I arranged for the Board to call for several meetings in which they developed a list of important things for the Barrio.
At about that time, a woman kept coming to the meetings and showing a great deal of interest and ability to help organize the paperwork. Ellen turned out to be a great advantage to us. She was smart, energetic, and had plenty of time. She was not Hispanic, but so easy to get along with that everyone accepted her without question. I appointed her Executive Director, and I would be Project Director. That way, her motivation to stay would be enhanced, since we had no salaries. My position there was by default; no one else stepped up to the plate, and my ego had no part in making things work. For some reason, decisions I made, which required no vote, were accepted without questions.
To be available I quit Foam Tech, a roofing insulation business. I was working for Garth Nelson to give my fulltime voluntary effort to the Association. We started to work in a hurry on a grant proposal for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) from HUD and the City, and at that time, we had not heard about the “sub-recipients,” a tricky word, not included.
We didn’t make it on time for that year’s funding and needed to do a better job for the next year, to include Administration, a Housing Rehab Program, a Self-Help Housing Program, and a Loans and Grants Program. So now I had to find a job again.
Several things happened in the meantime. A friend of mine, Ray, had come from Oregon and we often met to exchange impressions of Tucson. Ray was a super-intelligent, weird, and aloof guy. Tall, slim, bony, and fluid.
“Why are you getting involved in this place? You are not from here,” Ray asked me one day.
“Well,” I started, “People who live here are getting displaced, and maybe they can do something before it happens to everyone.”
“Your being here is part of the process of their being displaced, and who was here first, anyway?”
“Yes I know. And I don’t know, do you?”
“Maybe you should find that out before you start swinging any axes.”
Doing deeper research, like in Oregon learning about logging, sounded like a good idea, and so I did. Our conversation on this topic continued over the following weeks, which may explain much of what happened afterward. Ray would always challenge me on my slow and inaccurate thinking, and we often ended up with different interpretations of what we perceived as facts.
“Facts are facts. Don’t argue with me.”
“How come your facts differ from mine?”
“Science decides which facts are it.” We both laugh at this. We were not naïve. Science is always wrong and must be correcting itself all the time, or most of it.
“How about when certain facts are omitted, never exposed. Do you think Anglos have displaced those of Mexican descent in this neighborhood?” I asked him point blank one day, after I had been reading quite a bit.
“Yes,” barely considering the question. “We are in the process of pushing them over and out. Take Jerry here, for example, he is of Mexican heritage, he and his family will get displaced.”
“Unfortunately, yes,” I acknowledged, “the way it is going now, but what about José over there. He is a descendent from an Apache Indian tribe.” Rather, I assumed, he was. “He was here before Jerry’s Mexican family. Maybe he will get some protection.” I suggested.
“Protection from whom? Well, yes, but…”
Protection. When we take a global view and we say, “all men are created equal, endowed by their creator, with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” does this apply to the existing Barrio resident? The newcomers? Both?
Should we apply equity to all, new and old? The right to pursue happiness, but not at the expense of others. Newcomers are not bad people per se, it is the enemy from within we need to be aware of.
If not me, others would have come into this Barrio. Committed to try something demanded deeper thought on my part.
Until then, all I could say was, “To level the odds by adding jobs, tools, knowledge, etc…” But how to tap other resources to change desponded survival into prosperity? Face reality and tap into its essence, displacement being a fact of life. If you take the side of the displaced, you feel the oppression and apparent hopelessness. If you take the side of those moving in, you feel the resistance to improvement as unfair to your needs, and if you don’t take their side, they will demonize you, as you will see, but so what? Either side is unhappy to lose. In displacement, who requires protection?
Old time residents were losing in the Barrio. Young, liberal, Elites were winning, and their attacks were patient and intolerant, dressed in niceties, no equity there. Since a few were decent people, the selfish ones got away with it, “they will attack you personally,” had warned Ray. And so, they did. Wait until you meet the Bernal.
Our discussion continued. We had read the history of the area, and about Jose’s ancestors.
“And before the Apache, there were the Papagos (Tohono O’odham) or the Yaquis, who somewhat more peacefully, or better said less violently, roamed the desert around here pushing others away. And the Apache and then Comanches slaughtered each other’s tribes, just as they did when the Spaniards and some of the other Indians coming from the south now called Mexico fought and killed many more in their way north. Also intermarried and made peace. Who was here before? Should we tell Jerry to leave and José to stay? His people were here first,” I argued.
“No,” he said, but by then we knew we kind of agreed on eighty percent on what we were talking about. He accepted my argument and tried to expand on it.
Before he could do so, I read more and then added, “And should José leave to make room for those from the Alchedoma Tribe who were here before his clan? Or the Bahacechas who were here before the others?”
“Maybe I...”
“Do you know,” I hesitated, “that I found that Spaniards were walking here on this land, in 1540, before the Apache got here migrating from Canada and Alaska? The Apache came also uninvited much latter than the Spaniards.” This took Ray by surprise. However, this was not completely accurate, as some Apache natives had been in the area since the 1400s
Then my friend turned my known world upside down when he said. “And did you know that there are by far more differences between cultures of the 500 Indian tribes in America than differences between European cultures in Europe?”
I didn’t know that. I tended to group them all together as Indians. Were the French, Germans, and Italians who often fought each other, more similar to each other than the Cheyenne, Comanche, Hopis, Mohicans, Sioux, Cherokees, and others, mighty warriors, who fought each other all the time just as well? Humans!
We took the time to read more upon the impressive history of the American Indians. Thousands of non-related Indian tribes have existed here in North America, fighting, displacing, enslaving, killing, intermarrying, and often exterminating each other. Only the stronger and smarter survived against great odds. Many were gone by the time Europeans came, who committed a low percentage of the slaughter.
I also studied how Spain, France, Portugal, England, and the many other European nations at the time were fighting for land and titles and intermarriages, killing Kings, and Queens, and family members, while expanding and contracting empires at the turn of the century, which was the same as the Indian tribes were doing over here when the Europeans showed up. This contradicts history written from an emotional perspective, as none of us are any different.
“Look at what we were saying,” Ray continued our previous discussion, “because prior to Europeans on this continent, due to warfare and conquest and mutual animosity, early on, while the nomads Sioux were abusing the Algonquians in the east of the American continent, the political savvy Iroquois took the land from the Omaha. Then they displaced the Osage and the Kaw, and took by force the lands from the Ponca tribes, pushing them further west in bloody fighting, then latter in 1824 the Lakota, Sioux, came by and annihilated many of them as well. Unified better than all others, the Iroquois, not always violently, also displaced the Huron, the Erie, and others. The Iroquois developed what is called a 200-year empire. Fighting and conquering just like the Celts did, and the Vikings, and the Mongols. Elsewhere, after much abuse, the Algonquin, with flintlock muskets from the English out of the Hudson Bay, turned on the Sioux and drove them west. The Sioux, however, were savage fighters, never giving up easy, and on their moving further west, ended up dominating the northern prairie and fomented the powerful Western Sioux Nation. Not a town, not a state, but a nation!
Sitting Bull led the expansion of Sioux hunting grounds into westward territories previously inhabited by the Crow Assiniboine, and Shoshone, causing huge displacements. Much later the American Government with their treaties, devastated the Sioux people, reducing their land holdings and decimating their finances. And it wasn't just the Apache who were causing pandemonium. The Comanches inflicted severe damage on the Pawnees, the Osages, the Blackfeet, the Kiowa, the Arapaho, the Utes, and the Tonkawa displacing them off their traditional lands and killing thousands of their people. They were feared by all other Indians, friend of no one. Then they also displaced even the Apache. When by 1750 the Comanches had total control of the plains other fearful Native American tribes respected their claims to their new borders. Indian didn’t like it but were been displaced by other tribes. The Comanches were the ones who kept the French and Spanish from expanding north.
“All the tribes on and off had enemies, and the north continent was in a state of flux. In the 1500th, the Apache who had come from Canada, were better fighters, used to massacre the Comanche until the Spanish brought the horse to America. Then after hundreds of years of always losing, the Comanche reversed the odds by learning to fight from the horse, and in a short one hundred years gained warfare predominance over the Plains, removing the Apache in large numbers from the Plains by pushing them further south. You are right! The displaced Apache arrived after the Spaniards had been here, and, as a result of having been displaced from elsewhere by Indians, not by Spaniards.” Ray looked at the distant “A” Mountain, as if to see if his tale were acceptable to the spirits in Sentinel Peak. He went on.
“Then the Osage after being evicted as I said, by the Iroquois, fought and displaced the Caddo, and what about the Kiowa who were displaced by the Cheyenne, who were then displaced unceremoniously by the Lakota Sioux. And on and on. Who had the most authentic claim to any territory? There were bloody battles, torture, rape, and slavery, even some cannibalism all along. Indian slaves, Spanish slaves, Mexican slaves. Not the Spaniards not the English not the Indians had a leg up in mistreating those of other groups or origins, the Indians were just as bad, or worse. Europeans learned from and imitated them.” Ray took a deep breath. “Because the Iroquois were able to unite better, they prevailed with a sense of purpose having a more effective political organization. Later the Europeans formed colonies, and learning from them used their principle of ‘unity’ more successfully in expanding deeper and wider over the land. The Indians in general considered themselves superior, and at first many displayed considerable genealogical disdain, (racism*) against the white colonist, but they were less in numbers, they didn’t keep up with technology, and they didn’t unify, so they lost.”
*(The artificial term ‘race’, like the concept of ‘eugenics’ was developed by our not so clever scientists.)
“Despite this data,” I interrupted, “not all behavior was such. There is much evidence of intelligence, justice, loyalty, goodness, and emotional love just as well, and in both sides. Same as with any other civilization…”
“Good point,” interrupted Ray, “Both, justice and injustices went all around, American history is rich with beautiful lessons we have learned from the natives of this continent. We also share many injustices, such as the breaking of treaties by both sides. There is the Indian’s point of view which we tend to ignore. Take for example the battle in which a group of Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho fought and won over General Custer and his Seventh Cavalry in Little Bighorn. How much you want to bet that the story as told by the Lakota Sioux is very different than the one we read in our history books, and different from the Arapaho’s version. I said different, not better, although maybe more interesting since they won that one but no better. Later they turned-around and went on to displace the Cheyenne and the Arapaho who had fought with them, who would have a different history. However different their perspective may be, they didn’t own Mount Rushmore any more than the Cheyenne before them, who had evicted those ahead of them: the Kiowa and who were then evicted by the Sioux. After all, the Kiowa were not that original either. The Indian’s different perspectives may or may not be as accurate, but we should study their history, not to replace, but to add depth and consciousness, and recognize the need to incorporate more of it into our mainstream textbooks. Just like in the Civil War we have many conflicting narratives of the same battles, so can we have conflicting but not derogatory narratives on who did what on both sides. Paying attention to the history of the losers represents new difficulties in veracity as well. Maybe a unifying chief leader’s face should join Mount Rushmore, but who and how decides which? No great Indian chief who made it up the ranks is going to have less peccadillos than Jackson, for example, or Grant.” Most well-known Chiefs were warriors, meaning, (brutal) killers.
“The Natives prior to the Europeans, in what is now called America, were either nomads with no agriculture, pueblos with agriculture, or half-and-half. A thousand tribes all very different from one another, merging and or splintering in different branches, or getting exterminated along the way, so that any generalized statements about Indians, at any time, will have many flaws of omissions. With the exception of some pueblos, men’s occupation was hunting and waring, while women did the heavy work, and childbirth death was common until the Spanish horse appeared to help them carry heavy loads in the nomad’s life. Most males to survive were strong, athletic, proud, healthy, and had uncanny dexterity since childhood with bow, arrows and knives. However, in a good number of Indian cultures, -not all,- killing was not their main intent. Hunting and stealing horses, cattle, food, surviving, etc., was their main intent, besides defense of the clan. Courage was proven by achieving “coups”, the art of reaching the enemy and establishing some form of contact, or strike, and retreating alive. Not killing. On the other hand, revenge from a serious grievance often required the killing of the aggressor. Torture was a way of exposing the enemy’s courage. Wisdom was admired as much as courage, and the medicine man was often highly regarded for his/her knowledge. Unfortunately we saw often the case where Indians stole horses from a ranch killing no one, then were chased and several of them killed in the process, then the family of the deceased would gather a crew and return for revenge to burn the ranch with people in it, then the Cavalry was called to punish the whole tribe. We see in Latin American literature where vengeance flowing from generation to generations consumes the life of many families. In the modern United States, law and order tends to stop this kind of escalation more effectively, but not totally.”
My time to interrupt. “Still, back to who was here first. If Jerry descents from the first Spaniards who were here, his family was here long before José’s Apache family, but not if his family came from Mexicans, even if the Indians from Mexico, then his family may have been here much after.” This last statement went right past my own brain without making a full dent, before it backfired.
“However,” Ray caught it first, “Then you agree that both Jerry and José should go? They don’t have a better claim to belonging here than others before them.”
“This is a surprising reversal,” I said.
Obviously, we took these facts so lightly because neither my friend nor I had been on the painful losing end of displacement.
“Are most people’s opinions and favoritisms purely emotional and based on previous personal experiences? Do people ever consider the facts?”
“Well, yes, both!” he said, “Why not? If it makes you feel good to pity the weak looser.”
I didn’t like that. “Don’t give me this pity! Do something! So, who decides who is to leave and who is to stay? You? Me? The American Government and its incompetent bureaucrats? Some dumb erudite elite academician? The corrupt Indian Bureau?”
“Why do you call the Bureau corrupt?” He was obviously perturbed by what I had said.
“Because they are part of an ongoing, unsolved problem.”
“Yes…? Such as…?”
“Who was here in Tucson first?” I interrupted him. “I have read that ruins have been found under a parking lot area dating to seven thousand years B.C. Maybe the Paleo-Indians were here first?”
Ray was more knowledgeable on this than I was. “There are indications of arrowhead dart points from the Cienega phase around eight hundred B.C.,” he fired back. “And those who came first to what is now Tucson and left a mark on Tucson’s heritage were the ancient, desert-dwelling Papago or Tohono O’odham tribe. The latter were Yuma-speaking people from maybe five hundred years B.C., but perhaps even much before, as you said, those from the Paleoindian times 10,500 B.C. When the Santa Cruz river had year-round running water, they excelled in agriculture, they built irrigation canals, did extensive farming and grew beans and corn, and were well advanced in pottery. ”
That was fascinating. I enticed him to go on inquiring about who had the right to be here first. For that, I was sorry I asked.
“Who knows? The fact is that they were part of a tribe who are no longer here and mostly who really cares? No one was here as a native. Everyone on this continent came from somewhere else and displaced someone else. Therefore, who can claim the honor to be the first victim of whoever was coming next?”
“This whole argument is stupid, if you ask me.”
“Stupid to know who and how many killed someone else’s women and children over and over while they were sleeping?”
I corrected myself. “It’s the argument, not the issue, which is stupid.”
Ray was now getting fired up. Not hearing me, he didn’t think the argument was stupid. “We can go back all the way to Cain and Abel, and some people don’t like to read the Bible because they claim it is not true history, but they could be the same people who will claim that it is true history that the Mexicans were here first, go figure! The story of Cain and Abel proves my point. Is it true that America stole land from Mexico? Did Mexico belong to the Spaniards before the locals gained independence? The Mexican Republic by gaining independence from Spain, only inherited this land for thirty-two short years, and only thanks to the fact that prior to that time Spain claimed it as theirs, ignoring any other claim. The Apache then claimed to have kicked the Mexicans out shortly thereafter, in 1848, even as the new country of independent Mexico claimed to own the land, and for no other reason than because Spain had done the same before them. Further south and going back even further in time, the Aztecs stole lands and displaced other tribes. Or even further south, Mayas, Incas? They displaced and were displaced. Same difference. They had slaves. Some tribes, it is said, even committed human sacrifices.
“No race of people has been pure in this world, none. They all have grown at the expense of others and then declined, and then they too were replaced. In history, entire empires, one after another, have disappeared. Conquered by other empires, who were latter conquered as well. Look at Jerusalem! More than seven empires claimed that territory, and several still do. Look at China! In essence, China consists of many countries and not just one, each at one time independent, very different from each other. Today, they should be split up again, but its dictatorship won’t let it. Not to say displacement is OK, but to say that it is what we do today from lessons of the past, that we must look at.”
Ray had had the guts to quote the Bible!
“You are picking and choosing conveniently what part of history you need to make your point.” I accused him, as I was a bit put-off at this point.
“So, whose history are you willing to read and believe? Are you always going to cheer for the victims?” I laughed to myself thinking it was an interesting point that was brought up. “In addition,” he went on, “remember, history is usually written by the winners of wars and by those who can pay for it. The losers can only whine, or even worse, their point of view may tend to be even more biased as they are sore losers. Then someone comes later and claims the victims should have been the winners because of their ideological leaning and they want to rewrite history creating one with an even more biased point of view than the one that preceded it, only this time pretending to be more righteous.”
“Like we are doing now? Are we revising history?” I wondered out loud and rhetorically.
“If you are a historian, when you pick a historical time from literature, your choice is based on the interest you have. You have already established your biases in making that choice and not another.”
I pondered his words for a second. That also applies to magazine articles I read as well.
My friend went on, “Most, if not all the time, you will choose what reinforces that which you already believe, an angle that you have already accepted. Then as a reader, you interpret what you think the writer says or intends to say, based on what is important to you, not to the author despite his attempt to influence you. The writer chose his topic on a theme important to him, from material written or narrated by other researchers who got theirs from others who had their own bias, and who may or may not have been present when an event occurred. Storytellers, eyewitnesses, caretakers of oral history, each add their insights, their preferences, and rejecting their dislikes, including their bias. Each having seen a different detail of the same event or subsequent events. Two people who see the same auto accident can come up with different versions of what happened. Imagine interpreting a painting of an artist, not a warrior, of an antique vase as the only clue to a war three thousand years ago. Therefore, the result is mostly fiction. So, pick and choose your less artificial side.”
“So, you don’t like history? You think it’s irrelevant?”
“On the contrary! I love history. The history of each country is their most important treasure. You can’t change history merely because you don’t like it. It is what keeps people united and centered. Without history your civilization dies. If you want to kill a culture, change their history and create a different interpretation. Written history may never get to be totally accurate, although the closer to the truth, the better. Besides, historical crisis are often events in transition with different interpretations; on the issue of slavery, George Washington, who inherited slaves as was common at that time in the world, wrote in a letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786, “There is no man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.” There is room for diverse interpretations, but within a verifiable whole. Different writers may not have a better claim to the truth either. What is important is that it is universal, unifying, and uplifting. Our history needs to be rewarding, highlighting the heroic as well as the mundane, while recognizing mistakes, giving us a common heritage, a sense of identity, upon which to plan for the future, a future we all will share. When you immigrate to a new country, you need to absorb that country’s history, even if from then on you may become part of shaping it, not demand or expect that the one you left behind be considered instead. That would be reverse displacement. Beware of those that try to dilute history by rewriting it their way. They are the worst, and the worst enemies come from within.”
What a mouthful! Talking to Ray was challenging. A thought flashed through my mind: what happened to the Indian history? Do we ever add to ours the study of their history from their perspective? They were here first. Should we? I would welcome it. Maybe sometimes we do. I had to look further into that.
Meanwhile, Ray didn’t stop there. “History is important only for the living. So, as you read your history books, who do you cheer for? For the last winner? Or do you cheer for the previous looser who won before. What about the ones before them who lost double? What is important to you? How about cheering for the first losers, or last and lowest of the losers and making them the only valuable entity meriting preservation, the weakest? To pick and choose the most incompetent? Absurd! Some people use history to pass judgement on today’s world based on the actions of long ago. There should be no judgement of history, only interpretations. The truth of the matter is that we can’t change what factually happened. We can only learn from it so not to repeat it nor distort it by taking sides. In history, one clannish group displaced another clan for a better cave, beneficial for one clan and a misfortune for the other. In modern civilization, we don’t displace as violently, instead we buy-off the previous owner or inherit it. But let’s not fool ourselves. Even the children in today’s families of all cultures fight among themselves over inheritance, and sometimes cruelly, as generations before always did and will continue to do. And in today’s world, some despicable families have their elderly institutionalized to take over their earned wealth. Cruel elderly abuse might be universal. It hasn’t changed one iota, the strongest survive. We still steal. The point is that what exists today, is what is. If you own it, you own it. Until the courts may say otherwise. Period.”
“So, you mean to say that the moment you claim you have a better perspective on what history is all about, you are committing the same sin all historians before you committed? Then you are no better than anyone before you.”
“Of course, except for the good academic, you would be no better, maybe even worse. Passing judgement is the misguided attempt of the feeble minded, the insecure who can’t live with the mistakes of the past, so they repeat them with a new twist as if reinvented. Mostly idiots and intellectual misfits do that.”
“Don’t you think that we often intrude on Indians sacred burial sites, for example?”
“No. Not at all. They never hesitated in destroying their enemy’s sacred anything, including real torture, and stuffing the enemy’s genitals in the dying man’s mouth. Why should we be overly concerned about them and the burial of left-over body pieces? Respect yes, but respect needs to go in both directions. Did each of them respect ours?”
Ray was blunt. This conversation led me to read more about history and reach the following observations which I brought up in subsequent conversations. The blatant European or Spaniard intrusion, as it has been labeled, into the now Arizona territory, appeared in force, but not for the first time in Tucson around 1694. However, this serious struggle for land and power was preceded by prior visits by the Spaniards some one hundred and fifty years earlier in 1540. Later came a second visit by the Spanish in 1598. It was at a time when not even the first Chiricahua Apache had arrived in what is now Tucson. So again, forget about José having a previous so-called right to the Barrio land! His ancestors did not come from here. Additionally, the Spaniards were here first, and others, not Mexicans, before them. After untold Indian wars, today, here in Tucson, the tug of war continues between the Indians, Europeans, Mexican, and Anglos or Caucasians. Are white Spaniards Europeans, or Anglos? It is traditions that have been going on for a century and a half. Gains and losses from each team have reverberated in Tucson throughout the years. Interesting and exciting. Conclusively, to get anywhere in organizing the Barrio, I had to find the overriding factors that would dominate issues for the long term. Modern trends would not do it, nor would historic legends. I had to tap on true reality.
So far, I was only beating around the bush. Here are some more tidbits to consider.
In 1752, the Spanish built a military Presidio in Tubac to protect commercial routes southbound toward Mexico. More on this later. After a hundred and thirty years, only about four hundred people here were of European descent of which half of them were Spanish soldiers, probably none were Mexicans, out of a population of around three thousand in what is now the Tucson area. In 1821, “Mexico” became independent from Spain, suddenly elevating the term “Mexico” to a much larger area.
Then in 1836, only fifteen years later, Texas gained its independency from Mexico, so Mexico basically ‘owned’ Texas as a territory for less than the lifespan of a poodle, and only because Spain had claimed it before, and not as “Mexican”! Was Spain’s claim valid? If Spain’s claim over the Indians was not to be considered valid, then neither would be Mexico’s claim.
Then in 1853-54 the Gadsden Purchase took place, which was said to have been caused by a Mexican politician selling the land to fund his failing operations. Corruption? Was it Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna? We can speculate this possibility. It transferred Tucson from Mexico to the U.S. and was paid for. The country of Mexico was only thirty-two years old. The Apache, who were newcomers, said the land was now theirs for kicking out the ones they called Mexicans at the conclusion of their Mexican War. By colonizing standards, the land was considered still part of the Mexican Republic for five more years after that Apache Mexican war until it was sold to the United States by Mexico, even if the Apache claimed it. If so, Mexico made money on something that didn’t belong to them or had or own, except by the previous wars of the conquering Spaniards. So, only the children of the Mexican soldiers of that time, and of a very few other civilians truly from Mexico, born here within those thirty-two years, can somewhat rightfully be said to be ‘Mexican’.
The Apache had no documents to prove ownership against Mexico. Should the Americans who expressed desire to own it have bought the land from the Apache and not from those who no longer in the modern interpretation of the word ‘own’ legally owned it, that is, according to the Apache. But Mexico had the fabricated written documents, legitimized by Spain, to claim it. Or did Mexico buy it from the Papagos? The Yaquis? All the others? Who is to decide? Afterwards, the Americans took their time to settle the area. How can anyone know who displaced who? Immigration from Mexico determines the number of Mexicans in Tucson, but since then, once born in Tucson, the child is American, not Mexican, and his blood is probably Indian, not Mexican. In my mind, I pondered all this.
“Thinking of it,” said Ray, “Mexicans want others to recognize their gaining independence from Spain, but they will not recognize Texans gaining their independence from Mexico. Kind of hypocritical, don’t you think?”
I was just thinking similarly, but No! I did not agree. Strange things do happen. Here is another confusing way to look at historical irrelevance.
In 1492, Columbus arrived on the continent, uninvited, as all those before him and after him did as well, but to be invited by whom? By the first or the last victims of Indians annihilating one another?
Then in 1500, Columbus was arrested and sent home. Accusations of abuse of power, ingratitude, and envy within the same culture, but from different cities. Humans!
In 1540, the Spaniards visited what is now Tucson territory, some short forty-eight years after their arrival to the continent, long before the English came to this continent.
Moving along to the 1560’s, St. Augustine is founded in the state of Florida. We are now sixty-five years after European arrival and forty some years before the English arrival. Back in Europe, France and England are engaged in a never-ending war, just as many Indian tribes are engaged in never-ending wars and conflicts. That’s why I ask who had the right to invite or not to? Indians here didn’t even want each other!
Also free Blacks humans were here long before black slavery was here.
Then in 1607, in Jamestown, Virginia became the first English settlement, uninvited, a hundred and fifteen years after Columbus’ arrival in the Americas and forty-five years after the Spanish settled in St. Augustine. The Spanish, who were displacing Indians previously displaced by other Indians, didn’t invite them.
In 1620, the pilgrims arrived in Cape Cod, a hundred and seventy-five years after the Spanish landed in this continent. Seven generations of twenty-five years each. And only some sixty years after the Spanish came to St. Augustine.
In 1700, the Mission San Xavier del Bac became the first church 7 miles south of Tucson.
In 1776, came the American Declaration of Independence, 284 years after Columbus, 12 generations or more years than this nation has existed. Led by a war and the historic and unprecedented demand by thirteen colonies for independence from then an oppressive English Monarch when, incredibly, George Washington, with half of his barefooted army fighting more like the Indians than the English, won against the then most powerful Army and Navy in the world. Followed by a cleverly drafted document (remember the TBA’s bylaws) protecting its freedom, the result of seldom accomplished effort at teamwork, a document that many other countries hereinafter adopted in similar details. Simultaneously, in the same one hundred and fifty-six years after the Pilgrims arrived, free men, including Blacks, but not Indians, obtained the right to vote. How many other countries had that? Spain, here before the English, had not achieved such results. In this context, it is hard to justify one overriding cause as all good or all bad. Thomas Jefferson, despite his gains from slavery, in his 1821 autobiography wrote “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.”
On June 8, 1854 with the Gadsden Purchase, the U.S. acquired Arizona, via treaty from Mexico, south of the Gila River.
From 1861 to 1865, the Civil War torn the nation apart due to different ideologies, economics, and the morality of slavery. Then President Lincoln, a Republican, in 1863 abolished slavery, and despite some claiming that there is a reversal taking place among parties, the Democratic Party supported slavery still eighty-seven years after independence had been declared. From then on Americans have made unique progress and proved to the world that America, despite its shortcomings, is the nation with the most progress in human freedom. The freedom to travel anywhere, do business with anyone, belong to a religion of choice, go to any college, climb any mountain, play any sport. We owe it to and to everyone to have proven such is possible in America. In how many other countries all races can do that?
In the meantime, back then, there had been plenty of slavery among certain Indian tribes, but the American government put an end to that - for other than righteous reasons.
Not until 1920, did women get the right to vote in state and federal elections, not a racial issue. In many parts of the world, they still don’t have that right. For women, it took one hundred and forty-four years for the words in the constitution, “all men are created equal” to include them in voting. Now they vote, but there is much more to go yet.
Twenty-one years later, in 1941, Pearl Harbor, one civilized culture bombs another and the United States became involved in World War II, but after bombing back, winning and conquering, the United States returned Japan to the Japanese in better conditions than found.
In 1944, voting rights were granted to Native Americans, one hundred and sixty-eight years after the Declaration of Independence was signed. Some wanted to remain independent nations, some to assimilate, but seldom many of them were treated as equals. They fought in WWII with merit.
The result of this hodgepodge of people attracted to a new world became a huge mix of cultures. The progression of who came here first, be it Germans, French, Danish, Africans, Chinese, not the English, and many others as if that were important, saw patterns emerge and disappear over the years. We tend to ignore the wide world at that time had much going on before and after, of which the United States was but a new small blurb in a very large map. Even before Jamestown other countries became part of what was to be America, such as the Swedish in what is now Delaware, the Dutch in what became New York, the Spanish in Florida, and the French and Louisiana. To generalize may be helpful at times, but it is a simplistic response. We are a wide mix, united by common goals, and a shared overall history, although exclusive and self-centered at times. I am trying to wade through all of that.
In Tucson, besides many of the above, we experienced the presence of Italians, Russians, Austrians, Greeks, Japanese, Africans, Irish, and Portuguese. Each of them involved in the struggle for power, survival, peace of mind, cleverness, control, oppression, liberation, submission, independence, and a mirage of other human traits emerging due to or as a cause of each individual’s struggle, just like we have here in this Barrio. A struggle including extensive clashes among culture. Not all good, nor all bad, but one question surfaces above others in all this; What elements led to the unification of so many cultures, allowing a country so diversified to maintain unity and become a growing world power? This makes the US unique. Some argue that a dominant group imposed their supremacy, others that it was due to the fact that minorities had the freedom to be heard and participate. The good qualities we must keep. Maybe it was the English legacy. Several others that comes to mind are the separation and balance of powers, the English language, Judeo-Christian ideology, work ethics, a well thought-out constitution, and rule of law. Adaptable English qualities were the most conducive to the fierce individualism that persevered in the new country, and they won the unifying challenges. No other legacy did as well. One detail, the French men up north in Canada, and the Spanish men down south in what is now Latin America, came mostly without wife or children. Not so the English. They left Europe with their families to settle in another continent, often for religious freedom. The power of the family. This difference had long-lasting effects. Family and religion.
What else can we find?
Culture and ideologies are not necessarily the same, and in both cases, humans tend to want to dominate over, rather than coexist with, each other. Only the new American culture, that for years the Europeans laughed at as lack of real culture, has this unity of differences so successfully lived together in relatively harmony as compared to any other place. Not that it always happens, but that yes, it can happen. This is the pinnacle of democracy and individual freedom. It takes a while, slowly at the beginning, we are still evolving. Since no other nation has obtained that success, there will be envy and strong attempts to take it away, some people want to destroy it. Specially by elitist ideology of a few individuals imposing their totalitarianism. These individuals will claim that they pursue unity and diversity, while hiding their struggle for personal power behind such terms.
To ignore humanity’s propensity for expansion and prejudice is naïve. Who is right and who is wrong in each conflict? We tend to dress it up with different clothes. For example, if the newly formed Mexican country claimed to own Texas because of Spain’s previous presence, then Spain who was in this continent before a Mexican Nationality existed, can claim to own New York, Florida, Texas, Mexico and more. And so, could previous dwellers before that, but how far back? And who? And who decides? The Vikings who supposedly were here before? No, no, the Asians!
The USA is now a world power and behaves much differently than previous colonial empires. The good aspects of this should be praised, and respected, even if it is not yet perfect. There is no going back, only improving on the good parts. Eventually, I began to see the critical patterns I was looking for. In the United States: It is cultures, not races that one must pay attention to.
The 1854 Gadsden Purchase, the end of the Civil War, the discovery of gold and silver, and the Railroad among other reasons, shifted previous economic and emigration patterns from north-south axis with Mexico, into a more powerful economic force in east-west flow, and thus, began a shift in cultural predominance.
All of this was to be critical for Tucson. As Mexico took away all its legal documents and records, a minor building boom occurred soon thereafter and in 1867 Tucson displaced Prescott as the territorial capital for a few years (apropos, types of displacement) first as a town, then incorporated as a City, Tucson made efforts to update title boundaries and claims of property right transfers from the now absent Spanish Mexican legal system, to the American Anglo-Saxon legal system. Once the paper-legal transfer of legal power took place, the shift of cultural power from Hispanic to Anglo was irreversible, with transcendental results. Although while the population grew, including by intermarriages, the so-called Anglos remained a small twenty-five percent minority. But once the legal control had shifted between cultures, it was a matter of time before the minority in numbers took control over the majority, preparing the way to finally becoming the majority. This is a significant lesson about the power of the law.
Supporting the above, and as significant, was the actual critical mass shift in population as the result of technology when in 1880-1881 the Southern Pacific tracks and the telephone lines running horizontally east to west arrived in Tucson. The telegraph had arrived in 1873. These two technologies caused a major and permanent shift in trade, business, and economy, soon to be enhanced by the gas streetlights, waterworks system, the University of Arizona, not to mention the influx of American energy, American capital, American enterprise, approach to health, education, and American way of thinking. The power of technology.
I have identified 3 elements: law, economy, and technology. We’ll see how it plays in support of saving the Barrio. In time, I realized that together these three will trump every day in North America. In the meantime in Tucson, neither the Indian nor the Hispanic heritage has given up in defeat. Never, never give up. And the struggle for recognition and to avoid oblivion by intent or by neglect continues to this day. The value of cultures is displayed in the arts, music, tourism, sports, pottery, music, and others, as it should be! But it needs to include law, economy and technology.
In the Barrio, successful efforts at historic awareness and Architectural preservation were beginning to be done by many. What effect would this have? As an individual, Kelly Rollins was restoring a significant number of adobe properties in the Barrio, with exquisite and thoughtful attention to cultural physical details, but what about cultural social details? Through the university and the School of Architecture work was being done to document Tucson’s heritage. Also, the City’s planning department was strongly promoting recognition of a City’s Historic Zoning. What good would any of this do to the people in the Barrio? Unfortunately, demolition by neglect continued, due to economic hardship by long-time owners. However, I believe that it was Chris Delaporte who halted the increasing collective loses of the Hispanic Architectural heritage, and its cultural traits, by incorporating the entire neighborhood in the National Register of Historic Places, and he identified legal, technological, and economic tools as means to defend these valuable assets. It is now up to the Hispanic culture to utilize those assets well, not to triumph over other cultures, but to coexist and expand by utilizing legal, economic, and technological skills as well as the strength and qualities of all other valid cultural components. Easier said than done. What exactly are the cultural qualities and what could we do? What could I do? In time we would use all three.
Before dwelling into that, let me dispute some complains I hear about ‘cultural appropriation’ as compared to ‘cultural assimilation’ or ‘cultural adaptation’ (I will use the word ‘partake’). They choose to consider this sociological concept as the “adoption and use of elements of one culture by members of a different culture”, as old as history, but today largely intended as a negative phenomenon, in that it infringes on other’s copyrights. Also, it is interpreted by some writers as typically involving “members of a dominant group exploiting the culture of less privileged groups.” “Mostly done along racial and ethnic lines,” they will write, “with little understanding of the latter’s history, experience, and traditions,”
I say baloney! What is all this about “dominant” group “exploiting” the culture of the “less privileged” groups, if not condescending diatribe, while the speaker feels superior that he or she can identify an imaginary wrong. Such a complaint is an attempt to make groups feel inferior and create resentment and harassment. If other people want to borrow your culture “because they have none of their own,” like Judge Collins will say in his speech, I say “good for you! You are in the driver’s seat, and never, never give up.” If we follow this opinion of ‘appropriation’ to its extreme, no Anglo should live in one of the Barrio adobe buildings and no modern explorer should sleep in a cave. Go figure.
The opposite would also apply; no Native American can live in an Anglo house by choice, because it would be an infringement on the Anglo’s architectural advancement. Therefore, retard all cultures to keep them pure? Absurd! Blatantly borderline criminal! Manipulation by a condescending elite. This book deals with how to get into the driver’s seat, sidestepping false narratives, allowing you to take part in what is convenient for you without losing your identity.
As Ray, my friend, threw out a challenge, our separate way of thinking continued to agree on conditions but diverge on course of action.
“So, how do we get the Mexican, the Indian, the Mestizo, the Anglo, the Black, the Yaqui, the person who owns property in the Barrio now, to be able to keep their property until the day they are good and ready to part with it under terms they, buyer and seller, feels is just and equitable. And not to be forced into giving it up?” I was in leaps and bounds formulating my own theory. We will. And we did find a way. All I could say at that moment was, “To level the odds and share the power.” Don’t get me wrong. Displacement may be a fact of life but need not be taken for granted. How? We will see. I still didn’t know then. But the key would be using, or partaking, in the economy, legalities, and technology to mutually benefit cultural values.
Therefore, we were trying to turn displacement on its head, and not about to gain any friends if spoken aloud. It is insincere to arbitrarily claim that one group has primordial rights to land. Pretending so, is the same behavior one is criticizing: to pretend superiority in hypocritically claiming to be the one with the right to assign who is superior, to say, “I can claim to tell others what no other can claim to tell me,” is called intolerance.
As Ray would later state, “The Osage fought and displaced the Caddo.., etc.” Prior to the Europeans showing up, warfare, massacres, and a culture of torture between the many different Indian tribes centered on controlling hunting land and proving courage. These are not cultural values to emulate here, except for their cultural beauty, kindness, wisdom, consideration, honesty, courage, family love, and loyalty that were also found widespread. Indians also exhibit many faults and virtues. In many places, Indian life was tough but pleasant and happy in times of peace. The same or similar faults and virtues can be found in the Bible, the Iliad, and Don Quixote. We tend to think we are better if we can denigrate others, but we all share plus and minuses, and often forget to build in the pluses.
For example. The Roman Empire conquered for power and wealth. They butchered anyone who opposed them but if the enemy surrendered without a fight, they were allowed to keep their customs, religions, even politicians or kings, as long as they pledged allegiance to Rome and paid high taxes. It was a strategy deliberately employed, not a goal. Romans, improved other countries for the good of the Romans, merely for their own convenience, and only for the elite. The Romans built roads for military purposes, great mansions for their officers, and aqueducts for their irrigation, never returning the land to its original owners out of good will. However, the USA has done so, as Ray was about to explain.
If you are displaced from your home, don’t cry like a baby. Pick up the pieces and move on, but use your intelligence, experience, and wisdom to help others prevent unjust displacement and never give up. We can do, and will do so here.
Do you feel sorry for the Mescalero on a reservation under the paternalistic protection of the government? Or do you pity the Mescalero who is now a successful businessman, attorney, or doctor, and who calls his own shots? Call one a victimized minority and make him a poor hero, while some like to call the other a sold-out and to be ostracized. Get a perspective! I would rather be the smart businessman, educated, self-sufficient, and in control to continue my cultural heritage at will any time. Why is the intellectual elite black and white, making of the black culture a culture of losers, rewarding criminality and misbehavior for been victims? The answer is control and power in keeping a group of people poor and ignorant to exploit them. We will see how this happens since things are seldom what they intent to appear to be, and how to reverse it.
Then Ray elaborated on that same issue one day from a different angle.
“There are some differences. The Anglo will not fight you if you join him. The Indian fought each other by nature, never able to effectively unite.” Then he repeated, “The American has shown as the only culture in the world that consistently after taking over another country, will give it back in better condition. For example, Japan, Germany, Granada, and Cuba (going back to the eighteenth hundred). Tell me if any other country in history has consistently and voluntarily done that. If you fight America, it fights you, but if you adapt and join, you become part of it even as you retain the freedom to be your own.”
“You become them?” I didn’t like the sound of those words, ignoring one part of what he had just said: “…even if you retain the freedom to be your own.” Ray didn’t stop there, he continued and exhibited knowledge. I kept advocating action attached to knowledge. Then he hit me where it hurts.
“Some people feel displacement is wrong, and now they feel that it is better to take land away from the Anglos and give it back to the fighting Indians. Thus, by extension we should take land back in Europe and give it back to those that were displaced from there. It is called ‘redistribution’ and it doesn’t have to be fair. It only has to be done by court order.”
“I don’t buy that, but some people do.” I counteracted. “Redistribution may sound good in theory, but not how they want to do it. This is feudalism, an archaic method of control. By the whim of the powerful and wealthy, the King, the government, exercise the redistribution, while everyone else keep their mouth shut and suffers the lowering of standards across the board, except those with the corrupt power to satisfy their own personal interests, the nobility, the elites, who are depending on those who snitch to gain personal favors. Besides, to receive redistribution is to recognize you are a loser”
“Maybe.” He said with a smirk, indicating he had not said his last word on the matter yet. “But then shouldn’t we have to atone for deeds of the past? For example, supposedly John R. Baylor, Confederate Governor of Arizona, ordered Captain Helms, Commander of the Arizona Guards, in March 1862, to follow the law passed by the Confederate states, - the Democrats, - to exterminate all hostile Indians by faking a peace rally killing the grown up and selling the children to defray expenses. Don’t we owe them something? What about the injustices towards the Creeds in the early 1800 or the despicable Trail of Tears endured by the Cherokee and others.”
“That’s deplorable. Why do you always point at Democrats for every injustice done to Indians? However, for every example of deplorable behavior you can find, I can find examples of the contrary. There was military kindness on both sides. You choose your past bias at will. The Indians of today are put in reservations and moved around as we see fit. Doesn’t that sound like redistribution to you? Does it work? Do you want the government to do it to you?” I pressured him.
“Few Indian groups have real freedom in ownership, I agree, but is that why you called the Bureau corrupt? Because they redistribute the Indians?”
“The Bureau is corrupt because they do not recognize real equality.”
“By the way,” Ray offered an explanation. “I point at Democrats because I favor them, but I believe you have to clean your own house first, before pretending to fix what others do.”
“Wow! This applies to Republicans as well!” I said so, but Ray ignore me.
We had much to learn about what was happening to the American Indians and why. It helps to understand the real reasons behind unconscious acceptance of immoral values such as misguided redistribution, transformed into a socially acceptable behavior. This is called ‘sublimation of goals.’ I remembered in Oregon I went logging to learn about clear cutting. I made a point to travel through the desert reservations to learn where the good intentions were, if any, that got distorted. Why their ‘redistribution’, which some people claim is so good, doesn’t work with them? Why so many well-intending individuals, despite reacting to our atrocities of the past, are not really defending Native Indian rights but are extending their suffering in fact. Redistribution of land today would be just a handout, without accepting equality. False pay-off for false guilt with no improvement.
“I think this leads to a mutual failure to reach ‘real autonomy’ since each side rejects their notion that we are all equal. Each keep thinking Indians are victims, including the Indians. The government, the liberals, and the Indians, all three despite not agreeing with each other, have arrived at similar conclusion: that they are not really equal. Bureaucrats are paternalistic. Indians do not understand the concept of equality when it comes to non-Indians, since most of them do not consider non-Indians as equals, and the Elite thinks they know better than others what everyone needs.”
Those who consider it their duty as the paternal safekeeping of a ‘lesser’ child, or the ‘noble savage,’ are snared by rationalizing their behavior of pretended benevolence without providing the proper tools of freedom and equality, which does not contain pity.
“Don’t we fall for the same inequality when we create displacement by gentrification?”
Ray had an incomplete thought when he said, “Cruelty and slavery is not acceptable by any one, but then the act of talking about rejecting it, by itself, doesn’t make anyone a noble person. Many liberal thinkers like me get to think that through sublimation of goals we are more noble, meaning getting to believe that just knowing what is inaccurate and wrong is enough to justify our narrow-minded conclusions and live peacefully. Justifying ourselves as less guilty. Peace demonstrators are a good example.”
I was surprised, maybe he is waking up! I interjected:
“The only solution is to accept equality and not victimization, because once you declare someone a victim, you des-equalize them from you, and you position them to a lower societal position.”
“You are right, but you are also wrong. Racism is deeply ingrained in social practice and endorsed by indifference.”
“Once you ingrain it in social practice activating the label of ‘victim’ and ‘minority’, you ‘ingrained’ it by your orotundity, and you become the racist, so simply ‘ungrained’ it, change your approach. After all, the fake term ‘race’, like the concept of ‘eugenics’ was made up by scientists, and not very clever ones.
Rather than responding to my suggestion, Ray went on. I was getting used to it. “Instead of equality, consider equity. (The real equity.) No one is truly physically equal to another, you need equity, and with equity, you do not victimize anyone. America is based on the acceptance of a very wide assortment with a unified goal, and that is what gives it strength.”
That hit me like a ton of bricks. My friend made me think harder than I was used to. He had hit the nail on the head. “‘America is based on the acceptance of a very wide assortment, - ‘variety’ - with a unified goal, and that is what gives it strength’. You mean we are better at unifying unequal people because of end goals? Without the unified goal, variety is not necessary a positive?”
“Yes! So, who was here first?” He had not let the topic go yet. “Truth be told, one by one, many powerful tribes and entire civilizations have disappeared from the face of the earth, as the result of the actions of self or others, and it will continue to be so. Our country will disappear if American goals are turned into differences. Who is qualified to pick winners and losers?”
I had to think about that.
“It sounds like an excuse not to do anything besides understanding the causes.”
“I wasn’t planning on doing anything,” he stubbornly fired back. “If you want to protect America, do it yourself.”
I did. I had my answers. He had his. Here were our differences: I cared to do something, he didn’t. Suddenly, I remembered how Rocky Bauer got me involved against my better judgement at the time when I wasn’t willing to do anything. We all change. Maybe Ray will. As said before, things that initially I did not want to do, but finally did, would have a strong impact.
“Now we have a tool: the Tucson Barrio Association. All we have to do is put it to work, - define goals.” I offered as solution. He looked at me with a blank stare. Ray was satisfied enough with making it only a part of just a conversation.
At that point, my focus shifted. I no longer intended to help others considered disadvantaged. That could be condescending. I preferred preventing people from becoming disadvantaged, intending instead to help them obtain self-sufficiency by avoiding dependency. The earlier the better. Transforming a simple mental shift, that if more would do it, could alter the entire world order.
“I think you think ‘sublimation’ is the same as ‘self-delusion’”, he countered.
I didn’t answer. I didn’t know. Maybe so. Maybe it depends on the context. “How do you define ‘sublimation’?” I asked him.
Chris took the time to look it up and then read it to me.
“Sublimation of goals: Unconscious social acceptance of ‘immoral’ values, because they are evolved into socially acceptable behavior by continual giving in to impulse. A rationalization to get satisfaction and feel secure. For example: ‘you take away little by little until most is gone. Then when people are desperate, you begin to give them free stuff, and they will never turn on you for you are all they have.’”
“Despicable! Do you think socialists will love this evolution?” I inquired in jest. “I notice that…”
Ray ignored my question. “Psychology defines sublimation as ‘a mature type of defense mechanism where socially unacceptable impulses are unconsciously transformed into socially acceptable actions-behaviors, resulting in a long-term change of the initial impulse. The renowned psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud concluded that sublimation could be observed in an action performed many times throughout one's life, which firstly appears sadistic, though it’s ultimately refined into an activity which is of benefit to mankind. The substitution might not be quite what we want, but it is the only way that we can get part of our satisfaction and feel secure too.’
“Here we have two directions. One: justification of improper actions. The other: transforming of impulses into an acceptable replacement, like turning senseless stubbornness into meaningful determination, or anger at someone into acceptable boxing.”
“Big difference between the two,” I replied. “One includes self-delusion, the other replacement. I am only concerned with the self-delusion type; the other can be healthy, not pertinent to us.”
He made me draw a connection not previously considered.
“There is another way in which sublimation of goals affects what we are doing in a neighborhood organization. I have noticed that a normal person with a casual interest in the well-being of the Barrio enters the Board, or any organization. It could be anyone. As a result, they become active and more involved and people begin to pay them attention, whereas the benefit of the Barrio was the center of his emphasis at the beginning, the center of his concentration moves towards his ego response to his sense of doing good, plus a sense of power from affecting change. Unnoticed, there is a sublimation of goals, when self-satisfaction and self-enhancement overlap the benefit of the Barrio, blending one with the other in ‘doing good’. The time comes when he assumes that what is good for him is good for the Barrio, not limited to liberal thinking. Everyone is susceptible to this corruption.”
“Ego makes the world go around. Healthy ego is better than corrupt misguided ego in the search for equality. Am I included?”
What is good for whose equality? Do Elite liberals really care? Can they share power? “While wisdom is evenly spread, it requires no conventional education. The elite, the ‘intelligentsia’, egocentric, believes only they know the answers on what is good for everyone. But not so.” For all their eruditeness, many lack wisdom. There are many more cases of intelligentsia mistakes than common-wisdom mistakes. Here is hidden talent waiting for discovery.