Rodolfo F. Acuña: The Meaning of Occupation
[Rodolfo F. Acuña, PhD, teaches at California State University Northridge[
Dear Steve Nuñez,
I just read the print version of your interview and it is precisely why I am reluctant to grant interviews. I attempted to be candid; however, I forgot that we are living in the age of Fox News which almost makes civil discourse impossible. This is disconcerting because there can be no resolution without people listening to each other.
The first distortion is your obsession with the word"occupied," which meaning has been totally mangled. I made two points: 1) America refers to two continents. Latin Americans chafe at the United States appropriating the term as if it had ownership of the word. They have called this chauvinistic. I did not call the book in question"Occupied Mexico." The title of my book is a metaphor for the European occupation of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. So, the question is, have Europeans treated the native peoples justly? In the book I am very critical of how the Spaniards and then the Mexicans treated the indigenous people. According to the CIA Fact book online, considerably less than one percent of the population of this country has Native American blood. What does this mean? At the same time, 30 percent of Mexico is indigenous, 60 percent are mix bloods? What does this say? In both countries there is inequality. In both countries equal access to education and amenities such as housing and income is measured by the hue of the person's skin. In this instance,"occupied" takes on another context. Institutional racism exists and the topic should be explored in a dispassionate way....
Read entire article at Reader Supported News
Dear Steve Nuñez,
I just read the print version of your interview and it is precisely why I am reluctant to grant interviews. I attempted to be candid; however, I forgot that we are living in the age of Fox News which almost makes civil discourse impossible. This is disconcerting because there can be no resolution without people listening to each other.
The first distortion is your obsession with the word"occupied," which meaning has been totally mangled. I made two points: 1) America refers to two continents. Latin Americans chafe at the United States appropriating the term as if it had ownership of the word. They have called this chauvinistic. I did not call the book in question"Occupied Mexico." The title of my book is a metaphor for the European occupation of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. So, the question is, have Europeans treated the native peoples justly? In the book I am very critical of how the Spaniards and then the Mexicans treated the indigenous people. According to the CIA Fact book online, considerably less than one percent of the population of this country has Native American blood. What does this mean? At the same time, 30 percent of Mexico is indigenous, 60 percent are mix bloods? What does this say? In both countries there is inequality. In both countries equal access to education and amenities such as housing and income is measured by the hue of the person's skin. In this instance,"occupied" takes on another context. Institutional racism exists and the topic should be explored in a dispassionate way....