It really pisses me off that the millennials are being blamed for losing the election as if the Democrats had given them so fucking much. The generation that is blaming them had free tuition ($50 a semester in 1970) and abundant benefits. The millennials in California are paying tuition of $3500 a semester ($12,000 at UCLA and $18,000 at state universities on the East Coast, They have to pay for everything and work two jobs to make it. I have students who eat one meal a day and some that even work as strippers to survive and these smug son of bitches who point the finger at the millennials wallow in their senior citizen discounts and tax breaks.Ronald Regan said in 1968 that tuition should be raised so students are too tired to picket. Well did the millennial elect Reagan? Did they elect Bill Clinton who increased poverty by his so-called welfare reforms? Were they the stupid ones who erased the emails, invaded Libya and took usurious speaking fees from people who should have been in jail. Go to Boyle Heights and you see more senior citizen centers than youth centers. Given what I know right now if I lived and went to school today I never would have gotten my PhD. Could not have afforded it. I am an atheist but I still rememberand adhere to the saying “there for the grace of God go I.”
Latinos and the Fracturing Democratic Coalition
Protesters greet Hillary Clinton at East Los Angeles College, May 2016.
The 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections saw old alliances and loyalties shattered by the fall of the Democratic Party and the rise of con man Donald Trump into so many pieces that they, like Humpty Dumpty, can never be put together again. Politics as we know them are beyond repair.
Although Latinos formed a vital piece of this makeup, the non-Latino American public made little effort to learn anything about them. The political pundits reduced them to numbers and stereotypes. Absent were Mexican American newscasters or political players; to the media, every brown-skinned person was an immigrant. Latinos — Hispanics in polite society — looked and thought alike.
The lack of intelligent an analysis failed to counter the fake news Trump and his supporters spread via social media and the networks. Truth be told, Latin American nationalities share colonial history but that is far as it often goes. They are racially and culturally different. Not all Latinos, for example, enjoy or eat spicy foods, and they do not all live in the same places.
Of the 55 million U.S. Latinos, 35 million are of Mexican origin. Some Mexican Americans have been in the U.S, since before the American Invasions of 1836 and 1845, while a large number of Latinos have arrived since 1980. The media and the political parties persist in treating them as if they were from the same.
This has facilitated the creation of a commodity, with some Mexican Americans declaring themselves “Latinos for Trump” in hopes of privatizing the moment and profiting from the brand. They have no nationality so it doesn’t matter if they have the authority to speak for the amorphous Latino.
Among many millennials this lack of consciousness has resulted in resentment. They know the issues. Attending their protests, you see placards bearing the words “Honduras,” “Palestine” and “No One is Illegal”; and posters denouncing neoliberalism and gentrification. These issues were absent from the Democratic Party’s narrative where, incredibly, there was little or no mention of Latin America or the killing fields of Mexico.
What the Democratic Party is missing is that Latinos are repeating the Baby Boom era of the 1960s. The median age of Mexican Americans is 25; the median for Non-Hispanic whites is 42.3. Although still lagging, their college enrollment has more than tripled. The college educated sector of the Mexican American community knows and thinks about the issues. They influence their parents and the narrative within the community.
It is doubtful that without the participation of the far left in the Mexican American community there will be any mass return to the Democratic Party. A recent Los Angeles march protesting Trump’s election numbered 20,000 participants. It was organized by a Chicana/o Marxist party without any backlash — something that would not have happened ten years ago.
Many millennials resented the arrogance of the Clintons, Hillary and Bill. The stakes in this election were huge. It was clear during the primaries that the Music Man was picking up speed and that positive sentiment for Hillary was primarily a reflection of Trump’s badness. Still the Democratic Party recklessly nominated Clinton, whose political baggage was enormous.
Clinton had too many IOUs. During the pipeline controversy, which proposed transporting crude oil from fields in North Dakota across four states, she tried triangulating this social issue. Despite a potential environmental disaster, Clinton stayed neutral until November 3, not wanting to offend her fossil-fuel-loving friends and donors. She flip-flopped only on the eve of the election. The informed knew of Clinton’s history of backing The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). She first called it a gold standard, and then stopped talking about it at all. Tired of the growing privatization, rising housing costs in their neighborhoods, and job loss, large sectors of American society turned against Clinton. Many did not vote for Trump, but stayed home.
The Democratic Party has lost its moral authority. Today there is only a faint memory of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-45). I remember my grandmother lighting candles to portraits of the Virgen de Guadalupe, the Sacred Heart, and Roosevelt. She lit them every night. The party’s scandals and its evident lack of principles have killed this allegiance. Many are disillusioned and believe that Democrats have no spine and cave in to Republicans all too easily.
Regardless of what Trump says or does, Mexican Americans and the core of other Latinos are not going away. In the decade from 2000 to 2010, the Mexican American population grew by 7.2 million as a result of births. These children are born American citizens. This number dwarfs the 4.2 million new immigrants who arrived in the United States during the same period. A wall won’t keep them out.
This new generation reacted to the election of Trump by walking out of school. Like the students walking out of Los Angeles and California high schools in 1994 in response to the draconian Proposition 187 that targeted Mexican immigrants, students are forming a collective historical memory. They will fight back. Cries of a Calexit have emerged — this time for the right reason.
Big Tent rhetoric alone will not bring in youth and disaffected Mexican Americans and Latinos. During the election cycle, Clinton tried to win over Latino voters by telling to look at her as their abuelita, calling to mind images of the popular Mexican chocolate tablets rather than any real connection with Latino communities. This gaffe was met by sarcasm from many Mexican Americans. Cultural pandering will not put the old alliances back together again. A popular front against Trump that includes Latinos can only be achieved through political education by a coalition that stands for something other than show politics. Otherwise the Trumps will continue to win the shell game.
The Bourgeois’ Dilemma
Rodolfo F. Acuña
The other day a colleague called it to my attention that I was wearing New Balance so in some way I was breaking a boycott. I pointed out that they were the only shoes I had. In retrospect I was becoming so gringo. I have never been for the indiscriminate application of boycotts. In 2010, the early stages of Arizona assault on immigrants and then on Mexican American Studies I questioned the call for a boycott of Arizona. I felt that it isolated Tucson and prevented friends for going there to show their support by visiting the Wall and standing in solidarity. Not all boycotts were like the Farm Worker Boycott.
Relating it to the New Balance Boycott, I will certainly not buy that brand again just like I won’t buy at Walmart. However, I believe it would be stupid for me to buy a pair of shoes that I wear for health reasons. Having diabetes, shoes are a big deal! You’d know if you had it. New Balance is one of the few brands that have triple width shoes. In my estimation if would be a bit more strategic to pass out buttons emphasizing not to buy New Balance. While I respect the sentiments of Debra Messing and Swae Lee, they are not my teachers.
In the 1960s I pointed out to a group of activists that we should dispense with introductions because the consumed so much time. We should substitute the intros by wearing combat ribbons like generals do telling the world which demonstrations we had attended with stars for each time we had been arrested. Maybe a platinum star for each time we had been fired. Not buying the products of our enemies would be and should have been taken for granted. Instead of throwing away the product the emphasis should be on not buying it. This, however, would take work; you would have to organize trips to the boycotted places. The truth be told, liberals don’t much cotton to work. It is easier to tell people to throw away things.
During the grape boycott, my understanding was that the purpose was to hurt the grape growers economically. It was not to have us run to our refrigerators and throw all of the grapes away. It was to go out and picket the super markets where the sales we made. No one thought of regurgitating and purging our bodies of the evil substance.
It kind of irks me because so much of our politics is for show. It reminds me of the 1960s when we purposely dressed down because everything seemed to be for show. I remember that students were ridiculed for dress up to go to classes. They were “bourgie.” We all followed this trend often without questioning. In the eighties I remember going to a meeting for the “Save the Van Nuys GM Plant open” at the machinist hall in Burbank. During the meeting the machinist rep whispered to me, “Rudy, I want to show you something after the meeting.”
After the meeting we went out onto the parking lot. Leroy led me to a brand new white Cadillac convertible. He had just bought it. I reflected that in activist circles this would be labeled “bourgie.” I thought to myself, “Leroy has been a worker all of his life. He has been involved in the labor movement. His labor had made this possible whereas I as a university professor apologize for wearing Rayburn Sunglasses.” That is the difference between the factory worker and the so-called cultural proletariat.
I am getting old and find myself getting cranky and I guess nit picking. But I get impatient between those calling for symbolic acts versus substance. At the university professors’ advocate but few will sacrifice for a cause. They will picket and even strike for higher wages but ignore increases in student tuition. They turn the other way while neoliberal policies have decimated the blue collar class. Privately they will complain about the administration but when confronted by administrators they get sick smiles on their faces. I got my fill during the UNAM (Universidad Autonoma de Mexico) when many Chicana/o Studies professors were unwilling to go to the edge of the proverbial class and to go over it. It is easy to say I am boycotting but any other thing to sacrifice. Instead professors smile at despicable people like the College of Humanities Dean Beth Say. Perhaps I should throw away my used New Balance shoes, go barefooted and smile.
The critics of the mural are now claiming that I am a bully and petitioning the provost to defend their rights. My feeling is that we should respond because the purpose of the Forbes’ and the student is to incite a confrontation. I really don’t care if they are pro-flag or pro-like, it is their business. But the safety of our students is our business. I urge them to join the Marines.
My response: JACK,
I REALLY DON’T CARE WHAT YOU THINK. I stand by my remarks. I would further say that it is Professor Robert Oscar Lopez who is taking the cheap shots and giving right wing groups fodder. We do have first amendment rights and the mural is protected by the free speech provision.
As you know, we have left you alone. We know that you do not identify as a Mexican American and don’t care much about the students, but that is your business. It is our business when a professor goes out of his way to create controversy especially where there is none. It is worse when he hides behind the veil of patriotism.
I don’t believe that I should be called a bully for questioning the patriotism of these alarmist that have not served in the armed forces. If they love the flag so much fight for it. I volunteered draft during the Korean War because at the time I was ill informed.
We have had incidents on campus due to ill informed agitators. Within the past three years the Minute Men threatened to come on campus and tear down the mural and to get me fired. Great, I responded by publishing their photos on Facebook Was this bullying or was it a case of protecting student rights? Now that you butt in to a controversy that you were not invited into I am answering you. When you were hired, the CHS Department supported your appointment because we believed that you would reach out to students, become a role model, butthis has not been the case. I am for constructive dialogue but before I criticize I want to be part of the solution and I will not give equal weight to bigots or opportunists who do nothing for ALL students, including Mexican Americans and Latinos. Just because a person has a Spanish surname does not give him or her license to speak for the group. They are certainly not immune for criticism.
On 4/24/2016 1:18 PM, Lopez, James wrote:
> CSUN Staff and Cal State System Staff,
> Regarding this article that appeared in — where a friend from UCSB and I were interviewed by Professor Robert Oscar Lopez about the mural at CSUN depicting an upside down American flag, along with a pro-choice slogan, amongst other things… Professor Rodolfo F. Acuña had this to say,
> “I think that we can give them too much importance. There is an appropo saying that pertains to the English lecturer, Robert Lopez, no lo conocen ni en su casa. Would it matter to students if he dropped dead? Like the tree in the forest that no one hears fall, he does not exist. This is the problem when anyone with credentials can claim to speak for a group.” (emphasis mine)
> This is DEPLORABLE! This is BIZARRE. Who says this about their colleague? Who says this about another human being??? This is what bullying looks like and it should not be tolerated whatsoever.
> I am a CSUN alumni (I graduated with two undergraduate degrees in the Humanities in Fall 2013). I AM A LATINO. And I stand in solidarity with Professor Robert Oscar Lopez. He is my friend and my mentor. Robert is also a great person.
> I am not sure who Harry Gamboa Jr. is but he wrote this regarding the article — “I share to inform of current far-right media propaganda attacks.”
> I never thought that expressing my own thoughts about an upside down American flag and a prochoice slogan would be considered a “far-right propaganda attack”. Is being prochoice the default position for Latinos or what? The last time I checked, the majority of us are PROLIFE porque todas las vidas nos importan.
> ( https://stream.org/not-latinos-stand-planned-parenthood-st…/ )
> If some students want to express themselves by drawing an upside down flag that is fine. However, if other students want to criticize those expressions that SHOULD be fine too — it shouldn’t be labeled a “far-right attack” because it isn’t. The First Amendment protects this.
> To answer Professor Rodolfo F. Acuña’s bizarre and abominable question if it would matter if something happened to Dr. Robert Oscar Lopez: si, claro que si nos importara. I don’t even know why anyone would want to ask such a ridiculous question. Seriously!
> CSUN Staff, I hope this comes to a resolution because this is not right.
> Thank you,
> James Lopez, a pro-life and pro-American flag Guatemalan American
In Solidarity with the People of Puerto Rico
The Puerto Rican people are going through hard times, a period when many of them are being forced to leave their island, being starved out and forced to come to the United States. The cause is similar to that of Mexico and Central America. The common enemy is privatization, a term that is difficult to understand for most Americans.
The other day I ran into a piece by Rafael Bernabe, “Puerto Rico’s Strike Against Privatization,” that was written in 1997 that described the process and why the Puerto Rican economy through no fault of their own is falling apart, accelerating the Borinquen Diaspora.
It came together in a massive-one Paro (work stoppage) against privatization on October 1, 1997. The action completely “closed down several government agencies—including most public schools and the University of Puerto Rico—while provoking mass absenteeism in many others.” By noon a 100,000 people poured into the Capitol building in San Juan. The tensions led to confrontations between the Concilio General de Trabajadores (CGT), the Central Puertorriquena de Trabajadores (CPT) and the AFL-CIO unions in Puerto Rico and the police.
According to Barnabe, the cause was privatization, the motivating cause of similar confrontations is Mexico and throughout the world. It was a familiar story:
“Ever since the 1940s Puerto Rico has had a significant public sector. By the late 1970s this sector included water, electrical power, shipping, telegraph and telephone, convention centers and several major hotels, radio and TV stations and a sizable network of public health facilities, ranging from diagnostic clinics to the largest medical center in the island.”
What this meant was that this sizable public sector provided jobs. Privatization ended all this and took “different routes: subcontracting activities to private companies (in electric power), privatizing the administration but not the actual physical installations (water authority), leasing public operations to private concerns (health system in the 1980s), as well as the outright selling of state-owned enterprises (shipping).” The struggle against privatization came to a head in the 1990s and today we are eating the bitter fruit.
The scenario is repeated and justified over and over: state-owned enterprises can be run more efficiently by the private sector. It will end corruption and provide government with revenues. The first to go always seems to be the telephone company. In turn it supports the privatization of “other government operations (such as the public radio and TV stations).”
Because the cost of buying this government project is so high a major telecommunications multinational usually takes over. This facilitates the buying of local officials and drives corruption – a corruption that crosses party lines.
Privatization has long roots that we will not explore at this time. In Puerto Rico it was Made in the USA:
“In the 1930s, economic hardship and stagnation in the troubled sugar industry, as well as the Roosevelt administration’s New Deal, fostered state-led economic reconstruction projects that many hoped would prepare Puerto Rico for independence by creating a more balanced, diversified economy. Such was the initial perspective of the PPD, led by Luis Muñoz Marín. Nevertheless, by the late 1940s the notion of both political independence and self-centered economic development were abandoned. The PPD instead adopted a program known as Operation Bootstrap, which offered tax and other incentives to U.S. investors.”
A similar process is occurring in the United States and Mexico where the private sector is infiltrating and then taking over the public sector. The universities are the clearest example. Education is a plum, trillions of dollars in real estate alone. The reason for escalating tuition is not the failing economy but a crass way to shift the costs of production from business that profits from an educated labor pool to the student and their families, the ultimate consumer.
In many ways we are all Puerto Ricans, the only difference is the Silence of the Lambs. The chickens always come home to roost.
 Rafael Bernabe, “Puerto Rico’s New Era: A Crisis in Crisis Management,” NACLA, http://nacla.org/node/4323?editionnid=4314&issuename=Colonial%20Capitalism:%20Crisis%20and%20Response%20in%20Puerto%20Rico&issuenum=6&volume=040&issuemonth=November/December&issueyear=2007&lilimage=files/covers/PRcover.jpg
I generally agree with Marc Cooper, respect his work. But I must take exception with his statement that the only thing that gun regulation would accomplish is to “fuel more gun sales.”
I am an opponent of the NRA I am also an opponent of feel good gun laws that accomplish nothing except fuel more gun sales. Cooper calls the “renewed call to ban AR15’s … another feel good measure. It is a bogeyman and a distraction.” He asks on what basis Congress “could ban the AR without banning the overwhelming majority of all firearms given that the AR uses the same technology AS MOST CIVILIAN WEAPONS.”
While I agree with the latter point, it is my feeling that you can say this of any this of any regulation. I am not a gun expert but enough about them to respect them having been in the army. Also in my lifetime personal combat has gone from fists, knives, zip guns and automatics. I can attest to the fact the more technical that they became the easier that it became to use them. Using a knife estaba carbon whereas pulling a trigger was far more impersonal. A zip gun was much different than a 45.
Marc is correct when he says “95 percent of gun homicides are inflicted with the simplest and cheapest of handguns, not with rifles of any sort. However, mass killings are the result of automatics. They give the punks a false sense of being bad.
Yeah the 1994 ban failed, the NRA and its congressional pimps De-fanged it. The truth be told, it will be impossible to pass any meaningful regulation. Congress is bought. However, that is not to say there are no other tactics. When II first started teaching in a college people would light up in the classroom. People howled when it was forbidden.
Yet they stopped. The regulation did not do it, what did it was the cigarette tax. Start charging those with AR 15’s ten grand a year to license it, make it a felony not to pay the tax, and it should trickle down. Handguns should be similarly taxed.
Society pays for the cost the destruction, the costs should be passed to the consumer. The money could be used for mental health and to the families of victims.
I agree with Marc that “It would be much more effective to focus on background checks, improvement of law enforcement data bases, much tighter auditing of gun sellers etc. Outlawing this or that weapon is a waste of time. And remember that the great surge in popularizing ARs was the initial proposal to ban them.” But who is going to pay for this, I say the gun owner. The smoker pays for his pollution (partially).
But a point that is being missed. Every one of us has to take individual responsivity. I don’t care what law is passed, if someone came into my class with a loaded or unloaded weapon, he would be ejected. Sometimes this can get sticky. It was a lot easier to even the field against a knife, a bat would do.
We should be grateful to have Marc tweak us and heed his warning that we cannot afford to make the mistakes of the past, We have to be clear on what we want—we don’t have many more times at bat.
Why is Menudo White?
When I began my research on Sonora, Mexico, I knew little about my mother’s home state other than my family’s constant references to it when I was growing up. I could always count on my mother singing Sonora Querida and on the ravings of the cooks (everyone in my family thought they were cooks) on the superiority of the sonorense cuisine – which I had to admit tasted better and fresher than other regional varieties.
In retrospect some of their bragging was downright chauvinistic such as that Sonorans made their menudo blanco because they washed the pancita thoroughly. According to my relatives the guachos (depreciative term for non-Sonorans) were too lazy to wash the pancita so they added red chili to hide the unwashed tripe.
I never thought seriously about researching Sonora until it came to selecting my dissertation topic, which was once a difficult choice. In history the rule of thumb was that you could not duplicate theses. It had to be original research. I remember cases where graduate students stole other graduate students’ topics. So you guarded your choices theories often swearing people to secrecy.
Like most grad students of my time, my priority was to select a topic on the real Mexico, which of course meant Mexico City. Without knowing it I was committing the sin of the chilango believing that the provincias had little to offer. If it was worth studying at the time it was in D.F. Not much time was devoted to paying heed to Leslie Byrd Simpson’s book Many Mexicos.
From the moment I was admitted to the doctoral program my advisor said pick a topic, “you’re going to have to exhaust the secondary sources and that takes time.” Mexico City was out of the question. Two/three days riding a bus to and 2/3 days back. I was short on cash and time so it narrowed down my choice to the borderlands.
I chose Sonora because it was close. As Manuel Servin (my advisor) pointed out it was the staging area for the occupation of California and that Donald Rowland, another committee member was a Bolton Scholar. I could drive to Tucson and then occasionally to Hermosillo, the capital of Sonora where I could buy books and hit the major libraries and archives. The Bancroft Library was mecca (a short six hour drive).
All of this had to be sandwiched into a schedule that included full time teaching, grad work and community activism. As a consequence, there was an awful lot of stress in my family life. All of this would not have been possible without Francisco R. Almada’s Diccionario de Historia, Geografia y Biografia Sonorense that capsulized Sonoran history and opened the journey. (Later his Diccionario de historia, geografía y biografía chihuahuenses and other works on Chihuahua were a treasure trove in research for my Corridors of Migration.
Some of my wannabe Chicana/o scientist friends would probably not appreciate Almada’s method, which was pure story telling. He was not a professional historian, and like many Mexican historians of the time such as Chihuahua medical anesthesiologist Rubén Osorio Zúñiga, it was not Almada’s main occupation, he did it for the love of history.
Incidentally Osorio wrote classics in the field that most Mexicanists have never read. Among Osorio’s many titles is Pancho Villa, ese desconocido : entrevistas en Chihuahua a favor y en contra and Tomóchic en llamas that recounted the bloody siege of a small Chihuahua village in the 1890s.
Francisco R. Almada was born in Chínipas, Chihuahua — in the Sierra Madres in the southwestern part of the state about forty miles and nine hours over the Sierra to Alamos, Sonora, the silver capital of the region and where Almadas ancestors hailed.
Today Chinipas, a small mining camp, is called Chínipas de Almada, which was the ancestral home of the Chinipa Indians and where waves of Tarahumara were herded into first the Jesuit and then Franciscan mission. It is an isolated place with a turbulent history.
Almada is listed as a teacher, investigator, historian and politician, and served twice as interim governor of the state of Chihuahua. He started out as an assistant teacher and became the director of the school at the age of 20. To my knowledge he never a tenured university professor/
In his early teens Almada joined in the antireelectionist movement that opposed the dictator Porfirio Díaz. His career involved electoral politics, serving as president of the municipality of Chínipas, with stints in the state legislature (1922, 1924) and in the federal Chamber of Deputies. Almada served in other capacities and was founder and president of the Sociedad chihuahuense de estudios Históricos (Chihuahua Society of Historical Studies). Some of his published titles include:
Diccionario de historia, geografía y biografía chihuahuenses, 2a. Edición, Inédita, 1927
Gobernantes de Chihuahua, 1929
Apuntes Históricos de la Región de Chínipas, 1937
Diccionario de historia, biografía y geografía del estado de Colima, 1939
Guadalupe y Calvo, 1940
La imprenta y el periodismo en Chihuahua, 1943
Gobernantes del Estado de Chihuahua, 1951
Diccionario de Historia, Biografía y Geografía sonorenses, 1952
Hombres de Nuevo León y Coahuila en la defensa de Puebla y prisioneros en Francia en 1862,
La revolución en el estado de Chihuahua, 1965
La revolución en el estado de Sonora, 1971
La invasión de los filibusteros de Crabb al estado de Sonora, 1973
His Diccionarios de historia, geografía y biografía of Chihuahua and Sonora helped me immeasurably. It allowed me to form my own theories and an understanding of colonialism and the value of history maintaining it. Almada recreated the history of the ancestors of the conquerors but at the same time preserved the history of the conquered although in reality the Tarahumara were never dominated. The others – the conchos, the tepehuanes and others were exterminated.
It is not so much that Almada and others did not care about this genocidal process, it was just that they did not think that it was that important. They wanted to preserve their history as written from the perspective of his history. It gives us a limited understanding of the past and is based mostly on written documents.
The importance of history is not so much the story, but how and why it occurred. I have the utmost respect for Francisco Almada but I wonder why he was not more sensitive to the plight of the Chihuahuan and the Sonoran natives. After all Almada’s ancestors in the 18th century had gone before the Spanish Inquisition to obtain a limpieza de sangre, a worthless document certifying that they were pure Christians.
The importance is not that they went before the Inquisition; however, but why people who underwent that horrific experience became more Catholic than the Pope.
You have to start with the story. WHY? Why the Middle East? Why is the story of the children at the border dismissed? Why the is reaction of a people who make the sign of the cross so inhumane? Francisco R. Almada helped me understand the story and my search for the why? I may not be able to fully understand my ancestors, no one choses their relatives. But understanding is much better than inventing stereotypes about guachos and infantile explanations of why the menudo is white.
RODOLFO ACUÑA, a professor emeritus at California State University Northridge, has published 20 books and over 200 public and scholarly articles. He is the founding chair of the first Chicano Studies Dept which today offers 166 sections per semester in Chicano Studies. His history book Occupied America has been banned in Arizona. In solidarity with Mexican Americans in Tucson, he has organized fundraisers and support groups to ground zero and written over two dozen articles exposing efforts there to nullify the U.S. Constitution.
I don’t like Donald Sterling–happy that he got what he did. But I hate hypocrisy. Everyone chimed in how much of a racist he was, it was a good jump in, but these same people daily ignore the racism around them. Go to a Laker game and from what I have seen the audience is does not represent the color of LA. The Dorothy Chandler Pavilion is worse — not an overwhelming number of blacks or Latinos there. Walk on the campus of UCLA and blacks are endangered, and the number of Latinos is no where its number in the streets. “Almost 75 percent of all Latino and 66 percent of all black students who go on to higher education in California go to a community college…in 2010, only 20 percent of all students who successfully transferred to four-year institutions were Latino or African American.” Even at that the community colleges are being privatized as is the case of the University of California campuses and the state universities. One of the reasons people are so worked up about Sterling is because he reminds them so much of their fathers and their lack of involvement in bettering what they left behind.