Talk:MEChA

Accuracy correction
I fixed a statement at the end of the "History" section which seemed to imply that the Ch to X change has to do with the way in which the Nahautl prounounced the letter X. This is an ignorant statement at best, the Nahuatl had no knowledge of the letter "X" and much less how to pronounce it, as it is part of the European Roman alphabet, a group which the Nahuatl never had contact with and whos last common ancestor were likely the ancient Dravidians of Europe, whom had no alphabet. The reason many translations of Nahuatl words to Spanish use the letter "X" to represent the modern Spanish "Ch" is because this was the proper letter for designating that phoneme during the era which the colonists first came in contact with the Nahuatl; it has nothing to do with the Nahuatl's preference for one letter over the other. The Nahuatl language uses an ideogram/logogram style of writing which has absolutely no similarities with the Western Spanish style of writing or alphabet.

Actually, the Ch to X changes IS influenced by Nahuatl. There are numerous Nahuatl codices written in Latin script. Nahuatl scribes began using Latin script after Spain took control in the valley of Mexico. The letter X was used for the Nahuatl "sh" sound. The Spanish and the Nahuatlacah (Nahuatl speaking people) of the Colonial Era never used X to represent Ch. The reason, though, the X often replaces the Ch is due to the perceived error of the use of Ch in the term Chicano. There are many theories as to the origin of the word Chicano. One of them states that Chicano comes from the word Mexicano. It is theorized that, due to their poor Spanish pronunciation, the X was pronounced as Ch instead. Some activists chose to correct this by using the X to correct the spelling and thus call themselves Xicano. Nevertheless, even with this correction many of these activists still pronounce X in Xicano with the Ch sound. It is a confusing phenomenon to say the least.Benzambrano (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Some Historical Information
This is the archived page of CSUN MEChA's first website, which is almost unchanged from when it was first put up in the Spring of 1995. Below is a description of MEChA from the late, great Lorenzo "Toppy" Flores (Who probably would need a Wikipedia Article)

http://web.archive.org/web/19990219150314/www.csun.edu/~mo44562/

MEChA at California State University, Northridge

A Brief History of a Long Struggle

Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA) at California State University Northridge is one of the largest and oldest Chicano student organizations in the country. Its origins parallel those of the Chicano Movement. California State University at Northridge (CSUN) MEChA actually began in the mid-Sixties when a handful of Chicano students at then San Fernando Valley State College (SFVSC) formed the United Mexican American Students (UMAS).

UMAS was one of the first national Chicano student organizations with chapters all over the southwest. Students at San Fernando Valley State College were involved in a number of issues. The organization formed to promote higher education among Chicanos and address the problems that students confronted on campus. Of special concern were the local communities of San Fernando, Pacoima, West and East Los Angeles, and the Ventura-Oxnard area. UMAS was also involved in greater concerns such as the plight of farm workers and the effects of the Vietnam War on the Chicano community.

The students of SFVSC UMAS were also active in the early statewide organizing efforts of Chicano student organizations to form a national student association. In addition to working with other UMAS chapters, SFVSC met with groups like the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA)and Mexican American Student Association (MASA) in the series of conferences which culminated in the landmark conference at the University of California at Santa Barbara where MEChA and El Plan de Santa Barbara were given fruition. It was at this conference that SFVSC UMAS officially became part of El Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan.

Also about this time, the Department of Chicano Studies at CSUN was founded through the efforts of students, staff, and faculty. Equal credit for this effort must also be given to the community of the San Fernando Valley who rallied around the students and lent it's voice to this effort.

As an organization MEChA grew and went through a series of transitions. Faculty, staff and students worked collectively to firmly establish the Chicano Studies Department. La Mesa Directiva became the governing body for the department. Composed of students, faculty, and staff, La Mesa Directiva selected faculty and determined the direction for the department.

As the members of MEChA had their respective majors and a wide range of interests, subcommitties of MEChA formed each reflecting an area of concern.

Several standing and adhoc committies have been crucial to the structure of MEChA and united under the umbrella structure of El Concilio:

* Aztlan Graduation and Scholarship Committee * Committee In Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES) * Central American United Student Association (CAUSA) * Chicana Information Center * Chicanos for Law * Chicanos for Community (Creative) Medicine * Latino Business Association (Chicano Business Association) * Chicano Media Association * Freshmore Club * Teatro Aztlan * Mujeres de Aztlan * Students United for Bilingual Education * Labor Committee * El Popo

Cultural groups have always been part of the department as well:

* Baile Folklorico Aztlan * Mariachi Aztlan * Los Sencilos * Los Huicholos * Baile Folklorico Ollin * Teatro Por La Gente

The issues have always been the same. MEChA was active in the struggle to establish the Education Opportunity Program (EOP) and Special Services for people of color. Inspired by the work of the United Farm Workers and Cesar Chavez, MEChistas were active in the grape, lettuce, and wine boycotts of the early seventies. The students held a successful fast to protest the selling of lettuce and grapes in the student cafeteria. When the original Chicano House "mysteriously" burned down after a Cinco de Mayo celebration, the students protested to establish the present structure that serves as the Chicano House and as a physical symbol of our presence at the university.

MEChA has continued to advocate for the rights of students at CSUN. Most recently, MEChistas from CSUN have been involved in the struggle to educate the community about issues like Proposition 187 and Proposition 209. In the Fall of '96, CSUN MEChA hosted a very successful MEChA Statewide conference which was attended by over a thousand Chicana and Chicano students from all over Aztlan.

As long as there are students who strive to determine their own destinies, MEChA will be there to unite them. Over these many years, MEChistas at Northridge have held fast to the belief that: La union hace la fuerza.

Lorenzo Flores, instructor of Chicano Studies

- 66.214.138.219

Por La Raza Redux
Can anyone rouse up some old timers to weigh in on this phrase? I remember seeing Mecha logos from the 1960s-1970s with the old logo (An eagle warrior head) and the words "Por La Raza, Habla el Espiritu". I have never seen the other phrase from El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan ever being used, and I belonged to 2 MEChA chapters! As a side note, I have been looking up MEChA in search engines over the years, I first saw a lot of Japanese Anime sites come up. Around the late 90s, VDARE started propagating the boiler plate for what every vigilante-type group would later on spew (It's origins having come from La Voz De Aztlan and VCT). There was a group called "Voices of Citizens Together", based in Los Angeles, that started printing full page ads with the infamous map of Mexico including reconquered Aztlan during the run up to the Proposition 187 vote in 1994. - 66.214.138.219 No place called "Aztlan" ever existed in what is now the Southwest United States, so exactly what do you mean by "reconquered Aztlan"? Is this the sort of nonsense being taught in MEChA? If so, the group needs to be investigated by the FBI, de-funded, thrown off of every campus in the United States, and disbanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheyenneZ (talk • contribs) 20:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Politically biased and not neutral (apologetic)
The problem with these items (MEChA and Chicano Nationalism) is that they looks more like a propaganda pieces (particularly, MEChA) than "neutral" desctiptions. The apologetic tone in MEChA is so obvious, and the contents is so illogical (like an explanation that "race" means "community" and "Chicano" means virtualy any person of arbitraty ethnicity.

MEChA description glorifies that organization's political objectives, that are not all benign, to say the least, yet some editors just guy keep erasing my criticism of MEChA's agenda and methods to show up on that papge. Confront is with epithets targeting MEChA critics that aren't nearly as "gentle" as anything you seem to be able to tolerate on that page. DonKichot 10:35, 22 September 2006 (PDT)
 * You've engaged in edit warring with the sole objective of making your unsourced political commentary a permanent fixture on the page. You have yet to try to reach consensus with other editors.  If you notice, the article is full of explanations of MeCha's from both pro and con sources.  Almost every statement can also be backed up, again, from both the pro and con side of the issues.  You are more than welcome to help in editing this article to make it better but please try to locate sources for your edits and cut the edit warring out. Mosquito-001 18:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms
A lot of the criticisms seems like second hand information, without citation, and possibly biased. Possibly overly Anglo American? Either way, it's not NPOV. Sgarza 14:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This page, as it has evolved, has done a good job balancing all sides.  It's an undeniable fact that there are many critics of MEChA.  We would be remiss in not mentioning that.  And because there are so many critics, it would be superfluous to cite examples of such criticisms.  They're everywhere.  Now as to the substance of those criticisms, I am fully in agreement with you that they are generally without merit, hopelessly deriviative, and woefully off-base.  But that's just my opinion, it's not encyclopedic.  To some extent some falsehoods can be provably refuted, but there's so much crap that MEChA critics can pull completely out of their asses which CAN'T be objectively refuted, because of the lack of objective data or sources supporting or refuting their big claims.  Regardless, critics often hold these viewpoints, and as such they are notable and need to be at least mentioned.  Such is life.


 * This article walks the fine line between not mentioning MEChA critics at all and giving them no credibility, and mentioning them too much and giving them total credibility. But I think we've done a good job.  I chuckle when I see the "npov" tag go on because this article is one that the neutrality is ALWAYS disputed, no matter how much we try, we can't please every reader.  And for this reason, I will take off the tag in the next few days unless there is more to be discussed about the current neutrality of the article. Cashton 09:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Possibly overly Anglo American?" Not pointing fingers at all the white people or anything... 72.199.100.223 (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Watcher's Comments
To explain some of my edits:

MEChA is widely criticized for being a racist and separatist organization, 

True, and NPOV.

whose openly stated goals constitute treason to the United States.

The accusation of "treason", is a subset of those who see MEChA as racist/seperatist, it is not a "wide criticism". After all, "treason" is a specific crime that requires more than just words to commit.

Some of the more overtly objectionable, and often deemed treasonous, goals and ideas expressed in El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán include:

To NPOV this, I chose to quote the actual text of El Plan, and to explain the interpretations of MEChA and its critics.

''All of these are generally seen as calls to negate and subvert American national unity, equality before the law for all American citizens, and territorial integrity of the nation. ''

"Generally seen" is misleading. This would imply that this is a widely accepted viewpoint, which is false. Is the existence of native american nations within the US "subversive" of national unity?

''There is no doubt that if similar goals were openly published by a political organization of a different ethnicity, such as the Caucasian Americans, such an organization would be immediately, and rightly, recognized as fascist and suppressed. ''

This is an argument of moral equivalence between, say, the KKK and MEChA. It overlooks the counterargument that the KKK and MEChA are fundamentally different in that one is a majority group of already-privileged members that uses widespread violence to achieve its means, whereas MEChA born during the civil rights era, a minority and underprivileged group (objectively), and HASN'T used violence and in fact eschews it.


 * Rubbish. MEChA HAVE used violence -- objectively -- and your blather about justifying this hate group's activities because of its being "minority" blah blah blah "underprivileged" is the worst kind of far-left apologia. Please do not edit articles since you are so obviously biased.

Anyways, the use of the terms of "There is no doubt ..." and "immediately and rightly recognized as fascist" is very much non-NPOV, so I am cutting it.

''Many mechistas, perhaps including the leadership, may claim that they do not actually espouse such radical notions, especially when they are questioned by conservative media. However, it is notable that MEChA has never officially repudiated any of these declarations. This creates an impression that the organization serves as an umbrella for a wide variety of organization and activists, some of them benign social service or political action groups, and others subversive radical ones.''

"perhaps"? "may"? Is wikipedia a dumping ground of rampant speculation now? If the leadership claims that they do not espouse such radical notions, doesn't that contradict the following statement that MEChA hasn't officially repudiated any of these declarations? I'm cutting this until "perhaps" and "may" can be confirmed, and also this discreprancy can be resolved.

People, I have just created articles on Plan Espiritual de Aztlan and Plan de Santa Barbara. I feel that we need to try to distribute the material properly between these, when there is free time at least :). I feel that the tone of the article right now, which by the way was partially inflicted by myself, is probably not-neutral because of a focus on Plan of Aztlan. That being said, I believe that we really should emphasize the separatist nature of the movement, as reflected in the mechista Plan de Santa Barbara and their founding constitution, which also actually deserves its own article. Watcher 02:58, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Extreme, blatent Bias.
It is interesting that an openly-racist, separatist, hate group like MEChA comes off sounding like a Boy Scout troop for Mexicans. "MEChA is in many ways the modern day Ku Klux Klan of Chicanos...(and) a racist organization that advocates revolution and segregation" http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXI/Issue_2/Editorial/editorial1.shtml

Not a mention here on Wikipedia of the group's OTHER slogan, which is "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.” [For the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing.]

Not a mention here on Wikipedia of the numerous violent, racist acts of thuggery the group (aka "The Tan Klan") has engaged in, including a 1996 attack on black and white americans protesting illegal immigration and 1993 protests for a "Chicano Studies" department at UCLA that caused $500,000 in damage as radicals occupied buildings. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95871,00.html

From vDare.com

"In 1995, A Latino INS officer was killed in California. The University of California-San Diego chapter of Mecha published an editorial in its newspaper, Voz Fronteriza, called "Death of a Migra Pig."

Sample:

'We're glad this pig died, he deserved to die. . . All the Migra pigs should be killed, every single one...the only good one is a dead one...The time to fight back is now. It is time to organize an anti-Migra patrol...It is to [sic] bad that more Migra pigs didn't die with him.'"

See also http://www.americanpatrol.com/MECHA/MigraPigPaper-950500.html

The group's literature is peppered with hate speech.

I don't think this article could be more POV if it tried. I literally do not recognize MEChA as it is depicted here. There is no question that it is a separatist group; it is avowedly so.


 * Yes, it is a particularly shameful whitewash. Why don't you work to fix it, with sources? Jayjg (talk)  16:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. All those Mexicans lynching Whites!!!! Its 1930s America all over again. Oh wait... 209.137.144.70 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The only bias I read in these comments is the anti-Chicano bias in the comments. Vdare and American Patrol are considered nationalist hate groups.


 * Haha yeah, I just looked them up. However he is right, that the MeCha in the Criticism sounds much different than the MeCha in the rest of the article. Perhaps some branches of MeCha are nationalistic, but the MeCha at my school (in San Diego) isn't separatist, racist, or a hate group. They simply show people in the club the right way how to be an activist within a community without being a menace. They actually helped end the immigration reform protesting at my school a year back to get it of the campus and away from school hours. And this is coming from a Caucasian who's never been in the club. Surely not every group is like this, but i find them actually strikingly similar to the Boy Scouts- Not Every Branch Is The Same.72.199.100.223 (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a Hate Group
I think the above commentator has made the mistake of taking the actions of a few MEChistas as indicative of the group as a whole. MEChA is a fairly diverse group, and it would be suprising if there weren't a few extremists among them. You can always cherry pick examples, especially if your sources are sites like VDARE and American Patrol, which the ADL and SPLC have both identified as a hate groups. You don't recognize MEChA as it's depicted here? I doubt you'd recognize MEChA if you went and sat in on their meetings. Have you ever met a MEChista? I don't claim to have known many, but the ones I have dealt with were not radical in the slightest.

If a fraternity member casts racial epithets and sparks a riot, it doesn't follow that everyone in that fraternity shares his views. If Martin Luther writes a treatise entitiled On the Jews and their Lies, it doesn't mean all Lutherans are anti-semites. If a pro-life activist bombs an abortion clinic, it does not mean that all pro-lifers condone such activity. And if one webmaster in one chapter of MEChA makes a single link to Voz de Aztlan, it does not mean that Voz de Aztlan is official spokespiece for all MEChA.

MEChA-related acts of violence, while not to be condoned or to be brushed aside lightly, are few and far between; the comparison to the KKK is disingenuous. The Standford Review article you quoted admits as much: "We are in no way suggesting that MEChA is an organization that lynches and terrorizes other races in the manner the KKK has in the past, nor has MEChA been the cause of intimidation, pain, and anguish as has the KKK". For the overwhelming majority of MEChistas, MEChA is the cultural and educational organization for Latinos, and nothing more. Indeed, MEChA has last a great deal of its radical edge over the past decades, and you can clearly see that reflected in more modern documents like Philosophy of MEChA, which emphsize education as MEChA's first and foremost goal.

Por la raza, todo, fuera de la raza, nada is not a slogan of MEChA, let alone the "other" slogan. It's a quote lifted from El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán (and is discussed there). "For those outside the race, nothing" is a misleading translation; the word "those" (aquellos, or la gente, or any synonym) doesn't exist in the Spanish original. The translation of por as "for" is also a bit sketchy (although por can mean "for", it usually means "by").

The damage done in the 1993 UCLA disturbance has been inflated by an order of magnitude of more: the real value was $35,000 to $50,000, not half a million dollars as you'll find in most reports. Again, not to condone or to dismiss lightly, but this is an example of the distortions you find on the internet by sources that have an axe to grind.

-- Cashton 6/1/2005

Just my two cents, I was a mechista in the mid 1990s. The leadership in my local MEChAs varied from radical to social and almost apolitical. The rank and file also ranged from radicals, to college students looking for a good time, to people with political aspirations. Much of the conservative commentary characterizing MEChA as a hate group stems from Southern California -based VDARE and the fodder provided to them by "La Voz de Aztlan", which IIRC had ties to RCP and other crackpot organizations during my time. La Voz de Aztlan is so over the top and antisemitic, it makes one wonder if it is not the product of some COINTELPRO type operatives. I don't remember any people from La Voz de Aztlan ever being known MEChistAs, yet somehow all the information about MEChA run by the right is gleaned from them and "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan", which AFAIK was regarded as a piece of poetry by Alurista, not some kind of manifesto.

Pozole 21:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

POV.
This article is ridiculous. Hideously POV and should be deleted.

MECHA are avowedly a racist and separatist organization.

"Chicana/Chicano students of California must take upon themselves the responsibilities to promote Chicanismo within the community; as well as politicize our Raza (Race) and continue the struggle for self-determination of the Chicana/Chicano people and the liberation of Aztlan"

http://www.umich.edu/~mechaum/Natconst.html

Zuzim 19:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I imagine you suggest we delete the Ku Klux Klan page just the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.137.144.70 (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there something specific about the the article that you suggest we change? The group is too notable for us to simply delete the article. -Willmcw 20:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed. "Racism" is defined as "the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" (M-W).  This quote does not demonstrate either of these beliefs.  Nor does it demonstrate a clear separatist sentiment: "liberation of Aztlan" is not synonymous with reconquista (do you think "women's liberation" means that women want to start their own country?).  In order to claim that MEChA is a separatist group, you should provide evidence of MEChA asserting its own soverignty, whether by legislative, judicial, or violent means -- moreso as a national organization, rather than at a chapter level.  As discussed in the article and on this page, MEChA chapters are generally loosely affiliated and evidence a wide range of social / political beliefs.


 * Please keep in mind that an article is not NPOV simply because it doesn't present enough of your own personal POV. If you think this article truly is NPOV, then you should work to improve the quality of the article. -- Cashton.


 * Absurd. Presumably "women's liberation" advocates were not calling for the "liberation" of the American Southwest -- and by "liberation" Mecha have clearly stated their intent that it be "returned" to Mexico.  Mecha's "own soverignty" is completely irrelevant.  They seek the reconquest of their mythical "Atzlan" -- a racial homeland where only "La Raza" ("The Race") are welcome.


 * I have a question conserning this idea of reconquista. We have to admit that a high percentage of Mexicans that go to USA because they want to leave the corruption and poverty behind, they want to start a new life in United States. Now if they reconquer wouldn't they just turn Texas into what they were leaving behind? Texas would be run by the mexican gouvernement (back to pesos), and they would have to immigrate even more up north. I really don't see any sens in that. Like goes a song by JAE-P: México yo te amo y no te quiero traicionar, pero como dice mi abuela primero hay que tragar... México lindo y querido, no te puedo olvidar, con tu bandera en mi cuerpo me va a enterrar, pero de este lado estoy y si hay que atacar dame la pistola a Bin Laden voy matar. Me siento orgulloso de lo que yo he logrado en México no valia... (Mexico i love you,and i don't want to betrade you, but like my grandma says: first one has to eat...Dear and beautiful Mexico, i can't forget you, i'll go to the grave with your flag in my body, but i'm on this side, and if we have to attack, give me a gun and i'll kill Bin Laden. I feel proud of what i've accomplished, in Mexico i wasn't worth anything...). I guess that my point is that from a economic point, reconquest would go against the reason why so many mexicans make the move to USA. Also, many see themselves as americans, but with a different backround, and would not want to return to Mexico. If i am born in the States and my parents are from England, i will consider myself american. Wouldn't you? 24.37.59.26 05:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC) random


 * Their many acts of thuggery are on a par with the KKK, and they did sneak around as they committed hate crimes such as their assault on Berkeley buildings and their attacks on non-hispanic Americans. This hate group would not get the liberal group hug if they were a White-rights group.  They have openly called for the deaths of "migra pigs," and agitate for special rights for illegals. Zuzim 06:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

POV
Personally I never liked the views of some individuals of MEChA I personally dealt with. Some were closed minded and bordered on racist, but there was always a balance between the militant thinker and the social advocate for equality. In any group you will find a mix of personalities and POV.

It is easy to condemn a group of people when your mind is already made up. The KKK is not MEChA, MEChA doesn't hide behind hoods and lurk in the night to scare people into submission. The goal is outright action to obtain support for the cause of equality and fairness. The term "Tan Klan" is cheap shot attempt to equate this group to an organized hate group.

Whether MEChA is a band of loosely affiliated student groups or an organized union of young americans, the goal they strive for is noble. Simply to be allowed a fair shot to succeed in this world. You can't judge all for the acts of a few, otherwise we would scrap all police departments for the brutal actions of a few. Our military abroad has been implicated in torture and maltreatment of prisoners, so all americans are viewed in the poorest light now.

MEChA is not a terrorist cell ready to strike but a beacon that attracts the marginalized, forgotten and unrepresented youth that feel they have no future and provides avenues for hope, pride and self discovery. If you have never viewed the world from your knees, you will never understand why these modes of thinking were born and are still necessary. The Civil Rights Movement paved the way but we are far from reaching the end.


 * Give me a break. Their goal is the questionable one of special rights for "La Raza" and the Reconquest of the Southwest.  About as noble as Idi Amin.

This is the very definition of bias.
"MEChA is sometimes characterized as a racist and separatist organization, with a primary goal of returning the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas back to Mexico. These criticisms are based largely on the somewhat controversial language in El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán. However, the current goals of the group cannot be seen as favoring the creation of a new nation, or the reconquest of the southwestern states. MEChA leaders also counter that these statements from El Plan are not part of the MEChA constitution, and have been pulled out of context and misinterpreted. Leaders affirm that MEChA is opposed to oppression in all forms, including racism."


 * "These criticisms are based largely on the somewhat controversial language in El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán."
 * No. These criticisms are based mostly on the explicit words and actions of MEchistas, the racist/separtist "Plan" is secondary.


 * "However, the current goals of the group cannot be seen as favoring the creation of a new nation, or the reconquest of the southwestern states."
 * Yes, they bloody well can. "[A]s Mechistas, we vow to work for the liberation of Aztlan." The Constitution of this hate group reads:


 * "General membership shall consist of any student who accepts, believes and works for the goals and objectives of MEChA, including the liberation of AZTLAN, meaning self-determination of our people in this occupied state and the physical liberation of our land."


 * "MEChA leaders also counter that these statements from El Plan are not part of the MEChA constitution, and have been pulled out of context and misinterpreted."
 * Their current Constitution is virtually as nasty as the hate-filled "Plan."

Bias proved. Zuzim 07:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We're not here to establish the bias of any group - we're here to summarize verifiable information in an NPOV manner. If we can find notable critics saying the MECha is biased, then the article should reflect that. If there are noteworthy folks who say that it is the best thing since sliced bread, then that too should be reflected. However we should not sit around and decide on our own whether those things are true. Let's avoid original research and just summarize what the sources say. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The article is biased. It's obvious, if irrelevant, that MEChA is biased.


 * A primary piece of "original research" is the author's claim that MEChA can't be seen as separatist. As I have demonstrated using their own Constitution, that is precisely what they are (or it is AT LEAST as valid a conclusion as the one drawn in this article).  The overall take on MEChA is NOT NPOV, it is leading to the hippyhappy conclusion that the group are really just a bunch of swell guys and gals who are NOT racist or separtist.  This is not supported by the facts: it is supported only by the author's bias. Zuzim 00:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

11/28 deletions by Cashton
"Aztlán" refers to the Southwestern U.S. states: This is a crude simplification of a subject that is already well discussed in its own linked article.

A slogan of the group is "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada". "Slogan of the group" implies that the phrase is quoted often by Mechistas, which is not true at all. Try finding an exemplar on their own sites. The source you quoted is a newspaper editorial with a clear bias, and it is not a primary source. How does the author know that it is a "slogan" of the group? He doesn't say, and we don't know what his source is.

(by the way, "por la raza" etc. is a quotation from El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán -- the document is generally held in high esteem by MEChA chapters, but that's not to say that mechistas consider it biblically infallible either. Also, the proper English translation is in dispute.  See the article on El Plan for details). Additionally, advocates of this viewpoint can point to the separatist rhetoric of MEChA leaders, such as Miguel Perez. The source is clearly a partisan website, not a primary source. See Wikipedia's Reliable sources. I looked but could not find an original source quotation. The source does not identify Perez as a MEChA leader or spokesperson. He could be some random mechista with radical personal views that dont reflect the beliefs of most mechistas. In which case, why do we care what he says? Wikipedia's verifiability policy disallows guilt by association.

However, the MEChA constitution has called for the "physical liberation" of the mythical Aztlan.: Since you used scare quotes around "physical liberation", I assume this is a quote from the MEChA constitution -- but I can't find the word "physical" anywhere in it (or a reasonable synonym).


 * So we're back to an absurdly biased article that takes the ludicrous stance that the Klu Klux Tan's reputation as a hate group rests solely on the "Plan," and not on its longstanding pattern of racist rhetoric and violence. The "Plan" is only the founding document the group is, not really very important in understanding this separatist organization at all.


 * In any event, the slogan "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada" appears on numerous MEChA websites. The rest of the Plan is in English, with only this vile expression of bigotry in Spanish.  It is a "favorite slogan" of the group from any perspective. There is no controversy over the proper interpretation of it from any reasonable quarter. Zuzim 18:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia makes no claims what establishes a so-called "pattern of violence": at most we only itemize the incidents of MEChA-related violence and let the reader determine if that makes a pattern. But just between you and me -- over the past 15 years, 400 MEChA chapters, 10-20 members each chapter, I can find exactly two incidents of violence (one in 93, one in 96) that can be verified to Wikipedia's standards of fact-checking.  This does not seem to me significantly higher than what you what expect of an equivalent population of random college students.  But don't take my word for it.  If MEChA really is anywhere comparable to the KKK, you should be able to find at least 10 more verifiable incidents of actual violence.  I challenge you to do so.


 * Wikipedia also cannot take a stand on whether MEChA's reputation is deserved or not, without introducing significant NPOV. But let me ask you this -- where did you get your strong opinions about MEChA from?  Do you actually know any Mechistas?  Do you know about their alleged racism from personal experience?  Or did you learn about MEChA second-hand via websites, editorials, and talk radio which have a clear anti-MEChA agenda?  Have you made any attempt to get an independent view of what Mechistas actually believe and what they do in their meetings from primary source accounts?  Cuando dijo que no hay controversia sobre el traduccion del dicho "por la raza todo" etc, lo dice por su propia entendimiento de las reglas de gramatica espanola?  You see, we can't talk about MEChA's reputation if what we're only talking about a collection of distortions and untruths that circulate in the echo chamber of the conservative media.


 * As for alleged "slogan", I challenge you to find one verifiable reference -- one -- where a MEChA member has quoted this "favorite phrase", outside of El Plan. At a protest, a rally, a conference proceeding ... anywhere.  Should be easy, since it's such a popular slogan. Cashton 08:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Por La Raza, Todo...
I notice that this is a favorite line that people cite of the Plan Espiritual de Aztlan. Has anyone mentioned that in translating it from Spanish to english, it either can mean "For the race, everything, for those outside of the race, nothing." OR "Through the [effort of the]people, everything [can be acheived], without the [effort of the] people, nothing [can be acheived]. I always thought the latter was meant, at any rate, the Plan Spiritual de Atlan was always in my mind a silly and bombastic poem. Are there any native or semi-native speakers of Mexican Spanish that can corroborate this?

In common Mexican Spanish, "raza" simply means "people" (see a similar usage in dineh) it can refer to race, although it is more common to denote nationalities.

Examples "Hay mucha raza por acá." means "There are lots of people here." or "La raza Colombiana me cae bien." means "I like Colombians." --68.190.213.41 05:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no question but that "La Raza" means "The Race," and your contorted "through the effort" is possibly the most absurd purposeful mistranslation I've clapped eyes on. The virulently hateful tone of the "plan," with its references to "brutal" "gringos" etc. leaves little doubt in any reasonable mind.


 * It is certain that "La Raza" can only be interpreted to mean "We Mexicans," particularly given the racist slurs which are hurled throughout the document. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.53.218 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * --Excuse me, there is quite some question about that. I speak Mexican Spanish and in common speech, "raza" is usually an equivalent of "gente".  Do you speak spanish natively? If so, are you denying this? --Pozole 01:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Rather than just arguing about this can we find some references that would support the various interpretations? -Willmcw 02:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "La Raza" is code word for Latinos. When mexicans talk of "La Raza", they very definetely are not talking about anglos. now, in regards to "por la raza", "por" is an ambiguous term that can mean for as in "por la patria" (for my country), or on as in "por la calle" (on or down the street). But make no mistake: "por La Raza todo, fuera de la raza nada" means "for latinos, everything, for non-latinos, nothing". Anyone denying this, is a Mecha apologist, or has an agenda. -- Dullfig 18:14, 16 August 2006

--->Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada. This message can be widely translated to mean whatever the political perspective desires and thus we find ourselves in a large mess, fighting over what the true sentiment is. Fortunantly we have the context of The Spiritual Plan of Aztlan (El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan - see the web page link on the article page under external links.) to provide structure to the statement allowing us to understand the true intent. First of all, I would like to direct your attention to the use of capital letters in the statement. We notice that specific words in the two sentences have been capitalized while others have not. La Raza is not la raza. The author carefully makes the desired point in the use of capitolized words. We can see that the effort is deliberate as the phrase does not read: por la raza todo. fuera de la raza nada. Nor do we have: Por La Raza Todo. Fuera De La Raza Nada. The statement is carefully written as:  Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada. So we are clear that the statement is about The Race and not just any race. With that understanding behind us the obvious question then is which race. Once again we can find the answer in the text of The Spiritual Plan of Aztlan. Under the heading Program we find a definition of the term Chicano. Chicano is listed as La Raza de Bronze. Translated that is specifically The Bronze Race, it cannot be construed as anything but. With this information plugged back into the statement in question we are able to understand a clear intention. Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada. can mean nothing other than For The Bronze Race everything. Outside of The Bronze Race nothing. I am certain that there are many MEChistAs that do not harbor, know of, or understand this sentiment. However, for this to be so explicitly stated in The Spiritual Plan of Aztlan and in use prominantly within the MEChA organization is indicative of intentions that do not balance with their public relations face. If this is not the intention of MEChA I would think that documents might be rewritten or changed as needed to reflect a new direction in the movement. If The Spiritual Plan of Aztlan has been changed I would imagine that it would be in the best interest of MEChA to make that officially known to the public. As the documents stand presently I present my case that the article page under MEChA at Wikipedia be changed to reflect the information that I have shared here today. Thank you.˜˜˜˜NadieImportante 01/26/2007(UTC)

Neo-Nazi movements and concepts
Can anyone explain why this article is being added to category: Neo-Nazi movements and concepts. It seems inappropriate. -Willmcw 00:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking malicious users. I notice that this has been going on at a lot of wiki pages that          deal with civil rights organizations. Mosquito-001 22:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ummm, no. This is a "Mexiklan" hate group.  Adding it back to "neo-nazi" groups and "racism," where this fascist hate group belongs.  Zuzim 09:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah I'll believe that when you become president of your very own Mecha chapter. Mosquito-001 16:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and Encyclopedic Style
I have done major re-edits and have removed the POV tag. We need an article that defines the organization, which was actually pretty tame in the 1970's. The article mentions some controversies, let's put the controversies there. I am not sure the polical campaigns are relevant here. Am about to strike them as well. Joaquin Murietta 05:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Por la raza...
I think this famous phrase associated with Mecha deserves a place in this article but it deserves clarification, which you won't find on anything associated with vdare. See the hate group wiki if you need an explanation why vdare isn't a very credible source when it comes to these things. In the mean time, I've put in the explantion found on El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán. It seems to be pretty non biased. Mosquito-001 02:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Mosquito, but the Cruz Bustamante mention seems to have disappeared. Cruz Bustamante was the whole point of that bullet item. --hitssquad 02:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It seemed that a huge part of the Cruz Bustamante story was cut off. I looked on the Bustamante wiki and couldn't find the rest of the story either(thus my edit mentioning that you look at the bustamante wiki).  Was it meant to be expanded it on? Then why not mention it when you have the whole story?  When I edited it, all it said was that Bustamante was criticized for being in Mecha in the 70's but that's not really a controversy.  He's  famous I guess, but if you want to put that in the Mecha wiki, you should probably start a new entry titled "famous members of Mecha." Mosquito-001 14:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wheatabix's totallydisputed tag placement
Wheatabix, post your reason for your tag placement or the tag will be removed. --hitssquad 14:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Critics say..."
Just mentioning critics and then following up with an unverifiable controversial statement doesn't really bring much to the article. I also deleted a mention of the "MeCHA constitution." I don't doubt that a MeChA constitution somewhere on one of the hundreds of campuses that MeCHA is active has said what someone claims but which one? I've already found a few MeCHA constitutions on various websites and they all seem to differ greatly. Holding one up as the official not to be argued with constitution just because it might support your views of the organization doesn't seem very fair. Mosquito-001 22:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes citing what an organization actually has said itself to criticize it is totally unfair. We should only ever cite apologetic re-interpretations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.210.99 (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

POV Edits
Mentioning that MeCHA's critics "include many white nationalist groups" and other "extreme" elements is fairly obviously a POV statement. I've removed it.


 * Not stating which critics these are, especially when they make controversial statements, is also blatantly POV. The views expressed by these anonmymous critics, almost word for word, can also be found on many hate group webpages.  I've refrained from outright naming these groups in the hope that the people who put up these statements would come up with a verifiable source.  In a few days though, I will either remove these anonymous critical statements or put up their sources.  This page shouldn't be about anonymous potshots at a group. Mosquito-001 01:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Silly and POV qualifiers such as "which also include hate groups" or "which include some extreme elements" don't belong in this or in any article. Absolutely no one is disputing the factual accuracy of the statements.  I do not doubt nor do I dispute that white supremacist groups and the like criticize MEChA.  However, such statements are irrelevant.  The logic is as follows: Consider President Bush.  He is criticized by an incredible variety of people.  These people include everyone from John McCain to Howard Dean to the leadership of the Workers World Party to Zacarias Moussaoui.  It is factually indusputible that some critics of President Bush are communists and that some are Islamic extremists.  However, it would be ridiculous to say on the Bush page, "Critics of President Bush, which include communists, say that..." or to say, "Critics of the President, including Islamic extremists, claim that...".  It's safe to say that every notable person and every notable organization has been criticized by hate groups.  Hate groups even criticize each other.  However, that is not notable.  Here are links to articles by well-respected members of the American political right published in similarly well-respected publications. Both make the claim that MEChA is a racial separatist organization and/or hate group, along with associated claims. National Review (down at bottom of article) and Michelle Malkin Other examples are readily availible. TheKaplan 05:46, 15 April 2006

(UTC)
 * Isn't it also kind of silly to mask your sources in order to give creedence to controversial statements that wouldn't be taken seriously otherwise? I included the phrase "which also include white nationalist groups" because it's true.  The claims made by the anonymous critics in the article can almost word for word be found in numerous hate sites like American Patrol.  BTW Michelle Malkin is dangerously close to the extreme right, if not over the line altogether.  I see you deleted that statement though without putting in Michelle Malkin as a source.  I'm going to assume good faith here so I won't assume what you did as trying to put across a POV even though the result ended up that way.  So if none of these statements are notable, why include the critics statements at all?Mosquito-001 13:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If I may chime in here, according to WP:V, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it". Mosquito, it seems that you are the one who wants to include the information about nationalist and extremist (a highly objective term, btw) groups being the critics of MEChA. If this is the case, then you must provide the source. Perhaps a statement by MEChA itself, another Raza organization, the ACLU, or the ADL? That's where I would look first...
 * As regards the critics of MEChA, many people seem to feel that it is very important that this aspect is included. TheKaplan, if you are willing to go and look up the quotes and articles by mainstream figures, why not add their names and the sites you found them onto the main article space?
 * There is no reason to dispute here. We all want this to be a better article. The best thing we can do, in the spirit of cooperation, is to make this into a group project, each person contributing a little, and helping each other out on the way? I have been avoiding this article, but I just recently expanded it a bit so I thought I'd offer to lend a hand if you are both willing....
 * What do you say?--Rockero 23:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just noticed that Malkin and AmPat are mentioned as critics. Just wanted to acknowledge that.--Rockero 23:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no masking of any sources going on here. If you'd like I will be happy to link to respectable sources which make the claim that MEChA is a racist/hate group and etc. in the actual article, as I have on the talk page, although such details might more appropriately belong in the more in-depth discussion in the article body, as opposed to the introduction. Just say the word.  Alternately, you could do so yourself with the sources I provided.  A simple google search such as "mecha article" or "mecha blog" will also turn up many more.
 * -As to including the information because it is true, I believe I adequately explained with the George Bush example that just because something is factually correct does not mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia article, and in fact can be quite misleading.
 * -In regards to "give credence to controversial statements that would not be taken seriously otherwise," I will avoid the word silly (it was a mistake for me to use it in the first place), but I will say that it is also highly objectionable to attempt to discredit statements by highlighting that they come from extremists and/or racists, since they do not only come from such and as I pointed out, extremists criticize everyone. Remember that it is not wikipedia's job to judge the worth of the criticism.
 * -As to the place of Michelle Malkin on the political spectrum, she is not mainstream by any means in regards to the entirety of the electorate, but within the political right she is well-respected and not considered fringe. However, that is entirely irrelevant.  Take Malkin out of the picture.  The same criticism appears in National Review, the most mainstream-right publication in America.
 * -As to "So if none of these statements are notable, why include the critics statements at all?" The statements are notable, but the fact that they come from extremists as well as respectable publications is not, as per the above reasoning.
 * -Rockero: Thanks for some helpful suggestions. I hope you stay involved as we figure this one out. TheKaplan 09:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just thinking, as an alternate idea, it might be useful to remove the whole criticism thing from the intro (or at least dramatically reduce it), and move the criticism down to the body. This organization, especially in light of the publicity it recieved during the California recall election, and because of the present centrality of immigration policy in the nation's consciousness, might well warrant a full "criticism" section in the article itself. TheKaplan 09:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I just have to clear something up here. The critics statement is not mine.  The burden is not on me to prove/disprove such statements.  I just felt that wikipedia is not a place to take anonymous potshots at an organization/people.  Using Kaplan's George Bush example: I could say "Critics say that Bush is an alien from a planet who's people use cocaine for food and is in cohoots with Big Foot to take over our country."  Great statement, huh?  Not let me just run out the backdoor and leave someone else to prove it with a source.  No organization is above criticism but at least try to put up a source. Notice I didn't even ask for a reputable one.  Michelle Malkin and American Patrol will do just fine.   So a google search might be "easy" but if it's so easy why not do it yourself?Mosquito-001 16:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the George Bush/Big Foot Conspiracy example is somewhat lacking in relevance, but once again, it does not even matter. I did say that if you wanted me to put the citations in the article you had but to say the word.  I now consider the word quite unambiguously said.  I actually think that this article needs more of an overhaul than just a minor adding of sources.  I'm going to try to do just that now.  Such an overhaul will naturally include fully sourced material. TheKaplan 22:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul
I'm going to try to clean this article up, and hopefully solve the sources problem at the same time. I could especially use help from someone who is particularly familiar with the early history/formation of the organization, as that section in particular could use some work to bring it up to encyclopedic standards, and I am not at this time very familiar with MEChA's prehistory. TheKaplan 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about my recent additions?--Rockero 22:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the information is neccesary and valuable but could be organized better--perhaps in a less narrative form. I guess you might just be the "someone who is particularly familiar with the early history/formation of the organization" that I was talking about.  For now I'm not touching that section myself but rather focusing on the criticism aspect and on sourcing material in that and related sections. TheKaplan 23:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, now I've moved onto the formation part of the article. I tried to edit it for style without touching the content.  I didn't change much, I guess what I really meant is that the opening "Throughout the 1960s, students organized to promote their own rights and the rights of Mexican Americans," and then the subsequent mentioning of all the groups without talking about MEChA untill much farther down, left the reader kind of wondering how it all relates back to MEChA, so I put that information right up front. TheKaplan 02:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize I wasn't explicit about the how MEChA was the result of this coalescence of students groups. I think that is clearer now.--Rockero 02:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Logo Removal
MEChA has no "standardized" logo. Most chapters do not use the "Hasta La Victoria, Siempre" slogan as their official motto, or use the Red Star. Therefore, I have removed the logo, as it is a misrepresentation of the organizations in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfraga (talk • contribs)
 * I agree with Bfraga. There are common elements to many MEChA symbols, but the graphic we had wasn't the best representation of "your average MEChA graphic", for the reasons he mentions.--Rockero 06:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The latest logo (Image:MEChALogo-291x257.gif) was better because it was more inline with logos I have commonly seen. Not sure about licensing issues, however, and the source isn't the best, either.--Rockero 00:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added a logo which does not contain a slogan or star for illustration purposes only. Perhaps someone would like to write a short description of the symbolism within the logo? --Bfraga 06:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity of the article
Honestly I think this article is very biased, Mecha is known to be an extremist and racist organization, not a human right or whatever you wrote organization. Their main objective is the "reconquista" of the south western states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah, and south Oklahoma) that are, according to them, stolen territories that belong to mexicans. I am not going to edit the article, i just, would like to remind you that here, it's supposed to be an encyclopedia and therefore the article are supposed to be objective. best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent shooter (talk • contribs)

You are completely and utterly full of it.

External link
Lukobe removed an external link with the edit summary "remove non-notable critic". I agree that the critic is non-notable. Furthermore, links to normally avoid include "website[s] that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." (The creator of the website added the link).

Also, the site contains "unverified original research", another qualification for LTNA.

Furthermore, the site uses the term "Nican tlaca" to refer to "indigenous people", a term not used by MEChA whatsoever, but rather by the unaffiliated Mexica Movement. The use of this term further's MM's agenda by adopting their nomenclature, as one of their goals is the promotion of their terminology. It unnecessarily blurs the distinction between these distinct groups, a frequent phenomenon amongst anti-illegal-immigration, anti-immigration, anti-Mexican, and other racist websites.--Rockero 15:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The website No MEChA No Racism does not have unverified research.

The same website uses the term Nican Tlaca not because it desires to blur the distinctions between the Mexica Movement and MEChA's "indigenous" terms, but because they are equivalent. Even though the MEChA documents claim that Chicano applies to all politically active people, the president of the organization made it clear that Asian Americans cannot be Chicanos. The president further asserted that he was a Chicano by birthright i.e. Mexican was equivalent to Chicano. The MEChA documents, in addition to mentioning the Chicano identity, mention that they are "Indigenous from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego". This is the same thing as saying they are the Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Nican Tlaca means the same thing as Indigneous peoples of the Americas, but it is far shorter. Although the replacement of Indigenous peoples of the Americas with Nican Tlaca might be unnecessary, it is dramatically less wordy. Although it might be a frequent tactic of the SOS to confuse the Mexica Movement with MEChA like User:Rockero claims, the confusion is usually over MEChA's Atzlan and the Mexica Movement's both continents. These are not synonyms, but Nican Tlaca and indigenous are synonyms.--Dark Tichondrias 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's unverifiable because we have nothing other than the author's word that the events described transpired as he describes them. See WP:V and Reliable sources. The intention may be utterly benign. The effect, however, is a blurring of the distinction I mention earlier.
 * "Nican tlaca" is NOT the equivalent of "Indigenous peoples of the Americas". It is a term from Classical Nahuatl, which, in the context in which it was originally used, referred to Aztec people. The fact that the term was resurrected by MM to mean "Indigenous people of North America" makes it a neologism. Again, the result is a blurring of the distinction between these two groups. Such an oversimplification is not only unneccesary, but does a disservice in that it is tantamount to misinformation.--Rockero 17:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Logo
I think this article would definitely benefit from having the organization's logo pictured at the top. I tried to add such a picture a while back but it was removed because it was, apparently, not representative of the average MEChA logo (apparently they vary slightly from chapter to chapter). Lacking the requisite knowledge as to what constitutes the "average" MEChA logo, I invite those with that knowledge to add one. I could just try to find another one and keep trying untill i get one that's acceptable, but that seems a little ineficient. TheKaplan 02:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe I have a logo which displays the one common feature of nearly all MEChA chapters, namely the Eagle holding a stick of dynamite and a maquahuitl. I will upload it and place it in the article. --Bfraga 05:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Logo added. --Bfraga 06:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Grammar and Political Correctness
It is my understanding that in both English and Spanish grammar, "Chicano and Chicana" is unneccesarily repetitive, as both are already covered under "Chicano." And Mosquito, there really is no call for such presumptuous rudeness in your edit summaries. TheKaplan 07:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If anyone has any objections to my bringing this page back in line with English and Spanish grammar, here is where you voice them. Once again, in English, and to my understaning in Spanish as well (or rather, especially in Spanish), a group of mixed or unkown genders is reffered to in the masculine.  TheKaplan 09:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Chicano and Chicana", "Chicana/o", "Chicano/a", and "Chican@", as well as their variants replacing "Ch" with "X", are all commonly used interchangably in literature from the discipline of Chicano studies, which, as a living discipline and one that is focussed on social change, attempts to incorporate criticisms and proposed solutions to problems. In this case, the "redundancy" is in fact a response to Chicana feminists who criticize the phallonormative use of the masculine gender in the Spanish language. There is some discussion of this on Talk:Chicano. In light of the critique, which I believe holds some merit, it is probably useful to make mention of this phenomenon on the Chicano page, but it is not necessary to incorporate the critique throughout Chicano-related Wikipedia articles.--Rockero 06:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm personally biased to include both. I don't see how it really hurts, and it won't put-off certain people who consider political correctness to be important (ie, me in some instances). Of course, I'm pushing a bias to influence the page, but I don't really see what's so bad about respecting others, especially when it doesn't really cause much of a problem. The Ungovernable   Force  06:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Rockero: I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying. When you refer to "the critique" are you refering to the feminist critique of the standard language, or the critique of the feminist revisions?  I guess what I'm trying to figure out is whether or not you support removing the "and Chicana" and "Chicana/o" redundancies in this particular article.
 * Ungovernable: It is my opinion that wikipedia should, when in doubt, default to correct grammar. Political correctness hurts only those who think that the English (and in this case Spanish) languages should not be sanitized out of useful existence.  I love language, and I hate to see it butchered and cut off from its etymological roots for the sake of sensitivity.  TheKaplan 17:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I have been pretty inactive in Wikipedia lately. Yes, the critique I'm referring to is the feminist critique of the use of "Chicano" as an umbrella term for all genders. I am not opposed to using "Chicana and Chicano", but I feel that, in the interest of conciseness, it should be used sparingly, and a full discussion of the terminology ought to be included on the Chicano page, and not on every Chicano-related page.--Rockero 21:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

MinutemanSmaher's Comments
This attempt by all you white racists is not giving a clear picture of MEChA other than the white supremacists/ movement conservative propaganda.

Leave and go write about how much you love the stars and bars or something. We know you hate for people of color to write thier own history, and to define themselves in a non-white image.. but you won't win here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.249.20 (talk • contribs)


 * Please watch your wording. Attacks are never welcome here. While your opinion may be shared, kindly tone down your comments. Meeples 05:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, unsigned, do you realize how racist you are? Do you think it is OK to be a racist when you are not white? Dullfig 20:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Calling out the racism that you conservative movement bulldogs are doing here is not racists. You missinterpret my point. You are the racists. Calling you all what you are, does not make me a racist. I don't understand why you all run away from a word that aptly describes your actions, thoughts, and the bedrock of the political strategy that you all employ in the US--- The "Southern Strategy as Nixon called it, or the "Culture Wars" as the media calls. This attack here on MEChA is part of it. Atleast when you all admit that your white supremacists, we can work from there. When you hide cowardley behind the language of the civil rights movement...we aren't going anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.143.170 (talk • contribs)
 * Dullfig and anonymous, please see No personal attacks. Discuss content, not the character of the editors. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 01:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, see, this is how it works: you do not know me, you don't know my positions, oppinions, life experiences, circumstances, etc, etc, and yet, because I am not brown (which you have assumed, since nothing I said gave away my race), you already decided you know everything there is to know about me. That is the classic definition of racism. Think about it.


 * I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. -- Dr. Martin Luther King


 * Dullfig 03:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC) (sorry, Ungovernable, had to get it off my chest:-)
 * Who was that directed towards? Hopefully not me. Either way, all I am saying is it is not appropriate to throw around terms like "racist" towards people, especially when you mean it in a pejorative sense (which you both obviously do). Even if it's true, comment on content, not on the character (or supposed character) of other editors. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 07:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, Force, it wasn't directed against you. It's just that I felt I had to say something, because this is a typical tactic on the left: attack and label someone, so you don't have to argue the subject on its merits. Instead of arguing if Mecha has good or bad points, these guys just come out swinging, calling us racists and white supremacists, and that is it, no need to argue any further. It is intelectually dishonest (and I don't mean you :-). Dullfig 16:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This thread started with accusations of racism and ended with partisan political hackery. Yeah I must be on wikipediaMosquito-001 16:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Por La Raza
In the criticism section of the article it makes mention of the phrase's roots, claim it originated during the Cuban Revolution, but I think it's roots may go back further than that. I noticed that the phrase bears a striking similarity to a quote of a fascist motto listed in the fascist mottos and quotes section of the wiki article on Italian Fascism. The quote roughly goes, "Everything inside the State, Nothing outside the State." Even in the "Por La Raza..." translations that translate "por" as "by" or "of," it does not reflect positively on Mecha. I'd provide a link to the article but I don't know how. -Mike
 * C'mon, I've been involved with several Mechistas and none of them were fascist or even slightly bordering on fascism. Anyway's that's original research. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 05:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * All the MeCHA meetings I've been to never even mentioned WW2 or the state of politics then. There were passing references to the 60's and reagan era latin american policy but that was it when it came to history.  Of course if someone were to connect Mecha with Nazism it would go over very well with the Rush Limbaughs of wikipedia.Mosquito-001 16:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What? since when do you have to mention WWII to be a fascist? Mecha has several key caracteristics of fascism: socialist ideas, racism, nacionalism, etc. Fascism is an ideology, and it didn't die with WWII. Dullfig 17:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the wikipedia article on fascism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism, MECHA doesn't seem to be a fascist organization. Mecha is a liberal organization and believes strongly in fighting sexism within its ranks.  It even went so far as to require female/chicana representation at its national conventions.  The national conventions are also open to ideas from any Mecha chapter no matter the size.  It is not an authoritarian organization since its leadership is not really centralist in any form.  Every Mecha chapter is free to adapt itself to best serve the needs of the local community.  Fascism, as a philosophy, opposes socialism along with capitalist economics.  I don't know how to address this point of your's because it wasn't clearly stated.  Did you mean that mecha is anti-capitalist when you said socialist?  Racism is not a fascist idea. Racism is a practice unto itself.  Mecha's meetings are open to those of any race and their leadership is the same way.  Nationalist? Mecha's philosophy differs greatly from chapter to chapter but I've never seen a chapter wrap itself in patriotic imagery in order to fuel a political agenda but anything is possible.  I look forward to your counterpoint but I also recommend you read the wiki article on fascismMosquito-001 18:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I accept your point. So what would be a good description for a sesecionist, racist, anti-capitalist and anti-american organization? It's a good thing they are not sexist on top of that :) Dullfig 23:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just surprised you haven't linked it to al queda yet... :) Mosquito-001 01:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputing category of Nationalism
I really don't think MeCHA as a whole is a nationalist organization. Specific chapters might be but as a whole? no. The goal of MeCHA is not to promote ethnocentrism but rather to improve the conditions of hispanic people without harming the living conditions of others. Mosquito-001 20:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Not Too Shabby
This article looks pretty decent right now, considering the controversial nature of its subject, and the extremist views of some of the people criticizing it. My boyfriend is a Mechista, I have attended their meetings and gotten to know many of them. I am white, and nothing they have said or done has ever even come close to seeming racist or separatist to me. In my school Mecha is just another student group. They do leadership training, social awareness programs, and social gatherings. Pretty much what every other student group does. I have always been welcomed with open arms by every member of Mecha. They do not discriminate against any race, they are simply trying to empower an already underprivileged minority - and unlike white supremacist groups like the KKK, they equate "empowering" with academic opportunity, self-growth and solidarity; not with violently oppressing everyone different from them. Anyone who is stupid and ignorant enough to compare these two groups is completely uneducated and sheltered. As a side note, on our campus, the Catholic student group is constantly under fire because, unlike Mecha, they don't explicitly welcome non-Catholics (which is a requirement to get funding) - and their objectivity is further questioned by the fact that they represent a religious institution that, by and large, discriminates against LGBT people. Yet the same loony right wing types who criticize Mecha on our campus are the exact people who insist the Catholic group should exist, get funding, and yet retain the right to deny membership to gays and non-Catholics. Right wing hipocrisy as usual, and it would not suprise me in the least to discover that the critics who have spoken against Mecha here on Wikipedia have the same set of conflicting beliefs. Anyway, despite the racist right wing nuts freaking out about an organization they're too lazy and paranoid to learn anything about in the first place, this article indeed is looking more and more fair-and-balanced (and I really do mean fair-and-balanced, not the Fox News kind of "fair-and-balanced" which is really just a euphemism for "we're lying to you"). - rglong
 * I completely agree. I'd also like to add that 99.9% of the people throwing crap at MeCHA have never attended even one MeCHA meeting.  These meetings are open to the public.  Leadership positions in MeCHA are also open to anyone no matter their race or ethnicity. Mosquito-001 02:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section
Criticism section needs work. Critics of MEChA are not limited to conservative groups. CNN (hardly right-wing) has referred to the group as a "Radical Hispanic separatist organization" http://www.cnnheadlienews.com/2007/US/10/25/fire.mecha/index.html The UK Times online has asserted that "MEChA supports 'reconquering' California for Mexico," referring to them as a radical group. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article901496.ece Whether misguided statements, outright racism, or proper identification of the group, the fact is that non-"conservative" groups have criticized MEChA.Biccat (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you add a summary of those sources? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a summary of the sources, and removed the reference to the SPLC's characterization of American Patrol, which is a topic for the page of that group, not for MEChA. Including critics and cricism of the critics on this page leaves an impression of NPOV.Biccat (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine overall, but it turns out the CNN story was a fake. That's not a CNN website. (cnnheadlienews.com) I've deleted that portion, but the other edits are fine. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa, my bad. Thanks for noticing.  Strange that it showed up on google news.Biccat (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The harshest criticism of Mecha included in this article (accusations of irredentism and supremacism) has come from American Patrol which has been labeled a hate group by the SPLC and ADL due to its association with white nationalist organizations like American Renaissance and individuals like Jared Taylor . Glenn Spencer (the founder) has also been accused of making racist remarks, "The Mexican culture is based on deceit. Chicanos and Mexicanos lie as a means of survival." The source of the criticism is relevant to this topic and the fact that American Patrol has been labeled an extremist organization is very relevant and merits inclusion.MaryMay01 (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet statements from MEChA itself are ignored, such as

"the brutal 'gringo' invasion of our territories" "We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent" "Self-Defense against the occupying forces of the oppressors"Biccat (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We need to integrate the criticism section into the whole article. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made a few corrections in the "controversies" section with regards to the incident at the MEChA youth conference in 1998. I am not a member of MEChA, however, I have been making a documentary on this particular event. However, even though I cited my sources, and this entire paragraph does NOT cite ANY sources, my corrections were edited out twice by the same person. I wonder how such blatant lack of integrity can be allowed to occur unchecked. I correctly noted that it was a "MEChA Statewide Conference", not just a youth conference. I also noted that many participants of the conference were so outraged at the anti-Semitic references in the program, that they voted to take action against the hosting MEChA chapter. This did happen and a record of it was made. I have read it. This is important because this paragraph implies that MEChA only took action AFTER the Anti-Defimation League demanded an apology. This paragraph also unfairly and links MEChA to some anti-Semitic webzine that clearly has no affiliation with MEChA. I clarified this point with specific references to MEChA's philosphy documents that clearly state MEChA's position. MEChA is an autonomous organization that does not advocate racism, sexism, or violence. Yet, my clarifications and references were removed. Just like these wild assertions to the contrary are allowed to remain in this article, reasonable and referenced clarifications should also be allowed to remain, if only for the integrity of Wikipedia as it aims to become a scholarly source.Benzambrano (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Two good steps to salvage this article
1. Look into having an non-Mexican Latino translate the possible variations and nuances of the troublesome "raza" phrase.

2. Delete all unsigned comments immediately; yes, even my own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.226.45 (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The above suggestion seems like a perfectly fine idea; see if any unrelated parties have some insight into the origins and nuances of the motto. Part two is, unfortunately against Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.227.46 (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section has wrong data
Aztecs DID lived in Northern Mexico /Southern USA. They where among the Chichimeca tribes, they took their name when they finally settled in the Valley of Mexico. But as a people, they did lived there. Even they acknowledge their past habitats in their own nomadic life in the North, --201.141.151.50 (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * it and the following paragraph are unsourced, making it sound weaselly and smack of WP:OR; considering being bold and remove it (part or all of the unsourced portion), or you can hold off & see if a further consensus develops here first... Boogerpatrol (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on MEChA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20060619133531/http%3A//www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/michellemalkin/2003/08/20/168155.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050414004715/http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2002/march_2002_3.html to http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2002/march_2002_3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040402010318/http://www.panam.edu/orgs/MEChA/aztlan.html to http://www.panam.edu/orgs/mecha/aztlan.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060727141920/http://www.dailybulletin.com/search/ci_3669573 to http://www.dailybulletin.com/search/ci_3669573

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on MEChA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121233457/http://www.nationalmecha.org/documents/nationalConstitution.pdf to http://www.nationalmecha.org/documents/nationalConstitution.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100806213827/http://www.adl.org/98audit/campus.asp to http://www.adl.org/98audit/campus.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121233457/http://www.nationalmecha.org/documents/nationalConstitution.pdf to http://www.nationalmecha.org/documents/nationalConstitution.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040531005733/http://www.panam.edu/orgs/mecha/st_barbara.html to http://www.panam.edu/orgs/mecha/st_barbara.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040229133031/http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXI/Issue_2/News/news1.shtml to http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXI/Issue_2/News/news1.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MEChA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091216151854/http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/mecha/archive/index_old.html to http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/mecha/archive/index_old.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)