Quote:
Great post Vienna.  Can you cite the start of naming a vessel after Chavez under Dubbya's administration?
|
Mainly I've been hearing about the naming controversy in local (Los Angels) press and media. Also, via some people I have know or worked with who were/are involved in the "canonization" of Cesar Chavez. I had fought and argued with them almost since the beginning because I have long, long felt the naming process to be a reward/buddy/old boys system, rather like the the naming of public buildings, highways, etc. The Chavez process accelerated under the Bush II admin because local supporters felt Bush would be more receptive to the idea given his perceived affection for the Mexican population while in Texas and a GOP need to shore up support in the Latino electorate...
Chavez died in 1993, so the initial move to name a vessel after Chavez started during the Clinton years. I rather suspect it didn't get any where because, outside of the Southwest, few people knew who he was. It took time for the legends/myths to fully gestate. I was working on projects for the Affirmative Action office of the County of Los Angeles during the Bush II first term and a number of the employees were involved in the whole Chavez movement and I do recall a couple of them being very pleased the proposal had moved some steps up the ladder under Bush. My opposition did not make me a very popular person, even more so when I opposed making Chavez's birthday a legal holiday. They held that Chavez was an important part of U.S. history and deserved to be honored. I pointed out that the only legal holidays for individuals were for George Washington (founding father, first Gerneral of the Armies, first President), Abraham Lincoln (defended the Union, was asassianated in office) [later combined with Washington to become "President's Day], and Christopher Columbus (with all apologies to our Italian descended citizens, given what history has proven, I don't think this is now deserved, either). Chavez was, at best a regional personality, affected only a minor portion of the population, died peacefully in his sleep, and will probably be forgotten by most people in a few generations, if not for the activism of his ardent followers, hardly of the national magnitude of Washington or Lincoln...
BTW, I do also recall there was a controversy over the naming of the carrier after Reagan. Some felt it was to soon after his passing and not enough time had passed for history to give the full measure of the impact of his presidency. I tended to agree, since I vividly recall the rush to name everything in sight after JFK; although, there was the very strong argument that Jfk had given his life in office. But, then again, would they be naming a carrier after Nixon if someone had put him out of our misery instead of him resigning in disgrace...
...