|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The New York Times went public with its article detailing some of labor leader Cesar Chavez’s rapes and sexual abuses of underage girls and all the Southwestern Democrats who made the deceased activist into the Latino MLK are running the other way, canceling festivals, parades and commemorations, covering up statues like Chavez’s last name was Washington or Columbus.
I have an article coming on Chavez shortly, but the short version is that it was no great secret that later in life, the ‘farmworker saint’ became a creepy cult leader, nor was his serial adultery much of a secret either. Dolores Huerta coming forward to say he raped her, is news, as are the allegations by women who were young girls at the time, but it’s not exactly surprising to anyone familiar with Chavez’s transformation into a cult leader, his obsession with Gandhi, who had his own troubling history with women and girls, or the behavior of other leaders of the era.
From JFK to MLK, the ‘heroes’ of boomer liberals not only had clay feet, but were egomaniacal monsters with very little self-control especially around the opposite sex. The nation was transformed by the sorts of men you would never leave in a room alone with your wife or daughter, and by the women who covered up assiduously for them. Bill Clinton acted the way that he did because he was a pale imitation of his idols. The bigger ‘stars’ in this universe behaved worse. And some of them did not draw the line at preying on children either.
Most of this was covered up by their admirers and the movements that formed around them, and then by the wider circle of liberals and leftists in the media who didn’t want to tarnish the image of the cause. Chavez, like Sanger, is being canceled because he ceased to be useful. MLK, who’s still useful, is on his pedestal despite audio of him cheering on a rape. (Let’s see if he stays on his pedestal after 2027 when all the FBI files get released.)
JFK, the myth that Clinton and, more pathetically, Joe Biden wanted to embody, has had enough of his dirt out there without anyone really caring. Chavez however was useless even when he was alive. After death his image became a useful political tool, but he didn’t stand for enough of the right things, like illegal migration, to be worth keeping around.
Now maybe you’ll be able to buy the head of one of his statues on eBay.
Right on, Daniel! Especially the point bout these predators only being defended as long as they are useful to the leftist cause. These people would make Stalin proud.
>Chavez, like Sanger, is being canceled because he ceased to be useful.
And it’s incredibly ironic, as the one who led the effort to cancel Sanger was none other than Angela Davis, a Marxist radical who was a member of the Communist Party USA.
Still, I have to say that the timing of Chavez’s sudden cancellation is rather strange. Why was this not brought up back then? They’re only bringing it up now because of his stance against illegal immigration.
But either way, there are plenty of other reasons to oppose Chavez. He was allied with radical leftists most of his life and he used tactics that are similar to that of Antifa.
But no matter how you look at it, the timing of this is very suspicious.
Daniel is right. Cesar Chavez was idolized as long as the Democrats and the Left in general were able to use him for their nefarious purposes. Even when he was alive and in charge of the UFW, he was not one hundred percent seen in good light because Cesar was AGAINST illegal immigration because unscrupulous landowners were using them to undermine the UFW by hiring scabs.
One thing that I found interesting and even frightening is how Dolores Huerta was willing to let this happen to her and other women and young girls because she felt the farm labor movement was more important, “I carried this secret for as long as I did because building the movement and securing farmworker rights was life’s work. The formation of a union was the only vehicle to accomplish and secure those rights and I wasn’t going to let Cesar or anyone else get in the way.”
To be clear and honest, I am no way saying that Dolores should have had this happened to her or excusing Cesar’s boorish behavior toward women HOWEVER why did she wait this long to say anything?
Cesar Chavez passed away on April 23, 1993 and Dolores waited 33 years to finally say something? Even if Dolores came out during the Me Too movement, it would looked better than waiting several years later after that to say something.
To me I think Dolores was “willing to take one for the team” as long it furthered her agenda. Again I am not excusing what hapoened to her and the other underage girls but to me Dolores is not a poor victim but a victim that was willing to sacrifice herself as long the union farm labor movement was not affect negatively.
Dolores Huerta reminds me of Hillary Clinton that defend her huaband as long it was convient for her and her poower grabbing scheme.
Does this mean I don’t get to celebrate Cesar Chavez Day anymore here in California? Who will I rape in his honor? And I don’t get to beat guys pickling lettuce with big sticks anymore?
“Bring me the Head of Alfredo Garcia”
If it’s a leftist icon you can be 100% certain that they were scum as a human being.
Chavez was against illegal immigration because it depressed wages for farmworkers. Hence, he has become fair game nowadays…
SO can we rename Cezar Chavez Blvd in San Francisco back to Army STreeT?
In Albuquerque we have a Cesar Chavez boulevard. Wonder if that will change?
There are all kinds of things in his honor here in San Jose, even a “golden” hat downtown. What a load of shit.
Sour Grapes … (^_^)
MLK, Jr. audiotape of him cheering on a rape. Source?
https://theconversation.com/im-an-mlk-scholar-and-ill-never-be-able-to-view-king-in-the-same-light-118015
Cesar Chavez is said to have done that. What were all the other farm workers like? Maybe Dolores Huerta did not bring it up at the time, because of “The Movement” or maybe many farm workers were like that.
And that is not because they are “Mexican”. There would not be sex trafficking in the US on national scale unless a lot of “men” for any ethnic group or race did not partake.
I will assume that he did. I am pretty sure of it, but I do not really know.. Why bring it up decades after he gone and 1/2 century later? I think DetroitOtaku has it right.. Cannot prove anythingexept for the two alleged chidlren. We can use DNA for that an priove that. Then again was it consensual or rape? After 50 years and only one side heard how do we know? Maybe it was consensual and Huerta is throwing himm under the bus, because of his anti immigrant stance.
Even the anti-immigrant thing is a red herring. Is he anti-immigrant period. or anti-flood-the-market-with-imported -labor for big business.?