An Ugly Battle Over Honoring Cesar Chavez

Last week was a good one for the admirers of Cesar Chavez.

Up in San Francisco, voters rejected a move to change Cesar Chavez Street back to its original name of 144 years, Army Street.

It was an ugly campaign that pitted those who wanted to honor the late leader of the United Farm Workers union against others who thought a piece of city history was being thrown away to cater to a special interest group.

At times, some Chicano activists wondered how it was possible even in liberal San Francisco--where support for Chavez-inspired boycotts and strikes was enthusiastic in the union’s heyday--that what they interpreted as anti-Mexican sentiment could flourish during the campaign.

They thought the Board of Supervisors’ vote 10 months ago to rename Army was the right thing to do. After all, since Chavez’s death in 1993, governmental bodies across the country have been naming public places and streets, including one in L.A., after Chavez. In all, 10 streets, 21 schools, four libraries, six parks, three plazas and one bridge have been so named--without the rancor evident in San Francisco.

Mindful of the controversy up north, Chavez supporters are hoping to avoid a repeat of the conflict as they quietly work for yet another honor for him here in L.A.

But could another San Francisco-type controversy be brewing here, too?

*

Officials of the Cesar Chavez Foundation, a nonprofit organization committed to perpetuating his memory and beliefs, have proposed a monument to Chavez in the form of three statues in El Pueblo de Los Angeles Park, the city’s birthplace.

One of the proposed figures is of Chavez. Another is of a small child, to signify Chavez’s support for child labor laws. The third figure is that of a stooped old man working with a short-handled hoe--a hand tool the UFW successfully sought to outlaw.

The monument’s designer, 27-year-old Khalil Bendib, says that “even as a kid in Algeria, Cesar Chavez has always been a hero to me. He’s done so much for many people,” including Arab members of the UFW.

Bendib proposed the monument and its location in El Pueblo, which is just north of Downtown, to Chavez’s family and others at UFW headquarters. They promptly endorsed it.

It quickly gained some powerful allies. Los Angeles City Councilman Richard Alatorre, in whose district El Pueblo is located, County Supervisor Gloria Molina, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony and Eastside activist Lydia Lopez, a member and former president of the El Pueblo governing board, have endorsed the proposal. Lopez’s board and probably Alatorre will have to approve the project to make it happen.

Not so fast, say the defenders of L.A.’s history.

El Pueblo--which includes Olvera Street, some vacant grass lots and the town plaza where city anniversary and Cinco de Mayo events are held--is where the city was founded in 1783. Special care should be taken to ensure that any statue or monument put there is in keeping with L.A.’s history.

“Cesar Chavez is an important figure, but let’s not put him in there,” said L.A. history buff Ofelia Morales. “He is a contemporary figure but not an historical one that deserves a place where our city was born.”

Clara Olsen, another defender of L.A. history, added: “He’s not important enough” to Los Angeles’ own history.

That last comment conjures up the anti-Mexican feelings that surfaced during the fight for votes in San Francisco. “It’s an indirect way of being anti-Mexican by saying he isn’t important enough,” says monument supporter Rosemary Nunez. “There are many, many, many Mexicans living in this city. I think he’s important enough to them.”

It’s an argument that’s been heard before. There are only three statues within El Pueblo and none of them is of Mexican descent: King Carlos III of Spain, who was on the throne when the city was founded; Felipe de Neve, the Spanish governor of California who helped establish the city, and Junipero Serra, the Franciscan missionary who founded many of California’s Roman Catholic missions.

“El Pueblo should be for all peoples, not just conquerors,” a Chavez supporter argues.

*

There are other potential obstacles. Revitalization plans for Olvera Street and the nearby Terminal Annex post office building, and the possible realignment of Los Angeles Street, may rob El Pueblo of suitable spots for the monument.

No matter, the Chavez foundation is gearing up for fund-raisers to come up with the $125,000 needed for construction costs. It has tentatively set the monument’s unveiling for March, 1997, to coincide with the farm leader’s 70th birthday.

That doesn’t leave much time to come with up a solution. If one isn’t found, our own war over Chavez’s legacy will easily surpass San Francisco’s.