Editor

One of the main points of the Stirling commentary is the use of taxpayer money on anti-American/communist ideals portrayed by Che Gueverra, Fidel Castro, and Salvador Allende. This characterization exemplifies the difference between seeing the issues with our Brown Eyes and how others see the same issue.

Stirling can only see the fact that these three as communist and their portrayal as communist propaganda.

Chicanos see these individuals as heroes that represented the downtrodden; they fought for the rights of the oppressed, the poor, the voice less. Salvador Allende, for example, was responsible for the passage of a wide range of progressive social reforms, including safety laws protecting workers in the factories, higher pensions for widows, maternity care, and free lunch programs for schoolchildren.

The portrayal of these three leaders has little to do with the communist philosophy, but a lot with individuals taking a stand and fighting for the rights of the people, of the poor, of the political repressed, of those suffering under the oligarch rule of a few. For Chicanos in the 60’s, when these murals were first painted, it was these ideals that many in the Chicano community saw in their heroes. Chicanos were not fighting for communist ideals but were fighting for the Democratic ideals of equal representation and empowerment to achieve the American Dream, economical opportunity, educational opportunity, political representation.

Stirling chastises Cesar Chavez for repealing the guest worker program. For the multi-national agri-business the guest worker program was a god send that provided labor for these corporations.

For farm workers like Cesar Chavez the guest worker program was nothing more than a slave worker program that provided cheap labor with farm workers working under conditions that were unsafe, demeaning, and back breaking.

Two different perspectives of the same issue, just that we see the issue through our Brown Eyes.