To the editor:
I believe it is necessary to respond to Hector A. Chavana Jr.'s Friday letter. His thesis is that Frontier Fiesta is the University of Houston's sanctioning of a "celebration that glorifies the genocide of our people and the thievery of lands throughout the Southwest." Mr. Chavana correctly cites some of the historical events that occurred during the expansion of the United States, but his characterization fails due to his own narrow, twisted view of history.
As far as the "lands stolen from Mexico" by the United States, Mexico does not have any stronger claim to these lands than the United States. The first people to control the present day American Southwest were the various Native American tribes who constantly fought (and killed) other tribes for control of this land. The next people to control these lands were the Spanish. So, how did Spain acquire these lands? You guessed it - not through peaceful means but through bloodshed. The same is true for Mexico and America. Mexico took the Southwest from Spain in its revolution. This revolution was not peaceful - Spaniards were killed along the way.
The United States then took the Southwest, first, through the annexation of Texas and later, by invading Mexico during the Mexican-American War. The United States' taking of land from Mexico was no different from Mexico's taking of land from Spain, Spain's taking from the Native Americans and the Native Americans' taking from each other. In each case, a stronger party used force to subdue a weaker one. Further, as far as Mexico being here first, if that provides a justification for Mexico's claim to the Southwest, then we need to talk about the evil Mexicans stealing land from the Spanish (the Spanish from the Native Americans, etc.) as well.
Second, my first response to the characterization of the American frontier as a time when "our people were hung en masse" is - take your blinders off. I have some frontier history on mass murder, but it is about mass murder on the Mexican frontier.
How about the Battle (if one wants to call it that) of Goliad between the Mexican army and the Texans? After a brief fight, the Texans surrendered to the Mexicans. After they handed over their weapons, they were marched out of town and shot in the back. If that is not mass murder, then nothing is.
Further, what about the battle of the Alamo? After the Mexican Army broke through, Santa Anna ordered every single man to be killed whether he tried to surrender or not. Sounds like mass murder to me. In addition, what should be the most telling fact to you, Mr. Chavana, is that among the massacred were Hispanic Texans. That's right - "your people" (as you put it) were killed "en masse" by the Mexican Army.
When one looks at history, he or she has to look at the big picture.
The point is, expansion, conquering, killing ... it was all a norm of the past whether you talk about the American frontier, the Zulus in southern Africa, the Apaches in pre-civilized Texas or the Spartans in ancient Greece. Should we pretend these terrible events did not occur? Of course not. However, we should not characterize one country or one ethnic group as being the sole bad guy. We should study history for what it is and use the knowledge to our advantage.
As far as Frontier Fiesta sanctioning these aspects of the frontier expansion, let's be realistic. There are no "let's hang the non-Anglos" events, etc. It is a time for students and student organizations to get together and have a good time. Characterizing it as "glorifying genocide" is nothing more than silliness.
Aaron Adkins,
first year, law
To the editor:
It is indeed unfortunate, as Hector A. Chavana suggests, that the campus celebration known as Frontier Fiesta serves to divide the students of the University of Houston. The fault for this, however, lies not with Frontier Fiesta, but with people such as Mr. Chavana. His opposition to the celebration, upon close inspection, DOES seem petty and superficial. Hector has made a crucial mistake about the nature of Frontier Fiesta. He demonizes it as a glorification of Texas's frontier past and exploitation of minorities. He unfortunately misses the point of the event - to have a party. Frontier Fiesta is a party, not a pogrom. The whole point of the event is to drink beer, eat, listen to bands, etc. If Mr. Chavana has a problem with those activities, so be it ... but I ask that he not characterize the event as a prolonged, institutionalized racial slur.
In his letter, Mr. Chavana suggests that the concept of a festival with a frontier theme is flawed, because it rests upon the exploitation of Hispanics in Texas. No sensible person will admit that Texas history is not checkered. But the fact of the matter is that no nation, state, race, or ethnicity has hands that are truly clean. I will not do Mr. Chavana the disservice of mentioning the atrocities that Mexico has inflicted on her citizens and natives over the course of history. The point of this, of course, is that no group on the globe today can say that it is solely the target of oppression. Each and every group of people on this planet is guilty of something. With this in mind, Mr. Chavana's finger-pointing seems particularly shallow.
Frontier Fiesta can be what it is intended to be - a great time. Mr. Chavana must have enough excess time in his schedule to protest other people's choice of entertainment. As he might fancy himself the vanguard of the attack against Frontier Fiesta, I ask him to reconsider his motives and his objections. Most of all, though, I ask him to loosen up and have a good time. We're only in college a few years - we have our whole lives to bicker about the finer points of oppression.
Chris Brewster
sophomore, business
To the editor:
This letter is in response to Russell Contreras' column, "Progressives find Jesus and biblical texts on their side in arguments with conservatives," which ran on March 30. Contreras attempts to argue, based on arguments obtained from Steve Kangas' website, that the Bible, particularly the teachings of Jesus, supports the positions of current-day liberals (or "progressives").
First of all, let's clarify the meaning of liberal and conservative. These words merely represent two opposing attitudes about new ideas compared to old ones. Liberal and conservative positions change as ideas change; ideas that were liberal a hundred years ago are conservative today. Even today, the definition of liberal and conservative differs markedly in different parts of the world: communism is a conservative position in Russia, but a very liberal one here. The value of conservatism and liberalism comes not from any inherent worth, but from the strength of their ideas. When conservatism seeks to defend good ideas (such as freedom, or Christianity) then it is good, when it attempts to defend bad ideas (totalitarianism, or slavery, or greed) then it is bad. The same goes for liberalism: When it promotes good ideas (equality of opportunity, human rights) it is good, when it promotes bad ideas (materialism, sexual permissiveness) it is bad. The argument should not be about liberalism or conservatism per se, but rather about the ideas that they are currently promoting.
Taken in this sense, Jesus and the writers of the New Testament certainly could be considered to have been radical liberals. They espoused new ideas: love for enemies, the importance of heart-felt religion and, most important, the idea that God's love for man was so great that he was willing to take on the body of a man, then sacrifice that body in order to restore the relationship between God and man. It is worth noting, incidentally, that Jesus did not actually consider his teachings as new, but rather as the correct interpretation of the Old Testament Law. Still, in the context of his times his ideas were new, and therefore liberal.
Now it is true that these days the words liberal and conservative have taken a different meaning, representing two radically opposed world views that are popular in our country. Still, the principle is true that these positions should be judged by their ideas. How would the writers of the Bible have viewed the positions of liberalism today? Well, there is no doubt that they stood squarely against sexual permissiveness and homosexuality (Exodus 20:14, Leviticus 18:22, Matthew 5:27-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9). Regarding the punishment of criminals, the Old Testament was harsh (Exodus 21:23-25). Jesus added the principle of forgiveness (Matthew 18:21-22), but the punishment for unrepentant rebellion remained severe (Acts 5:1-11).
What about those social issues that Contreras mentioned? I am repeatedly amazed at the misrepresentation of conservative positions on these issues. Do you think conservatives (Christian conservatives, anyway) want children to starve? Do you think we don't believe in compassion? Do you think that we want to propagate inequality in our society? Do you think we believe greed is good? That is ridiculous. The debate is not, for example, over whether or not we should feed the poor, but over whether this should be done by government or by individuals. If government proved more capable of feeding the poor than individuals or churches, then we would support government welfare. Instead, government social programs have shown themselves more interested in trapping millions of people in poverty, than in relieving suffering or providing a path to a better life.
Christian conservatives believe in the values of charity, compassion and selflessness. We believe that all of mankind has equal worth in the eyes of God. Do not attempt to set us against our Lord by misrepresenting our beliefs.
Chetlen Crossnoe
graduate student, Baylor College of Medicine working at UH