Tancredo Confuses Mottos, Logos, And Much, Much More
As you probably already know, right wing, anti-immigration extremist Tom Tancredo went on CNN yesterday and accused Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor of being a member of a "Latino KKK" (known to people like John McCain as the perfectly uncontroversial National Council of La Raza).
What you might have missed was that Tancredo claimed NCLR's motto (he actually called it a "logo") says, "All for the race. Nothing for the rest."
As it turns out, NCLR doesn't even have a motto. According to Lisa Navarrete, the group's vice president, the group has a mission statement--in English--which reads "to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans."
The motto Tancredo's referring to seems to be a mistranslation of a slogan of sorts from the 1960s:"Por La Raza todo, fuera de La Raza nada," meaning, literally, "for the race [or community], everything; outside the race, nothing."
It's a line that appears in a 60's era manifesto called El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán, which was influential to members of a separate group called MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán). Several decades ago, MEChA was a fairly radical student organization, whose mission was to return the lands of the southwest United States to Mexico--an idea called "reconquista." Since then it has become, basically, the equivalent of a Mexican Students Association at most colleges across the country. ]
MEChA, as it happens, does have a motto: "La Unión Hace La Fuerza", meaning, basically, "Unity Makes Strength."
NCLR's website is pretty clear about reconquista.
Another misconception about NCLR is the allegation that we support a "Reconquista," or the right of Mexico to reclaim land in the southwestern United States. NCLR has not made and does not make any such claim; indeed, such a claim is so far outside of the mainstream of the Latino community that we find it incredible that our critics raise it as an issue. NCLR has never supported and does not endorse the notion of a "Reconquista" or "Aztlán."
These are the sort of ambiguities that I suppose you miss, if you can't tell the difference between a motto and a logo, or MEChA and NCLR, or, dare we say, people of Puerto Rican and Mexican descent.
Josh
Matt
Eric
What's Tancredo up to? He didn't run for re-election to his House seat in 2008. Did he figger he'd be a sure loser?
What's he running for now? Focks News commentator???
May 29, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he was a leader of the Colorado term limits movement, so maybe he didn't think he could run again.
however, note this from wikipedia: "On February 3, 2009 the Denver Post revealed that Tancredo has probably lost a significant amount of money invested in hedge funds with Agile Group, a Boulder-based investment company with substantial investments in Bernie Madoff's investment firm."
So, maybe, yeah, jzap...he probably is looking for a big payday. Maybe from where he's standing Steve Doocy's seat doesn't look too bad.
May 29, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plus he was running for President that year.
May 29, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently Tancredo doesn't do ambiguity.
May 29, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or, you know, accuracy.
May 29, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh, you teased about Malkin in the lede but nothing in the actual article? What assist did she give?
May 29, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Tancredo could team up with Rush Limbaugh, who could revive his parody of Michael J. Fox' disability. That went over really well also.
I understand that La Raza also had a "creed" which had something to do with not buying Chryslers from Republican car dealers.
They also have a "crest" which depicts a gay-married couple worshipping Satan while wearing matching sombreros.
May 29, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
And a "coat of arms" that features a Christ-like Che Guevara lighting a bomb with his cigar while driving in a low-rider.
Isn't there some foreign country that will accept Tancredo as part of a prisoner exchange?
May 29, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least he's not confusing it with La Leche.
May 29, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
LMAO!!!!!
May 29, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you sure? It was a short show. Maybe he just didn't get to that.
May 29, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do love the they're all Mexican's part of this idiots thought process as well. My wife who is of Colombian heritage is very proud of her Colombian as well as American background but she couldn't give a rat's ass about returning Arizona or any other states to Mexico! It's completely absurd that anyone would even suggest that a Puerto Rican American would even be likely to take an interest in such an idea is just moronic and highlights his bigotry. If they aren't Cubans (Republicans) than they are all Mexicans and probably illegals too, right?
May 29, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
" . . .if you can't tell the difference between a motto and a logo, or MEChA and NCLR, or, dare we say, people of Puerto Rican and Mexican descent."
Or the difference between La Raza (common term in 60s parlance for "The Race" - i.e., Chicano power) and La Raza (the pretty moderate mainstream Latino rights organization).
May 29, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
My rather imperfect Mescan to Murican translator says "Por La Raza todo, fuera de La Raza nada," actually means "Dorothy's dog makes the union spicy hot or maybe not" and Tancredo = suntanned cretin.
May 29, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its all more ridiculous to think that this mental midget could have just made racial slurs against the Puerto Ricans and the Mexicans would have more or less not paid attention.
Instead, yesterday's performance has managed to piss off the PR in the northeast, the much larger Mexican population in the southwest - his constituency, the south florida population for the 3rd world wisecrack during the '08 election and for good measure all the other ethnic hispanics groups for bunching them together. This was truly the - Asshat multitask maneuver- of the week ladies and gentlemen.
Tancredo-incredo, "I don't do nuance." I cannot believe this guy seriously attempted to run for POTUS.
May 29, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back in the day, I had a testy exchange of e-mails with Janet Murguia, president of the NCLR. I tried to tell her that Alberto Gonzalez, nominated for AG, was not a good man, that he was tied to Bush's hip, that he had been a sorry judge on the Supreme Court of Texas, etc., please don't support him, he'll give us all a bad name, etc.
Her response was unwavering. "NCLR has always had excellent access to him while he was White Huse Counsel, and he has assured us that we will continue to have access to his office."
My reply was that we ought not sell our principles for access to a politician. End of conversation.
NCLR represents the interests of the Hispanisized brown people who choose to ignore their original nations roots, whether from Mexico, Central and South America. It is known for pushing an agenda based in a Eurocentric, Hispanic vision which does not resonate with a huge portion of the Latino-Chicano community rediscovering its indigenous roots. For this reason, among others, it does not hold a candle to the yeoman work done by Maldef - the Mexican-American Legal and Educational Fund.
A couple of years ago Maria Hinojosa interviewed David Carrasco who speaks to the immigrant experience in a timely and still fresh manner">http://mediaplayer.wgbh.org/?xml=one_on_one/david_carrasco.xml&resize=1">manner.
May 29, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's somewhat fortunate craziness from the Tancredo-Malkin. There are important clarifications. Now, only if the MSM would get on the ball and point these things out. Over the past few days, I've been developing an ulcer listening, watching and reading (even here on TPM) people spout out and repeat falsehoods and stereotypes about Hispanics.
While we're all (I'm Mexican-American) under the Hispanic or Latino umbrella, there is a definite difference between Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, South Americans; and a pointed difference between the Spanish, as in Spaniard/Europeans. It's complicated and it goes back to the history of the Americas and world history to really understand.
My Puerto Rican and other non-Mexican friends hate when people identify them as Mexican, a mistake not as common in New York or Florida. Judge Sotomayor probably doesn't like it either. It's akin to calling a Korean "Chinese" or someone of Japanese Heritage Vietnamese.
Whenever situations like this come up, I'm constantly amazed at how ignorant and uninformed typical white Americans (I'm sure Pat Buchanan, Limbaugh, Tancredo would like to give me the Obama treatment on that tag) about Hispanics or Latinos. The country is turning brown at an astounding rate and the history of the United States is intertwined with it.
By the way, again Latinos ≠ Hispanics. Latinos include Brazil (Lusophone/Portuguese-speakers), Haitians and others. Keith Olbermann flubbed this one yesterday.
May 29, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
amber--
I'd coined the phrase over a decade ago to friends: 'The tanning of America'. Not so much of an immigration statement-- as it is a description of racial comingling; a taboo of my father's generation (of WASPs).
I grew up in a tolerant household in Miami in the 60's-- my parents were progressive thinkers for that era.
One of the more 'rounding' of my adolescent experiences-- was being on the one of the first busloads of white kids integrating an all-black junior high in S. Miami in '69.
I was in a distinct minority for 3+yrs-- and I look back at that time quite thankful it occured at that point in life.
It changed my view on race much for the better.
Along with the 'tanning' phrase-- I'd also often employed a euphemistic analogy that 'things would not improve till my father's generation passed on'. Not so much an indictment of my father personally, but of the mindset of the majority of those his age.
Sadly (for me) and prophetically, my Dad, age 89, passed away on Jan 8 this year.
12 days later that new era of which I spoke, began in earnest.
Though still grieving my loss-- it is tempered with a ton of hope.
jw1 (forward-thinking-doughy-white-guy)
May 30, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
NCLR is to the KKK as Knights of Columbus are to the Third Reich.
Having attended a number of NCLR conferences, I have been annoyed by the organization's conventionality and tendency to suck up to power. But I understand it. That's politics. But it is ludicrous to paint it as anything other than another feel good (and do good) mainstream organization underwritten by Coors and any number of other U.S. marketeers. Radical it is not.
Pretty embarrassing to be a white man right now with those dopes whining that they don't want to play with tough girls. I don't know why it never alarms me to see a statement of personal empowerment by a non-white / non-male person. But I can only presume tremendous insecurity on the part of the doughy white babies. They really ought to meet some new people. Send Newt to Brooklyn to live for awhile. Then he might stop peeing his pant about anyone who isn't pale and male.
What could be more American than having a smart Puerto Rican on the court. Duh!
May 30, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think Tancredo made a good, albeit completely inadvertant, point when he called La Raza "a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses."
Yeah, if you leave out the terrorism, organized violence and countless murders in the service of perpetuating oppression, then the Klan is very much like an organization using non-violent means to obtain political and social equality for an ethnic group had long been denied the full advantages of this country.
Also, if you take out the meat, the special sauce and the animal fat it was fried in, a Big Mac is basically vegan.
May 30, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The translation of "la raza" as "the race" also poses some problems. I understand "la raza," in Spanish, to have a softer meaning connoting something between "the people" and "the tradition." The English "race" has meaner character, and carries a completely different load of historical baggage. But then, I'd speculate that a mind like Tancredo's would believe semantics (like justice) floats freely from any historical or cultural context.
May 30, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink