ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ

At the close of a maiz exhibit put on by my class at the University of Arizona last year, Maria Garcia, co-owner of La Indita Restaurant, addressed my students.

As she spoke about the importance of maiz to indigenous peoples, she also spoke of her work with the Zapatistas in southern Mexico.

At the end of her talk, one of my students asked in a hushed tone: “Aren’t you afraid of being associated with the Zapatistas?”

Garcia, tiny and in her 70s, is Purepecha from the state of Michoacan, and her husband – Joseph Garcia, in his late 60s – is Tohono O’odham.

She listened to the question intently, paused briefly, then leaned forward and responded: “Afraid? Afraid of associating with the Zapatistas? No. I am a Zapatista!”

Her statement was vintage Garcia. She and her husband are well known in indigenous and human rights circles. The year before, they had been instrumental in hosting a Zapatista gathering in Magdalena, Sonora.

They are also building an indigenous health clinic there.

When Garcia spoke to my class, she was in her own struggle. At the end of the Bush era – during the height of the economic meltdown – financial institutions tried to foreclose on the Garcias’ home of 33 years, giving the couple 30 days to vacate.

Instead, they vowed to fight to keep their home. Supporters flocked to support their restaurant and vowed – under the banner of Terra y Libertad (land and liberty) – that they would not permit authorities to oust the Garcias from their home.

Yet with millions of people losing their homes nationwide, many doubted whether their struggle would succeed.

Popular opinion was on their side, however. While banks and other financial institutions were receiving multibillion-dollar bailouts, these same institutions were busy throwing people out of their homes.

It is a disconnect that to this day remains unexplained; taxpayers assist the banks so the banks won’t fail, but the banks throw out homeowners who are simply behind on payments.

Translated, the policy seemed to be: Save the financial corporations in their business of throwing people out of their homes.

While taxpayers were forgiving, the financial corporations, rather than extend compassion, continue to throw people out of their homes.

The Garcias’ situation was somewhat complex but boiled down to several late payments, then a series of misunderstandings by a number of financial institutions.

The late payments were due to the economic slowdown. But because of an outpouring of support, business at the restaurant picked up and their finances were again in good shape.

They hired a lawyer, and to this day remain in their home.

You have to wonder what kind of system we live in when elders face losing their home of 30-plus years over late payments.

They are not speculators or risk-takers. They are honest and hardworking and have dedicated their lives to assisting others.

That’s why many hundreds of people – mostly young – offered to place their bodies in front of bulldozers, if necessary, to defend the Garcias’ home.

The economic crisis has exposed us to ugly realities, but it also has pointed us toward sane solutions.

If government, via the taxpayer, has shown generosity to financial institutions, then we should also expect a quid pro quo from them: no elders, for any reason (other than speculation), should ever be put in a position to lose their longtime homes.

Perhaps this policy should also extend to veterans. That’s the least this society can do, and if this isn’t part of President Obama’s solution to the housing crisis, it should be.

Roberto Rodriguez is a research associate at the University of Arizona. E-mail: XColumn@gmail.com

Recalling a young woman, taken too soon, who comforted so many

Consuelo Aguilar on her way to a concert last year.

My mother, a healer, gave me explicit directions: Pray for Consuelo to the four directions. At that, my wife and I, with Consuelo’s parents, Artemesia and Mario Aguilar, went to see their 26-year-old, cancer-stricken daughter in the intensive care unit.

As we prayed for her, there were prayer feathers, crosses, images of saints, cards, lotus flowers and words in several languages left behind – evidence of prayers from the four directions.

On Feb. 17, Consuelo went on to the spirit world, and I called a very special friend, Nahuatl elder Angelbertha Cobb.

I asked her: If people don’t really die, but instead simply transform into spirits, then why or how do we mourn them?

“We mourn them by remembering the most beautiful memories, and also through humor,” she said. “They don’t like weeping. It drives them away.”

I’m not weeping, but the words aren’t streaming forth as they did when I first wrote in October about this beautiful University of Arizona graduate, a community organizer and a peaceful warrior for social justice.

Friday, when I arrived at my office, a message was on my telephone. Before hearing it, I was prompted to listen to an older message. It was Consuelo, calling me for a recommendation.

A few more days have passed, and I can only think her life was an epic love story.

Paula Domingo, our spiritual daughter from Albuquerque, N.M. by way of Cuentepec, Morelos, Mexico, translates “epic love story” to Nahuatl as: “Ce tlatotl tlazotlaliztli.”

Paula, whose husband Luis and daughter Miahuatl met Consuelo at our house, wrote this about her:

“Nochipa tikilnamikizke uan tikuikaske panin toyolo. Sihuatl kiyin aijk mikiz nochipa tuhuan yez.” We will always remember her and carry her in our hearts. A woman like her never dies. She will always be with us.

Her friend, Joel Garcia, describes her as his “beloved friend Consi – a strong xicana who is now a hummingbird.”

Wrote friend and UA professor Andrea Romero, “Like the ripples that come from a stone thrown in the water, her impact will continue to spread beyond the limitations of the physical time she spent with us.”

Maria Molina Vai Sevoi of Tucson’s indigenous Calpulli Teoxicalli wrote, “Overwhelmed with the tremendous experience of the birth of their baby girl, what more suitable and prophetic a name could Artemisia and Mario have chosen than Consuelo (Comfort). Thank you to the Aguilar family for sharing your precious gift.

“Thank you, Consuelo, for giving us comfort in the knowledge that our seeds are strong enough to push through the weeds, find a ray of sunlight, and blossom into beautiful flowers . . .

“Thank you for your generous contribution to ours and future generations. Keep walking in beauty. See you with the sunrise.”

Darlane Santa Cruz adds: “Consuelo was very passionate about bringing in just and equitable teachings into the community. She decided to work with Raza Studies before going into law school. Consuelo always hoped that one day our movement veteranos could leave egos aside and continue working together to accomplish the vision of self-determination and liberation of all oppressed people.

“I never imagined my life without her, and it is very difficult to think that I will not have her as a guide I can call up on at any moment to help me sort out the bumps in the road. I only hope she continues to guide me in that spirit world.”

Finally, an excerpt from Mixelle Rascon: “Tell me about the little stories in your hair. . . . Tell me, how should I miss you? Your strength, rebellion, diligence, a character as precious as el Popul Vuh. No Xikana complex here. Only the real thing. I will see you again.

“Do not take the fruit of the warrior woman under your wing without leaving us the seed. Thank you, Consuelo, for shooting arrows of dignity that moved humanity. . . . Rest at ease in the melancholic gardens where all revolutionary ones go, whisper tunes of sovereignty. Once we awaken the new people’s sun, my sister, we will dance again, for all of eternity.”

By the way, I did give Consuelo that recommendation. No doubt she is nowadays somewhere organizing the hummingbirds in our midst.

Roberto Rodriguez, a research associate at the University of Arizona, can be reached at: XColumn@gmail.com.

Consuelo performs at a hybrid celebration for Dia de los Muertos and Halloween in 2006.

In 2006, Consuelo received her master's degree in Mexican-American studies at the University of Arizona.

Consuelo (at far left) with members of the Tucson High Magnet School MEChA Club in 2008.

Roberto Rodriguez

The government’s efforts to bail out corporations while ignoring homeowners is the stuff of revolts and revolutions

Maria Garcia prepares to slice into a cake during a celebration at her family-owned La Indita Restaurant in Tucson. At left is her husband, Joseph. The Garcias now are battling foreclosure on their home.

Maria Garcia, a small, brown woman in her 70s, is anything but frail. A lot of fire is in her veins.

She worked as hard as her supporters on a recent hip-hop concert held on behalf of her and her husband, Tohono O’odham elder Joseph.

They will not vacate without a fight the Tucson home where they have lived for 32 years.

Welcome to the human face of the world’s financial crisis.

Maria and Joseph are respected elders in the community, owners of the famed Tucson institution, La Indita Restaurant.

She is Purepecha, and he is Tohono O’odham, and attempts to evict them from their home have sparked an outrage.

Their stand to fight for their home conjures up the idea of tierra y libertad (land and liberty) – an idea of indigenous resistance, rooted in defense of the land.

But this case is not happening in Mexico or Central America at the turn of the 19th century.

The ironies are all there, as are the metaphors and the imagery of indigenous elders being forcefully removed by their bank.

The realities are taking place even as Congress has approved more than $1 trillion to save the same financial institutions that are throwing out thousands of homeowners nationwide.

The government is about to pour in many more billions to bail out other corporations, but not homeowners.

This is the stuff of revolts and revolutions. And before anyone takes the Garcia home, they will have to face hundreds of supporters. Symbolically, probably thousands – even millions.

No way will their supporters permit the bank to forcefully evict these respected elders from their home.

The eviction of indigenous elders is hardly the image this nation wants to project as pressures mount to solve this financial crisis triggered by the mortgage crisis.

As several members of Congress have noted, the purpose of the bailout was to assist homeowners – not to create an unaccountable slush fund with little or no transparency.

In speaking to Maria, their path to foreclosure was complex, though it involves unscrupulous and deceptive dealings with a series of financial institutions.

Most of all, there was a lack of transparency.

After being warned that they were in danger of foreclosure, and a series of mistakes by the financial institutions, their bank abruptly foreclosed on their home in late October despite the fact they have the money to pay whatever is owed.

Their pro bono lawyer, Scott Gibson, is confident that they will be able to keep their home.

Having an attorney who understands legalese is a godsend for them, but that’s beside the point. Financial institutions being bailed out by taxpayers should not be forcing those taxpayers from their home for any reason, “legitimate” or contrived.

Something is wrong with a system in which elders can lose their homes due to mistakes, misunderstandings or deceptive practices.

But Joseph and Maria aren’t your typical senior citizens. They are indigenous resistance fighters. Their supporters, many of them young, look to the Garcias for guidance and inspiration and have vowed to defend their home.

Aside from being an integral part of the continent’s indigenous movement, having met with sub-Comandante Marcos and the Zapatistas this past year, Joseph and Maria have themselves embarked on a noble mission to create an indigenous health clinic (Jewel of the Sun) in Magdalena de Kino, Son.

Their selflessness does not stop at the border. They want to create a clinic where indigenous peoples can receive affordable, preventive care, health education and traditional medicine.

Rather than throwing the couple out, the bank and government should be assuring them that they never have to worry about their home again.

The powerful institutions might even consider donating to the clinic. It’s the least they can do.

But as Maria stated in no uncertain terms: ¡Sinverguenzas! (They have no shame!)

Roberto Rodriguez, a research associate at the University of Arizona, can be reached at: XColumn@gmail.com. The Garcias can be contacted at oodhamj@yahoo.com

Maria and Joseph Garcia, like others hit by the economic downturn, suddenly find themselves fighting foreclosure on the home they have lived in for 32 years.

Roberto Rodriguez

Consuelo Aguilar, a University of Arizona graduate, long has been associated with Mexican-American studies, as a student and as a community representative.

Not long ago, while preparing for the law school admission test and organizing against relentless attacks on the Raza Studies Department, Consuelo Aguilar woke up barely able to speak.

We all assumed it was the stress from her studies and defense of the Tucson Unified School District ethnic studies program.

But after a series of medical examinations, Consuelo was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer.

Over the past few months, her cancer has proven to be even more aggressive than anyone imagined.

Consuelo is a very special human being, a 26-year-old gift to humanity.

Yet in some respects, the Tucson native is little different from lots of young adults across the country these days.

She is from the school of young people who sacrifice to evoke change, who fight to bring about peace, dignity and justice.

Young people such as Consuelo have always made the great changes in history.

She already has made a great difference in Tucson and this very small world in which we live.

She works in Raza Studies, the highly successful TUSD department that has been under siege by right-wing forces.

Raza Studies teaches a story much more ancient and far different from the one about Columbus discovering America.

It not only adheres to federal curriculum and pedagogy standards, but also produces students who consistently outperform and go to college at higher rates than other students, reports Augustine Romero, senior academic director for Ethnic Studies at TUSD.

Consuelo, a University of Arizona graduate, long has been associated with Mexican-American studies, as a student and as a community representative.

She also has been associated with Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán) – another target of those who oppose Raza Studies.

MEChA is the antithesis of the hat-in-hand Mexicans who used to accept humiliation and dehumanization.

While there is little doubt that Consuelo is a warrior, I think of her as an eagle, like Cuauhtémoc (a Mexica resistor), “the eagle that descends.”

She descends and ascends, but mostly, she soars. And like her first name, she consoles.

Says one of her beloved mentors, UA Professor Raquel Rubio Goldsmith, “From her robust mariachi voice (she sang for a student mariachi band), to her elegant ‘Chicana’ taste in clothes, her silent but energetic organizing talents to true belief in community rights, she has been a gift to us in Mexican-American Studies.

“Her master’s thesis on the criminalization of immigrants is a testament to respect for scholarly work as well as community needs,” Goldsmith adds.

Asks Maya Bernal, a UA freshman, “Where would any of the students, teachers and this community be without Consuelo? . . . She is constantly working on events for the lucha (struggle), projects with her students and spreading hope for our people to see better days.

“I have never known her to be doing nothing, or even one task at a time.”

I write this knowing that times are tough and even our city is divided.

Yet in times like these, we also are reminded of our common humanity, our shared stories and narratives.

Consuelo’s life is precious. She will win. Her family will win.

In truth, she already has won. What her family needs now are words and prayers from the community for which she fights, sacrifices and represents.

Roberto Rodriguez is a research associate at the University of Arizona. E-mail: XColumn@gmail.com

———

HOW TO HELP

Contributions can be made directly to the Consuelo Aguilar Benefit Donation Fund at Wells Fargo via account number 6988363328.

Republican Sen. John McCain – a self-described straight-shooter and an honorable man – lies. He lies often and often lies dishonorably.

Sometimes he personally doesn’t do the lying, but he does not object to his underlings orchestrating a campaign based on vicious lies.

But the Republican senator does indeed do his own share of the lying – such as questioning Sen. Barack Obama’s patriotism and Americanism.

That “Country First” campaign – which delivers a not-too-subtle message – has been orchestrated by McCain himself. Does such a campaign qualify as a lie? It’s the first lie and it is perhaps the most important lie that matters; his entire presidential run is predicated on it.

Despite this, Obama does not outright call him out on his many lies, especially this most undignified one.

As exploited by the McCain campaign, patriotism and Americanism, particularly in regards to Obama, unquestionably translates into: “He’s black.” In this case, it’s even more insidious; post-9/11, it’s also code for “he’s a foreigner.”

While the Arizona senator will not say this himself, his campaign encourages ultra-nationalism to flourish to the point where nut jobs from talk radio and the Internet universe continue their “whisper” campaign that Obama actually is a Muslim and a terrorist sympathizer. The only thing that Obama has not been accused of is being an illegal immigrant.

The other blatant lies flow from this premise: Obama does not support the troops. To swallow this whopper, one has to suspend reality and pretend that the foreign policy issue of our time was/is whether one supports the troops as opposed to whether the Iraq war – which McCain always has supported – was and is illegal and immoral by any and all standards.

Obama’s inability to say this clearly and plainly is what permits McCain – and the mainstream media – to ignore the illegal origins of the war. His reluctance to say the words “criminal” and “illegal” as opposed to simply “unnecessary” permits McCain – who has been on the wrong side of history in terms of the Iraqi war – to be perceived to be more in command of foreign policy.

Obama does this because he appears to believe that if he moves to the center in regard to the war, he somehow becomes more trustworthy and acceptable to independents. But the polls consistently have not moved in his direction, despite his winning formula and his consistent demand to end the war as soon as possible – a position that even the Iraqi government agrees with.

A friend reminded me of the legal principle of the rotten tree. In this case, the war – predicated on numerous outright lies – is the rotten tree.

Such a tree can bear only rotten fruit. The fruit in this case includes, tactics, strategies (the surge) and “horizons.” Nothing that results from the war becomes legal simply because the Bush administration has not been held accountable, nor because the nation or mainstream media has developed a case of collective amnesia.

Under such a legal principle, the war, not simply its origins, remains illegal today.

Most Americans agree with this assessment; at least 80 percent of Americans agree that the nation has been heading in the wrong direction for the past several years.

Prior to the current financial meltdown, the Iraq war – which has been costing $10 billon per month while Iraq has been swimming in oil profits – has been the major reason for this sentiment.

So why has Obama surrendered this advantage? Chances are that if he indeed becomes the president, having called the war illegal would cement future legal claims against the Bush administration and the government of the United States itself.

Lucky for Obama that the electorate blames the nation’s financial crisis on historic Republican deregulation policies – policies that have long been supported by McCain.

The notion that McCain is the economic crusader and reformer and the one who will hold Wall Street accountable – while Obama is under the grip of Wall Street insiders – is another bald face lie equaled only by the Arizona senator’s dishonorable campaign to paint Obama as un-American. Why Obama holds back is the unanswered question of this election.

Roberto Rodriguez, Ph.D., is a research associate at the University of Arizona. E-mail: XColumn@gmail.com

Three things regarding Sen. John McCain are indisputable: He was a prisoner of war, is an Arizona senator running for president and, if he wins, he’ll be the oldest U.S. president ever.

I won’t be drawn into the debate as to whether his POW experiences alone qualify him to be president; because of his war experiences, however, he has unquestionably earned respect.

I’m more perturbed by how his age has become the object of daily derision for commentators and comedians of all stripes and political persuasions.

Aug. 29, McCain turns 72.

The disrespect being shown to this senator involves nonstop mockery of his age and supposed feebleness.

It reflects a culture that devalues and minimizes the contributions and wisdom of elders, while cynically catering to and venerating a purported eternal youth culture.

Whether one supports McCain or Obama is irrelevant.

McCain is being treated as though he should be put out to pasture or be put out if his misery. For that matter, Obama is being treated as though he were still in diapers.

It is torturous to hear people disrespect either because of age. But the barbs against McCain particularly sting because the mocking is coming from the liberal or progressive sectors of society that normally object to mocking people for any reason.

Make no mistake, for those who wish to vote against him, McCain provides plenty of reasons.

But making fun of his age has no place in a civil society.

My parents and other relatives are in their 80s, and I continue to value their knowledge and wisdom.

Thus, when I hear talk-radio hosts or late-night comedians mocking McCain because of his age, I wonder what kind of relationship they have had with their parents, grandparents or even great-grandparents.

Worse, what example are they giving on how this society values its elders?

In this society, there seemingly are no elders – just old geezers or old fogies who in time are corralled into nursing homes.

What explains this attitude and behavior: Hollywood or Madison Avenue?

Having been born in Mexico, I was raised to respect and value the knowledge and wisdom of elders. I was also raised to continue to honor and respect those who have come before us and passed on.

Where I come from, elders are the first and last word. One finds this ethos among indigenous and traditional communities and cultures worldwide, including in these United States.

Many of us live and breathe this daily – something generally missing from the broader culture here.

To see this senator disrespected in this manner perhaps helps to explain how others are similarly treated in this society.

People are disrespected because of being disabled or for their religion, ethnicity, color, age, gender or sexual orientation.

Many are dehumanized and perceived not to be genuine Americans – because they were born in another country or are “illegal aliens” – peoples seemingly less than human.

This culture goes out of its way to dehumanize as many people as possible. And there’s always a good reason . . .

Rather than stand up and say no, putting a stop to such disrespect, we find someone else to dehumanize and subsequently rationalize our attitudes.

So it is with McCain’s detractors.

Vote against him if you will, but please do not disrespect him. Do not mock him. Do not use code words to hide your prejudices and foolishness.

Worry about his age, if you must. Worry about his anger and his possible post-traumatic stress disorder.

Most important, oppose him because of his policies if you do not support them.

But do not ridicule him because of his age. As surely as you mock him today, so will you one day be mocked and treated as useless.

Likewise for Obama’s detractors. Oppose him, vote and work against him, but do not ridicule or caricaturize him.

Oh, and knock it off on the childish Antichrist thing. If I’m not mistaken, every president since Reagan has been accused of that one.

Roberto Rodriguez is a longtime columnist and a researcher on origins and migrations of the peoples of the Americas. E-mail: XColumn@gmail.com

<strong>Roberto Rodriguez </strong>

At a national journalism conference recently, I was reminded how most mainstream journalists nowadays fail to ask the most basic questions of people in power.

This is especially true in regards to issues of war and peace, where many journalists and commentators seemingly have become government stenographers at best and cheerleaders at worst.

In part, since 9/11, many fear that being watchdogs of freedom will brand them as disloyal and anti-American.

Here are some questions you will most likely not hear from mainstream journalists in the next few months:

Questions for President Bush:

• If everything you warned about regarding Iraq was demonstrably false, why should you – or anyone who has supported your policies – be believed about anything regarding Iran or anything else for that matter?

• If the United States is the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons in wartime against civilian populations, where does this nation get its moral authority on this issue?

• In the Iraq war, you defer to “the commanders on the ground” to make decisions. Under the U.S. Constitution, have you not surrendered your role as commander in chief?

• You have deliberately equated “supporting the troops” with supporting your war policies. Do you not feel any sense of shame for questioning the loyalty and patriotism of those who question your flawed policies?

• Conventional wisdom holds that “the surge” has worked and has thus vindicated you. Despite the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and the displacement of millions of Iraqis (ethnic cleansing), plus 4,000 U.S. troops, do you believe “progress” and the surge has now made the war legal?

Questions for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

• By taking impeachment hearings “off the table,” did you not unilaterally disarm Congress in your effort to end the Iraq war and to hold the president accountable for starting an illegal, immoral and unnecessary war?

• What has Congress done to ensure that the president cannot wage yet another illegal war before his term is out?

Questions for John McCain:

• You voted to prohibit U.S. military personnel from utilizing torture (“enhanced interrogation techniques”), yet you sided with the president to exempt the CIA from this prohibition. Doesn’t this loophole render the prohibition meaningless?

• In response to heat from your own party, you have backed away from your own legislation calling for comprehensive immigration reform. You now state that it will come only after the border is “secure.”

What is the definition of “secure” and is your change of position in regards to your immigration proposal an example of “straight shooting?”

• You’ve stated that if necessary, we should stay in Iraq for 100 years. Have you figured out how much such an open-ended deployment in a volatile environment would cost – in dollars and lives?

Questions for Barack Obama:

• Your opposition to the war has been based on the belief that the decision to go to war was irrational. As such, what is your position on the merits of impeachment?

• One of your steadfast positions in the primaries was your opposition to granting immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the White House in violation of the FISA that prohibits the government from spying on Americans without warrants. Why during the general election campaign have you now changed your position?

• The president and vice president have amassed unprecedented executive power. Will you cease the practice of signing statements that thwart the wishes and intent of Congress?

• You appear to believe that the Afghan war is a “good war.” How long are you prepared to stay there? How much money and how many lives are you prepared to lose?

Question for CNN’s Lou Dobbs and other anti-immigrant activists:

• You are always quick to point out that you have nothing against legal immigrants. However, on “the street,” this disdain (like hate crimes) is focused on brown peoples. How do you and the people you have stirred up – including law enforcement officers and immigration agents – distinguish between “legal” and “illegal” immigrants without racial profiling?

Question for the mainstream media:

• You, in fact, do ask the tough questions – not of the strong and powerful, but of those who question the strong and powerful. When can we expect to see a return to the journalism that is preoccupied with protecting freedoms as opposed to the bottom line?

Roberto Rodriguez is a research associate in Mexican-American studies at the University of Arizona. E-mail: XColumn@gmail.com

Roberto Rodriguez

Piñata-Gate. Or the Great Piñata caper. What shall we call it?

Tucson protesters in early July beat up a piñata in the likeness of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and all of a sudden, we are facing the End Times.

At least if Arpaio gets his way, it will be the end times for Pima County Public Defender Isabel Garcia. Yes, over a piñata incident.

We are living in interesting times.

The Bush administration took us into a war under false pretenses and, after the deaths of thousands and the displacement of millions, not one of them has had to account for this decision.

In Arizona, frustrated with the federal government’s inability to create a coherent immigration policy, Arpaio has decided to take on the role of the nation’s No. 1 “Migraman” – with a vengeance.

Civil rights activists have criticized his actions – such as roving roadblocks to catch lawbreakers – as thinly disguised racial profiling.

When Arpaio came to Tucson to promote his new book recently, protesters headed by Derechos Humanos, a human rights organization, decided to exercise their First Amendment rights and tell the sheriff his racial profiling is not welcome here.

Garcia – who has long been affiliated with Derechos Humanos – was present during the great piñata incident, so now she is being held to account for this caper.

Apparently, she stood by and laughed while protesters took whacks at his likeness.

As a city, we apparently need to define the meaning and significance of piñatas – or to have a philosophical discussion of their meaning. As for Arpaio, he wants Garcia’s head.

Perhaps, as with bullfighting and cockfighting, there needs to be a thorough discussion as to whether piñata-bashing is appropriate for the 21st century.

Piñatas do send out messages. And children do understand these messages.

It is not unheard of for children to fall in love with their piñatas. When that happens, the child will not permit the other children to bash the piñata.

That’s the peril or danger of creating likable piñatas. That’s why star piñatas are popular. It’s hard for children to attach themselves to stars as they might a princess or superhero.

In this great piñata caper, it appears Arpaio does have his defenders, including some writers, a radio talk show host and quite a few adults who have taken offense that a piñata of their hero was taken to the woodshed.

Yes, piñatas are serious business.

Thousands of people have died on the border this past decade due to intentional policies that force migrants into deserts and mountains.

Walls – historically a symbol of oppression – are going up all along the U.S.-Mexico border.

And Draconian laws and massive immigration raids are ripping families and communities apart.

And we’re supposed to debate piñatas?

Garcia has been placed in the cross hairs of those who seem to believe “invading brown hordes” are the source of all their problems.

These migrants, who have come here primarily to work, have been demonized, dehumanized and treated as a threat – to national security and the American Way of Life.

Yet in this movement, we are told it is not brown people who are being targeted: only the illegal ones (the ones not truly human).

What is it that permits people to spew venomous hate and orchestrate campaigns that call for the incarceration and repatriation of brown peoples and confuse it with law and order?

If their focus were whites, African-Americans, Indians or Jews, their careers would have rightly been over long ago.

Yet because their hate campaigns target “illegal” and “faceless” brown people, these hate-mongers convince themselves they are not racists. Not that the word scares them anymore; some consider it a badge of honor.

I digress. This is supposed to be about the serious topic of piñatas, not about how anti-immigrant discourse has rendered the word “racist” meaningless.

Meaningless or not, we can at least be comforted to know that the anti-immigrant messages are not preached anywhere in any mainstream house of worship. Quite the reverse. It is the churches that preach compassion toward all human beings.

And as for the piñatas, yes, they are symbolic. But they are made mostly of cardboard.

Roberto Rodriguez is a research associate in Mexican-American studies at the University of Arizona. E-mail: Xcolumn@gmail.com.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio