High master” – High master of the heart Realm of Higher Consciousness.

Please support the Brown Berets

Please send Aid to the EZLN

I AM OSO BLANCO de Aztlán

 

His address

Want to support Byron? Write him and pray for him.

NOTE: HE DOES NOT HAVE INTERNET ACCESS!!

Byron Shane Chubbuck # 07909051
USP LEWISBURG
U.S. PENITENTIARY
P.O. BOX 1000
LEWISBURG, PA  17837

Oso can only receive letters, cards, postcards, photos (not polaroid), (you might wanna copy your writings though as he does not seem to receive all that’s sent to him). He can not receive gifts or cds. Books/magazines (subject – Aztlán) must be sent from a bookstore (Amazon.com or allbookstore.com books ). Newspaper articles are not allowed however xerox copies of the articles are allowed.

 

Do not send him money, he does not want money. If one wants to send money, donate it to Chiapas schools – to the children.

Who I’d like to meet: True, real people who take a stand, rebels, and people ready to revolt.

(Yona Unaga is Cherokee for white bear as it sounds in English. Oso Blanco is white bear in Spanish, since Oso grew up in New Mexico he is used to Oso Blanco)

Keep track where Oso’s at: the BOP locator!

Zoot Suit Riots

A little bit out of the norm from my usual posts but as a huge fan of *old* music, I was surprised how little I knew about the “Zoot Suit Riots” – funny how none of this was ever mentioned during any history classes.

The photo was taken by John Ferrell and first published in June, 1942. The original caption read: “Washington, D.C. Soldier inspecting a couple of “zoot suits” at the Uline Arena during Woody Herman’s Orchestra engagement there.” Credit: Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, FSA-OWI Collection, number, e.g., LC-USF35-1326 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 As I was watching this, it dawned on me that sometimes, the more we think things have changed, the more they really might be the same…

The Zoot Suit Riots were a series of riots in 1943 during World War II that exploded in Los Angeles, California between white sailors and Marines stationed throughout the city and Latino youths, who were recognizable by the zoot suits they favored. While Mexican Americans and military servicemen were the main parties in the riots, African American and Filipino/Filipino American youth were also involved…

…a series of violent incidents erupted between Mexicans wearing zoot suits and U.S. service personnel in San Jose, Oakland, San Diego, Delano, Los Angeles and other places. The most serious of these acts of violence broke out in Los Angeles.

Two conflicts between Mexicans and military personnel had a great effect on the start of the riots. The first occurred on May 30, 1943, four days before the start of the riots. The altercation involved a dozen sailors and soldiers including Seaman Second Class Joe Dacy Coleman. The group was walking down Main Street when they spotted a group of young Mexican women on the opposite side of the street. With the exception of Coleman and another soldier, the group crossed the street to approach and harass the women. Coleman continued on, walking past a small group of young men in zoot suits. As he walked by, Coleman saw one of the young men raise his arm in a so-called “threatening” manner, so he turned around and grabbed it. It was then that something or someone struck the sailor in the back of the head at which point he fell to the ground unconscious, allegedly breaking his jaw in two places. On the opposite side of the street, young men attacked the servicemen for harassing the women. In the midst of this battle, the service men managed to fight their way to Coleman and drag him to safety.

The second incident took place four days later on the night of June 3, 1943. About eleven sailors got off a bus and started walking along Main Street in Downtown Los Angeles. At some point they ran into a group of young Mexicans dressed in zoot suits and got in a verbal argument. It was then that the sailors stated that they were jumped and beaten by this gang of zoot suiters. When the LAPD responded to the incident, many of them off duty officers, they called themselves the Vengeance Squad and went to the scene “seeking to clean up Main Street from what they viewed as the loathsome influence of pachuco gangs.” The next day, 200 members of the U.S. Navy got a convoy of about 20 taxi cabs and headed for East Los Angeles. When the sailors spotted their first victims, most of them 12-13 year old boys, they clubbed the boys and adults that were trying to stop them. They also stripped the boys of their zoot suits and burned the tattered clothes in a pile. They were determined to attack and strip all minorities that they came across who were wearing zoot suits. It was with this attack that the Zoot Suit Riots started…

Read more on Wiki

LA May Day protest demands: Legalization, no deportations, drivers licenses for all

LA May Day protest demands: Legalization, no deportations, drivers licenses for all

By Staff

Los Angeles, CA – Thousands of protesters took to the streets here on May 1, International Workers Day, to demand legalization for all. The protest, organized by Southern California Immigration Coalition, was the largest Los Angeles May Day event. The mostly Chicano/Latino crowd was made up of students, teachers, vendors, garment workers, parents and activists from all the progressive movements, including the Occupy movement. Participants and supporters of the demonstration included the United Teachers Los Angeles, International Action Center, Union Del Barrio, Bayan USA, FMLN, FSLN, L.A. Committee to Stop FBI Repression, Mecha and others.

The march began on Olympic and Broadway. It demanded full legalization for all, stop the ICE/police deportations, no guest worker program and drivers licenses for all.

The Southern California Immigration Coalition (SCIC) is an independent grassroots coalition that receives no funding from government, political parties or foundations. The SCIC also raised the controversial slogan “Legalization or No Reelection.” SCIC organized this march to unite the community to denounce President Obama’s ongoing policy of deporting hundreds of thousands of people, most who are from Mexico.

Most local non-profit immigration groups, some unions and others held a separate march earlier in the day, complete with U.S. flags, because they were afraid of SCIC’s slogans. SCIC denounced U.S. imperialism as the cause of mass migration, war, racism and the misery of millions of Latinos, Blacks and Asian immigrants.

The rally included a variety of Latino American solidarity activists, rank-and-file union members, street vendors, youth and women’s groups. Carlos Montes denounced the current FBI and police attack on him and urged participants to attend his upcoming trial on May 15. A contingent of students and street vendors carried a banner reading, “Stop the repression against Carlso Montes.”

There was a heavy police presence along the the entire mile-long march and at the rally.

For the last two years SCIC has led a campaign to stop authorities from confiscating the cars from immigrant workers, mostly Mexican, who drive to work and cannot obtain drivers licenses. This has led to some minor improvements. The SCIC is fighting for a new law that would allow licenses for all.

For more information on SCIC see: www.immigrationcoalition.org

Obama Admin Challenges Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law While Overseeing Unprecedented Mass Deportations

Video: http://j6.video3.blip.tv/0390015880902/Demnow-DemocracyNowThursdayApril262012562.mp4

Audio: http://hw.libsyn.com/p/9/4/e/94e2443342488c8a/dn2012-0426-1.mp3?sid=20d8b597f6e7b1b60ec19e90aad7b1e1&l_sid=18778&l_eid=&l_mid=2987316&expirat

We get an update from Colorlines.com reporter Seth Freed Wessler about hearings Wednesday before the U.S. Supreme Court on Arizona’s notorious anti-immigrant law known as SB 1070. The case could have implications for a half-dozen other states that passed similar measures which are now on hold pending its outcome. “The question on the table in the court yesterday was what the states are allowed to do. But the question that lots of people have on the ground is, what’s Obama going to do?” says Wessler. “The administration has deported more people than ever before: 400,000 people.” Based on their line of questioning, justices across the ideological spectrum appeared reluctant to strike down the law. Should the court uphold any part of the law, civil rights groups plan to challenge it on grounds that it discriminates on the basis of race and ethnic background. “The bottom line: they don’t really understand the extent to which this law goes deeper and really impacts the lives of people who are living here, not just those who are undocumented, but those who have been here for three or four generations who are of Latino background, who are being stopped and harassed and detained,” says activist Randy Parraz of Citizens for a Better Arizona.

Guests:

Seth Freed Wessler, award-winning reporter for Colorlines.com and senior researcher at the Applied Research Center.

Randy Parraz, president of Citizens for a Better Arizona. The group led a successful recall effort against State Senator Russell Pearce, the leading lawmaker behind the anti-immigrant bill, SB 1070

Transcript

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a closely watched case that challenges Arizona’s notorious anti-immigrant law. The case could have implications for a half-dozen other states that passed similar measures, which are now on hold pending the outcome of the court’s decision. The Obama administration has challenged four provisions of the law, known as Senate Bill 1070, for interfering with federal immigration enforcement.

Most of the hearing concerned the part of the law requiring state officials to check immigration status. Based on their line of questioning, justices across the ideological spectrum appeared reluctant to strike down the provision. Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared to agree that states were entitled to enact such provisions. The justices seemed more divided, however, over three other provisions of the law, including one that makes it a crime for undocumented immigrants to work.

After listening to the oral arguments, Republican Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona said the justices seemed to side with her decision to sign Senate Bill 1070 into law.

GOV. JAN BREWER: I am. I’m very, very encouraged from what we all were able to view today and hear. I thought that the hearing went very, very, very well. I feel very confident, as I walked out of there, that we will get a favorable ruling in late June. I’m very, very impressive—impressed with the fact that they gave us extra time, something that we all know is very unusual. And that gave the significance of how important this ruling will be, not only to the state of Arizona, but certainly to the United States of America.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was Republican Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Senate Bill 1070 is expected in June. Many legal analysts expect it will uphold parts of the law and strike down others. Should the Court uphold any part of the law, civil rights groups plan to challenge it from a different angle: that it discriminates on the basis of race and ethnic background.

Meanwhile, immigrant right activists held a number of protests and vigils across the country to coincide with yesterday’s hearing. In Phoenix, Arizona, hundreds of protesters blocked the entranceway to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, office.

PROTESTER: This is the only way that we could get the government and the public to see what we want.

JESSICA DAVENPORT: I believe affronts on human rights are something that affect us all. And I’m standing up for dignity and respect for all people.

AMY GOODMAN: At least nine people were arrested at the protest as they locked themselves down in the street in front of the immigration building and unfurled a banner that read: “ICE Stop Deporting Arpaio’s Victims. Not One More. No SB 1070. No SComm. No Arpaio.” That’s a reference to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who the Justice Department has accused of committing flagrant civil rights abuses against immigrants and people of color in Arizona.

For more, we’re joined by two people. Seth Wessler, award-winning reporter for Colorlines.com, he was in the Supreme Court yesterday covering the SB 1070 hearing, senior researcher at the Applied Research Center. And in Phoenix, Arizona, we’re joined by Randy Parraz. He is president of Citizens for a Better Arizona, the group that led a successful recall effort against State Senator Russell Pearce, the leading lawmaker behind SB 1070. Their sights are now set on Sheriff Arpaio, who faces reelection this fall.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Seth Wessler, tell us about what happened at the Supreme Court yesterday.

SETH FREED WESSLER: Well, it was a packed court yesterday. And the reality is that the government’s attorney left the court rather bruised yesterday. The justices, the eight of them that were there—Justice Kagan recused herself—asked a rather aggressive line of questions to the—to Donald Verrilli, the government’s attorney. Basically, the argument here is that the government says that Arizona and other states can’t try to pass their own immigration laws, that the government has the power to do that. And Arizona replies that they’re just trying to help the federal government do its job. What happened in court is that the justices seemed to buy Arizona’s argument. Essentially, Justice Roberts said, you know, “You can still make the decision. You, the federal government, still get to make the decision about who gets deported. This is still in your hands.” And Verrilli, the counsel for the government, responded, “But we haven’t authorized Arizona to act in this way.”

The reality is that the government is actually walking a pretty fine line. The federal government has rapidly expanded a set of programs that use local police to detain and deport non-citizens: Secure Communities and the 287(g) program. And the state of Arizona is arguing that they’re not doing anything that those programs don’t do. Even Justice Sotomayor, who was clearly the most sympathetic with the government’s claims, said that she found the government’s argument that somehow SB 1070 and Secure Communities and 287(g) are different. She found that argument, quote, “terribly confusing,” and asked Verrilli to come up with a different argument. It was as if she was trying to pull something out of him that he wasn’t ready to offer. The reality is that the government was unwilling to go into that other argument, which is that this law causes racial profiling. And the federal government, you know, took this suit as a pre-emption suit and refused to address the racial profiling issues. It was clear that everybody in the courtroom recognized that that’s one of the major issues at play here. And in avoiding it, the federal government seemed to set themselves up for this kind of pushback.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: In other words, they basically saw it as a jurisdictional issue of who has the authority or the constitutional responsibility for the laws, rather than actually looking at the substance of how the law is affecting the people of Arizona.

SETH FREED WESSLER: That’s right.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: What about the other arguments the government—because it challenged the law on a variety of issues. Did it get into the other arguments, as well?

SETH FREED WESSLER: Well, I mean, the basic argument here is about the power of the states, right? And so, the government was challenging a set of provisions in the law, the provision that—the sort of “show me your papers” provision that allows—that requires local police to ask people for their immigration status, a provision of the law that allows police to arrest undocumented immigrants without a warrant, a section of the law that makes it illegal for undocumented immigrants to work. And on all of these grounds, the federal government’s argument was that they have the power, and the state does not, to implement these bills. That was the basis of their argument. And the court was not buying it.

AMY GOODMAN: Randy Parraz, while Seth Wessler was inside observing the Supreme Court proceedings, you were outside with the major protest, and then you flew overnight to Phoenix, where there were also protests, where we’re speaking to you from. Your concern as president of Citizens for a Better Arizona?

RANDY PARRAZ: I mean, I think, especially being on the outside on the steps of the Supreme Court, it just seemed like there’s just two Americas. You had one particular protest and rally which was predominately all-white, a much older crowd of folks, speaking out there in support of SB 1070. Then you had the present and future of America, which is a multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual group of folks, ecumenical folks, who came together in opposition to SB 1070. So, basically, this is a battle—this is a fight over the future of America. This is about: are you going to have one set of rules that apply if you live in California, New York, or another set of rules that apply when you live in New Mexico or Arizona? It’s about, you know, really trying to see what’s going to be the test for folks, when we’re talking about—are we going to provide a pathway for young people to be educated and to apply their skills and not be penalized for behavior of their parents? Are we going to have just this different status of citizenship based on where you live in the United States of America? We’re supposed to be one country. So I think you see this fight playing out.

When Jan Brewer signed that law, she wasn’t really interested in, you know, securing the border or trying to be a leader in fighting this immigration issue. She was trying to get elected to maintain a position as governor. And the moment she signed that, all three or four of her other challengers in her primary dropped off. And so, that’s why Russell Pearce is so much credited for getting Jan Brewer reelected to be governor. So, I mean, the bottom line: they don’t really understand the extent to which this law goes deeper and really impacts the lives of people who are living here, not just those who are undocumented, but those who have been here for three or four generations who are of Latino background, who are being stopped and harassed and detained. And I think it’s just—we shouldn’t be surprised that the Supreme Court wasn’t willing to deal with those types of issues at this time. This is a very political issue.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And Randy, the impact still in Arizona today of the law, even though portions of it have been held up pending the decision of the court?

RANDY PARRAZ: Yeah, I mean, people have to understand that there was racial profiling taking place here in Arizona prior to this law being signed. What just totally just struck all of us is that then we had this—the signing and passage of this law pretty much made it legal, codified it and said, “Yeah, you can do that. You can act on your reasonable suspicions, no matter how you’ve been raised or how you’ve been trained. And if you think someone looks a certain way, then, all be it, yeah, detain them, stop them. If they don’t have their papers, then bring them in.” That’s what—that’s what this is really about.

It’s about a time with a growing—the largest, fastest-growing voter constituency group demographic in the state now is Latino. It’s the fastest—and so, it’s about power. It’s about what’s going to happen in this particular state when it comes to who’s going to be our representatives. So there’s much more than just—you know, why is this particular attack happening now? Why didn’t it happen in 2002 or 2004? Right? There’s certain things that are happening now that are—this convergence, have really allowed this type of attack to happen.

And it’s unfortunate that, you know, we had to turn to the Supreme Court to intervene. But what’s even worse is that we have a Congress that’s much more representative of America than the Supreme Court. Sure, they should be taking the action necessary to make sure we have some sort of uniformity of laws, especially when it comes to immigration. You know, this is not the United Counties of Arizona. We are not a country, right? Immigration impacts international law, international borders. And so, for us to sit back and say, “Oh, states’ rights.” Are you kidding me? Every state can do what they want on this particular issue? Oh, so if states want to go back and start having racial covenants when it comes to housing, or, “Hey, let’s just go segregate certain things” — it’s not just about—state rights have a limit. And so, I think now that—for them to put it out there again is like, is this just a throwback now to the ’50s? Or—and when some states thought it was OK to have, you know—allow some people to vote and not others? Or allow certain gender to vote and not others? Or to have people go to school in certain places? So this is basically about having a country that’s united in terms of its policy when it comes to how we deal with immigrants, right? And not to have—you know, if you’re undocumented, say, “Oh, I’m going to move to California, because they actually will allow me to go to school. Or I’m going to go to another state or New York or different places.” And surely, we don’t want policies coming up basically because, oh, there’s a Democrat majority in California or there’s a Republican majority in Arizona, so therefore we can have different laws, because that’s what they want in that particular state. I mean, surely we need to have more courageous leadership coming up from the President, from Congress and from the Supreme Court to kind of put some sanity into this debate.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And Randy, you’ve initiated a campaign, like you did against Russell Pearce, now against Joe Arpaio. The importance of that campaign and the role of Joe Arpaio in this debate on immigration?

RANDY PARRAZ: Yeah, it’s basically to show these elected officials that there is consequences to your behavior. Now, Russell Pearce—if SB 1070 is so popular in Arizona, why did he get recalled? Why, in a very conservative district, did 42 out of 51 precincts vote to recall Russell Pearce? The first time in the history of the United States that a sitting president was so extreme that he actually got recalled after only serving one year of his two-year term. So I think we need to really look at that. What we’re trying to show America is that Arizona is not a Tea Party state. There is a Tea Party minority. But when good people, whether Republican, Democrat and independent, stay quiet, complain on the sidelines and don’t get involved, you know, you have this really extreme right-wing tilt of your politics.

And so, I think—so, now our next step is to really hold Sheriff Arpaio accountable. We’re going to remove him from office. He’s been there now 20 years. He’s going to be 80 years old in June. It’s time for him to go. He’s a relic from the past. And his policies and the abusiveness that he’s done does not reflect the values of most people in Maricopa. I’ve been meeting with Republicans and Democrats, and they’re all saying it’s time for him to go. It’s an embarrassment. You know, he’s using our taxpayer dollars to go—to promote issues like birther bills or birther policies, and he’s going to unload—expose an investigation on President Obama’s birth certificate? My god, he’s not in charge of that. He’s in charge of law enforcement in Maricopa County. So I think, you know, as we move forward, that’s going to be the emphasis. We’re going to be reaching out to voters and educating them in terms of, you know, how far—Sheriff Arpaio is our responsibility. We’ve got to take care of that problem now. We’re not looking for the Supreme Court to save Arizona. We’re not looking for the President to save Arizona. We, from the ground up, are going to be moving things into action and engaging voters, so we can really take care of the problems that has happened here within our state.

AMY GOODMAN: Seth Freed Wessler, you were also just recently in Arizona, but you say the—it’s the Obama pipeline, deportation pipeline, that keeps pumping, despite this Brewer bill.

SETH FREED WESSLER: That’s right. I mean, the question on the table in this—in the court yesterday was what the states are allowed to do. But the question that lots of people have on the ground is, what’s Obama going to do, what is this administration going to do? The administration has deported more people than ever before: 400,000 people. I was just in Nogales, Sonora, just over the border from Arizona, and I met dozens of people who had been picked up, detained and deported as a result of Obama’s policies all over the country. These are people who were stopped for driving without a license. This is the kind of immigration policy that the federal government is—

AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you for being with us, Seth Wessler and Randy Parraz. Thanks for joining us.

 

---

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revolutionary Laws of the Zapatista Women

by Lea Clayton, Prism Mexico correspondent
     

“Prostitution…out! Drugs and alcohol…out! The Mexican Army…out!” These were the messages written on handpainted signs and chanted by more than 250 indigenous women as they marched on around the square of Altamirano. The women of Morelia (a town in the southeastern Mexican state of Chiapas) joined the women of neighboring Zapatista support communities in protest of the militarization and all of its by-products in this small Mexican pueblo. Altamirano hosts a Mexican army base and airstrip from which the Mexican army conducts surveillance on the nearby rebellious communities.

“We are here to protest what we see as direct threats to our homes and families,” shouted a woman from the bed of the pickup truck that led the march. In the organizational meeting before the protest, some of the women discussed the problem of prostitution that lingers around the army base and threatens their communities. Other women voiced concerns over the rise in use of marijuana by their young people because of the drug’s availability at the base. And all were fed up with the low-flying helicopters and military transports that frequently buzz the communities.

From behind a mounted machine gun on the street corner, a teenage Mexican soldier looked on the spectacle with feigned disinterest. For once at least the quiet streets of this spooky town were filled to overflowing with the uplifted voices of liberated women.

The liberation of the indigenous women of Chiapas is part of the Zapatista philosophy of social reform. The rebel leadership presents the world with powerful images of women in combat and with high-ranking positions. But how do the indigenous women interact with the ideas of liberation at home and in daily work? And what, if any, real progress is being made at this level, where it counts the most?

I lived and worked for seven months in Morelia, a Zapatista support community of Tzeltal-speaking farmers, where I worked on its first-ever organic gardening cooperative. I had the opportunity to witness the lives of a group of indigenous women dedicated to the Zapatista brand of feminism.

Oftentimes, I saw my friends work much harder than their husbands and fathers. The women pat out the day’s tortillas before the rest of the village is awake, and the women put to bed the dying embers of the hearth fires at night after everyone else goes to sleep. Their days are full of chopping and carrying firewood, processing and cooking all the food, carrying water, having and raising the children and working alongside the men in the cornrows. The women are still expected to wait upon the men when they return home from the fields. The women do not have the same kind or amount of leisure time as the men. Traditionally, women have not had an official voice in community decisions and rarely have held office.

It took me quite awhile to see and understand what to everyone else is a clearly defined role for the woman. I finally realized that the pride many of my friends had in being women comes from their work. The men in the community recognize as well that the work of the women is the pulse of the Mayan rhythm of life and is essential to its survival.

A well-respected woman in Morelia is a capable wife and mother. She is the manager of the home and the family work schedule. Ultimately, she is responsible for the survival of her children. She has to see to it that everyone gets something to eat, even when there is a poor harvest or the husband is too drunk to work. And a large part of her life is spent in communion with the other women in the community. As a rule, men gather with other men and women with the women. Men and women sit on opposite sides of the church during mass and community meetings; boys and girls usually don’t play together.

The work of the Mayan women is the key to the past and future of an ancient civilization. Many of the village grandmothers speak only their native tongue, while the rest of the community is bilingual, speaking Spanish as well. Mothers pass on traditional ways of work to their daughters. In most cases, but certainly not always, it is the women that carry the knowledge and skill of the textile weaving or pot-making characteristic of the village. And the women tend to be the most devout Catholics, providing a spiritual anchor for the community.

While providing stability and sense of continuity, the women are dedicated to changing their own lives and those of their children for the better. Together, they discuss methods of liberation that begin at home. One woman told me she had begun asking her son to sweep the floor, the kind of work historically reserved for women. Sometimes I saw little boys carrying their younger siblings in shawls tied to their backs; not just the girls are baby-sitting anymore.

During my stay, the women met every Sunday to create initiatives dedicated to act upon the Zapatista ideology of women’s liberation. They elected women to represent them to a larger body that makes laws for the rebel communities. That they found the time and energy to organize apart from their already hefty list of responsibilities is a testament to their devotion to change. And everyday it seemed certain women were taking larger and faster steps to this goal. In my last days there, the community elected its first two women authorities ever that would help design community policy within the wake of war.

As a woman of the United States, I find it hard to understand some of the demands listed in the Revolutionary Law of the Zapatista Women. In fact, my initial impression of them was negative. It seemed to me that these demands could only come from a group of angry women fed up with being second-class citizens. For example, numbers 14 and 22 reflect an explicit desire to punish any person who may abuse or mock a woman. I also had trouble with what I saw as an attempt to enforce a strict code of moral behavior-exemplified in numbers 7, 17 and 31. Shouldn’t single women have access to the birth control options that married women receive in number 4?

Upon further reflection, I’ve come to realize that my idea of what it means to be liberated is different from their idea. For me and many American women, liberation is an individualistic goal, a path of personal empowerment. In the US, women are encouraged to leave traditional roles in search of career or other fulfillment. I don’t believe most Morelian women want to uproot their whole way of living. They view their liberation in the context of the wider community. Their feminism cannot be analyzed correctly if separated from the community it seeks to serve. I believe that they view the problem of the historical oppression of the indigenous woman as a community problem, one that will hold back progress if it continues. Aside from wanting more of an official voice in their village and more respect in general, the women basically ask for help with the work at home and accountability from their husbands in the raising of their children.

The women’s movement is in my opinion one of the most important movements of our century. The liberation of the indigenous woman may be a larger issue than the Zapatista goal of social reform for Mexico. It is important for women of different cultures and world views to recognize an opportunity for collaboration to achieve the mutual goals of freedom, love and raised consciousness on behalf of the woman.
     
      Lea Clayton recently returned from seven months in Morelia, Chiapas.      

      Revolutionary Laws of the Zapatista Women

(written someplace in the jungle, March, 1996)

These laws (excerpted) are designed to be enforced inside the rebel communities as a semi-official working code to enable the liberation of the indigenous woman:

    The women have the right to be respected within family life and within the community.
    The women have the same rights as men in the community and municipality.
    The married women have the right to use family planning methods-natural or artificial-whichever they decide. The man has to agree with her decision.
    The women have the right to participate in meetings and in the decision-making process, without criticism. The women have the right …to hold office….
    The Revolutionary Law strictly prohibits the sale, cultivation and consumption of drugs, marijuana, poppy, cocaine, etc.
    The sale and consumption of alcoholic drinks in our towns and communities is strictly prohibited because we are those who suffer most the bruises, poverty and misery as a consequence of this vice.
    The women and their children will have equal rights to the men in the health, clothing, expense, etc. and the maintenance of family economic resources.
    We, the women, have the right to rest when we really need it, be it because we are tired or sick or because we need to achieve other tasks.
    We have the right to defend ourselves verbally when we are offended or attacked in words by the family or others.
    We have the right to physically defend ourselves when we are attacked or aggravated by families or others, and we have the right to punish the men or person who aggravates, abandons and insults the women.
    The women have the right to demand that the bad customs that affect our physical and emotional health are changed; those who discriminate against, mock or abuse the women will be punished.
    The Revolutionary Law prohibits the abandonment of one’s spouse without reason…or uniting with another man or woman when there hasn’t been a normal divorce.
    The Revolutionary Law prohibits a man to have two women because this practice hurts the wives’ feelings, violates her rights and injures her dignity as wife and as woman.
    The Law reclaims and considers valid indigenous societal norms. It is prohibited for some member of society to have amorous relations outside of community rules. In other words, men and women may not have relations without being married because this carries as consequence the destruction of the family and is a bad example to society.
    No woman will be mistreated, insulted, or physically abused by her husband for not having male children.
    In case of marital separation, the land and all family possessions are divided into equal parts between husband, wife and children.
    Women have the right to punish men who sell and take alcoholic drinks and drugs.
    Single women have the right of being respected and considered as a family.
    The woman has the right to support from the husband when she is organizing, and when women go to meetings, men will watch and feed the children and tend the hearth.
    The woman has the right to demand the eradication of prostitution in the communities.

Stop! Stop and Frisk!

Stop! Stop and Frisk!

Stop! Stop and Frisk”, a project by the RDACBX, a Hip-Hop community center in the South Bronx, NY.

On February 2, 2012, NYPD murdered an unarmed 18 yr. old Rahmarley Graham in the Bronx, only 1 week after administering a Rodney King-style beating on another unarmed youth, 19 yr. old Jatiek Reed.

We demand justice for Rahmarley Graham and Jatiek Reed! Stop the racist Stop and Frisk policy! Fund Schools Not Prisons!
credits
released 18 February 2012
Produced by G1. Written and performed by G1, RodStarz, Vithym, and Luss.

Fourth World Radyo : The New Maafa (FWR-01.24.2012)

Fourth World Radyo : The New Maafa (FWR-01.24.2012)

The blatant racism levied against Native Americas, Africans and Indigenous Palestinians in the US is without question a major factor of the neoliberal hype around Election 2012. This issue discusses the salient reasons why Indigenous Peoples, Africans in the US and other areas of the African Diaspora should be concerned about our communal safety and welfare.

Dispatch:(Recorded On – 01.24.2012) – Lessons For Original Peoples
Recorded: Indian Country, Occupied North America
RSS/XML: http://feeds.feedburner.com/aboriginalpressradio

MEXICAN STUDENT STRUGGLE SHAKES LATIN AMERICA

THE BLACK PANTHER

October 19, 1968

MEXICAN STUDENT STRUGGLE SHAKES LATIN AMERICA

MEXICO CITY–The Mexican students have been heroically waging an unprecedentedly fierce struggle against the reactionary authorities’ barbarous suppression and cruel persecution and bloody slaughter. This storm of large-scale mass struggle is powerfully battering the rule of the Mexican monopoly capitalist class and is shaking the whole continent of Latin America–the “back yard” of U.S. imperialism.

This struggle began with the general strike and big demonstrations launched by the students in Mexico City, the capital of Mexico, in late July in protest against the suppression of the student movement and the barbarous persecution of progressive students by the so-called “riot squad”. These police-attacks on students came during demonstrations celebrating the July 26th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution. As the reactionary troops and police stepped up their sanguinary suppression of the student movement, the student struggle against persecution and slaughter developed swiftly and became stronger and stronger.

Our great teacher Chairman Mao says: “The young people are the most active and vital force in society.”[1] The struggle waged by the revolutionary Mexican youth fully proves the correctness of Chairman Mao’s wise thesis. The student struggle was focused on protesting against the criminal suppression of the student movement and persecution of progressive students perpetrated by the so-called “riot squad,” which were directly trained by the U.S. imperialists for the sole purpose of suppressing the progressive mass movement. At the very beginning of the struggle, the students raised sharp political demands such as: “Disband the riot squad”, “Abrogate the Laws which suppress the people’s movement,” “set free the political prisoners, release the arrested students, punish the murderers, and give relief funds to the families of the victims”. The just struggle is being waged by patriots of various social strata. The struggle developed rapidly and vigorously and surged forward wave upon wave. It started from Mexico City, and spread to Nuevo Leon and more than ten other states and several important cities. It began with the student strikes and developed into large-scale demonstrations and mass rallies held by hundreds of thousands of workers, peasants, teachers and patriots from various circles. 200,000 students, workers and peasants in the capital held an impressive demonstration on August 27 to protest against the brutal police suppression. As the demonstrators marched through the streets, many passers-by repeatedly shouted their support to the demonstrators. This was the largest mass demonstration in Mexico in the past decades.

After the outbreak of the struggle, the Mexican students waged a tit-for-tat struggle against the brutalities of the reactionary troops and police. They occupied the campuses of universities and colleges, threw up barricades in the streets, and hit back at the reactionary troops and police with stones, clubs and incendiary bottles. The most bitter struggle took place in Mexico City. For more than two months, university and middle school students hold a series of strikes, protesting against the Mexican authorities for ruthlessly repressing the progressive students. In defiance of brute force, the students fought valiantly and fiercely against the fully armed troops and police, who on some [continued on p. 9] occasions called out armored cars and helicopters and even used bazookas against the students.

On July 26, when tens of thousands of students in the Mexican captial[ital] held a demonstration and parade in honor of the Cuban Revolution, the authorities called out a large number of troops and police to disperse the demonstrating students. But the students fought back bravely; they overturned cars and threw up barricades, waging a pitched battle against the reactionary troops and police. When thousands of Mexico City students held another demonstration on the night of July 29 and marched towards the U.S. Embassy, the reactionary troops and police committed a more savage repression. Early the next morning, they opened fire with bazookas to blast open the gate of a middle school where demonstrating students were assembled, then charged in with clubs and barbarously attacked the students.

The intensified repression aroused stiffer resistance from the students. Beginning August 5, the students of the Capital held a series of demonstrations in which tens of thousands took part. On August 13, some 80,000 students in Mexico City, scorning the intimidation of the reactionary authorities, held a parade, the columns of which extended for more than five kilometres, and staged a grand rally at the “Central Square” (Zocalo) near the National Palace, to strongly protest against the brutalities committed by the troops and police against the students. The demonstration thus pushed to a new high the struggle against persecution and repression.