Mommy told you tony you tiny worm.............. 105 years ago one of their relatives, one of their relatives was an heir? confession?

Send this document to a colleague Close This Window














NUMBER 13-02-00130-CV



COURT OF APPEALS



THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



CORPUS CHRISTI B EDINBURG



SISTER CARMEN DE LLANO, JOSEPHINE JOHNSON,

INDEPENDENT EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF

MANUEL DE LLANO, BLANCA A. DE LLANO DE AGUILAR,

MARTHA DE LLANO DE OLIVERA, FERNANDO

DE LLANO, JR., AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE

OF THE ESTATE OF FERNANDO DE LLANO, AND

JOSEFINA DE LLANO, Appellants,



v.



PABLO SUESS AND FROST NATIONAL BANK,

TRUSTEES OF THE JOHN G. KENEDY, JR.

CHARITABLE TRUST, Appellees.



On appeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.



MEMORANDUM OPINION



Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa



Appellants, Sister Carmen De Llano, Josephine Johnson, independent executrix of the estate of Manuel De Llano, Blanca De Llano De Aguilar, Martha De Llano De Olivera, Fernando De Llano, Jr., as personal representative of the estate of Fernando De Llano, and Josefina De Llano, filed suit against appellees, Pablo Suess and Frost National Bank, Trustees of the John G. Kenedy, Jr. Charitable Trust, for the recovery of real property, asserting various tort claims. A jury returned a verdict in favor of appellees, finding against appellants on all liability theories and in favor of appellees= defenses. In six issues, appellants (1) question the finality of the judgment and the jurisdiction of the trial court, (2) contend the appearance of the Attorney General of the State of Texas violated the Texas and United States Constitutions, (3) contend appellees= appeal to race during closing argument was incurable, (4) contend the trial court erred in failing to disqualify attorney J. A. ATony@ Canales, and (5) contend the jury=s finding on adverse possession requires this Court to render judgment for appellants. We affirm.

A. Background

As this is a memorandum opinion and because all issues of law presented by this case are well settled and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite the law and the facts here except as necessary to advise the parties of this Court's decision and the basic reasons for it. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

B. Finality of Judgment

In their sixth issue, appellants contend the trial court=s judgment is not final because: (1) it adjudicated the claims of Athe Unknown Heirs of Carmen Morell Kenedy;@ (2) it failed to adjudicate appellees= counterclaim for attorneys fees; and (3) it failed to identify, with sufficient particularity, the real property interests involved.[1]

Appellants assert the judgment improperly adjudicates the claims of the unknown heirs of Carmen Morell Kenedy. However, even though a trial court grants more relief than it ought to grant, the judgment is nevertheless final. See Jacobs v. Satterwhite, 65 S.W.2d 653, 655 (Tex. 2001). An order that expressly disposes of the entire case is not interlocutory merely because the record fails to show an adequate motion or other legal basis for the disposition. Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 206 (Tex. 2001). Language that the plaintiff take nothing by his claims in the case, or that the case is dismissed, shows finality if there are no other claims by other parties. Id. at 205.

Appellants further assert that because appellees requested an award of attorneys fees as a counterclaim, and no language in the judgment specifically states that they take nothing by their counterclaims, the judgment is not final. However, when a judgment, not intrinsically interlocutory in character, is rendered and entered in a case regularly set for a conventional trial on the merits, it will be presumed for appeal purposes that the court intended to, and did, dispose of all parties legally before it and of all issues made by the pleadings between such parties. Moritz v. Preiss, 121 S.W.3d 715, 719 (Tex. 2003). Furthermore, claims raised by pleadings not expressly disposed of by a judgment are denied by implication. Rackley v. Fowlkes, 89 Tex. 613, 36 S.W. 77, 78 (1896).

The judgment specifically says it is a AFinal Judgment,@ acknowledges appellees as counter-plaintiffs, and awards appellees the substantive relief requested in their counterclaims. Appellees admit that they did not produce any evidence in support of their claim for attorneys fees. Accordingly, we conclude that appellees= claim for attorneys fees was implicitly denied.

Finally, appellants argue that the judgment fails to identify with sufficient particularity the real property interests involved. However, because appellants fail to cite to any authority for their contention, this argument is waived. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). Appellants= sixth issue is overruled.

C. Participation of Attorney General

In their first issue, appellants contend the trial court violated the Texas and United States Constitutions by allowing the Attorney General of the State of Texas to appear before the jury on behalf of appellees. They assert that the attorney general=s participation in this suit constitutes excessive entanglement of the State and religious organizations. We note that appellants did not raise this contention before the trial court.

The attorney general intervened in this matter pursuant to section 123.002 of the property code, which provides:

For and on behalf of the interest of the general public of this state in charitable trusts, the attorney general is a proper party and may intervene in a proceeding involving a charitable trust. The attorney general may join and enter into a compromise, settlement agreement, contract, or judgment relating to a proceeding involving a charitable trust.



Tex. Prop. Code Ann. '123.002 (Vernon 1995).



Immediately before voir dire, when asked if there were any other Ahousekeeping matters@ to address, without challenging the constitutionality of the statutory basis for the attorney general=s intervention, counsel for appellants expressed concern regarding the attorney general=s participation at trial. When asked by the trial court if appellants were making a motion, appellants= counsel responded:

We are asking the Court to either limit her participation or at least set some ground rules, because if she is allowed unfettered access to this litigation, she will be essentially acting in violation of the constitutional restrictions that are set out in the Texas Constitution that prohibit the interference or the assistance of the state to any particular religious group. And we believe that=s improper and illegal.



When asked a second time by the trial court what relief appellants were requesting, counsel responded:

. . . . We want the Court to set some very specific ground rules that will limit the presentation to the jury of any inference or possibility in their minds that they will perceive the State as lending its weight and prestige to a secular religious organization, which we believe is improper under the constitution. We need some rules, some relief that will protect the jury from seeing the attorney general or hearing the attorney general arguing or representing religious entities.



The trial court then set forth the requested parameters and asked appellants if there was anything else needed from the plaintiff=s perspective. Counsel for appellants stated, AThat=s it, your Honor.@

The record reflects that appellants did not challenge the constitutionality of section 123.002 of the property code. Appellants only asked the trial court to set parameters for the attorney general=s participation at trial, and the trial court granted appellants= request. The trial court then inquired whether there was anything else, and appellants stated they had no further requests.

Accordingly, we conclude that a constitutional challenge was not properly raised in the trial court, and a constitutional challenge not raised properly in the trial court is waived on appeal. See Wood v. Wood, 320 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. 1959); Walker v. Employees Ret. Sys., 753 S.W.2d 796, 798 (Tex. App.BAustin 1988, writ denied). Appellants= first issue is overruled.

D. Improper Jury Argument

In their second issue, appellants contend that appellees= appeal to race and national origin during closing argument constituted improper jury argument that was incurable. Specifically, appellants challenge the reference to Carmen Morell Kenedy as a Agood old Mexican gal@ and Alittle Mexicanita@ and a reference to Ahalf-Mexicans.@

Incurable reversible error occurs when any attorney suggests, either openly or with subtlety and finesse, that a jury feel solidarity with or animus toward a litigant or a witness because of race or ethnicity. Tex. Employers Ins. Ass=n v. Guerrero, 800 S.W.2d 859, 866 (Tex. App.BSan Antonio 1990, writ denied); see Mission Res., Inc. v. Garza Energry Trust, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 3443, at *45-46 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi May 5, 2005, no pet. h.) (Acourtroom strategies appealing to racial or ethnic biases are highly improper and unfairly prejudicial@). To prove incurable jury argument, the complaining party must show (1) improper argument was made; (2) that was not invited or provoked; (3) that was properly preserved at trial, such as by objection, motion to instruct or motion for mistrial; (4) error was not curable by instruction, prompt withdrawal of statement, or reprimand by judge; and (5) argument, by nature, degree, and extent, constituted reversible error based on examination of the entire record to determine the argument's probable effect on a material finding. See Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Reese, 584 S.W.2d 835, 839‑40 (Tex. 1979); Tex. Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Puckett, 822 S.W.2d 133, 135 (Tex. App.BHouston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied).

Appellees argue that none of the statements made during closing argument constitute incurable jury argument and, moreover, any statements made by appellees were provoked by appellants= own appeal to racial prejudice that began during voir dire and continued throughout the trial. We agree.

During voir dire, appellants questioned jurors about Tejano history and referred to Dr. Andres Tijerina, a Tejano historian, who would testify at trial. During opening argument, appellants referred to Carmen as a poor Mexican girl who had her property stolen. During trial, appellants called Dr. Tijerina, who testified at length about the adverse treatment of people of Mexican descent by people of Anglo heritage and the unfair acquisition of land by Anglos from people of Mexican descent. Appellants also presented testimony regarding the use of the Texas Rangers by Captain King to murder people of Mexican descent, steal their land, and use lawyers to fix the documents. We conclude that such comments and evidence invited or provoked the challenged argument. Appellees= argument was nothing more than an appeal to the jury to disregard ethnicity, an issue first raised by appellants in this case.[2] Appellants second issue is overruled.



E. Disqualification of Defense Counsel

In their third issue, appellants contend the trial court erred by failing to disqualify attorney J. A. ATony@ Canales. Because appellants fail to (1) include any record references, (2) set forth the law regarding the disqualification of attorneys, and (3) provide any substantive analysis regarding this issue, we conclude this issue is waived. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h) (AThe brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.@). Appellants= third issue is overruled.

F. Jurisdiction

Despite their success in opposing appellees= plea to the jurisdiction, in their fourth issue, appellants request A[o]ut of an abundance of caution and to finally settle the parties= jurisdictional dispute . . . a ruling from this Court stating which court properly may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this case. . . .@

In a plea to the jurisdiction, appellees argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because appellants= claims constituted an impermissible collateral attack on judgments issued by courts of competent jurisdiction. However, we conclude that appellants= petition was not an attack on these judgments. Appellants= petition did not contest the validity of Carmen=s or any other individual=s will, nor did it seek to set aside any orders. Rather, it sought to clarify what interest Carmen held in the capital stock of Kenedy Pasture Company. The admission of Carmen=s will to probate is irrelevant to appellants= right to recovery or to the issues presented by their petition.

Moreover, since appellants= petition did not seek to avoid the effect of the court=s order, the action is not a collateral attack. See Solomon, Lambert, Roth & Assoc. v. Kidd, 904 S.W.2d 896, 900 (Tex. App.BHouston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ) (collateral attack is one that attempts to avoid effect of judgment in proceeding brought for some other purpose and seeks to show original judgment is void). Appellants= fourth issue is overruled.

G. Adverse Possession

In their fifth issue, appellants contend the jury=s favorable finding on appellees= affirmative defense of adverse possession establishes that appellants had a Apresent possessory interest in real property.@ Therefore, appellants argue, this Court should render judgment for appellants for no less than one-fourth of all property interests and proceeds claimed by appellees. Appellants make this argument even though the jury found unanimously in favor of appellees, answering Ano@ to all liability questions.

An affirmative defense is by its nature "one of confession and avoidance" which seeks to establish an independent reason why the plaintiff should not prevail. Tex. Beef Cattle Co. v. Green, 921 S.W.2d 203, 212 (Tex. 1996). However, establishing an affirmative defense in no way relieves the plaintiff from proving the elements of his claim. If we were to accept appellants= argument that a finding of an element of an affirmative defense avoiding liability implicitly establishes the liability the defense seeks to avoid, we believe it would nullify the function of affirmative defenses. Accordingly, appellants= fifth issue is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.



FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA

Justice



Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this

the 16th day of June, 2005.

[1] At oral argument, appellants argued, for the first time, that the judgment does not adjudicate the rights of the Attorney General of the State of Texas. This argument was not briefed, and a new issue may not be presented for the first time at oral argument. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(e), 39.2; see also Vawter v. Garvey, 786 S.W.2d 263, 264 (Tex. 1990); In the Interest of C.A.K., 155 S.W.3d 554, 562 n.5 (Tex. App.BSan Antonio 2004, pet. filed).



[2] During closing argument, appellees= counsel, J. A. ATony@ Canales, argued:



This is a classic lawsuit abuse case, let me tell you right now. I am telling you. It is B they are doing nothing else but trying to squeeze money out of us. Why? Because 105 years ago one of their relatives, one of their relatives was an heir? Because they came over from Mexico, all of a sudden, because the politics of South Texas has changed and we now have a majority of Hispanic jurors? Do you know, just because you happen to be of Mexican descent doesn=t mean you are going to rule for somebody just for that. We are Americans; right? You told me B you promised me when we started this case, you are going to call it the way it is. I said in the beginning, this is not a case about a bunch of Rangers coming and killing a bunch of Mexicans and taking their property away. Remember I said that? Is this what this case is about?



U suck tony the VENDIDO, you embarrass your self. Now how did Bryan smith afford you? Celis was charged the same? Momma knows all the secrets but she told many in http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=32053574#

Why Corpus Christi needs a Law School..........

Because without a lawyer, a person untrained in the law has no idea what his rights are or how to assert them.......


Thursday, April 17, 2008

Thursday, April 17, 2008
Does The JP Court Conclude, The Prosecution of Unrepresented 12 Year Olds Is In The interests of Justice or Will The Court Require Representation and Appoint Counsel.


Art. 1.051. RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL.


(c) An indigent defendant is entitled to have an attorney
appointed to represent him in any adversary judicial proceeding
that may result in punishment by confinement and in any other
criminal proceeding if the court concludes that the interests of
justice require representation. Except as otherwise provided by
this subsection, if an indigent defendant is entitled to and
requests appointed counsel and if adversarial judicial proceedings
have been initiated against the defendant, a court or the courts'
designee authorized under Article 26.04 to appoint counsel for
indigent defendants in the county shall appoint counsel as soon as
possible, but not later than the end of the third working day after
the date on which the court or the courts' designee receives the
defendant's request for appointment of counsel. In a county with a
population of 250,000 or more, the court or the courts' designee
shall appoint counsel as required by this subsection as soon as
possible, but not later than the end of the first working day after
the date on which the court or the courts' designee receives the
defendant's request for appointment of counsel.
Posted by The Advocate at 3:03 PM
0 comments:





Jules: Wanna know what I'm buyin' Ringo?
Pumpkin: What?
Jules: Your life. I'm givin' you that money so I don't hafta kill your ass. You read the Bible?
Pumpkin: Not regularly.
Jules: There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you. I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a motherfucker before you popped a cap in his ass. But I saw some shit this mornin' made me think twice. Now I'm thinkin': it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could be you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd.

What does "reasonable" mean? Should counsel's performance be judged by reference to a reasonable paid attorney or a reasonable appointed one?

Dissenting opinion

Justice Marshall dissented from the majority's holding. He objected that the Court's newly crafted test was unlikely to "improve the adjudication of Sixth Amendment claims." In his view, the performance standard was "so malleable that, in practice, it will either have no grip at all or will yield excessive variation in the manner in which the Sixth Amendment is interpreted and applied by different courts." What does "reasonable" mean? Should counsel's performance be judged by reference to a reasonable paid attorney or a reasonable appointed one? After all, Marshall pointed out, "a person of means, by selecting a lawyer and paying him enough to ensure he prepares thoroughly, usually can obtain better representation than that available to an indigent defendant, who must rely on appointed counsel, who, in turn, has limited time and resources to devote to a given case." Marshall also disputed that counsel's performance must be given especially wide latitude, since "much of the work involved in preparing for trial, applying for bail, conferring with one's client, making timely objections to significant, arguably erroneous rulings of the trial judge, and filing a notice of appeal if there are colorable grounds therefor could profitably be made the subject of uniform standards."

Marshall also disputed that it should be made the defendant's burden to show prejudice from an allegedly incompetent attorney's performance. Nor should prejudice be measured solely with respect to the fairness of the outcome of the trial; the fairness of the procedure matters just as much. "The majority contends that the Sixth Amendment is not violated when a manifestly guilty defendant is convicted after a trial in which he was represented by a manifestly ineffective attorney. I cannot agree."

Marshall worried that the Court's admonition to future judges, presented with ineffective assistance claims should defer to counsel's strategic judgments, placed too heavy a burden on defendants making such claims.

Finally, Marshall took issue with the Court's conclusion that the same standard for ineffectiveness should apply in a capital sentencing proceeding that applies at an ordinary trial. The capital sentencing process is intended to be especially reliable, and "reliability in the imposition of the death sentence can be approximated only if the sentencer is fully informed of all possible relevant information about the individual defendant whose fate it must determine." The defendant's attorney is responsible for doing this. For this reason, and in light of the "severity and irrevocability of the sanction at stake," the standard for effective assistance in capital sentencing proceedings must be especially stringent. Accordingly, Marshall believed that a person on death row seeking relief from his death sentence on grounds of ineffective assistance should not have to show a reasonable probability that he would not have received a death sentence if counsel had presented more mitigating evidence. Because it was clear that Washington's attorney had failed to investigate and then present large amounts of information to the sentencing judge, Marshall concluded that Washington's lawyer was ineffective.

[edit] See also

AGIF News Bulletin~April 1955~ AN ARTICLE ENTITLED "EDGAR TAKEN TO FEDERAL COURT ON SEGREGATION CASES"

EDGAR TAKEN TO FEDERAL COURT ON SEGREGATION CASES

Commissioner of Education J. W. Edgar was made a defendant in two school segregation suits filed in Federal District Courts in Austin and Corpus Christi on April 19 and 23 respectively.

In both suits Edgar was made a defendant respectively in conjunction with the trustees of the Carrizo Springs Independent School District and those of the Kingsville Independent School District.

In both suits Edgar is charged with having been advised that segregation of children of Mexican descent existed and with failure to take any action. Consequently, by failing to discharge his duties under the law Edgar is charged with condoning, aiding, and abetting the two school districts in the violation of the law.

The petition also charged that Edgar participated in the customs, usages, and practices in Carrizo Springs and in Kingsville which resulted in segregation, and that Edgar did this "in utter disregard, violation and contempt of a permanent injunction granted against his predecessor in office, the State Superintendent of public Information, and equally applicable to Edgar."

The Carrizo Springs case involves segregation of children of Mexican descent in the first three grades. This case was filed in Austin by Attorney Chris Aldrete of Del Rio, former state chairman of the American GI Forum of Texas.

While Edgar has not held a hearing on the Carrizo case, he was advised last fall by Aldrete of the practice of segregation. subsequently a member of Edgar's own staff investigated the situation and reported to Edgar that he had found that segregation did exist.

The Kingsville case was appealed and heard by Edgar earlier this year. It involves gerrymandered school zones laid down for the purpose of getting a segregated junior high school in Kingsville.

Under the excuse that the stenographer who took the proceedings has not been able to transcribe the record, Edgar has ignored the pleas of Attorneys Gus C. Garcia and Homer M. Lopez of Kingsville for a ruling on the case.

The Kingsville case was filed in Federal Court in Corpus Christi by Attorneys Garcia and Lopez.

Both cases have the backing and sponsorship of the American GI Forum of Texas.

Plaintiffs in the Carrizo case include ten school children who are represented by their respective parents for purposes of the suit. Plaintiffs in the Kingsville case include five school children represented in the same fashion.

To be Continued.......

This researcher has acquired exclusive access to a private archive who wishes to remain anonymous, for teens then and especially now .........

Teenager's Lament
Originally published in April 1955 issue of the American GI Forum News Bulletin
Austin, Texas.

It was so short a time ago I was a young Lad. The world was a place of intrigue and adventure. I was going to do great things as a man. School held for me a library of knowledge and adventure and I was sure that behind each book case I would slowly step into another yardstick of manhood. My home was a place of love and understanding. A stronghold against the evils of the world. I was so ambitious. But alas! I was a dreamer. Today I am a youth, tomorrow a man. Yet I am so lost in a community of adults. I have lost sight of my goal. I have no place to go. School occupies so few of my hours. my community has failed me as a youth. I must wander in the streets as there is no recreation hall where I may meet my friends. there are no jobs for me. First because of my lack of experience; second because I am only a youth.

The recreation Hall for youth would teach me a trade. I am too big for playing in the park, I am too old for swimming in a park pool. What can I do? If I am caught wandering I am a vagrant;if I sleep, I am lazy. Can you help me? If I have no car, I am a square, yet I am a solid youth. Won't you give me a chance?

I am the one who will help you run your community. Won't you give me a back-log of knowledge so that I may do the job right? Won't you help me become a responsible citizen so that I too can be proud? Won't you give me a fulfilled dream to hand to my children?

Please, won't you help? I am only a youth and the world is before me.

~~~~~~~This short article was submitted by Mrs. Ann Dominguez of Pueblo, Colorado, who is herself an ex-teenager. It is reprinted to show the value of the Junior GI Forums in giving young people the backlog of knowledge which will prepare them for adulthood.

Is this the "Integrity" of "Education of CCISD" ~ Administrative Policy of Principal's "private Policy" used4 Public Educationlaw BILLS...

1 Comment - Show Original Post

Blogger Jaime Kenedeño said...

Dear Sirs,

There is a concerning precedent being set with the Nueces County JP Courts and specifically the Precinct 2 Place 2 Court Located in Flour Bluff ISD. Any objections or contesting of legal issues are first reacted to in “a playing of ignorance” and ADA’s pick the file up and retreat to a back room for “legal advice”. What is interesting from a layman’s perspective is whom did the ADA confer with in the back room? After all, the Republican JP is not a “Legally Trained” member of the Texas Bar Association but he does pack a Political Agenda. So why would an Attorney be asking a non-attorney for “Legal Advice”? Any citing of the Texas Statutes are vehemently disallowed as the intimidation tactics of pointing fingers, threats of going to jail and the filing of extraneous charges materialize. Most any average citizen would defer and succumb, but to their astonishment this was not the case for one family who stood up and called their bluff.

Initially, in October 8, 2006 the family lost their patriarch and the children were devastated. The children were out of school all except for one day that week and the parents turned in an excuse. On October 16, 2006 charges were filed for Non-attendance and Parent contributing to non-attendance. Any absences occurring after October 16, 2006 are excluded (by law) as evidence for this particular case filed on October 16, 2006. The calculations are in error as the record inaccurately reflects the absences as unexcused when in fact the written excuses were submitted in a timely manner and are verifiable. It is possibly a simple error however, it lingers uncorrected.

In the case filed on October 16, 2006 satisfactory attendance evidence has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Superintendent Scott Eliff (*statement to be submitted in evidence). Also the statements made in writing by King High School Assistant Principal Lisa Trevino are in violation of the Civil Rights afforded to all Americans as the statement demonstrates retaliation by a KHS Administrator for pleading NOT GUILTY to the allegations made on October 16, 2006. (**To be submitted into evidence). Is it the norm to claim a student in non-compliance with attendance policies simply because he pleaded NOT GUILTY? Furthermore, is not it a violation of one’s Civil Rights to claim a student in non-compliance with attendance policies simply because he pleaded NOT GUILTY?

February 26, 2008 2:03 AM

An opportunity is thus a type of liberty or freedom for it involves the absence of prohibitions or obstacles limiting what agents may or can do.......

ISEC 2005

Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress
International Special Education Conference
Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity?

1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland
home
about the conference
programme
registration
accommodation
contact
Equality of Opportunity as a Rationale for Inclusive Education

Dr. Christian Liesen
Institute for Special Education – University of Zurich, Switzerland
Hirschengraben 48, CH-8001 Zurich
liesen@isp.unizh.ch


This paper seeks to discuss whether the principle of equality of opportunity could serve as a rationale for inclusive education. The first section aims at positioning the topic within the inclusive education discourse, narrowing down the scope. The second section presents a brief analysis of the notion of ‘equality of opportunity’ as well as some of its implications, while the third section addresses the question of how we are to know whether opportunities are equal. The last section seeks to draw some conclusions with respect to inclusive education. – It should be pointed out that the paper is solely meant for discussion.

1. The case for inclusive education: reasons and rationales

Many arguments have been brought forward to strengthen the case for inclusive education. Yet it is not always easy to follow the lines of reasoning, and little reflection is needed to notice certain contradictions and ambiguities and a good deal of eclecticism in the literature. The crux is, as Alan Dyson observed, that

(i)nclusion is different from many other fields of inquiry in that it is premised on an answer rather than a question. That ‘answer’, of course, is that inclusive education is superior in one or other way to non-inclusive education. The strength in this position is that it enables a relatively young field to define and advance itself in the face of considerable hostility. (…) The danger, however, is that it becomes all too easy for thinking on inclusion to descend from analysis to polemic, and for certain values and beliefs to become ossified, ultimately to the detriment of those marginalized groups on whose interests the inclusion movement claims to act. ( Dyson, 1999, p. 43f. )

Dyson has suggested to distinguish between two different but intersecting dimensions of the inclusive education movement: One is primarily concerned with providing a rationale for inclusion, whereas the other concentrates on the realisation of inclusion. Each dimension can again be subdivided into different discourses as follows. A rationale for inclusive education is either sought with reference to rights and social justice or by rigorously questioning the efficacy of special education (while claiming the superiority of inclusive education). The realisation of inclusion is frequently discussed either with respect to the political struggle for the implementation of inclusive education, or it is concerned with what inclusive education looks like inpractice (cf. Dyson, 1999, pp. 38-43 ). It is safe to say that these two dimensions / four discourses deliver a felicitous depiction of the inclusion debate’s crucial building blocks.

This paper is concerned with adumbrating the question whether equality of opportunity could serve as a rationale for inclusive education. It belongs, hence, in the context of the rights and social justice discourse. Concededly, the most important (and most interesting) question would actually be how the different building blocks interrelate, or ought to interact, in order to achieve progress in the field. Dyson does offer some very sensible and perspicacious suggestions on this (cf. ibid., pp. 44-48). The line of reasoning chosen here, by contrast, will allow only for a few rather cautious remarks in the final part of the paper. Proposed is the idea of merging, in a way, ethical considerations and empirical research in order to substantiate the case for inclusive education. As a consequence, some fundamental policy issues will emerge, alongside certain difficulties inherent to the rhetoric of inclusion.

2. Equality of opportunity

Let us shed, as a first step, some light on the principle of equality of opportunity. Peter Westen (1990) has presented an illuminating formal analysis. He states that opportunity

designates both a single concept and a multiplicity of conceptions. Each opportunity is like every other in that all opportunities reflect a certain formal relationship among agents, obstacles, and goals; but each opportunity also differs from other opportunities in that each is a relationship among particular agents, particular obstacles, and particular goals. ( Westen, 1990 , p. 171, italics added)

This may seem simple enough. Nevertheless, an important point with respect to the rhetoric of opportunity is already implied here: When opportunities are stated as a reason for, say, political action, speakers often do not specify the particular agents, obstacles, and/or goals they have in mind. Such a speech may still meet with approval although the underlying conceptions of speaker and listener may turn out to be radically different on closer examination. Rhetorical difficulties like these should be kept in mind.

Equal opportunities do not lead to equal outcomes. On the contrary, equal opportunities lead to inequality. There is sense in which a strong commitment to equality of opportunity is incompatible with equality of outcomes, and a society that aims at equalising opportunity is very different from a society that aims at equalising outcomes. The reason is that

(a)n ‘opportunity’ to attain a goal is a chance to attain a goal, not necessarily a guarantee of attaining it. Insofar as people have opportunities that are less than guarantees of what they wish, some of them will inevitably attain goals that others fail to attain. To create equal opportunity, therefore, is virtually always to allow people ‘to become unequal by competing against [their] fellows.’ (Westen, 1990, p. 176f.)

That equality of opportunity leads to inequality has some deeper implications. It can be argued that opportunities express and deliver a certain kind of liberty or freedom which is essential for society and which can not be achieved otherwise. Equality of opportunity is indispensable. T.D. Campbell enunciates the point as follows:

An opportunity may be said to occur when an agent is in a situation in which he may choose whether or not to perform some effortful act which is considered to be desirable in itself or as means to the attainment of some goal which is considered to be desirable. An opportunity is thus a type of liberty or freedom for it involves the absence of prohibitions or obstacles limiting what agents may or can do or acquire. […] (A)n opportunity is something which the agent may or may not take advantage of depending on whether or not he chooses to do so. One of the points about describing a situation as an opportunity is that this indicates that the outcome of the situation depends in part on the choices made by the person who has the opportunity. Opportunities can always be missed or passed up, neglected or rejected. Of course I may be forced to have an opportunity (as when I was compelled to go to school) but it is not an opportunity which I am forced to have if the attainment of the desired goal does not depend to some extent on my choices, that is, for instance, if whether or not I become educated as distinct from go to school, does not depend to some extent on my own volitions. If education as such could be compelled then we would not speak of educational opportunity, at least not in those cases where it is compelled. ( Campbell, 1975, p. 51/54, italics added )

It is true, of course, that not all opportunities are of particular concern to us. People do not care for all kinds of opportunities; they care first and foremost for educational and occupational opportunities. A ‘fair’ or ‘equal’ distribution of opportunities is relevant and vital especially in these domains. What comes into play here, then, is that equality of opportunity must be seen as a matter of distributive justice. A just society will usually seek to equalise opportunities in the sense of distributing them fair an equal. It is worth noticing, however, that opportunities can not be created or distributed at will. Westen notes that

creating one opportunity may mean denying another. Thus, whenever a society creates an opportunity by removing an obstacle that affects people differentially, it denies people the opportunity to benefit from the differential. And, whenever a society creates an opportunity by removing human obstacles, it denies people the opportunity to exploit those obstacles. This does not mean that societies should refrain from creating opportunities. It means, rather, that … the significant question for opportunity is not ‘Whether opportunity?’ but ‘Which opportunities?’ (Westen, 1990, p. 171)

Consequently and in most cases, with equality of opportunity as a rationale for inclusive education, apparently interests will have to be balanced. The interests of those who are excluded from participating effectively in society – of which the education system forms an essential part – will have to be weighed against the interests of those who are successful within such a framework and ‘benefit from the given differential’. A society will therefore have to deliberate about equalising opportunities, which is, ultimately, a democratic process (belonging to the realisation dimension).

It should be emphasized, however, that when a mismatch between a person’s situation and what may be called the dominant cooperative framework of society occurs, the results may be devastating. Being excluded from participating in the most basic interactions and cooperation of society strongly calls for compensation and adjustment. On this basic level, the interest in inclusion will by and large outweigh the interests of those who may be deprived of being as successful as they could be otherwise. If people are denied basic opportunities in this sense, they will normally be in the position of making strong claims in the cause of justice. But the question of particular interest is then, of course, ‘How do we know they are denied these opportunities?’, or more general, ‘How do we know whether opportunities are equal or not?’, e.g. in an education system.

3. How do we know when opportunities are equal?

We have seen so far that we should focus our attention on educational and occupational opportunities; that opportunities secure individual liberty and freedom and lead, consequently, to inequalities; and that equality of opportunity is a matter of distributive justice and may result in strong claims of justice in at least some cases. But on what grounds is it legitimate to judge whether opportunities are equal or not? How do we assess and evaluate equality of opportunity, especially with respect to inclusive education?

There is a substantive answer to this question. Any inquiry into whether opportunities in a given society are equal or not – or within parts of a society, such as the education system – will have to start from ascertainable inequalities under the prevailing circumstances. These inequalities will have to be sufficiently and adequately described in a way that most people would agree is accurate. (We will look at an example in a moment.)

The crucial point to be addressed will be whether or not the portrayed inequalities indicate that the principle of equality of opportunity has been violated. Onora O’Neill (1977) has argued that two different positions suggest themselves. One may be called the ‘formal’ (or ‘liberal’) position. It stresses that inequalities are due to the fact that people may choose to or refrain from taking advantage of the opportunities at hand. The members of society may be extremely unequal in educational and occupational attainment, but if so, it must be the result of the varying capacities, volitions, and desires of those to whom the respective selection procedures are applied. Once the distributive and selective procedures are fair, there is nothing left to complain about. As O’Neill points out,

(s)uch an ‘equal-opportunity society’ would … not be characterized by equal incomes or equal property holdings or equal standards of living or of education. (…) Equal opportunity in the formal sense does not ensure equal success or equal health or equal status, but only the fair application of the rules governing the pursuit of such goods. This is the equality of opportunity of … a society in which there are winners and losers, and in which winning appears often as merited by the winners and losing as deserved by the losers – for did they not all have equal opportunity to win? ( O'Neill, 1977 , p. 180)

The other position may be called the ‘substantive’ (or ‘egalitarian’) position. It stresses that inequalities must not indicate a disproportionate success of certain social groups in a society. Instead, all major social groups – but not all individuals – must fare equally well.

An equal-opportunity society on the substantive view is one in which the success rates of all major social groups are the same. (…) A strong commitment to substantive equality of opportunity demands that any under-representation of some group in some line of employment / income group / educational group be due solely to the unmanipulated choice of members of that group. (…) Substantively equal opportunity is achieved when the success rates of certain major social groups – such as the two sexes, various ethnic groups and perhaps various age groups – are equalized. It is not breached when there are large differences between the most- and least-successful members of these groups, provided that there are equally large differences between the most- and least-successful members of other major social groups. It is not true in a society which aims at substantively equal opportunities that all individuals have the same chance of any given type of success. For individuals are all members of many differently defined groups, and substantive equality of opportunity seeks only to equalize their chances qua members of certain major social groups; it seeks to eliminate inter-group differences, but not to alter intra-group ones. ( O'Neill, 1977 , p. 181-83)

This position is ready to acknowledge that people’s perspectives in life are not exclusively ascribable to a person’s capacities, volitions, and desires. As a matter of fact, there are disadvantages which are undeserved and beyond individual control, such as being disabled or of old age. The ‘substantive’ position is concerned with identifying adequate characteristics of major social groups to enable sound comparisons and call for compensation where needed.

To illustrate, a good example are some results from the PISA study (cf. www.pisa.oecd.org). The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an internationally standardised assessment that was jointly developed by the participating countries (30 OECD member states plus 13 associated countries in the first assessment in 2000; at least 58 countries will participate in the next assessment in 2006). PISA claims to assess “how far students near the end of compulsory education have acquired some of the knowledge and skills that are essential for full participation in society.” The idea is to give information about the capacities and the potential of education systems. Does an education system prepare students well?

It is only recently that OECD has published some findings concerning equity and quality in the light of the PISA 2000 results. The report states that

(i)n sum, PISA 2000 results show that students in integrated education systems perform, on average, better than those in selective education systems, and that their educational performance is less dependent on their background. Many factors may be at play here. A higher average performance suggests that the more heterogeneous student groups or classes in integrated education systems could have a beneficial effect for the lower-performing students. Also, the flexibility offered by an integrated system may allow students to improve their performance while keeping their academic options open. ( OECD, 2005 , p. 89)

In the main findings section, the report reads:

A striking result was the advantage that comprehensive education systems appear to have in terms of student performance (quality). PISA 2000 results suggest that the performance of students enrolled in comprehensive education systems is less dependent on their socio-economic background. ( ibid., p. 94)

From the perspective of equality of opportunity, it is not so much the aspect of performance (‘quality’) that is of interest here but rather the aspect of uncoupling socio-economic background and performance (‘equity’). There are some countries – Germany is a sad example – in which the social background of a student has a very strong impact (‘predictive power’) on student performance. This means, to put the matter bluntly, that it is not a student’s capacity to perform that determines what he or she will achieve, but first and foremost his or her socio-economic background. The result is that students with a low social background are manifestly underrepresented on the higher levels of the education system.

The ‘liberal’ position has no option but to ascribe this situation to individual factors, say, motivation or ability. This is highly implausible, at least in the case of countries that have had to experience a rude awakening by PISA, such as Germany or Switzerland. ‘Substantive’ equality of opportunity, on the other hand, is precisely concerned with cases like these: Members of a major social group – i.e., students with a lower socio-economic background – are disadvantaged due to factors that are undeserved and beyond individual control, while other groups display disproportionate success. This does call for an equalisation of opportunities.



4. Equality of opportunity and inclusive education: some considerations

In the final part of this paper, I would like to draw some conclusions concerning equality of opportunity and inclusive education.

First, I think that equality of opportunity can serve as a rationale for inclusive education if and only if inclusion is understood in the sense of equity. This would mean to adopt the substantive view of equal opportunity, and will require to provide empirical evidence to show that a major social group of society is indeed undeservedly disadvantaged. It would also mean to suggest that some form of inclusive education is the right course of action to take.

Second, to provide a rationale for inclusive education is obviously very different from the realisation of inclusive education. It should be kept in mind that other interests will have to be allowed for as well and that there might be considerable opposition, even if the claims could compellingly be shown to be legitimate ones. This should not belie the fact, however, that being in the position to provide a rationale for inclusive education is very different from simply claiming that it is right. It is precisely because different and mutually incompatible interests are involved that arguments have to be provided (and there are some highly interesting contributions in this kind of spirit, for example Booth & Ainscow, 1998; Pijl, Meijer & Hegarty, 1997; Vitello & Mithaug, 1998 ).

Third, if this idea bears any validity at all, it has to be pointed out that the rhetoric of inclusion tends to disguise some fundamental points here, especially in relation to policy. For example, the rhetoric of ‘celebrating diversity’ tends to downplay the fact that different legitimate interests are involved and have to be balanced. Cause for concern gives also the factor that any policy perspective will always have to operate along the lines of defining social groups. It may come as a surprise that this is not only due to administrative reasons (cf. Dever, 1990 ) but is also demanded from an ethically informed perspective. There are no claims of distributive justice – and hence no rationale for inclusive education – without the construction of social groups. The talk of heterogeneity isn’t much help in these matters, the more so as it quite often blurs who is thought to be the target group of inclusion within the inclusive education discourse.

Fourth, it will be as unavoidable as it is fruitful to strive to merge ethical considerations and empirical research in some respect. The idea behind this is that an empirical basis is indispensable in order to substantiate claims, while at the same time ethical considerations are indispensable to provide a sensible interpretative framework for empirical findings and to draw sound conclusions. One main feature of these arguments, reasons and rationales is that they must be eligible to convince others on grounds they can not reasonably reject – to convincingly argue the case.

Fifth, there seems to be a broad consensus that inclusive education has to be conceptualised as a general education topic, not as another issue of special education. Equality of opportunity might help us to engross the implications of what this actually means. It might help us to see the big picture.

Sixth, it has to be pointed out that there is not one choice in these matters, but many. There is no unequivocal course of action to take. Dyson’s proposal to talk not of inclusion, but of inclusions, and to seek not a single form but a wide range of inclusive practice and organisation (1999, p. 46), deserves a good deal more of attention. Moreover, I think the field of special education should be very serious about Seamus Hegarty’s remark that inclusive education has to be about changing and modifying system in a way that preserves all its strengths (cf. Hegarty, 1998 , p. 156).

References

BOOTH T. & AINSCOW M. (eds.) (1998) From Them to Us. An International Study of Inclusion in Education. London: Routledge.

CAMPBELL T.D. (1975) Equality of Opportunity. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 75, 51-68.

DEVER R.B. (1990) Defining Mental Retardation from an Instructional Perspective. Mental Retardation 28 (3), 147-53.

DYSON A. (1999) Inclusion and Inclusions: Theories and Discourses in Inclusive Education. IN Daniels H. & Garner P. (eds.) World Yearbook of Education 1999: Inclusive Education. London: Kogan, 36-53.

HEGARTY S. (1998) Challenges to Inclusive Education: A European Perspective. IN Vitello S. & Mithaug D.E. (eds.) Inclusive Schooling: National and International Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 151-65.

O'NEILL O. (1977) How Do We Know When Opportunities Are Equal? IN Vetterling-Braggin M., Elliston F.A. & English J. (eds.) Feminism and Philosophy. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 177-89.

OECD (2005) School Factors Related to Quality and Equity. Results from Pisa 2000. Paris: OECD.

PIJL S.J., MEIJER C. & HEGARTY S. (eds.) (1997) Inclusive Education: A Global Agenda. London: Routledge.

VITELLO S. & MITHAUG D.E. (eds.) (1998) Inclusive Schooling. National and International Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

WESTEN P. (1990) Speaking of Equality. An Analysis of the Rhetorical Force of Equality in Moral and Legal Discourse. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact
The University of Strathclyde Association of Directors of Education in Scotland NASEN Inclusive Technology Ltd Greater Glasgow & Clyde Valley Tourist Board Virtual Staff College

DeLay claimed that too many people of color had volunteered to join the military in order to escape poverty, thus leaving no room for patriotic conser

NATIONAL NEWS
'Chicken Hawks' are Flapping their Wings over War with Iraq
by George E. Curry


That loud clucking sound you hear coming from the nation’s capital did not originate at KFC, Popeye’s, or the neighborhood wing joint. It’s coming from chicken hawks, those now thirsting for a war with Iraq but were chicken when it was their turn to serve in the military.

Let’s start with “Dubya.” The president joined the Texas Air National Guard in 1968 rather than serve in the military. He apparently used the connections of his father, who was a congressman and war hero, to join the Guard, leapfrogging thousands whose names were already on the waiting list.

Vice President Dick Chaney obtained student deferments and then a marital deferment to avoid Vietnam. He explained that he had “other priorities” than military service. Attorney General John Ashcroft did not serve, opting to get a deferment to teach business at Southwest Missouri State University.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was a Navy pilot and flight instructor from 1954 to 1957 but did not see combat.

Although Republican leaders in Congress are more hawkish than Democrats, that’s in rhetoric only. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt and House Minority Whip David Bonior served in the military. On the Republican side, Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, Senate Minority Whip Don Nickles, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, House Majority Leader Dick Armey and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay did not serve.

DeLay claimed that too many people of color had volunteered to join the military in order to escape poverty, thus leaving no room for patriotic conservatives like him. So instead of fighting in Vietnam, DeLay declared war on roaches and bugs as an exterminator.

Some of the most famous talking heads on television also did not serve in the military, including George Will, Bill O’Reilly, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Pat Buchanan, Alan Keys and Rush Limbaugh, the royal pain who said he did not serve because of “anal cysts.”

Other notable chicken hawks are Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, Senator Joe Lieberman, Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, Rep. Bob “B-1” Dornan, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Secretary of Education William Bennett and former congressman and ex-vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp, who failed his physical exam but was healthy enough to play professional football. (For an extensive list of chicken hawks on the Internet, go to the New Hampshire Gazette’s site at www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html or www.awolbush.com.)

Interestingly, the most vocal opponents of a war against Iraq are retired military generals, including Brent Scowcroft, the elder Bush’s national security adviser and Gulf War Commander Norman Schwarzkopf.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, a retired Army general, wrote in “My American Journey,” his autobiography: “I particularly condemn the way our political leaders supplied the manpower for that [Vietnam] war. The policies – determining who would be drafted and who would be deferred, who would serve and who would escape, who would die and who would live – were an antidemocratic disgrace.”

In the interest of full disclosure, when I was editor of “The Aurora,” my school paper at Knoxville College in Tennessee, I was among 250 student leaders who signed a “We Won’t Go” to Vietnam petition that was submitted to President Richard Nixon. Of those, 12 were invited to hold a new conference in Washington, D.C. And two of us appeared on the “Today Show” to state our case.

On national TV, I expressed opposition to the Vietnam War on moral grounds and stated that I would refuse to go to Vietnam if drafted. I stated that I was willing to suffer the consequences of my decision and explained that I would not flee to Canada to avoid whatever government authorities had in store for me.

My Selective Service Board wasn’t exactly pleased with my position and sought to have me drafted. It was a big relief, especially to my family, when doctors at the induction center discovered that I have enlarged lymph nodes, which disqualified me for military service.

I am proud of the stand I took more than three decades ago. Although I objected to our involvement in the war, I respected the men who had volunteered to fight in Vietnam, including some of my close friends. We made different choices and had the courage of our convictions. But I have no respect for chicken hawks who avoided military service but are now eager to send other parents’ kids to war.

If we go to war, it’s unlikely that the brunt of that conflict will be felt by sons and daughters of the wealthy or politically connected.

Colin Powell also wrote in his autobiography, “I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well placed and so many professional athletes (who were probably healthier than any of us) managed to wangle slots in Reserve or National Guard units. Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country.”

Powell published that seven years ago. Today, he is working for the Number One Chicken Hawk.


George E. Curry is editor-in-chief of the NNPA News Service and BlackPressUSA.com.
####

Congress needs to just toss it in the trash and start over.......

America is racing headlong into a serious recession (depression?) and Bush doesn't have a clue what to do about it. He clearly shows this with the ridiculous budget he has sent to Congress. He has proposed a budget that will set a record level of deficit spending, but does very little for the ordinary Americans who need help.

It will give many Americans a few hundred dollars in a one-time giveaway, but this does nothing to solve the problems these people face -- rising prices, stagnant wages, record home foreclosures, disappearing jobs, and a broken healthcare system. The only real effect this "stimulus package" will have is to increase profits for the corporations (who are already making more money than ever).

Then, to make things worse, he wants to make permanent trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy. Again, this is helping the people who don't need any help, but does nothing for those who need help.

Then he wants to give the military-industrial complex a huge 7.5% increase, while demanding that most social programs settle for 1% (far below the inflation rate) and others get cut or eliminated. Again, he's helping the rich and punishing everyone else.

He even wants to slash education funds by $3.2 billion. Of course these cuts will have to be made up by middle and working class people on the state and local level -- the very people the recession is hitting the hardest.

And he doesn't leave the elderly out either while dishing out the pain. He wants to cut Medicare by another $200 billion. This program is already so underfunded by Republicans that two-thirds of doctors refuse to take new Medicare patients. How will an elderly person be able to find a doctor after those new cuts?

I have to stop before I throw up. Bush's new budget is an abomination. It is not even worth amending. Congress needs to just toss it in the trash and start over.

It is time for Democrats to finally stand up to Bush and act to protect ordinary Americans. They must say no to every part of this insane budget.

Labels: budget, Bush

He demanded equal opportunity for Mexican-American students, who were separated from Anglo students and taught in subpar facilities with inexperience

Garcia's greatest passion: education

By Adriana Garza (Contact)
Originally published 04:33 a.m., January 18, 2008
Updated 04:33 a.m., January 18, 2008


Dr. Hector P. Garcia was born 94 years ago this week in a small southern town in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, one of seven children born to parents who were teachers.

His life would come to symbolize the hope and activism that marked the Hispanic civil rights struggle, and his actions helped to change the Hispanic experience in the country forever. Birthday celebrations in Corpus Christi and San Antonio on Thursday honored that vision and life mission.

He was passionate about many things -- practicing medicine, fighting for equal rights for Hispanic veterans -- but his greatest passion may have been for education.

Garcia, founder of the American GI Forum, developed a love for learning early in life.

His family -- parents Jose and Faustina Garcia and his six siblings -- fled from revolution-torn Mexico to the Rio Grande Valley in 1917.

Jose was forced to leave his teaching career behind and open a dry-goods store to support his family.

But education remained a cornerstone of the Garcia family.

Jose used the edifice of his grocery store as a quasi-schoolroom and taught his children the basics, including English.

Young Hector was sometimes difficult to corral for his lessons. His love for baseball often rivaled his love for learning and served as a distraction. But life always came back to learning.

Garcia would go on to earn a bachelor's degree from the University of Texas and a medical degree from the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. His siblings all became educated professionals.

Education became a focus for Garcia and his American GI Forum. The civil rights leader took on school segregation and became an important and public figure on the issue. He demanded equal opportunity for Mexican-American students, who were separated from Anglo students and taught in subpar facilities with inexperienced teachers.

At home, he was just as demanding when it came to schooling. For Dr. Hector, education was more than just a cause, it was a deeply personal commitment.

Cecilia Akers, one of Dr. Hector's three daughters, said her father set high standards for his children, especially when it came to grades and schoolwork.

"He was so intense about us finishing school," Akers said. "When we were 8 and 9 he was already trying to get us to focus on what we were going to do for a career."

Coming home from school with a B or a C was bad news for the Garcia children. Dr. Hector expected all A's.

While growing up with such high expectations was difficult, Akers, a physical therapist, now appreciates her father's passion for education. In keeping with his motto, "Education is freedom and freedom is everyone's business," Garcia believed it was education that would ensure his daughters' independence, Akers said.

"He wanted us all to be independent," Akers said. "He didn't want us to have to depend on a man or anyone to support us. He was really ahead of his time."

Former staff reporter and Corpus Christi native Adriana Garza is pursuing a master's degree in political science at Texas A&M; University-Kingsville. Contact her at adriana.garza@tamuk.edu.

View latest stories with comments »

Any "indicating" as defined by the Texas Family Code Section 51.03(b) 1 ~ CCISD is guilty of fraud

(b) A child taken into custody may be detained prior to hearing on the petition only if:

1. the child is likely to abscond or be removed from the court's jurisdiction;
2. suitable supervision, care, or protection for the child is not being provided by a parent, guardian, custodian, or other person;
3. the child has no parent, guardian, custodian, or other person able to return the child to the court when required;
4. the child may be dangerous to himself or herself or the child may threaten the safety of the public if released;
5. the child has previously been found to be a delinquent child or has previously been convicted of a penal offense punishable by a term in jail or prison and is likely to commit an offense if released; or
6. the child's detention is required under subsection (f), below.

(c) If the child is not released, a request for detention hearing shall be made and promptly presented to the court, and an informal detention hearing shall be held promptly, but not later than the second working day after the child is taken into custody. If the child is taken into custody on a Friday or Saturday, then the detention hearing shall be held on the first working day after the child is taken into custody.

(d) A release of a child to an adult must be conditioned on the agreement of the adult to be subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and to an order of contempt by the court if the adult, after notification, is unable to produce the child at later proceedings.

(e) If a child being released under this section is expelled from school in a county with a population greater than 125,000, the release shall be conditioned on the child's attending a juvenile justice alternative education program pending a deferred prosecution or formal court disposition of the child's case.

(f) A child who is alleged to have engaged in delinquent conduct and to have used, possessed, or exhibited a firearm in the commission of the offense shall be detained until the child is released at the direction of the judge of the juvenile court, a substitute judge, or a referee appointed, including an oral direction by telephone, or until a detention hearing is held.

Education is our freedom, Fund education not i incarceration our we will get other representation!

Private Agenda funding puppet politicians publically policy provisions
Posted on September 12, 2007 at 03:37:54 AM by Oh Banking in the Cayman USA

AUSTIN -- Texas has spent more than $250,000 to provide security for Gov. Rick Perry and his wife during international trips, state records show.

Most of the trips were touted as economic development missions, but the security tally also includes a Grand Cayman vacation last year and a 2004 trip to the Bahamas with campaign donors that the governor's office said was to discuss education.

The Texas Department of Public Safety has spent $259,428 on the Governor Protective Detail for nine trips since 2004, according to figures obtained by Texas newspapers.

When it comes to Perry's direct expenses, travel costs are normally covered by a privately funded economic development program overseen by his office, business contributions or his campaign. But the state covers security costs.

"Whenever the governor travels, we go with him. That's the way it's been with past governors," DPS spokesman Tom Vinger said.

Perry spokesman Robert Black said the governor's travel is important to advancing his economic development agenda.

"As the leader of the 10th largest economy in the world, the governor has made job creation and economic development a cornerstone of his administration, and that means ... bringing jobs to this state, whether from inside our own country or from around the world," Black said Tuesday.

The DPS highway patrol budget, financed mostly by the state gasoline tax and vehicle registration fees, funds the security detail.

http://www.caller.com/news/2007/aug/9/perrys-security-on-trips-costs-259k/

Replies:

Bright Street once upon a time was indeed very bright

Columnists
Dr. Hector's office is a tragic indictment

By Nick Jimenez (Contact)
Originally published 12:00 a.m., July 29, 2007
Updated 04:46 a.m., July 29, 2007





There are three vacant buildings in Corpus Christi whose future remain unresolved. All played a significant role in the life of the city. All stand vacant. That the buildings have stood for years without a dignified resolution is a travesty. But of the three, the suspended state of the former offices of Dr. Hector P. Garcia is the most tragic.

The building that once housed Garcia's office on Bright Street is so small that one can hardly believe that a giant worked there. He was a giant of human compassion who worked big dreams on behalf of humble people. The politically mighty and those who wanted to be mighty went to those small offices on Bright to wait their turn among the families so poor they could only pay in small increments, or sometimes not pay at all. He was a doctor who decided that what ailed the poor needed more than medical treatments; they needed to be healed of the afflictions of discrimination, of poor schools, of the squalor of privies and bad housing and of being denied simple human dignity. Garcia was the voice for people whose cry for help would not otherwise be heard in the halls of Washington, D.C. and Austin.

Now those offices are silent. And why the building has remained in limbo for more than a decade is frustrating to anyone who desires to honor the memory of the man who worked to show what "all men are created equal" really means.

Memorial Coliseum, one of the other two buildings, is caught in a question of whether it should survive at all. Recent efforts to stop the most visible signs of decay haven't erased the fact that it's a building without a use. And the search to find a use is now under Council member Mike Hummell. There is sentiment attached to the Coliseum because of its dedication to war dead. But new and better memorials can be re-dedicated elsewhere. Unlike the Coliseum, preserving the memory of Dr. Garcia can't be done by turning the Bright Street building into a mercado.

The old Nueces County Courthouse, I think, simply defies the public will to be rid of it. There's significant public support for keeping the Coliseum in some form, but, outside of historical preservationists, it's hard to work up a civic soft spot for the courthouse. Many cities restore old courthouses so they become sources of community pride. But this is Corpus Christi, where civic pride goes to ruin. Too expensive to fix up and too expensive to tear down, the courthouse simply makes our collective head hurt.

Unlike the courthouse, the building on Bright Street would, under the right leadership, undoubtedly attract enough supporters to turn it into something that would honor the memory of Dr. Garcia. No one wants to tear tear down the building, though for a while, neglect seemed to have a head start on its demise. Unlike the historical buildings that have been moved to Heritage Park, you just can't pick up up the building and plunk it down somewhere else and still retain its place in history. Its significance is tied to the people and neighborhoods Dr. Garcia ministered to. There's no architectural signficance to the non-descript brick structure. It only stands for the spirit of caring that resided in it.

A story by reporter Adriana Garza on the occasion of the 11th anniversary of Dr. Hector's death this week recounted the depressing history of the building since it was vacated. How every effort to launch a preservation effort has come to nothing. The building is owned by the National Archives and Historical Foundation of the American GI Forum. The foundation chairman, Amador Garcia, refuses to acknowledge the failures. "This is something I call a work in progress." Yes, if you consider resignations of board members, calls for an investigation, and unresponsiveness to demands for an audit a "work in progress."

Garcia's daughter believes the building should become a clinic for the indigent; others say a museum or a place of scholarship to study the doctor's life. Yes, to any and all of those ideas. Just don't let the Bright Street building remain an indictment of our uncaring memory to a great man.

Nick Jimenez is editorial page editor of the Caller-Times. Phone: 886-3787; e-mail: jimenezn@caller.com.

Juan M. Garcia is no Dr. Hector......unless he moves his office to Bright Street

Post by dannoynted1

Holiday for Dr. Hector

Local representative, leader's family propose day of honor

By Jaime Powell Caller-Times
February 4, 2007



The family of late civil rights leader Dr. Hector P. Garcia, with the help of a local state representative, is pushing for legislation that would create a state holiday in his honor.

Rep. Juan Garcia, D-Corpus Christi, who is not related to the doctor, is working with the Legislative Counsel in drafting a bill, which should be filed this week.

He has the backing of Reps. Abel Herrero, D-Robstown, Solomon Ortiz Jr., D-Corpus Christi, and Juan Escobar, D-Kingsville, and Sens. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, D-McAllen, and Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo. Sen. Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, and Reps. Ryan Guillen, D-Rio Grande City, and Yvonne Gonzalez Toureilles, D-Kingsville, could not be reached.

Garcia said the local delegation is serious about getting the bill passed.

"This is not a ceremonial, meaningless resolution. This is a bill we hope to get implemented," Garcia said. "Things such as Sunflower Day or Bolo Tie Day are offered as a resolution. We intend to offer this as a bill and see it through."

If Garcia's push is successful, the legislation would not result in a mandatory day off for Texas students or workers, but instead would serve to ensure that the late doctor's life work and legacy is preserved for future generations, Garcia said. It would incorporate into the state academic curriculum lessons learned from Dr. Garcia's efforts on behalf of civil rights and veterans causes. How that would happen is still in the works, Garcia said.

The holiday would fall on the third Wednesday in September, in the middle of Hispanic Heritage Week, and commit that day to teaching those lessons, Garcia said.

"Many Hispanics don't know who he is or all the sacrifices he made," the doctor's daughter, Cecilia Garcia-Akers said. "He made life better for everybody and opened the doors so we could have careers and jobs. This is a way to get young children to know who Dr. Hector was and about his hard work."

Official state holidays include 11 state-recognized holidays in addition to nine federal holidays. State holidays allow state employees to have a day off and still get paid, and private businesses are encouraged to do the same. Garcia's bill is being written as a non-vacation holiday, so workers would not get an additional day off.

The last time the state authorized a new holiday was in 1999, when former Sen. Carlos Truan, of Corpus Christi, introduced successful legislation that instituted a holiday to honor civil rights leader Cesar Chavez.

"In our case, it became an optional holiday on his birthday, allowing state employees to take that day off with pay, recognizing for the first time a Hispanic leader," Truan said. "I support the new holiday. Dr. Hector was my hero and he pushed me to run for office back in 1968. He was a real hero in the struggle for civil rights in this country. He was a very, very strong spokesperson."

Truan said he also pushed to get a state holiday declared for Hector P. Garcia, but that bill never got out of committee.

In 1948, Dr. Garcia founded the American GI Forum, aimed at giving Hispanic veterans equal access to the education, job training and home loans promised by the GI Bill of Rights.

Dr. Garcia made national headlines with the group's first big fight, which came after the family of a Hispanic World War II veteran killed in the Philippines was turned away at a Three Rivers funeral home and told to bury him in a segregated cemetery for Hispanics.

The doctor took the fight over the head of the local funeral home owner, contacting state and federal lawmakers and eventually secured a full military burial for the veteran, Pvt. Felix Longoria, in Arlington National Cemetery.

The event made the cover of The New York Times and marked the launch of the American GI Forum as a civil rights organization. From then, until he died in 1996, Garcia fought for Mexican-American rights, both locally as a respected doctor and in the national arena.

Dr. Garcia was an alternate ambassador to the United Nations, the first Mexican-American to serve on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and received the nation's highest civilian honor in 1984 when he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

"The Presidential Medal of Freedom is reserved for the historic American giants of the past century: Neil Armstrong, Dr. Jonas Salk, Martin Luther King, Jackie Robinson," Rep. Garcia said. "With Dr. Hector, we had a Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient from here in South Texas. It's important that his legacy live on for future generations."

Contact Jaime Powell at 886-3716 or powellj@ caller.com

Dr. Hector P Garcia: "After all, who are we? We are little people, I should say I'm a little people."

GI Forum National Report

The American G.I. Forum (AGIF) is a Congressionally-chartered veterans and civil rights / human rights organization. The American GI Forum defends and advocates for the rights of others who are unable to adequately defend their selves. The foundation of the AGIF principles are set forth in the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Dr. Hector P Garcia: "we got together a group of veterans, all of us, Blacks, Mexican-Americans and Anglos

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE
Gift of Personal Statement
By Hector Garcia
to the
Lyndon Baines Johnson Library
In accordance with Sec . 507 of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, as amended (44 U.S .C . 397) and regulations
issued thereunder (41 CFR 101-10), I,
Hector Gar cia
. hereinafter
referred to as the donor, hereby give, donate, and convey to the United
States of America for eventual deposit in the proposed Lyndon Baines
Johnson Library, and for administration therein by the authorities
thereof, a tape and transcript of a personal statement approved by me
and prepared for the purpose of deposit in the Lyndon Baines Johnson
Library . The gift of this material is made subject to the following
terms and conditions :
1 . Title to the material transferred hereunder, and all literary
property rights, will pass to the United States as of the date of the
delivery of this material into the physical custody of the Archivist
of the United States .
2 . It is the donor's wish to make the material donated to the
United States of America by terms of this instrument available for
research as soon as it has been deposited in the Lyndon Baines Johnson
Library .
3 . A revision of this stipulation governing access. to the material
for research may be entered into between the donor and the Archivist of
the United States, or his designee, if it appears desirable .
4 . The material donated to the United States pursuant to the foregoing
shall be kept intact permanently in(the Lyndon Defnes Johnson
Library .
Date
April 1 0, 1974
LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON LIBRARY
ORAL HISTORY COLLECTION
Narrator Dr, Hector a ni
Address
401 Peerman Place
Biographical information :
(physician, founder Am . G wUiGbCLc1Ieinooa.9n.-ntSart5tchup4Mi..ehguen;ruAAausx-rvsnrminAcis,dachmC.eetmohw;mnFi,LDreb,eoeMairldnlset1ynetmMi/,igbeno1.,faex7triAWU/iNcePm1Toasr4eT.nnteMxe;,seDx.im,iIBS.dnvs.p.edia1SA.nNi,gnt9.aetnia4tsist6TU,nohee-..gfx-A1TDS.;d9tReeev6recDxmc1ehtpe...uaum,;.rtbC,onCylopco1.iurNrm9cneaa3bc.sct6tod,di,ioin.llfocc1neMA9.Vaor5mC.eln2nraD.nieim;.epEtnp,GzcigamI.uoeie1ensgwmdF9lonieo4.a,mtfD0r,iheiua;cnv1mds19rvp.e9O6a,vo..6pn0tfI4kpDac.;.orUe;orsemmuFp.tpaUeSnor.lsumcra..nSNiu,c..iaalmt.ttrga)ifyermrcDo.peebee.rpeamC. msAom..esmmoenaeNftd.tdora,ioitPcbrcr2i1.e2aen9tnensC6tdwsio0oedm;eeo.nn,ft
David M omh
Position or relationship to narrator
Accession Record Number
General topic of interview :
Date 7/9/69
Tape index :
Page or estimated
time on tape
2-5
5-10
10
11
11, 26
11-12
12-13
Place
Ac 74-277
Biographical
Subject (s) covered
UT Oral History Project
his offirn
Length 4~ aaac
1319 Bright St
Cnrni,s Chri cti , Tx
American G . I . Forum ; John E . Lyle ; John Young ;
"basic educational courses"
Discrimination toward Mexican-Americans ; Miss
Sara Moreno ; Senator Johnson's assistance in
interment arrangements for Felix Longoria
Meeting Lyndon Johnson personally
LBJ -- friend of Mexican-Americans
Treaty of Tlatelolco ; Mexico City
Reaction to LBJ's deciding not to run again for
president
Campaigning for Stevenson with Johnson
Corpus Christi, Texas 7841
reOral
History Collection
Narrator
Tape Index continuation sheet #2
Page or estimated
Subject(s) covered
time on tape
21-22
A call to Johnson for help
33-34
The repeal of the poll tax
35-36
Medicare and Medicaid
"Rincon del Diablo"
36-37
The educational system
37
Padre Island National Seashore
38 "ARAOMAC"
39-40
Mrs . Johnson
40-43
A tribute to the Johnsons
Hector Garcia
14-15
Chicago Convention ; "Liberal Maverick"
16
Viva Kennedy Club ; Carlos McCormick ; Robert Kennedy
19-20
Kennedy, first choice for President
23
Vicente Ximenes ; Interagency Committee for Mexican-
American Affairs ; "SER" (Service Employment and
Re-development) ; LULAC
24
The funding of "SER" ; U . S . Commission on Civil
Ri gh is
25
Ambassador to the United Nations
27-28
Johnson's comments re U .N . speech in Spanish
28-30
Council on Economic Opportunity
31-32
"Special Ambassador" for the inauguration of
the President of Venezuela
33
The general feeling re the Mexican-American
as a minority
INTERVIEWEE :
HECTOR GARCIA
INTERVIEWER : DAVID G . MC COMB
July 9, 1969
M:
Let me identify the tape first of all . This is an interview with Dr .
Hector Garcia . I'm in his office in Corpus Christi, Texas, at 1315
Bright Street . The date is July 9, 1969, and my name is David McComb .
Now you gave me this copy of the GI Forum program of the 21st
Annual Founders' Day Banquet which has a capsule biography of you here,
which I will place into the record so that anybody using this tape
will have the opportunity to use this .
There are several points about this that I'd like to ask you about .
In the first place it says you were born in Mexico, and I'd like to know
when you came to the United States .
G :
Well, Mr . McComb, I came to the United States when I was only about three
and a half to four years old . I was not quite four and I was a little bit
over three, so I would say approximately four years old .
M :
Did you come to Corpus--your family?
G :
No, my father emigrated to Mercedes, Mercedes is in the southern part of
the State of Texas along the Rio Grande River, and there he set up his
business and we were actually raised there and went to school .
M :
What kind of business was he in?
G :
He had a general grocery store at that time with his brothers, who are
still living in Mercedes .
M :
And then you went through school, and it says here you graduated from the
University of Texas in 1936 .
G:
That's correct, University of Texas BA, Austin, Texas, 1936 .
M:
Graduated from the University of Texas School of Medicine, got a Doctor
of Medicine in 1940, and an internship in Omaha, Nebraska .
G:
That's right .
M:
How did you happen to go to Nebraska?
G:
Well, when I was getting my Doctor's degree at Galveston, of course, we
met some people over there who recommended Saint Joseph's Hospital which
is the teaching hospital of Creighton University, so that I thought I'd
go over there and take a look at Nebraskan fields .
M:
And then of course you went into World War II .
G:
That's correct.
I volunteered as an infantry officer from Nebraska when
I finished my surgical residency, because I had stayed two years . So I
volunteered to go into the military service as an infantry officer.
M:
And then you were in the Major Medical Corps?
G:
That's right, I served in the Medical Corps .
M:
Then after the war, you founded American GI Forum in 1948 . Now I'd like to
know what motivated you to do this .
Why did you set up the GI Forum? Now
it pretty well explains what this is, but why did you do this?
G:
Well, Mr . McComb, actually the way the American GI Forum started--when I came
back from the service, I happened to have my office next to the Veterans
Administration Office, I met our congressman, John E. Lyle in Italy before
he got elected to Congress, John E. Lyle happened to be a good friend
of President Lyndon Johnson. So Congressman Lyle was in the same theater
of operations with me, European Theater of Operations, and he said he was
coming to Corpus Christi, and of course by that time my brother, J. A.
Garcia was living and practicing in Corpus Christi .
So I came back to Corpus
Christi--I happened to have an office next to our present congressman of
today, Congressman John Young, who was at that time getting out of the
Navy, and I set up my office next to the Veterans Administration . They
needed doctors at that time, doctors were scarce to start with, and they
put me on a contract basis or a "fee basis," so I got to know the veterans
from this area . In fact, I was the "veterans' doctor" although I was not
working under the Veterans Administration per se, I was merely a private
doctor helping out with individual veteran's cases, and getting paid on
a piecemeal basis .
Well, it happened that at that time the returning sick veterans met
some opposition in hospitalization here because the Navy hospital would
say, "This is a naval hospital, not a veterans hospital ." So more or less,
although we had a certain amount of beds under contract, the Veterans
Administration limited us . In fact they practically limited us to
emergencies . So one day in 1948, actually about February, we got together .
All the veterans, not necessarily the Mexican-Americans but all of us,
to protest the actions of the naval hospital in Corpus Christi in limiting
the number of veterans who could go to the hospital . And also practically
requiring that they be emergencies, which means they would be dying . We
thought it was an unfair deal, so we got together a group of veterans, all
of us, blacks, Mexican-Americans and Anglos to protest this limitation .
Well, at that time we were starting, the veterans schools, which were
more or less "basic educational courses ." No sooner had we achieved
a certain success of victory in opening the Naval Hospital, because the
number of beds were increased, that the veterans pointed out to me that
the government was holding back the "subsistence checks" of many of these
veterans who were taking basic academic classes . Now, of course, at that
time most of the veterans were Mexican-Americans, and they averaged less
than two years of school . So they were going to quit because they needed
the money, they had no other jobs, their families were pressuring them
and wives were getting upset . So they said, "Doctor, let's get organized
together and protest the Veterans Administration's failure to send us the
subsistence checks ." So then we got organized, not necessarily as a
Mexican-American organization, although then by necessity we were working
on veteran's education . And then I got to know the schools and the educational
system of the basic educational courses, so that night we decided we'd go
ahead and get organized and of course the name "American GI Forum" came
up at that meeting here in Corpus Christi in March 26, 1948 .
I was elected
and the vice chairman was an anglo and the secretary was an anglo and the
treasurer was a Mexican-American, Mr . Montoya--Greg Montoya .
So then we decided that we had to help the veterans because of the bad
conditions of other situations . So we organized American GI Forum groups
all over this south Texas area .
Now the name "American" -- although we
are Americans, we have been subjected to a lot of discriminatory practices .
One of these practices is we are told "You are not Americans, you are
Mexicans ." And I said, "Well, we are American citizens of Mexican origin,
so let's point out to the people we are really Americans ."
"GI" merely
means that we are ex-soldiers or ex-G .I . v s .
The word "Forum" was like the
Roman open forum derived from the fact that we were hoping that this would
be an open meeting,and open discussion meeting for everybody taking part .
So by the end of the year 1948 we were in many cities in this area.
In practically all the area from south of San Antonio to the Valley, and
certainly from Laredo to Corpus Christi . So we became a statewide
organization known as the American GI Forum of Texas, the first meeting
Being held in Corpus Christi to organize statewide .
M:
Did you run into a great deal of discrimination toward Mexican-Americans?
G:
Oh yes, definitely we did, because at this time no sooner had we gotten
organized in this manner than one of my patients here, Mrs . Felix Longoria --
came to see me about discrimination against her deceased husband . We
sponsored several groups, one of them we called a young girls club -- Orchidia
Club -- and the chairman of this group was Miss Sara Moreno . Sara Moreno, a
young lady at that time, was a sister of this Mrs . Felix Longoria . Mrs .
Felix Longoria was a widow that had moved here to Corpus Christi with her
daughter Adelita because her husband, Felix Longoria, had been killed in
the Philippines in World War II .
So Sara Moreno comes in and says, "Dr. Garcia, we have been refused
the use of the Mathis State Park, they don't allow Mexicans in the pavilion ."
And I thought that was horrible . Right after that the San Diego band,
I believe, was denied use of the pavilion .
M:
In the state park?
G:
Yes, in the state park in Mathis, Texas .
So right away we took action on
that and I think we had a certain amount of success . Well, coming to the
point here, about one week later or two weeks later, my memory is not exact
on this date but not too far, Sara Moreno comes back again . And she said,
"You know, Doctor, my sister is very sick, crying very much ." And I said,
"Why, Sarita?" [Sara said,] "Well, you see, the Felix Longorias are from
Three Rivers-- ." And Felix was to be brought back for re-burial in Three
Rivers . Mrs . Longoria, in respect to the tradition and culture of a
Mexican-American and the Catholic, gave the choice to Felix's mother and
father as to where they wanted Felix brought back and reburied. They
chose their hometown, being of course, Three Rivers . They wanted him
buried there .
Well, during the time that Mrs . Felix Longoria was making the
arrangements in Three Rivers with the Rice Funeral Home, they
refused her the use of the chapel . By this time Felix Longoria was
already on his way back . Originally being interred in Luzon, Philippines,
was being brought back for reburial .
So Sara brought over Mrs . Longoria
with her little daughter Adelita, who was just three or four years at
that time, and she was also crying .
I thought it was a horrible shame
that a soldier who had died for his country would have been refused the
use of the funeral home . They only funeral home,there [in Three Rivers] .
To quote the funeral home director, "The whites wouldn't like it ."
I thought it was an awful travesty of decency, justice and certainly
Christianity that this war hero would be refused a decent, humanitarian
burial l
Well, we tried to deal with the director of the funeral home, the
Rice Funeral Home . He wouldn't move . He said, "No, we're not going to
let the Mexicans use the chapel of our funeral home ." Which actually
meant not using the funeral home .
M:
Was this the only one in the city?
G:
It was the only one in the city, and of course it made no difference even
though we had a separate cemetery . They had separate cemeteries for Anglos
and Mexicans . Yes, this was the only funeral home in the city .
M:
It was privately owned?
G:
Funeral homes are privately owned, although they get a state charter or
permission or license from the state .
So we tried to convince everyone it was wrong but the funeral home
didn't change . In desperation somebody said, "Call Senator Lyndon Johnson ."
M:
Did you know him at this time?
G :
No, I never met him.
I never knew him. I never helped him politically
because you see first in 1940 to 1942 I had been in Nebraska . I had been
in Austin four years from '32 to '36 ; I'd been in Galveston from '36 to
'40, and I'd been in Nebraska from '40 to '42 . Of course, I had heard of
him, I had never met him, I was not that involved in politics and neither
was my family, although I met Congressman Lyle and he talked very highly
about Senator Johnson . In fact, I gave Congressman John E . Lyle a ride
in our ambulance from where we were stationed into Naples port so he
could take a boat back -- as Congressman)
So he talked very highly about then Senator Lyndon Johnson. Of
course Lyndon Johnson was well liked in Corpus Christi, though remember,
Mr . McComb, I had not lived in Corpus Christi . My home was south Texas
and it was not Lyndon Johnson's congressional district . So somebody says,
"Call Senator Johnson . He'll help you. He's a fair man, and he likes
Mexican people ."
I put in a call to Senator Lyndon Johnson in Washington and of
course by that time I had been practicing medicine here in Corpus Christi
for two years . We had run against a racist wall in Three Rivers, and this
wall was a wall of racist attitude, discrimination and hate . I called
Senator Johnson and he said, "Well, Dr . Garcia, let me assure you, tell
Mrs . Longoria I'll help!" I was speaking for Mrs. Longoria, not necessarily
for the GI Forum, and the Longoria family out of Three Rivers . We had been
meeting every day and every night for about two weeks in desperation . Still
we wanted Texas to bury Felix Longoria . He was a Texan . So finally we
reached a point where nothing could be done . Then I called Senator Johnson
and this is what he told me . He said, "Dr . Garcia, I promise you this .
You try to talk to the Governor and try to talk to everyone and see if
Felix can be buried in Three Rivers, after all, this is where he should
be buried, and if not, I promise you that we'll bury him with full
military honors at the National Cemetery in Arlington ."
We continued . We continued trying to get an arrangement and trying
to make a deal with the funeral home and the city . By this time of
course everybody was involved . The Governor at this time, if I recall
right, was Buford Jester . He said, well, we could get it settled . But
the breaking point was simply this, Mr . McComb, that the community of
Three Rivers, I'm talking mostly about the English-speaking community,
would not stop calling Senator Johnson horrible names orally and in print .
I still have copies of the Three Rivers newspaper . I think eventually the
funeral home would have acceded to the use of the chapel, but the idea
was that he could be buried there if we would negate Lyndon Johnson .
The family, and thank the Lord for that, the Longoria family and the
widow were honorable people and they were so honorable they said, "Dr .
Garcia, we will never go back on Senator Johnson ." Of course I wouldn't
either . So it ended that they did not stop calling the Senator Johnson
awful names . By that time, in all due justice to the Governor and to the
state officials, they would bury him in Texas . They would send the
National Guard and officers and other representatives of the government
to bury Longoria .
The family was willing provided that Senator Johnson's
name would be kept in the proper position of respect and dignity . After
all, he had been the one who had helped us . The family's request was rejected .
M:
But they wouldn't do that?
G:
They wouldn't . They kept on insulting the Senator publicly and also in
print . And I mean horrible insults just because he had acted as a
decent Texas by trying to get one of his own Texans buried there . I
could not understand the antagonism or the viciousness of their insults
toward Johnson. What had he done wrong? Nothing. He was a human being,
a true humanitarian, and of course, a true Christian man at that time to
us .
So no, we decided we were going to raise the money to send all the
Longoria family in an airplane to Washington for the funeral and this we
did . By this time, Longoria's body, or remains, were already being returned .
But he need never stop here in Texas! He was taken directly to Washington
where with the help of Senator Lyndon Johnson and President--I think it was
President Truman--Felix Longoria was buried in Arlington with full military
honors . And President Truman sent General [Harry] Vaughn, if I recall
right, as his personal representative . And the Longoria family, with money
raised by Mexican-American people and the infant American GI Forum, sent all
the family over there .
And this is how I got to know this great man, who came to us in a
moment of sadness, need and suffering. And this action restored a great
amount of faith in the system, and certainly in the State, and in our
government .
I don't know what I would have done at that moment without
the help of Senator Lyndon Johnson because our people were very restless
and very, very upset and certainly we were very unhappy .
M:
Did Johnson attend the ceremony at Arlington?
G:
I did not attend myself, I don't recall at this time . Because no sooner
had Felix been buried than the Texas legislature decided they were going
to hold an investigation, and the investigation really merely meant at this
10
time to try to embarrass me and to try to embarrass Senator Johnson.
The whole purpose of the investigation was an appointment of a committee,
"a whitewash committee," to prove -- mind you, Dr . McComb -- that there
was no discrimination! You see, the soldier was already buried, you know,
the man was going to be buried . Then what was the object of this committee?
Of course, they already had their guns set against : "the American GI Forum"
in its infancy, Dr . Hector Garcia, and Senator Johnson . I don't think this
investigation was aimed at the Longcria family .
So they held this investigation at Three Rivers, a whitewash
committee, headed by a representative from, I think, Cuero, who was
chairman .
M:
When did you finally meet Lyndon Johnson personally?
G:
I met him sometime thereafter, I think in one of his campaigns when he
came back over here for re-election .
I'm not quite certain .
I remember I
met him -- at one time we were having an American GI Forum meeting in
Corpus Christi at the Lamar School, I think it must have been in the early
part of '49 or '50 . It must have been 1950, I remember it was election
year for somebody, and he came in with Congressman John E . Lyle who was
still our congressman . And he talked to us . I met this tall, good-looking,
young senator. Of course, we went to thank him, I said, "Senator Johnson,
I want to thank you because I think you've done a great thing for our
people, and our country, and our soldiers ." And I remember his words
quite easily today . He said, "Dr. Garcia -- " of course now he calls me
Hector and I appreciate that because I feel he considers me a friend of
his and prefer to be his friend . He said, "Dr. Garcia, I think greatly of
your organization and there is only one [piece of] advice I want to give
you . You can achieve anything you want if you just take it easy and slowly ."
And then he talked to our American GI Forum group . He addressed our
group, and of course it was a great occasion because at that time it was
rare to have any politician or certainly any U. S. senator addressing
this Mexican group of people and veterans!
M:
Have the Mexican-Americans supported Johnson ever since then in elections?
G:
I supported President Johnson and Senator Johnson, Lyndon Johnson, every
election since that time, and I think in every election we -- the Mexican-
Americans -- have given him 98 percent of the votes, and I think that is
certainly a tribute to this man.
ever had to
or Vice President Johnson's campaign . We never had to spend a penny
campaigns .
By that I mean we didn't have to ask for contributions .
the Mexican-Americans
Johnson was and is --
You have
I [would] like to
Humphrey in March
City, and this is
in his plane
Lyndon Johnson at
of nuclear weapons
I was there at the President's Palace when the announcement was made
that President Johnson would not seek re-election . When this announcement
was made there was great sadness from the President of Mexico, his staff
and his family, and everyone present. They regretted the fact that he was
not going to run . And when I went into the streets the next day some of the
And I say this, I don't think we have
spend a single cent in Senator Johnson's or President Johnson's
in his
Our people,
Lyndon
here and the Mexican people in Mexico know who
"Es Nuestro Verdadero Amigo ."
to remember also that
remind you that I
30, 1968, to sign
a historical moment for
and of course the Vice President
the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which you know is the prohibition
in the Latin American zone .
he visited in Mexico, in 1966 or so .
was over there with Vice President
the Treaty of Tlatelolco in Mexico
us . I rode with the Vice President
was representing President
12
people told me [they were disappointed] .
I could read the papers and
talk to some of the people . They were greatly disappointed that this
great friend of the Mexican people was not going to run .
M :
How did you feel about it?
G :
I felt bad . I felt terrible . I actually felt that the reasons, whatever
they may have been for his not running, were only injustices against this
great man . This great American who was trying so hard to do everything
for everyone . And yet in a way because of the times and the Viet Nam
situation he was unable to continue .
I think if Viet Nam had been settled
before the election or one month before the deadline for the election, he
would have run . But I felt badly and I have been around . I have been in
the United Nations and been traveling throughout the world .
I
bit about history, Mr. McComb, and I still say this
our times is written -- of this
mighty high . These problems of
when we say that we have failed
President on down .
I think if President Johnson had continued as President,
and I wish he had, I don't think our situation here, the internal conflict
of group against group, or race hating other races, I don't think it would
have developed .
I think his domestic program had achieved a certain amount
of acceptability and agreement between all the groups and, therefore,
internal stability and peace:
I campaigned for Stevenson, and let me
campaigned for Kennedy and Johnson . However, Lyndon Johnson was the only
know
when the history of
era -- Lyndon Johnson is going to come up
these people, all of this restlessness,
in Viet Nam, all of us failed -- from the
a little
tell you something else here .
I
Politician that I ever knew who would openly go with Stevenson and campaign
for him. After all, I was Stevenson's manager for south Texas, because no
one else would support him. I know Johnson actively helped him .
13
M:
Is this in '52 or '56?
G:
The first time he ran.
M: '52 .
G:
'52, yes . Johnson was there with us .
M:
Johnson was the only one?
G:
Johnson was the only one in Texas who helped and traveled statewide .
When we had Stevenson in San Antonio, there was no Democratic politician
who would come out and be seen with himl Senator Johnson took him in his
car and stood with him and would introduce him.
This is a great tribute
to a man who was faithful to his country and faithful to his party.
But coming now to the point that I was trying to point out, I
campaigned for Kennedy and I campaigned for Johnson in the first presidential
race for Johnson as vice president--vice presidential candidate of Kennedy .
I was going to Chicago and New York and the east wherever we had contacts
with the Mexican-Americans . And of course I have a lot of close Negro
friends and as soon as he became president, the Negroes--the blacks--
also had accepted Johnson as a humanitarian and as a good President and
this I know because they would tell me . And we minority members talk in
sincerity with each other . So he had been accepted as a great humanitarian
and as a great President . And I think this necessarily will again come out
when this history is written.
M:
Was Humphrey surprised at this announcement when you were down in Mexico?
G:
Of course . His eyes were full of tears--and I remember his saying -- "You
know they have a lot of smog in Mexico," this is tragic -- but he was not
surprised .
He knew it . But he was still greatly moved and became saddened
and his eyes became moist and other people's eyes became moist . I had
14
breakfast, with the Vice President the next day and he was still saddened
about this thing .
I know because we went and lay a wreath at the tomb of
the heroes of Mexico, called the Monument of Independence for the Heroes
of Mexico, and he was sad--and so was Mrs . Humphrey, and so were the
Mexican officials . It was a sad day for all of us at that moment . And
I'm glad I didn't come back on the airplane . I didn't come back because
they were flying to Washington and my home is Corpus Christi and I had
my practice, so I begged the Vice President's excuse and permission to
leave the presidential plane and I came by myself . But it was a sad day
for all of us, and all of us who had specially become involved in, say,
the civil rights movement . I like to think of myself, as being a spokesman
for the poor, because I have been poor . We in the Rio Grande Valley
know what it means to be poor .
I think the poor people, who ever they may
be--anglos or blacks or whatever they may be--knew they had a friend in
Lyndon Johnson .
And all of his programs were made for the benefit of the poor . Yes,
certainly we were also saddened.
M:
Did you get involved in that 1956 fight with Shivers?
G:
Yes, sir, I was involved . I have always been asked this question . Generally
speaking, I have politically been against the Texas governors, I sincerely
feel that they do not have the interest of Mexican-Americans at heart . Up
to now I have practically been against them with the exception of the
November election where, as a true Democrat, I have supported the candidacy .
I was involved in the Shivers fight and was one of the maverick group that
was chased out of the Chicago convention . We were not kicked out--of course,
we were actually just asked to leave . The question was asked of me : "How is
15
it that you can be against the Texas governors and be such a great friend
of Lyndon Johnson, President Johnson, Senator Johnson or Vice President
Johnson?" And I said, "Well, because first I served my country in wartime .
I think President Johnson has always liked Mexican-Americans ." He has
chosen me I'm sure over (perhaps I'm just imagining) the wishes of the
Texas governors because I have received, as you know Dr . McComb, many
high honors . All the recognition with the exception of my first recognition
from President Kennedy, I have received from either Vice President Johnson
or President Johnson.
But I was one of those that was removed from the Chicago convention
by Governor Shivers because I was a "liberal maverick ."
M:
Do you think that Lyndon Johnson has led the state party as well as he
should have?
G:
To me Lyndon Johnson has been what I wish every Texan would be . I think
a Texan should be first an American and then a Texan . I think, of course
most Texans are provincial in their politics . I think Johnson was never
provincial in politics . He certainly may have been subjected to some of the
pressures of state politics, which is the conservatism of big money . Yet
his heart was all right and he was never completely controlled or even
controlled by the rich people who helped him financially .
Because I think
a representative in the sense of representing the people should not just
represent the Mexicans or the Anglos or the rich or the poor, he should
represent everyone .
I think Johnson did this at all times . Where he would
help his friends who were affluent, he would also help the poor . He helped
the Anglos, he helped the blacks and helped the Mexican-Americans .
He was
truly a people's representative .
1 6
As far as leading the party, yes, I think he led the party as
well as he could under the circumstances, and retrospectively he was a
brave man. He certainly ended up by being an American first, and serving
not only his state but his country. And I hoped other Texans would follow
suit, follow the footsteps of Johnson who came up being a great President.
Otherwise I will tell you one thing, Mr. McComb, Texas is never going to
have another President.
M:
Did you have anything to do with the founding of the Viva Kennedy clubs?
G: Yes .
M:
Were you one of the founders?
G:
I am one of the founders of the Viva Kennedy Club . The first step was
when we have received a call through a friend of ours who was working with
then Senator John F. Kennedy . This friend of ours named Carlos McCormick,
who in spite of his name was a Mexican-American, and is a Mexican-American .
He also happened to be one of the American GI Forum state officers out of
Arizona. The American GI Forum, although not a political group in itself,
certainly its individuals were interested in politics . It is one of the
solutions we must use in trying to achieve our goal for first-class American
citizenship .
So Carlos said, "Well, you want to come to New York and meet
the Kennedys? He's going to run for President ." I said, "Yes, I'm very
much interested ."
So first Senator John F. Kennedy invited us to this civil rights conference
in New York . At that time I think, when was it, in early '59, I
guess . In late '59, if not in early '60, we went to New York . This is where
I met Vice President Humphrey, at that time Senator Humphrey, he was speaking
to a group of New Yorkers at a hotel, perhaps the Waldorf-Astoria, and we
listened to his speech . I got a ticket because I couldn't afford $100 for
1 7
a plate, so somebody gave me a ticket . So we went over to the dinner and
at that time Congressman Gonzalez was along with us .
Then, of course, he
was not a congressman .
So we went over there -- after the dinner we met
Senator John F. Kennedy.
I think this was in the Waldorf-Astoria and
this is w
President Kennedy .
There we took a group picture, and I still have the picture which I
will be glad to give you, and in this picture the Mexican-American Viva
Kennedy leadership were in this picture with Kennedy . We were :
Henry B.
Gonzalez ; Carlos McCormick ; Carlos' father-in-law, Mr. Ralph Estrada; Hank
Lopez [from] Los Angeles ; Albert Pena [from] San Antonio; two New Yorkers,
one of them being a Puerto Rican ; and, of course, myself . So then Senator
Kennedy took this picture with us and I remember quite effectively kidding
the cameraman saying, "I don't think you're going to get a picture -- you
should use a bulb ." And the photographer, who was using a 35 millimeter, I
think, said, "No, I'm going to get a good picture ." And, of course, he
didn't get a good picture . It was a little cloudy . Then he said, "I want
you to go to Washington and meet my brother Bobby, who's going to tell you
what to do ."
Well, we went -- by this time Albert Pena came in and Carlos McCormick
and Estrada and Gonzalez and Hank Lopez from Los Angeles, and myself and the
two Puerto Ricans . We met with Bobby at the Democratic headquarters there, I
think on Avenue K, where :we went ahead and had a meeting.
At this time we
told Robert Kennedy that we would like to work for the candidate, John F .
Kennedy, but we would work at it by ourselves . That we didn't want to
work under any state Democratic setup because we felt, like we still
do, that the state Democratic setup would only use Mexican-Americans and
not give us the proper recognition .
So we said we would not work under
18
the state setup, so he said, "You will work directly under the Kennedy
umbrella ."
By that time, of course, the vice presidential nominee had not been
chosen . So we at that time organized the "Viva Kennedy Club" then as soon as
the nominee was chosen, we organized the "Viva Kennedy-Viva Johnson"--but
we still refused to work under any state Democratic setup .
While I always felt I didn't try to outwit President Kennedy because
he seemed to me such an open, warm human being, I always felt that Robert
Kennedy was a shrewd individual . He was very wise and I said, "Well, I
will start kidding Robert Kennedy." And he said, "Dr. Garcia, I understand
you founded this group, American GI Forum, and although you are not in
politics, what do you think of my brother's candidacy?" I said, "Well,
we'll give your brother 98 percent of the votes, since we have always
given Johnson on other races 98 percent of the votes . I'm sure we'll
probably get you that much ." He said, "Well, are you sure?" And I said,
"Yes, I'm sure ." And I said, "If things go right, we may give you 99
percent of the votes ." Now, as it happens, on the first race we gave him
99 percent of the votes of all the Mexican-Americans in Texas and throughout
the nation .
And I said, "Incidentally, I'm glad to meet you. I'm glad to finally
meet you. In case you don't know, we were neighbors for a little while."
And of course I could imagine Mr . Robert Kennedy's brain cells were rushing
around saying, "what does this Mexican mean, that he's a neighbor of mine!"
He said, "Dr. Garcia, I don't understand?" Very politely, I said, "I'll
have you know, Mr . Kennedy, I trained the first amphibian brigades of World
War II out of Camp Edwards, Massachusetts . This camp happened to be across
the bay from your home .
Everybody would point and say, there is the Kennedy
home or mansion. So you see, we were neighbors ." At that time, Mr . Robert
19
Kennedy, or Bobby as everybody called him, started smiling and said,
"You know what, Dr . Garcia, I think I'll tell my brother that story."
So right there we organized the Viva Kennedy Clubs . And then we
had another meeting as soon as President Johnson was chosen . We sent
out the "Viva Kennedy-Viva Johnson Club" cards here in Texas . I was
the national coordinator .
I think we had honorary chairmen .
I think
Montoya was one of them and Senator Dennis Chavez and others . After one of
our American GI Forum National meetings in Chicago, in August of 1959, we
set up the National Viva Clubs using as nucelus the statewide GI Forum
groups in 24 states .
M:
Did it upset you any that Johnson was thinking about running for the
presidency at the same time?
G:
At that time, no . No, let me tell you. I consider since you are writing
a historical thing--I will tell you an incident .
M:
This is going to be in the record .
G :
It's history, I think we have to be honest with history .
I was asked
by Senator Johnson to take a survey among the Southwest to find out what
did people think of Senator Johnson for President.
It was getting close
to the national convention .
I ran a survey on my own, talking mostly to
Mexican-Americans, Hispanos and Spanish surnamed people . There was no
question, Kennedy was the first choice . In fact my report that I still
conserve, sent to Senator Johnson, was simply this "That as far as the
Mexican-Americans were concerned, he couldn't win." That my suggestion
to him would be to run as vice president, and I think later that he could
win as president. And I think, Dr . McComb, I was one of the few people
at that time who guessed this thing right . And I still have this report
2 0
as a document . I still have the original with my signature . Because
by that time the Kennedy enchatment, or vision, or charisma had spread
to our Mexican people . He seemed like an idealist .
It was not so
much that Johnson was not an idealist, it was the fear again, to us
that he was still a Texan, and we felt he could be controlled by the
Texas interests which are against us . But I was one of the few ones,
I said, and I told him the truth and the truth came out .
M:
You talk about delivering 99 percent of the votes and this sort of thing.
How do you go about delivering that vote? What do you do to contact your
people?
G :
Our contacts were through the American GI Forum, being a veterans'
national organization . Although we do not participate in politics these
are the people who work with us .
The Mexican-American people have respected
us from the very beginning, they know we are not going to sell out . They
trust our judgment and decisions, no matter who threatens us, what the
pressure is, what the price is, we are never going to abandon a Mexicano
for any cause or reason . We have no machinery . We have no money . We
never bought a poll tax in the old days . Therefore, our people know that
when we recommend a candidate, whoever he may be, a black, or an Anglo, a
Mexican-American, our people know we think this man is going to be for our
people, for our problems . So we have the people's trust and faith, and it is
the leadership of the American GI Forum that they follow . It's just a
fantastic thing, Dr . McComb, that they would do this . For example, in the
last race here while we're supporting a Mexican-American candidate in
the May primaries, by November election our candidate was eliminated,
so we switched over to a liberal Anglo . While in the primary the liberal
Anglo friend didn't get 5 percent of the vote, she or he would get 95
percent of the votes in the November election . So, this is the trust and
2 1
respect that we have established by being faithful to our people
for twenty years . There's nothing else, we have no machinery . And
we won like this throughout the nation, the same way. This is the same
reason why Humphrey carried Texas the last election .
M:
All you have to do then is recommend somebody, and your people will read
this?
G:
That's right, that's all it takes . In fact we get frequent calls here and
every time, "What do you want us to do, doctor?" As I say, I know it
sounds pretentious, but I know I'm talking to you for historical basis .
We have no weapon, this idea that we have control just isn't so, and I
challenge anyone to ever prove that we have any control over the people
other than persuasion and judgement and faithfulness to them . In other
words, when the little man comes here, he gets attention . He may have an
immigration problem, problems with the police, with payments, with poverty,
with sickness, with the hospitals, he comes to us and I pick up the phone
and help him. Let me give you an example .
I well remember a specific case that was about the time of the
Kennedy-Johnson election . A mother came in here, and it happened that
this mother was pregnant and very nervous . And I said, "What is your
problem?" She said, "My boy is in the Marine guardhouse in Camp Pendleton,
California . I'm going to pieces, doctor ." And I could see she was going
to pieces . And she said, "All I want is to talk to my son and find out
what is happening to him. Perhaps he is dead ." So I used my telephone at
my expense and called the commanding officer of the brig or the guardhouse
at Camp Pendleton and I identified myself simply, "Dr . Hector Garcia, a
doctor whose patient this lady is, and she is very sick .
She wants to
talk to her son ." And he said, "Well, I'm sorry I cannot give you any such
22
information ." The lady was listening on the extension in the other
office . I said, "Well, you are doing a very cruel thing to this woman
because she is sick . A mother needs talking to her son," I said, "for
compassion and humanitarian sake, let her talk ." "No, sir," and he won't
tell me a thing . He was a major.
I said, "Major, do me a favor, don't
leave there because pretty soon I'm going to have somebody call you from
Washington, and you are going to have to talk ." This lady got very sick .
She was about to have labor pains and miscarry .
I got on the telephone, and I called Senator Johnson and Senator
Johnson talked to the lady . He said, "Don't go, lady, I'll get this man
called on the telephone .
And in five minutes after he hung up this major
was calling apologetically from Camp Pendleton. And these are the favors
I do for people, through people like Johnson and Congressman Young and
the Kennedys and other people . I'm the helpful go-between . This is why
we have faith, and this faith has been built up with the federal government .
I think we're building it up on a state level, although it hasn't reached
this point .
In other words, we Mexican-Americans would rather trust federal
officers, officials, presidents, vice presidents, senators,ccongressmen
rather than Texas officials . Of course, it's changing .
When Senator Johnson became Vice President he said, "Dr . Hector, I want
a MexicanAmerican secretary, get me one ."
Well, I had a young girl here
named Angelita Hernandez, who was my secretary at that time, a very charming
young girl who is now married. He was ready to hire her, and Angelita
Hernandez decided that she was going to get too homesick and she didn't go .
I didn't ask him, I didn't ask him to put anybody in there . He did it on
his own .
2 3
There is another point . We petitioned Vice President Johnson
previously and President Johnson when he came into office that we
wanted certain positions in Washington .
One of them was in the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, one of them was the Commissioner on
Civil Rights . He came into office in '64--this was in '65 . We wanted
a Mexican-American man in the Civil Service, we wanted a Mexican-American
in the civil rights section of the Attorney General's office . Well,
finally he agreed that he would place a Mexican-American in the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and he went ahead . We submitted a list
of names . And you remember Mr . Vicente Ximenes, who was a friend of
Johnson, was chosen . We were called up to Washington for the installation
of Mr . Ximenes as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner, and
without anybody's knowledge .
While in Washington at the installation and out of the clear blue
sky, he said, "I have created the Interagency Committee for Mexican-
American Affairs and I appointed as the chairman of this new Cabinet
level committee, Mr . Vicente Ximenes and under him would be the Secretary
of Commerce, Secretary of Equal Employment Opportunity, Secretary of
the War on Poverty, Sargent Shriver, and down the line ." And mind you,
no one had ever asked him for the creation of this agency, nobody knew
anything about it .
Nobody had heard about it, and certainly how would
we know, because we had no precedent . He did it because he wanted to
help his Mexican-American friends .
We had another problem at that time . The "SER" organization, which
means Service Employment and Re-development in skills, had been proposed
for many months but never funded! We wanted "SER" which is a joint
operation of American GI Forum and LULAC, to place people in jobs for
job training, manpower developing, migrant eeducation and also skill
2 4
bank . At a White House conference, the first White House conference
we attended, I complained to President Johnson. I was there ; so was
Mr . Raul Ornelas from LULAC, Mr . Augustine Flores from the American GI
Forum, Mr . Luis Tellez from the American GI Forum (Mr . Vicente Ximenes at
that time was in South America with the Panama AID), and there were other
people .
I said, "Mr. President, you know I wish you would go ahead and
get us the money for 'SER' ." He said, "You mean it hasn't been funded?"
I said, "No, Mr . President ." He said, "Jacobsen," (he called him Jake)
"I want you to go over there right away and before these people leave get
them the "SER" money." And before we left the White House Conference, and
I remember as we were sitting at a table having coffee and cake, within
the hour "Jacobsen" came back . He said, "Mr . President, they will be funded ."
Well, it's those little things, Mr. McComb, that prove to you that
this gentleman was not only talking, he was producing . And, of course,
you go back to my appointment as the first Mexican-American Commissioner
on Civil Rights . I didn't want this appointment .
M:
Did that surprise you?
G:
Yes, I didn't want it .
I was not asking for it, nobody asked him for
this appointment . I think as this thing developed, as I was appointed
November 7, 1968, what had happened, the United States Commission on
Civil Rights was going to have a hearing in San Antonio.
As you know,
I'm a doctor of medicine, not an attorney . The Commission wanted a
Mexican-American .
The Chairman at that time was [John] Hannah from
Michigan State .
Father Ted Hesburgh and Mrs . [Frankie] Freeman and Dr .
[Robert] Rankin and others wanted a Mexican-American, and I think the
request eventually got to him, I think possibly through the Civil Service
Commission, the chairman--being John Macy .
M:
John Macy?
G :
Mr . Macy, and he also thought of me . And before I knew it, President
Johnson called me . Of course, by this time I had security clearance for
the United Nations . I served the government on several missions . So he
appointed me . I didn't know anything about it . Of course I'm grateful
to my country and I tried to do my job and discharge my duties and obligations
with all expediency and also with all the ability I have within
my power .
But no Mexican-American had asked him at this point .
Perhaps
the Commission on Civil Rights asked, Dr . Hannah, or Father Hesburgh,
perhaps Mr . Macy--but not us .
M :
Why did he ask you then?
G:
Because he knew I had been working on civil rights for over twenty years .
The American GI Forum started with the Felix Longoria case, we had gone
into police brutality, lack of representation in juries, lack of representation
in draft boards,
that I knew civil rights .
I knew the problems, I knew where they were .
why he asked me . And of course
fact that I had done my duty as
United Nations--
M :
Let me ask about that . How did he happen to appoint you to that?
G :
All I know is that one time, I think a Mr . Cox from the White House called
me and he said, "Would you like to serve as a representative, as alternate
delegate, with the rank of ambassador to the United Nations ." And I said,
"Well, how long will it take?" I remember because the feast of the Mexican
American Independence Day, September 15 and 16 of 1967, this happened a few
weeks before . I went through the process of security clearance and he asked
lack of representation in schools, he knew
I knew civil rights as a Mexican-American,
And this, I believe, is
again I think he was pleased with the
his choice to be the Ambassador to the
25
2 6
me and I said, "Yes, I'll go ." I figured at a time when we were receiving
so many casualties in Viet Nam that I should also be a good citizen and
go to serve in the United Nations .
I figured if Guan Garcia, private, is called to serve his country,
he goes and it makes no difference who he is . I don't think it's fair
that just because I'm a doctor I should hesitate to serve my country .
I
I served on the battlefields, if they wanted me at the United Nations
I'll go . And I went and I had about ten days to arrange my business--
actually to leave it running and move out. I didn't leave any other
doctor in my office . I went to the United Nations . I think I can tell
you why he chose me on this occasion .
M: Why?
G:
He chose me really because he was very close to Latin America. He was
close to all of the Spanish speaking Latin American people . He chose
me first because he knew that I could speak Spanish fluently and well .
He knew that I was faithful to this country and also to his philosophy of
being good to everyone, especially to Mexican-Americans . At this time we
had a lot of trouble in Latin America and he asked me to go to the United
Nations to help out. It happened during the process of my serving as the
representative that they asked me to speak in Spanish and to deliver the
speech on the Treaty of Tlatelolco and as you know, Dr . McComb, this was
the first time an American representative or ambassador or delegate ever
spoke in a foreign language . This was a terrific-- . This is also one of
the reasons why Vice President Humphrey took me to Tlatelolco to sign that
treaty--called the Treaty of Tlatelolco, the prohibition of nuclear weapons
in the Latin American zone . So I know President Johnson was pleased, and
let me tell you how I knew he was pleased--he told me so .
27
M:
Did he ever talk to you about being a UN ambassador?
G:
Before, no, never. Never, this came out of the clear blue sky.
M:
Did he tell you what he wanted you to do when you did accept it?
G:
No, he never did.
I knew what he wanted me to do .
I think he wanted
the people to know that there are other people over here other than big
business people in the sense of rich or mighty . There are people who
are warm human beings .
As a doctor who is interested in those things
he chose me to let Latin Americans see that we have a Garcia here like
they have over there who can do a job, and who understands their culture
and their language .
They tell me that I was one of the few delegates who could easily
mingle or mix openly with Latin American delegates . Because all of
belong to "La Raza .
"La Raza" is that group of people of Spanish parent
hood mixed with Indian and this practically comprises all of the Latin
American people .
I know how pleased he was because after I had delivered
my speech, I left to attend the cabinet committee hearings on Mexican-
American affairs at El Paso, and I left exactly the same day.as my address .
So the next day we were over there at El Paso at the signing of the
Chamizal Treaty and President Johnson addressed the conference of Mr .
Ximenes' committee . We waited for him at this meeting place by the air
port, where the Mexican-Americans were . He came to speak to us . Mr .
Ximenes and I were in the receiving line, after all I had the title of
Ambassador at that moment, and I was the highest ranking Federal person
there .
So he said, "Hector, I'm so pleased with you ." And I said, "Why,
Mr . President?" He said, "Because you made headlines in the Baltimore
Sun newspaper, and you made headlines that your speech had caused great
2 8
happy reactions in the Latin American countries and their ambassadors and
of course you also peeved the Russians a little bit. Because they didn't
quite expect an American to be speaking Spanish." So he was pleased and
very happy . Of course, which pleased me very much, after all I was there
to please my country first and also to please "my President," as we say
in Spanish:
"mi presidente" and he was happy . He took off back to
Washington and I stayed there for the conference . Then I went back to
the United Nations to finish the term.
M:
He also appointed you to the Council on Economic Opportunity back in
March of '67 .
G:
Yes, the war on poverty .
And this I know he told me what he wanted .
He said, "Hector--
M:
Did he call you to Washington?
G:
He called me on the telephone . He said, "Hector, I want you to let the
poor people know that anything they want that I can get them, I want to
get it for them . I don't want any more poverty . And I know you come
from Texas and you as a doctor, as a humanitarian, are well acquainted
with the poverty of the area . I wish it wasn't like it is . But I want
you to serve there, and I want you to help the poor in every way possible .
And report to me anything that they need or that you think should be
arranged, because I want poverty erased!
And this is one of the few times I felt also that he was giving me
authority in a sort of a way. Of course I never used the authority. I
was his representative, of course all of us were his representative .
But the fact that he called me personally on this appointment, I felt
he was sincere . This was close to his heart, the poor, whoever they were,
they were close to his heart.
29
M:
What happened to this war on poverty? Were the funds cut into by the
Viet Nam war?
G:
I think so . But more than that I actually believe that elected or
government officials, whoever they may be, were jealous and resented any
directional guidance by people who are not professionals . I think it is
a human element . With few exceptions, congressmen and senators, governors,
state representatives, mayors, county judges, county commissioners, they
want everything to be channeled through them. So the war on poverty had
intended not only to provide help and need for the poor but to teach
leadership to the poor . This governmental jealousy against the poor
resulted in the passage of the Green Amendment, and reduced the power of
the poor.
Certainly a lot of money was not accounted for, but as far as
results were, we were producing leadership . We were producing--a great
change in that there would be a voice of the poor in the democracy . Our
democracy is of the poor also . This is the first time in our government
that with government funds the poor were given a voice in determining
their future and certainly in overcoming their poverty.
I think it was
a great experiment . Personally, I don't think this has failed because I
see it working today .
I see it working--this war on poverty on the local
level of which I am still a member .
I saw it last night at this meeting
on "closed and open beaches," where the lowest educated person or the
poorest on an economic level can get up and talk to the Mayor, or talk
to the rich, or talk to the political leaders in a way that they would
never talk before, say ten years before . And this a democracy at its
best . It is working.
30
M:
Then leadership has been developed?
G:
It has developed. And I wish you would attend--poor people like Coronas,
Perez, etc . are leaders here . Practically illiterate people who get up
and demand that the city repair the streets, that the city pick up the
abandoned old automobiles, and fix their streets and the city does it!
Before they wouldn't do anything like that, they expected people like us
to do it . Now we don't have to do it ; in fact, they do it themselves .
And I say this is not an experiment anymore, it's become a "reality ."
There's a voice of the poor in our democracy today that was absent before!
M :
Now you mentioned that the mayors and the county people wanted the funds
and power filtered through them. Doesn't this interfere somewhat with
the carrying out of federal programs, say urban renewal for example, HUD
programs? Does that have trouble getting through down to the local level?
G :
Yes, I think it has trouble getting through to the local level . I think
actually what has happened, we have never been able to formulate enough
programs on a local level to benefit the people who should be benefitted .
There's too much time lost in moving up a program and presenting it .
By
the time it comes back it's very weak .
I think what has failed--we don't
have enough writers on a local level who can write a request well enough
to avoid all the delays and the pitfalls of administrative red tape . But
I don't think this is an obstructionist movement by the power structure of
the establishment, it's just a question of lack of experience not leadership!
They don't want you to have complete leadership on a local level . They
don't mind you developing it by trial-and-error methods, you see, but they
don't want you to go ahead and say, "Hey, get us an expert from government
in Washington to write a project to build a "mechanics school ." No! You
have to find someone on the local level to write a project to set up a
"mechanics school ." This is hard to do!
31
M:
Looking at your list here, you also had an appointment in 1964 to the
inauguration of the President of Venezuela . How did that come about?
G:
I really don't know how that came about . Of course the President knows
me, and knows that I speak Spanish, and of course Venezuela is a Spanish
speaking country, and at that time the President chose me . Of course I
had served on some other diplomatic missions with President Kennedy in
the American delegation that signed the Treaty of Mutual Defense Area
Agreement between us and the West Indies in 1961 . So again I think it was
a question of my bicultural and bilingual background which he like a lot .
After all, remember that teacher Lyndon Johnson taught his first school
in Cotulla, Texas, where all the student were Mexican-Americans . He can
understand Spanish quite well . I never spoke Spanish to him. He also
speaks some Spanish . I suspect he speaks it, but not as fluently as
perhaps he would like to . So he sends me over there, and again this is
a great moment in my life as I carried the rank of "Special Ambassador"
but more important than that was that as a representative of the President
of the United States, I never dreamt that it would ever happen--a Garcia--
a representative of the President of the United States .
Again, let me tell you how important this bilingual, bicultural
idea became . While in Caracas it happened that the ambassador from
Spain, whose name I've forgotten at this time, and his delegation's
car broke down .
So we gave him a ride to the presidential palace of Dr .
Raul Leoni and in it we started talking, started talking in Spanish .
Pretty soon we got to the palace, you know, the Estados Unidos de America
is close to Espana in the reception line .
This ambassador would introduce
me to all the Latin American delegations and pretty soon as we talked
Spanish, they forgot that I was an American . And they never realized it,
until I talked to President Raul Leoni and outgoing President [Romulo]
32
Betancourt, I talked to them in Spanish. And our talks created a lot
of interest . In fact I could never convince the ambassador from Spain
that I was not educated in Spain or Mexico .
I could never convince him!
He said, "No? Then you are a doctor of literature or a teacher?" I
said, "No, I am just a doctor of medicine .? Then the German representative
came over to talk to me and he said, "You mean you are a Mexican-American?"
I said, "Yes!" [He said,] "And you come here representing the USA!" I
said, "Yes!" He said, "Well, that's good .
I never thought it would be
possible ."
I made great friends there with the diplomatic corps and I was well
received by both the outgoing President Betancourt and the incoming
President Dr . Raul Leoni . Again, I received this appointment as a
serious appointment . It was a great thrill that I would be the "special
ambassador" representing the President of the United States . I still
carry as a memento my diplomatic passport .
And this is important, Mr . McComb, because psychologically we
Mexican-Americans want to also belong . In other words, I say this :
we always want to end our days in somebody's arms . Is it our mother's
arms, is it our wife's arms, is it our priest's or minister's arms, is
it our children's arms, we want to be loved and to [be] taken in by someone .
We Mexican-Americans up to the time of '60 were dejected people because we
were rejected by everyone .
In Mexico we were never accepted by the Mexicans,
and here we were not accepted by the Texans . So since 1960 is the first
instance that we feel that we are Americans . After all, you cease being a
Mexican when you are an ambassador for the United States of America, or
when you carry with you a card or a passport that says "representative of
3 3
the President of the United States," you stop being a Mexican and
become an American . I think this is the most important thing that has
happened to the Mexican-American people -that we now feel that we
belong to this country .
That this is truly our "country" and we may
keep our pride and our dignity. That we are Mexican in origin and in
blood, but we also now have the feeling that we are accepted as Americans
also!
M:
Let me ask this . During Lyndon Johnson's years as President, there was
a lot of legislation passed to help poor people, to help people in
general.
Now which of those laws that were passed have helped the
Mexican-Americans the most?
G:
Well, I think for one, of course, is "The war on poverty ." And next
of course the Civil Rights Act of 1960 and other civil rights bills of 1964 .
M:
That's a good point because most people think this in regard to the
Negro rather than to the Mexican-American .
G:
No, no . Let me tell you this . For instance up until about 1960 we
Mexican-Americans had never made the federal people realize first that
we were a minority of any numbers . Secondly, they never realized we had
specific problems . It was until the Civil Rights Act of 1960 that we were
able to start moving into this field of civil rights . Previously we moved
into other fields . But, I think these civil rights acts were the ones
that gave us the feeling--that we also had civil rights and the voting
rights . The repeal of the poll tax on federal elections which involved
the presidential and federal nominees helped . This was a most important
thing, because this federal law made the State of Texas repeal the prerequisite
of voting, which was the poll tax . And this happened only about [in]
'65 or '66, not too long ago.
34
M:
How did this help the Mexican-Americans?
G :
Well, you see, we still had to pay $1 .75 to vote before 1964 .
M:
Is that a prohibitive amount?
G:
Oh, yes . It is a prohibitive amount, Mr . McComb, when you realize that
60 percent of our people in Texas are on the poverty level . The poverty
level being $3,300 per year for a family of four . Not only that, there
are a lot of families who live on $6 to $8 a week even today--we are
the poorest . The number one county in level of "poverty" is not Deep
South counties, it is Starr County in the Rio Grande Valley .
$1 .75
was very prohibitive, because even today, mind you, with Medicare and
Medicaid, we have many people who do not have 50 cents to buy the medicine .
They have to pay 50 cents to buy the medicine--some still don't have it .
We are a poor people . You take a line drawn south of El Paso County and
go all the way across from El Paso east, and leave Betor and Midland counties
because of the oil interests, and then to to San Antonio and continue all
the way south of Houston and there is only one county south of this line
there that is not at poverty level . That's called Comal County with the
mills, the textile mills . All the other counties, as far as Mexican-
Americans are concerned, are poor counties . And I have a map there to
show you. I'll tell you, $1 .75 was a horrible amount, a great amount of
money for our people . They couldn't afford to vote . Why should you spend
$1 .75, when it could buy you so many pounds of pinto beans, or tortillas,
or flour tortillas? $1 .75--how much wieners could it buy you? How much
hamburger meat? It is still a prohibitive amount even as of today to our
poorer people .
35
M:
Did more of the Mexican-Americans then begin to vote and participate in
politics?
G:
Very much more so, very much more so . Then the most humanitarian, thing
that was ever done for our people was "Medicare ."
M:
It helped?
G:
Oh, it helped a lot. I know. After all, I serve the poor . My office is
[in] the poor part of town, you know, this is West Port, west of port . My
office used to be one block down . I was the first doctor who established
an office in the barrio here . I work only with the poor . The people who
helped me are the poor Mexican-Americans, not the Mexican well-to-do, not
the Mexican professionals .
It's the poor who sustain and back me and
help me .
Now I can see many more patients because before they had to go to
the clinic . Now they are back with Medicare .
But the point is this--
I think we live with more dignity .
I think human beings are the same .
I think young girls want to have a mink coat, everybody wants to have
a nice Cadillac car, and our families want a twenty-thirty thousand dollar
home . The point is this : we want to have dignity . We want to have a
good status . The most horrible thing was that a lot of our elderly would
die at home because they couldn't afford to go to the hospital . Now with
Medicare and Medicaid, they can go . Not only that, when they went to the
hospital, they would be put in what we in Spanish call "Rincon del Diablo ."
It means the Devil's Corner--that abandoned part of the hospital, illequipped
and ill-ventilated . Now, I think, it's a homage to God that His
children created in His image now have a decent bed, an air-conditioned
room, a lavatory .
The majority of these people would never have these
things at home and they still don't now. Medicare brought dignity and
36
respect to the Mexican-American elderly . And I'll tell you one thing,
politically, you can argue anything but I would always vote Democratic
because of Medicare for our people .
M:
Did Medicare also help break down discrimination in the hospitals?
G:
Oh, definitely, very much . It helped break it down all the way through
because we can always use "the weapon," you know, the federal money
through Medicare . And before then, the hospitals here in the '50's
would still have separate wards for Mexican-American people, and of
course for the Negroes . We thought it was horrible because separate wards
would mean inferior wards . But it has helped . In other words, all people
on Medicare of that age are hospitalized together . It has helped very much .
M :
How about the various education bills that were passed under Johnson?
Have these had any effect?
G :
In a way the bills have helped a lot, of course, all the aid to the
colleges and universities have helped very much . But I think, Dr .
McComb, the state still controls the education to such a degree that
the whole education system of Texas is not that good . As you know, we
are 42nd in high school graduates . I believe, 36th or 37th in the amount
of money we spend per capita on students . What has happened was that the
whole system of Texas was geared to agricultural pursuits . I well remember
that we would never get a hearing from the school boards in 1948, '49 and
'50 .
Even here in Robstown the school board would say, "If we educate
the Mexicans, who's going to pick our cotton ." I don't think the educational
system has come up to par, no, and I'm not talking merely as a Mexican-
American . I'm talking as a Texan . I think we are derelict, delinquent
and we are deficient in education .
I don't think we pay our teachers
37
right or properly .
I don't think we teach students right .
I think
Texas should have at least two years of college education-free for
all the students . We're backwards in this . Certainly the federal
government has helped because in all these counties we have a "special
schooling " We have first, preschool classes, the kindergarten, now
you have your Head Start, which is a terrific help .
If it hadn't been
for Head Start, the Mexican-American child would be in trouble today,
it's a terrific things and I hope they keep it up . That has been the
most moving aspect of the educational thrust . Not necessarily the scholarships
to students or the G.I . Cold War Bill, no this is it, "Head Start ."
Of course bilingual education has helped, too--but more can be done!
M:
Did you get involved with Johnson in regard to the Padre Island National
Seashore?
G:
I got involved with President Johnson.
I'm going to give you a copy
of my testimony in behalf of Padre Island . President Johnson was greatly
interested in the Padre Island Park . He came here--I remember that quite
well-he came over here . We had this hearing at the Exposition here in
Corpus Christi. He asked me to go ahead and give some testimony and his
feelings were like my feelings, that he wanted Padre Island to be a
national seashore park and when he asked me I think he knew my position .
My position is simply always to be with the people, and in this case, the
poor people . And as you read my statement there, I objected to building
big hotels, big complexes, big residential areas . I thought of Padre Island
as a gift of God really, and we were lucky to get it in such a nice, primitive,
beautiful condition .
38
And I remember President Johnson coming over here for two other
occasions . This is important historically . We had a naval base, the
naval base installation, now it's Army, ARAOMAC . The change came when
the Republicans came in with Eisenhower--when was that?
M: '52 .
G:
'52 .
Eisenhower was re-elected in 1956 .
M:
That was the election . Senator Lyndon Johnson came in in '58 to help us .
G:
Republicans started closing the base in 1958 .
Senator Johnson was still
then a senator. He came over here at the Driscoll Hotel to help us . He had
a meeting. We asked him to come here, we were horribly worried about the
economic situation here in Corpus Christi in 1958 . He flew over and came
here, and he said, "I'll do everything in my power to keep the naval
establishment open ." And I remember he expressed himself about what a
horrible thing the Secretary of Navy [Thomas] Gates, shut down the base .
He went to work for us . Of course he didn't succeed. Actually the naval
base never opened--and the naval base establishment never opened . But
he brought us "ARAOMAC ."
This is an army establishment which was something
new.
So he came over, everytime we called this man he came . When we
had this hurricane called Carla, he came again in September 1961 .
M: Carla?
G:
Carla. I remember him flying over in a helicopter and landing over by the
shoreline coliseum . He flew from the naval base by helicopter and I remember
him getting off that Army helicopter--and he came over and I talked to
him.
I still have some pictures of him which show he was really worried
about this area and the devastating effects of Carla . He seemed to be everywhere
the people needed him. And I thought this was a great tribute to the
people, that he would respond to our call . I guess he responds likewise to
39
all his friends' calls . But whenever there was any danger or need, he
helped .
In 1955 a hurricane also hit Tampico, remember? We felt a
great affinity for our Mexican brothers out of Tampico, so we decided we
would raise clothing,and food and sent it over there . Of course how
would we send it? Only through Navy planes . So I got on the phone, called
Johnson and I said, "Senator, we can raise some money here, raise some food
and clothing and can you help get it over there?" [He said,] "I'll talk it
over with the Navy people ." They were flying, and we were able to [send
these things to Tampico] . And of course we were fortunate because perhaps
[because] of our warmth and feelings toward Mexico, we got the okay of the
Mexican consul and government . Usually they hesitate about those things .
This time they accepted our assistance .
Mind you, before the United
carriers and ships into Tampico,
the Navy planes and people like
baked bread to Tampico and also food and clothing and medicine . And I say
again, I think this is a great tribute of how much this man has helped .
After all, who are we? We are little people, I should say I'm a little
people . It's people like Johnson who make little people important, and
I think little people have felt important under Johnson, because I consider
myself little people, after all I'm still a Mexican-American .
M:
Where did he get the idea of making Padre Island a national seashore? Do
you know?
G:
No, this I don't know, I really don't know .
I don't think we ever went
into it that much . I don't know how it developed because as you know it
has a terrific history, and I don't know how it developed into a national
seashore park .
M:
Have you had much connection with Mrs . Johnson?
States government was moving its aircraft
the American GI Forum, with the help of
Senator Johnson, were flying hot, fresh
40
G:
Somel I have some acquaintance and have some meetings with Mrs .
Johnson.
She's a great lady .
My wife thinks very highly of her.
As
you know, my wife is from Italy .
She is a very nice lady, she has a
doctor's degree from the University of Naples, a beautiful woman, too.
however, she doesn't like to travel . She's not a Garcial She's only
a Garcia by marriagel But when Mrs . Lyndon Johnson invited her she
gladly went .
And one day when he [President Johnson] had the ambassadors from the
Latin American states, the OAS, the Organization of American States in
his ranch, he invited us to the barbecue . And he wanted me to bring my
wife and my children, so we went over there. Besides Mrs . Johnson's
attention to the ambassadors' wives and relatives, she was also very kind
to my wife .
In fact she gave her a very nice wrist watch and I think this
again speaks very eloquently for this great lady .
And we had her here on Padre Island when we dedicated The Padre Island
Seashore Park . I think she's a great lady because I think she's sincere .
She certainly seems so warm and of course with her family tie-in with the
Taylors in New Mexico, they are also well liked over there .
I think she's
a great, nice, compassionate and sincere lady . She's always helpful--
everytime we needed something from her, we called her.
M:
This exhausts the questions I have for you. It there anything else you'd
like to say, or any other connections you have had with Johnson that ought
to be put in here?
G:
Yes . One time we were up in Washington at some event at the White House
and the official White House photographer was there . I think this predated
Mr . Ximenes' appointment, or about that time in 1964 . I said, "Mr . President,
you are going to give me a picture ." I knew because I could see the
photographer so I suddenly said, "Let me give you these pictures ." So I
41
gave the President some pictures that we had taken at his ranch on one
of these festivities for the Latin American ambassadors, the Organization
of American States . Then I said, "Besides that, President Johnson, let
me show you these other pictures . In these pictures I show you the usual
cemetery ceremony the American GI Forum has with its hundred flags at the
veterans :' funerals ." And I said, "President Johnson, when I go and speak
and give a eulogy posthumously on a soldier's death, I say that of course
we present this flag on behalf of the President of the United States and
the Congress and the People ." And said he, "Hector, you can always tell
those people that I have asked you that wherever you go or you can go,
to say that Lyndon Johnson (these are the words that he used) was very
grateful for their sacrifice . And you tell those Mexican-American people
that I'm forever grateful to them for the sacrifices of their fathers,
sons and brothers ."
And since that time I would tell the mothers and the fathers and
the widows and the children, "President Lyndon Johnson asked me on this
occasion to tell you that he is very grateful, though sorry for the
death of your husband (or brother or father), he's grateful for the
sacrifice ." And I think this speaks very highly for this man who loved
the soldiers . And all during the time I attended the funerals of the
soldiers, I remembered what he said .
I could see that Viet Nam war
certainly always worried him constantly . I still remember that day when
he decided that he was not going to run, I felt bad about it . Sometimes
I figure perhaps we didn't help him as much as we should have helped him.
Perhaps the advice or whoever his advisers were, didn't advise him as much
as they should have advised him, or as well .
42
I know he tried so hard to do everything for his country and
for the world. He certainly tried hard enough to achieve a permanent
peace. Of course those of us who were involved in a little diplomacy
like I was in the United Nations, can tell you, Dr . McComb, even today
that peace still is an elusive thing, it isn't so clear, it isn't so
easy to get, and sometimes I wonder if even in twenty years more we
might still find peace elusive!
I say overall the Mexican-American people loved this man, respected
him and still love him. And in fact we are still working that somewhere
down the line we will give him recognition that he deserves from us .
The Mexican-American people themselves went through a little revolutionary
crisis and when this turbulence is settled, we will again see the greatness
of this man. We feel greatly indebted to President Lyndon Johnson!
I remember when Mrs . Johnson was here for the Padre Island dedication .
Many of our people wanted to go there and see her. We had a bus load .
Although we got there late because of the crowd--we got there at the end
of the ceremony . However, we got there in time to see Mrs . Johnson . We
had about thirty Mexican-American Gold Star Mothers, mind you, that asked
to take them because they wanted to see Mrs . Johnson . And I think this
again a tribute to the Johnsons from a viewpoint--of course, of Mexican-
I can go on and on like that and tell you more of these things .
us
is
Americans .
But I think it should suffice enough to say that first, I am grateful ;
secondly, speaking on behalf of the Mexican-American people and the Spanish
speaking people in this
as a citizen, I should say he is
has ever had. And as history is
stand out very high in the love and respect, not only of the Americans, but
country, we are grateful to this man. And speaking
one of the greatest presidents this country
written you'll find out that Johnson will
of the world. He will come out being one of our greatest presidents .
He set himself aside from the every day common point of politics in
order to achieve what he thought was more important than his political
future, which meant stability and world peace .
I was hoping it could
have been accomplished before he finished his tenure of office .
Unfortunately, it didn't, but he kept his word . He did not run .
M:
Well, on that eloquent statement I wish to thank you for the interview.
G:
Thank you, Dr . McComb, thank you very much .

Labels: American GI Forum, Corpus Christi, Dr Hector P Garcia

posted by Jaime Kenedeño @ 11:47 PM 0 comments links to this post
0 Comments:

Post a Comment
Links to this post:

<$BlogBacklinkTitle$>
<$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>
posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link

<< Home
About Me

My Photo
Name: Jaime Kenedeño
Location: The Body of Christ, Texas, US

dannoynted1, my family, sports, football, baseball, coaching, educating, taking on and kicking ass on the GOLIATHS of South Texas, Political & PR Strategy, research, Law, Jurisprudence, the Little People, kenedy, kennedy, sarita, catholic, pedophiles, grace, marc cisneros, king ranch, la parra, dna, ann matilde fernandez, defenzor, corpus christi, texas, kingsville, kleberg, nueces, oswald, nixon, lbj, assassination, mifflin, turcotte, gracida, diocese, vatican, alice, exxon, trappist monk, jacob floyd, brother leo, laureles, chapman, ske, oden, bush, attorney, nesbitt, suess, oil, energy, cia, argentina, kfatso, armstrong, parr, duval, rowland, jfk, de rance foundation, garriga, adami, michael j sullivan, crimen solicitationis, appleby, exxon, humble, attorney, fraud, petra vela de vidal, saltillo, pinkerton

View my complete profile
Previous Posts

* Dr. Hector P Garcia: "we got together a group of v...
* I can't believe the US government is putting two o...
* CCISD: CORPUS CHRISTI - The community spoke up abo...
* Humanitarian Appeal for Ramsey Muniz
* Joe A Ortiz (National Civil Rights Director, Ameri...
* "Hermano Joe, Thank You, For I Will Forever Be The...
* Joe A Ortiz: Good Man, Great Individual & Fearless...
* Del Mar Electronic Anonymous Input Forum: What is ...
* Gi Forum Network and Joe Ortiz Bring Ramsey back t...
* Dear GI Forum Members, Did Juan Garcia Not "Cut & ...

Powered by Blogger

Bravenet Hit Counter
Powered by Bravenet
View Statistics