This Text file is old! In a 🏛️Museum, an unsorted archive of (user-)pages. (Saved from Geocities in Oct-2009. The archival story: oocities.org)
--------------------------------------- (To 🚫report any bad content: archivehelp @ gmail.com)

RESPONSE TO JOHN WOODS
By Victor Marrero


         The story with this column is that Opion Editor John Woods after
having excluded me as a regular columnist in the Daily Aztec patronizingly
told me that I was welcome to submit letters to the editor "just like any
other student."  In this instance Woods himself wrote a column expressing
the First Amendment right of White heterosexual males to show their pride
without being branded racist or homophobic. The column below gives my
perception of issues like White Pride vs Black Pride, and homophobia vs
gay rights in inner city communities.  Woods having received the column
first tells me " I will publish it but only after some drastic editing. I
have no problem with your ideas but your grammar and syntax are not up to
publication standards. "  My response to Woods in the simple hope that my
column was going to be printed at all was please send me a copy of the
edited version. Woods response was..."I have not yet edited it. But I
would remind you, regardless of content that I have discretion as to how
editing is done. Truthfully the message in your column was understood
perfectly and I have no problems printing viewpoints which oppose my own.
But your column Victor would require drastic editing. It is so far from
publishable quality that it would take me quite some time to get it there. 

	"With finals and my other committments I just will not have time to
do it this semester."

	(Back to the explanation) I threatened Woods with starting a web
page exposing him and his paper. What you see here is the beggining of
that threat being made real. 

	After Woods wouldn't print my column attacking the shallowness of
his main ideas he prints a response to his column attacking the fact that
he's gay since he mentioned it to support his idea of the right to
express hetrosexual pride. The main idea of Woods's column was not about
homosexuality and whether it's against God or not. The main idea is as
said above the right to express white hetrosexual pride. Woods's choice(He
is the editor)of counterpoint to his piece just evaded the main issue of
racism and whether or not racism and homophobia are on one line in the
real world. With my column I tried to address that which he denied and
which he evaded by not allowing it to be printed or circulated in the paper.



[Here's the e-mail message sent to woods after the revision]:


I made some changes below. It reads a little better to my eyes.  I may
also go the English and Journalist departments to ask their opions of it.
I'll trust what they have to say about it more than your petty critisms.
Also are you a Social Science or Mexican Studies expert to be correcting
me on how the word miscengenation is used? In the interest of objective
scholarship I'll double check with my professors though. If I may suggest
to you, why not just print it as it is to discredit me if it's that bad?
If I get any response in my e-mail attacking my grammar I'll let you know.
Last column I was attacked on my title "Cops Will Be Pigs Unless We Do
Something." Truthfully I had to tell people that the choice for the title
wasn't mine. I forgot to give it a title, and you picked one for me, which
for better or worse got people's attention. It was a mixed blessing. Some
people just read the title and didn't have enough of an attention span to
read the article where they could criticize it intelligently. I think
they're too used to reading shallow, simple, and safe concepts like what
you normally publish. What was in today's paper? Abortion? That issue like
Monica Lewinsky is a distraction from the real devisors of rich and poor.
What was in yesterday's paper? Nothing deeply political, I know that. 

Letter or Guest column  for publication in Opinion Page
HISTORY AND "PROUD TO BE WHITE"

Dear Editor John Woods

	 In response to "Simple Pride doesn't equate with Hate. Any view
of History, Afro-centric, Chicano, Asian, Native American, or
Western(White) tells us that Europe, and European descendants
colonized the rest of the World during "The age of Exploration"(Means
different things to different people).  From that we can deduct that
without Europeans colonizing and calling themselves "White," or
later "Caucasian" we wouldn't have the collective identity of American
Indians, later Mexicans, and Africans.  Before European colonization there
were no Indians because everyone was just "The People" to themselves.  The
People later became the Cherokee, Sioux, or anyone of the different
nations we know today only because of the outside conquest of Europeans.
With Europeans for better or worse you have Indians, Africans, or
"Blacks," then Mexicans whose word Raza stands for a miscegenated people,
even if it translates into race literally in English. Without America
there would have been very little Europe because many of Europe's
monarch's, and parliaments didn't have enough strength to hold their
reigns together without somewhere to exploit from, i.e America.   So
without America, Mr. John Woods you wouldn't be White, and "proud" you'd
be Bavarian, or wherever it is that your people came from. 

	The colonized today are claiming pride in their nationalities
because their identities as people was taken away from them by such
institutions as slavery, and the public schools in the case of the Native
American.  The psuedo science of this time established the false 
categories, of "negroid" and "mongoloid" and the masterace was or is still
according to some people the "caucasion." Today's various colonized people
that represent all the continents colonized by Europe take their common
experience, and use it as a point of unity to try to undo the wrongs of
the past, and their continued manifestations in the present. 

	Right up to the 1970s, and in some ways after that, even to today
everyone who wasn't "Caucasian" went to schools that taught them, subtly,
or blatantly that they were a conquered people, and must accept the ways
of their "White" conquerors. So when you see Viva la Raza,, Black Power,
or Indian, and Proud don't just superficially think of the 1990s, and
shallow discussions like Wood's column. Think of the Ghost Dance, Los
Ninos Heroes, or the Black Panthers(Read their literature before you
condemn them).  All these were examples of resistance to conquest or colonialism(One group imposing
itself on another's land).  Anyone that would wear something on their body
which declared White pride is declaring their view of the rhiteousness of
Westward Expansion, Manifest Destiny, Genocide, and slavery.  If anyone
wanted to claim their Celtic heritage I personally don't have a problem
with that because the Celts were in the same position of colonized by the
Romans as we are today by the United States.  If anyone wanted to claim
pride for France winning the World Cup I have no issue with that.  But
White Pride? Go join the KKK, Woods since you have the same line they do.
If you don't believe me read their web page.   If the military is making
reforms on the Gay issue I'm sure they can to.  

	Regarding the Gay or Anti-Gay issue it is only in the fantasy land
of university "liberals," and "conservatives" along with the manipulations
of the mainstream media that the Gay issue is aligned with the issue of
racism.  In the real world of inner city living most lower income
residents are indifferent or sometimes hostile to gay rights. I'm not
saying whether that is right or wrong.  I'm just saying what is, and as an
activist I'm not going to go on a crusade to convince inner city residents
of gay rights when I have enough to do convincing them to unite to fight
for their basic rights as working class, mostly Black or Brown
hetrosexuals. I have nothing against Gays or anybody, even people of
European descent(as I am largely myself) joining movements against
colonialism. I just have something against them trying to take the center
stage when they are not the numeric majority, and are not as a whole at
the bottom of economic and political power.   It's like what Mr. Spock
said. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."   A very
leftist sentiment.