quetzalcoatl in san jose: conflict over a commemoration · significance of this case study is with...

^k^P**^tm ?^^Fr s'^^^î^^til^^BBBBB^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B k^^BBHLcf ./v> ̂̂ Iîiflt^^BI^BI^dflHw^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H

Rr^îHB^^3ffi|îEmB^SBSBB^M^î F %f$$mPiÂ^MÎ^wHPKSK^BflBBB^H

> ̂ j^^bBPP ^MfLr^B^^^^Btw^BB^^^^B^^^B^^B

Artist Robert Pena Graham's sculpture of Quetzalcoatl. The Plumed Serpent, which rests on a stone base, was unveiled and dedicated in its downtown San Jose loca

tion on November 18,1994. Photo copyright Dana L. Grover.

328 CALIFORNIA HISTORY

Dow

nloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/ch/article-pdf/74/3/328/98897/25177515.pdf by guest on 20 M

ay 2020

QUETZALCOATL IN SAN JOSE:

Conflict Over A Commemoration

by Ramon D. Chacon

Introduction

In 1991, the city of San Jose decided to commem

orate on a grand scale its Mexican heritage by placing a sculpture of the Toltec god Quetzalcoatl

(the Plumed Serpent) in the city's most centrally located park, Plaza de Cesar Chavez, formerly Plaza Park. Before the final decision was made by the city council, however, the idea of recognizing Quetzal coatl evoked opposition from a small but well-orga nized and vocal group. While Quetzalcoatl as a

cultural symbol might be appreciated and sup

ported by the large majority of the Chicano com

munity and many non-Chicanos, some segments of the city's populace strongly opposed the commem

oration on religious, cultural, and racial grounds. This study will explain the initial proposals to

honor the Plumed Serpent and the role of city gov ernment officials, especially the city council spear headed by Councilwoman Blanca Alvarado, in

supporting the project. The study will also examine the nature of the opposition to the project, one that involved largely a religious faction consisting mainly of non-Chicanos and some Chicanos. Finally, it will

explain why such controversies evolve and what the

significance of this case study is with respect to future efforts by Chicanos and other ethnic groups to commemorate leaders and cultural symbols.

San Jose and Quetzalcoatl: City Government Response

San Jose is located some fifty miles south of San Francisco and is the hub of the high technology region known as the Silicon Valley. The city has a

population of more than 835,000 and has surpassed San Francisco. In San Jose, 50.8 percent of the resi dents are "people of color," with Latinos compris ing the largest segment with 27 percent.1 San Jose

was established in 1777 during the Spanish phase

of colonization of California. Historically and cul

turally, then, San Jose has a strong Mexican back

ground, since non-Hispanic settlement came largely after the Mexican War in 1848.2 Plaza Park, recently renamed Plaza de Cesar Chavez, site of the proposed Plumed Serpent sculpture, represented one area

within San Jose's environs that had strong links with the city's Mexican heritage.

The planning and decisions that resulted in plac ing a sculpture of Quetzalcoatl at the plaza began in March 1991. At the time, the South Gateway Com

mittee was formed, chaired by Blanca Alvarado, vice

mayor and city council member, to guide the con

ceptual development of public art for the South Gateway, located at Gore Park in the downtown area. The committee was charged with installing art

work that recognized the city's Mexican heritage. The committee met with internationally known

sculptor Robert Pena Graham, and based on the committee's thoughts and ideas, Graham developed

what Blanca Alvarado described as "a powerful piece of sculpture depicting the Plumed Serpent."3 The committee decided that Graham's sculpture represented an important work of art, that it be included in the Art in Public Places Program, and that it be placed in a location other than Gore Park. Committee members proposed, and the Art in Pub lic Places Advisory Panel and the Visual Arts Com

mittee of the Fine Arts Commission concurred, that the sculpture should be sited at the south island of Plaza Park for the following reasons: (1) the sculp ture, an important work of art by an internationally known Latino artist, merits a premiere location in downtown San Jose; and (2) the south island is an

appropriate site because the Plaza Park area was

originally settled by the Spanish/Mexican founders of the city of San Jose. It was pointed out that, because of flooding, the pueblo of San Jose had been relocated in 1797, to what is now Plaza Park.4 The

park site was described as "the center of life and

activity for the Pueblo."5

Working with the city council, Alvarado provided

FALL 1995 329

Dow


ay 2020

the leadership and directed the official process to

gain approval for the sculpture. Through Alvarado's

leadership, the city council developed a six-step public process to gain approval, which involved

obtaining support from the Art in Public Places Advisory Panel, the Visual Arts Committee, the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Urban

Design Review Board, and the Fine Arts Commis sion. These city agencies reviewed the sculpture pro

posal, and some eighteen months after the initial

proposal was presented, they recommended its

approval. The final and sixth step in the approval process was a positive review from a joint session of the city council and the Redevelopment Agency Board.6

The cost for the fabrication of the proposed Plumed

Serpent by Graham totaled $400,000. An additional $100,000 was allocated to provide for the costs of site

preparation, lighting, installation, and transporta tion, bringing the total expense to $500,000. The pro

posed sculpture measured approximately fifteen feet in diameter and from twenty to twenty-five feet in height. As proposed, the work included three

major components: "a bronze sculpture of the Plumed Serpent, a masonry or terracotta-like struc ture that will serve as both a base for the sculpture and a chamber large enough to enter and view the interior of the sculpture, and a gilded sphere repre

senting the sun, suspended above the figure of the

serpent."7 The project would be funded by the Rede

velopment Agency through funds specifically des

ignated for urban revitalization.8 Robert Pena Graham, the artist selected to produce

the sculpture, was born in Mexico City in 1938. At the age of twelve, he immigrated to San Jose with his family. Graham attended high school in San Jose, graduated from San Jose State University, and studied at the San Francisco Art Institute. The fifty six-year-old artist now resides in Los Angeles and is married to the Oscar-winning actress Anjelica

Huston.9 He is described as "one of America's lead

ing figurative sculptors" and as "one of the most

accomplished artists to have grown up in our com

munity."10 His work includes a monument to the

heavyweight boxer Joe Louis in Detroit, the 1984

Olympic Gateway in Los Angeles, the F.D.R. Mon ument in Washington, D.C, and the Duke Ellington

Memorial for Manhattan's Central Park. Graham's work is also displayed in national museums, among them the Museum of Modern Art, the Whitney

Museum of American Art, the Art Institute of

Chicago, and the Los Angeles Museum of Contem

porary Art.11 The last step, which many believed would be the

final one in approving Graham's proposed sculpture,

Sculptor Robert Pena Graham. Photo by Paul Kitagaki, San Jose Mercury News.

involved a joint meeting of the city council and the

redevelopment agency board scheduled for Decem ber 3,1992. At this meeting, the city council adopted a resolution by the redevelopment agency board to

approve an agreement with Robert Graham for the fabrication of the Plumed Serpent, to be located at Plaza Park at a cost not to exceed $400,000.12

The Controversy Over the Plumed Serpent: Opposition and Support

Opposition to the proposed sculpture began to take root during public agency meetings that were held to approve the project. At the joint city council and

redevelopment agency board meeting held on

December 3,1992, city government officials heard tes

timony from those opposed to the project. Most of those in opposition at this meeting were described

by the press as "a few old guard" Chicano activists


Dow


ay 2020

who argued against spending $400,000 in public funds for the proposed sculpture and instead favored

allocating the money for "housing, food, and other

social services for the poor."13 The Chicano activists who expressed opposition to the sculpture were:

Ernestina Garcia of Confederacion de la Raza; Kathy

Chavez-Napoli of the Santa Clara County Auto Recy

cling Association; Ignacio Hernandez of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (M.E.Ch.A.), a Chi cano student organization, San Jose State University; Enrique Dominguez of the Black Berets; Felix Alvarez

of Teatro de los Pobres; and Raquel Silva of Conf ed eracion de La Raza. While some Chicano activists

opposed the Quetzalcoatl statue because of monetary

priorities, others testified in support of the proposal. They included: Father Jose Rubio, associate pastor of St. John Vianney Church; Consuelo Santos-Killian, member of the California Arts Council and director of the Institute for the Arts and Letters at San Jose State University; Andres Gutierrez, Teatro

Campesino; Javier Salazar, Aztlan Academy of Eth nic Heritage; Jose Antonio Burciaga, representing La Raza of Stanford University; Angel Rios, Mexican American Community Services Agency; Albert

Rodriguez, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; and Leonard Ramirez, East Valley American G.I. Forum.14 There were also non-Chicanos, academics and artists

alike, who testified in support of the project. Four non-Chicanos testified against the proposal,

however. One of them present at the meeting wrote a letter expressing extreme discontent accentuated

by a reference to an ironic earlier instance in which Chicanos in San Jose vehemently opposed a statue

dedicated to an Anglo-American hero. The letter

fairly dripped with racism and xenophobia and merits quoting:

On November 27,1992, the San Jose Mercury News

reported one of the most controversial and anti American legislative proposals to come of the San

Jose City Council which I can recall in my 55 years as a San Jose resident. That is the proposal to erect in Plaza Park a statue, the Plumed Serpent, repre senting a pagan god, Quetzalcoatl, in the very park

where the American patriot, Capt. Thomas Fallon, was recently denied the right to be so honored by his admirers, Americans all.

This scandalous behaviour by the city council is in direct response to the revolutionary and anti

American political clout of Mexican American activists. Mexican Americans, by definition are not Americans. But being residents of San Jose, they wish to redesign San Jose, into their innermost dream of an ideal community. This ideal is the very antithe sis of everything that is American. This explains their vicious assault two years ago on the proposed erec

tion of Capt. Thomas Fallon's statue in Plaza Park, and the cowardly surrender to their demands by the San Jose City Council.

Will history repeat itself? Will the city council

again display the contemptible wimpish cowardice which seems to have become its hallmark when deal

ing with semi-barbaric minority pressure groups?15

Although attitudes similar to the above persisted in San Jose, in the succeeding months little contro

versy was evident concerning the Quetzalcoatl statue. After the death of Cesar Chavez on April 23, 1993, however, the proposed sculpture generated new opposition. Following Chavez's death, the city council, again under the leadership of Alvarado, decided to rename Plaza Park, Plaza de Cesar Chavez. For many, San Jose's renaming of the park to honor Chavez was most fitting. Chavez had once

lived in East San Jose, in the barrio then known as

"Sal si puedes" ("Get out if you can"). He gained much experience in organizing through his work with the city's Community Service Organization. Chavez's parents, now deceased, had been long term residents of the city, as had his sisters, who still reside there. Thus, to many San Joseans, Chavez was one of their own, a person who merited recognition.

In May 1993, at the request of Mayor Susan Ham mer and Councilwoman Alvarado, the city council referred the renaming of Plaza Park in honor of Cesar Chavez to the city's Parks and Recreation Commis sion. On August 18, 1993, the commission held a

public hearing to vote on the request. Approxi mately two hundred people attended, and nearly seventy gave testimony regarding the renaming of the park. The great majority of the citizens present

supported the change, as they found Chavez to be worthy of such recognition. Three speakers, how

ever, spoke against the proposed renaming of the

park for "historical reasons." A number of citizens also brought up the city council's decision to locate the Quetzalcoatl sculpture in the park. This faction "felt that what Cesar Chavez stood for and what the

plumed serpent represented were in great conflict."16 Three weeks later, on September 8, the Parks and Recreation Commission voted six to one in favor of the name change.17

Thus, the proposal to rename Plaza Park to com memorate Cesar Chavez opened the door for a dif ferent kind of opposition to the proposed sculpture, one that differed significantly from those Chicano activists who had opposed the project some nine

months before. In a letter to the mayor and city coun

cil, Ellen Oppenheim, director of Convention, Cul

tural, and Visitor Services, expressed concern over those who opposed the sculpture. In reference to the

FALL 1995 331

Dow


ay 2020

hearing to rename the park, Oppenheim warned that "the objections to the work expressed at the hearing seemed to be on religious grounds. Many testified that the sculpture represented Quetzalcoatl, or the Plumed

Serpent from Aztec and Toltec mythology. They claimed that this god was worshipped through human sacrifice. The sculpture therefore was not a fit

ting memorial to Cesar Chavez. Some speakers stated that the serpent form represented evil. Several com

plained that this project had happened without opportunity for citizen input. She also reported that her office had "received a number of phone calls about this artwork over the past ten days."18

Due to the number of letters written to the mayor and city council, as well as letters critical of the sculp ture published in the San Jose Mercury News, Mayor

Hammer and the city council scheduled a public hearing for the evening of September 21, 1993, on the "Public Art Process" and the council's decision to locate the Plumed Serpent in Plaza de Cesar

Chavez.19

The Development of Religious Opposition

The new opponents to the Quetzalcoatl sculpture based their opposition first, and foremost, on reli

gious grounds. Second, they argued that placing the

sculpture at the park constituted an affront to Cesar

Chavez, in whose honor the plaza would be renamed. Third, they recommended that the money should be used instead for social services. Fourth,

they predicted that the sculpture would promote vio lence and bloodshed among Chicano youth. Last,

they complained that the citizentry had had no say in the decision. The latter four reasons were largely used by religious opponents?by far the largest and most vocal group?to generate opposition among others who found the sculpture to be religiously inof fensive.

Thus, although the letters that were addressed to

city officials raised all the afore-mentioned objections, it was clear that the central issue involved religion. The claim that citizens had not been consulted about the decision became hollow after officials pointed out that five public meetings had dealt with the sculp ture and that there had been ample opportunity for

public comment. According to Ellen Oppenhiem, "two of the meetings were public hearings. All of the

meetings were properly noticed and the public hear

ings were announced in newspaper articles."20 More

over, officials had just called the additional public hearing to be held on September 21.

The letters, largely written by non-Chicanos who at times claimed to speak also for the Chicano com

munity, expressed discontent with locating the statue

The outdoor stage at Plaza de Cesar

Chavez, formerly known as Plaza

Park, in downtown San Jose. The

Quetzalcoatl sculpture lies at the opposite, southern tip of the plaza. Photo by Peter Orsi.


Dow


ay 2020

in a park honoring Cesar Chavez.21 One letter from three citizens stated that they were pleased that the

park would be renamed after Cesar Chavez. How

ever, they added, "what an unworthy tribute this work would be to a man who lived only to improve the quality of life of downtrodden human beings,

migrant workers! What an insult to Hispanic peo

ple that nothing better than this blood thirsty sym bol can be resurrected and erected to represent their culture."22 Another letter noted that Chavez had

great respect for human life, was a "devout Catholic and was in no way connected with the pagan reli

gion of the Aztecs. His roots are Hispanic/Mexican American, traced back at least 500 years, of the Catholic tradition."23

While a few letters asserted that funds for the

sculpture should be used instead to support libraries,

youth centers, and the homeless, other letters alleged that the Quetzalcoatl statue would promote violence in San Jose, especially, by implication, among Chi cano youth. A letter addressed to Mayor Hammer stated "one would have to admit that a snake of this size even without the religious connotations could

likely attract some undesirable individuals to this

park. That would be bad for local business as well as the local populace. What message can we possi bly give our young people from this deity of human sacrifice? I think we have a real danger here." The author then reminded Mayor Hammer about the

previous year's killing and mutilation of an eight year-old boy by three Chicano teenagers. "You and the council,

" the writer added, "must take respon

sibility for your actions in this matter. Is it worth even

the remotest possibility of violent deeds as a result of this artwork? I strongly encourage you to take a

closer look at this statue and the effect it could have on our youth and our city."24 Another letter to Alvarado suggested that the statue would cultivate

violence, "as if San Jose doesn't have enough prob lems with people getting killed by gang members."25 In an interview a few months later, Nathan Hill, host of a Christian television news magazine program took a more demonic view: "Blanca said she was

compelled by the artist's rendition of the sculpture. She didn't even know why. I can tell her why. It refers to the powers behind it. It's still alive. Spirits don't die." Hill predicted that if the sculpture were placed at Plaza de Cesar Chavez, the park could become the site of modern-day human sacrifices, with the home less population the first victims.26 Since these resi dents conceived of Quetzalcoatl as a blood-thirsty idol, they implied that Chicano youth, as proponents of Mexican culture, would fall under the influence of the Plumed Serpent, and violence would increase.

The religious issue, therefore, became the domi

nant force against the sculpture. One person, Salva tore Caruso, was particularly instrumental in mobi

lizing this kind of opposition to the sculpture. A member of the city's Planning Commission and the Urban Design Review Board, Caruso had on Sep tember 17,1992, originally voted in favor of the site location for the Plumed Serpent sculpture. In fact, he had seconded the motion. His comments at that

meeting, recorded in the Urban Design Review Board

minutes, make it surprising that he would later foment opposition to a sculpture he had approved.

According to the minutes, Caruso had expressed "philosophical concerns about the imaging of the

piece," and questioned whether the artwork would be "representative of the Hispanic community." While he did believe the "Quetzalcoatl image is beautiful and representative of Aztec culture," he felt that the "image of a snake ready to strike could

frighten children." Nevertheless, at another point, Caruso stated that "a total picture of the public art

program should be in place. The image of Quetzal coatl as a piece of a link is OK, but it must be part of a larger program."27

Almost a year later, however, after the idea to rename Plaza Park became public knowledge and resulted in the resurrection of the Quetzalcoatl issue, Caruso was lining up opposition to the sculpture. By August 1993, a group consisting of Protestant fun

damentalists/evangelicals and a small number of traditional Catholics?a group that included some

Chicanos?was organized to foment opposition against the sculpture. For the past several months, Caruso now reported, he had undertaken "research" on the Plumed Serpent, although this was perhaps based on a single book.28 According to Caruso, it was

his research into the history of Quetzalcoatl that had convinced him to act against the statue.29 Caruso denied any alliance with religious groups opposing the statue, although the protest began shortly after church leaders received pages from a book on the Plumed Serpent reportedly provided by him. As explanation for the appearance of the pages, accord

ing to Caruso, a woman employed in his office became interested in the controversy as she typed Caruso's letters of protest. Caruso provided her

copies of the text, and she in turn gave them to her

husband, Roger Litwin, who was horrified by what he read because "he had worked with children who had witnessed human sacrifice."30 Caruso main tained that it had been Litwin who had circulated the information to churches. Among the religious leaders whom Litwin contacted were the Rev. E. Cannistraci of the Evangel Christian Fellowship, the Rev. Dick Bernal of the Jubilee Christian Center, and Nathan Hill.31 In addition to enclosing results of

FALL 1995 333

Dow


ay 2020

I^MSIBKk ' mîKKSk!^SSi^^^BS3IB^^BBBB^HBm^^BBB^^^^B^^^^^^^K^^^^Û

pBz^r; 'BBSBBBBKBB^BBBUK^^BBBB

^^^^^^^^^Pr^MEt^^^^ÊSe^ . u'm:_^^^^^^H^^^^^. fe^B Bî^^^^BBBflf iKiti^^BiH^^^^^^^^^^^H

^^^^^B^^^Î^^H^B^^^^B^K^^^^^r%7he ^^^^^H^^BB^^B^^^^^B ^^H^^^^Bhm^^B^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^BE^^^^^^B AtTAftof ^^^B^^^^^BS^^BB^BI^^^k ^^^^^^^^BjIH^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H^^k^^^^^K n ET2au;oati ^^^^^B^^H^^^^bI^^^H

^^^Hfe ' your money a^^^^^^^^^HK^^^^^^^^^^^B t^^B^B^BBBBfili^ ffcd^L

Protesters and television media at the unveiling ceremony of the Quetzalcoatl statue. Photo copyright Dana L. Grover. _

Caruso's research, Litwin addressed a letter to these

religious groups. He explained that on August 18, 1993, the Parks and Recreation Commission would discuss the renaming of Plaza Park. Litwin called for church leaders to influence their flocks to attend the

meeting and to use their numbers to defeat the

Quetzalcoatl proposal. Litwin stated:

It [Quetzalcoatl] does not represent the human dig nity and value for life that is so important in our soci

ety. What makes a difference in the decisions made

by public officials is people. If there are not the peo ple at that meeting to say that the sculpture does not

represent the value of life of our community, then we will have that image in the most central park in San Jose. Should you feel like asking your people to be involved at the meeting...,please encourage them to speak up from the stand point of what it repre sents to our community and people. Note, a strong

statement as to it being in contradiction to the Truth of Jesus Christ...would set up any speaker as well as others around him or her of being dismissed by the political leadership as religious fanatics and so not representative of the community at all. And since the political leaders of this city are concerned as to votes, should pastors be there who can men tion that they represent churches of 100, or 1,000, etc.,

members, this would translate into the idea of num bers and so votes and so cause the politicians to be more willing to listen.32

Thus, many who attended the August 18 Parks and Recreation Commission hearing to discuss renaming Plaza Park, and who were against the Plumed Ser

pent project, were affiliated with Protestant funda mentalist religious groups that had been contacted by Litwin. The few traditional Catholics soon left the ranks of the opposition, perhaps leery of supporting a cause dominated by Protestant fundamentalists whom they regarded as opponents on other issues.


Dow


ay 2020

______________K_K___-______r @H_B^_^_2________f *T J_____?__I__PI-____B

________________________P ^l_nl___________________V__r k_*_2___^^^/**_____ _________________________________________? _K_I_______k _______ ______________________________________________^__P^ ^ l<r_2^^K^ - ;____^__^__HH_^_^_^_^_^_^__lli?^^ iaiPi

_____________T/ ::_-_-___RM'___________________r ^____________ _^i^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^iii^^^^^__iiiHn^ \

l^^^v iiH________________Bt ^^^Hv hh^H^^^^B __^_^_Bb_a_^___^B_!_^__^_^_^_^_Kfl______________f^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|&#>/:

Christian protesters hold a vigil near the site of the Quet _ zalcoatl sculpture. Photo copyright Dana L. Grover.

Although it was denied by Caruso, some residents of San Jose still believed that Caruso played a cen

tral role in fomenting religious opposition to the

sculpture. For example, Mike Cassidy, a reporter for the San Jose Mercury News, wrote the following regarding Caruso's involvement: "He hates the bronze feathered serpent planned for Plaza de Cesar Chavez as a...tribute to San Jose's Hispanic resi dents. Last fall, he started a campaign joined by charismatic and fundamentalist churches to derail the monument, which Caruso says represents human sacrifice, government-sanctioned religion and poor use of tax money. Caruso's role in the Quet zalcoatl debate was far more deliberate and myste rious." And, Cassidy concluded, "Caruso still insists he is not allied with the churches opposing the statue, even though the protest began shortly after church leaders received pages of research on Quet zalcoatl provide by Caruso."33 Indeed, city officials as late as November 1994 believed that Caruso had

been a major force in organizing opposition to the

sculpture and that he had been a leader in organiz ing demonstrations during the dedication cere

monies later that fall.34

Chicanos /Latinos and Evangelicals

A number of Chicanos affiliated with the funda mentalist churches supported their leaders' attacks on the Quetzalcoatl sculpture. Symbolically, gaining involvement of Chicanos to protest against the Plumed Serpent represented a strategy to prove that the opposition was not comprised solely of non-Chi

canos, and that race was not a factor. The involve ment of Chicanos in fundamentalist /evangelical sects, such as in San Jose, is a national phenomenon. Some Latinos have become dissatisfied with the

FALL 1995 335

Dow


ay 2020

Catholic church, and it is estimated that in the past fifteen years more than one million Latinos in the

United States have left the church. Indeed, every year that number is increased by between 60,000 and

100,000.35 Latino defection from the Catholic church has been attributed to its large size and imperson ality, resulting in the lack of a family atmosphere, the

weakness of the Catholic pastoral focus in the bar rios and among the poor, marginalized sectors of

society, the active involvement of Christian funda mentalist missionaries in barrio communities, and the

scarcity of Latino priests among the Catholic clergy.36 Latino priests number approximately 2,000, which

represents only three percent of the total number of

priests in the United States; moreover, more than half of the Latino priests are foreign born. On the other

side, Latinos comprise about 40 percent of the Catholics in this country, and it is expected that the

percentage will increase to 50 percent by the year 2000.37 "Confronted with everything from larger parishes, and fewer priests, to proselytizing by evan

gelicals," wrote Demetria Martinez of the National Catholic Reporter, "Hispanics are abandoning Catholi cism in greater figures than at any other time in his

tory. Although exact figures are not available, studies show that, in some areas, a quarter of Hispanics no

longer identify themselves as Catholic."38 While many Latinos who have abandoned the

Catholic church are poor, according to the National

Opinion Research Center, "Protestant Hispanics make more money, have a higher level of education and are more likely to be white-collar workers?in

effect, they are middle class."39 Yet, many of those who have defected are Latinos from immigrant stock, often recent arrivals. The Apostolic Assembly of Churches, a 60,000-member Hispanic pentecostal denomination, has experienced tremendous growth in the past few years, drawing largely from recent

Mexican immigrants. Richard Almarez, the denom ination's secretary general, stated that "many immi

grants come to this country seeking the American dream. But instead they find themselves in need"? a need his church can fill.40

In reaching Latino converts, Protestant funda mentalist evangelicals have preached a conservative social ideology emphasizing capitalism, individu

alism, and acculturation. In the United States, the sects preach "success," "standing on one's own two

feet,"and seeing the church as a way of truly enter

ing America and into a better social class. They also

promote acculturation to the dominant society by influencing Latinos to reject their traditional cul tures.41 Allan Figueroa Deck, a Catholic priest, con

tends that the real "danger of the sects is that they are not only drawing Hispanics away from Catholi

cism, but from their own identity. The sects in the name of religious conversion, are in a sense doing violence to the very identity of these people."42 Bill

Ruth, a non-evangelical Christian and pastor of St.

John's Lutheran Church in San Francisco's Mission

district, a Latino barrio, concurs in this view. Ruth has noticed a rejection of Mexico and its culture by some converted Mexican evangelicals. In Ruth's

view, these converted Mexicans believe that becom

ing an evangelical Protestant is a way of becoming an American?rejecting the "old ways."43

This focus on assimilation and acculturation has also been stressed in evangelical missionizing in Latin America. There, the sects have also been

charged with acting as a counter-revolutionary force

by serving the right-wing interests that have domi nated the societies and governments of some Latin American countries. Indeed, a Catholic priest from San Francisco contends that the CIA is behind the growth of evangelical Protestantism in Latin Amer ica because it suits some officials in Washington,

D.C., to promote a "conservative, counter-revolu

tionary force."44 A recent study regarding evangelicals in

Guatemala concluded that "contemporary evangel icals in Guatemala support the status quo and serve to dampen progressive tendencies and squelch rev

olutionary activities."45 In a country where fifty per cent of the population belongs to the Maya or other native groups, the ideology promoted by evangeli cal sects plays a central role in preserving military rule. For example, fundamentalists have had tremen dous success in Guatemala, especially by influenc

ing the country's educational system. Evangelical recruits have increased their numbers from 3 percent to 25 percent of the population in Guatemala, and the country has the highest percentage of Protestants in Latin America. The great majority are conserva tive evangelicals who preach a religious ideology that is anti-communist, pro-capitalist, and support ive of military rule.46 In a country dominated by mil

itary regimes, according to two observers, "both

capitalist and military objectives are furthered by a

conservative Protestant ideology which stresses individual salvation rather than group solidarity and

disciplined work under sanctioned authority." The

evangelicals teach "obedience to the authority of a

regime that uses repressive tactics to coerce the pop ulation toward the kind of 'stability' that favors Guatemalan capitalists and transnational corporate interest."47 Not only do evangelicals preach that

Guatemalans should submit to the authority of

Christ, but also that everyone should submit to the

authority of the nation and the army.48 Thus, considering the influence of evangelicals


Dow


ay 2020

among Latinos in the United States and in Latin

America, it is not surprising that similar religious groups surfaced in San Jose and that some Latino Protestants supported the attacks on the Quetzal coatl statue. The ideology preached in the United States is modified, especially because of the differ ences in the political, economic, social, and educa tional conditions that exist in this country compared to such nations as Guatemala. In the United States, for example, the religious ideology promoted in cludes the view that upward mobility is predicated on the Protestant ethic of hard work, acculturation, and assimilation to the nation's dominant culture as defined by these sects.

The City Council Maintains Its Position

The San Jose city council's meeting scheduled for

September 21,1993, represented the final step toward

resolving the Quetzalcoatl controversy. Vice-Mayor Alvarado anticipated protests and attacks against the

project. She had been receiving letters critical of the statue and the city council's decision. One letter stated: "SHAME ON YOU!!! SHAME ON YOU!!! SHAME ON YOU!!! For you to support such a mon

ster must surely be a sin. Any such demonistic dis

play can only bring this city bad times. It is a woman's prerogative to change her mind. It would be very honorable of you to change yours."49 In

rebutting religious attacks against the sculpture broadcast on Nathan Hill's television program, Alvarado made the following statement on radio KBAY's Free Speech Message Program: "The city of San Jose is a leader in recognizing the diverse cul tures that reflect our city's heritage. Unfortunately,

when interpreting the symbols from another culture, the tendency is to impose one's views in the read

ing. Those who speak against the proposed sculp ture conduct a form of censorship and cultural

cleansing and show disrespect and contempt for another's culture."50

Alvarado decided to broaden support within the

community in order to counter the religious oppo sition. Through her assistant Eddie Garcia, a group of community leaders, Catholic priests, and uni

versity professors, the latter specializing in Latin American history and pre-Columbian civilization, were asked to attend the meeting and to testify in

support of the sculpture. These individuals, partic ularly the professors, were asked to provide an assessment of the role of Quetzalcoatl in Mexican his

Hi__________________________l_i^H^^^^^^H^ _ ! V<__H **3

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^BlIBi'i^^^^^^Hf B;f': ?___0___l Blanca Alvarado, then vice-mayor of San Jose, speaks ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B^BJ^^^^^^k" H Sf^BH at me dedication of the Plumed Serpent sculpture. ____________________________HfP"ll______HP*' _ lfl_______ Photo copyright Dana L. Grover.

_____________________________R ? * I ____-____k~, ___t::. ^ fBBIflMH _________________________ ___! I _- WBmMBMBBBk _________

^^^^H________________________________________?h_? <i- ' _R^_h_^_^_^_^_^_h ____N__H

^^|^^^^^^^hhb?'| ^_______________________ _____ _______

__^__^k J_______________f* JI^_____^__^__^__^__^__^____h_z ̂ _____!

_____B __________________k: __________i_____________f__^__%-i .SI

_____H:.,-_____PB ^^^^P_^___ ________r f _______ I _ '^^BiI_H_Pî?

H j________r I ::J __^^_____K!11II_______0^____ ?I m^ml 1 i__J/^___i_â-_B_w_________________l Willi JRVfl 1 j4JIw^_IH_F ^______5i________________i

P*^L___P I -__ - irîlHH! ^ _F9______ * . ̂ _________B^^_______________________________________________I

_________________PP^___H S9_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_H__ <?4f *^*SBBB^m&K!M^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B ____R ___r __-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_H_-__7,C _fr _d_%_&>______________________

FALL 1995 337

Dow


ay 2020

tory. The educators came from local universities?

Stanford, San Jose State, and Santa Clara?and were

organized by Alvarado and Garcia to counter

charges that the vice-mayor was incorrect regarding her historical and anthropological interpretation of

Quetzalcoatl.51 More than two hundred people attended the city

council meeting, the great majority affiliated with Christian fundamentalist evangelical groups. The

religious opposition had organized effectively. Approximately seventy-five percent of the audi ence was against the project, and they strongly vocalized their discontent. Some of those associated with the religious element were Chicanos, clearly recruited to provide the impression that the issue

was non-racial. As each faction addressed the city council, the fundamentalist/evangelical group made rude remarks toward those who testified in favor of the sculpture.

One of the professors from a local university made the following statement in his testimony in support of the Plumed Serpent statue:

I am appalled at the reaction to the decision made to place a sculpture of Quetzalcoatl at Plaza Park. I am here to speak against those 'good Christians' who have made a mockery of this decision by their

charge that the Plumed Serpent represents a nega tive image. I am against what they state on two

grounds. First, because I believe their efforts con stitute an attempt at art censorship; and second, because they have fabricated what Quetzalcoatl represents, and in so doing, have misled the pub lic. Regarding the first point, art censorship, I believe

what these groups are attempting to do smacks of

McCarthyism of the 1950s. The difference in this case is that these so-called 'good Christians' are using a fanatical religious ideology to obstruct indigenous art. Second, regarding the misrepresentation that these groups have made regarding Quetzalcoatl, I asked myself various times: What sources have

they consulted to draw these erroneous conclu sions about Quetzalcoatl? Why have they fabri cated the meaning of an indigenous cultural

symbol? Their views that Quetzalcoatl was a dia

bolic, evil idol who promotes human sacrifice is a fabrication of Mexican history.52

The city council considered the testimony pro vided by the various speakers and stood with its

original decision to fund and place the sculpture. Two weeks later, on October 5, the city council met

again to vote on renaming the park to Plaza de Cesar Chavez. Some of the same critics who spoke against the sculpture were in force, using this occasion to

protest once again. The city council, however, "brushed [their complaints] aside" and voted unan

imously to honor Cesar Chavez by renaming the

park.53 On March 27,1994, a formal dedication and

renaming took place at the park. Months later, on November 18, the Quetzalcoatl

sculpture by Robert Graham was unveiled and for

mally dedicated at Plaza de Cesar Chavez. The plan ning for a public lecture the evening before, on

November 17, and the dedication ceremonies the fol

lowing day considered the possibility of demon strations by the fundamentalists.54 The lecture, held at the San Jose Museum of Art, was presented by Renato Rosaldo, professor of anthropology at Stan ford University. Rosaldo, an excellent speaker, con

veyed the historical and contemporary significance of Quetzalcoatl in a lecture hall filled to capacity by a receptive audience who overwhelmingly sup

ported the symbol of the Plumed Serpent. The ded ication also drew a large crowd with Luis Valdez, director of the Teatro Campesino and a former San

Jose resident, presenting a powerful keynote address. In response to those opposing the statue, Valdez countered that "to those people that resist the true spirit of Quetzalcoatl, let me tell you, speaking as a Chicano, that we have had 500 years of the Span ish Inquisition. We don't need another month of a

Protestant Inquisition."55 Less than two weeks before the dedication, reli

gious opponents renewed their attacks, claiming that the artwork promoted a "demonic pagan god

whose image in San Jose is as appropriate as a statue of Adolf Hitler would be in Berlin." Dick Bernal, pas tor of the Jubilee Christian Center, Santa Clara

County's largest evangelical church, stated that Quet zalcoatl was "a dead forgotten god who deserved to be dead because of all the lives sacrificed to him. There'll be a curse on San Jose if this statue goes up."56 Despite threats by the fundamentalists of a strong demonstration during the dedication, only about

twenty protesters turned out for the ceremony. More

over, an attempt to prevent the installation of the statue through a lawsuit that charged the artwork "violated the U.S. Constitutions' rules against reli

gious displays on public property" also failed. In his

decision, two days before the dedication on Novem ber 16, Judge James Ware, who inspected the sculp ture for about five minutes, ruled that the Plumed

Serpent was "an artistic representation of an ancient civilization and is not a religious object."57

Thus, some three and a half years after it was ini

tially proposed and more than one year marked by fundamentalist opposition, the Quetzalcoatl sculp ture rested in the most central location of the city. A

day after its dedication, the sculpture was already drawing many San Joseans to observe a controver sial piece of art.


Dow


ay 2020

Conclusion

The idea to commemorate Quetzalcoatl was a means to recognize San Jose's Mexican heritage. The Plumed Serpent statue, as it was conceived, repre sented positive universalist values. As the process to erect that sculpture developed, opposition evolved, initially by Chicanos who contended that those revenues targeted for the statute should be ear

marked for social programs. This opposition, how ever, did not question the symbol chosen for

commemoration, and melted away months later. The decision to rename Plaza Park in honor of Cesar Chavez provoked a different type of opposition, one

largely religiously based and with some ethnocen tric overtones. Those Chicanos who initially opposed the Quetzalcoatl statue retreated from further involvement on the issue, as they recognized the

potential political repercussions of associating with the fundamentalist faction. Blanca Alvarado was

largely responsible for organizing the process to install the Quetzalcoatl sculpture. Without

Alvarado's leadership it is unlikely that the project would have been approved by the city council and other government agencies.

Since aggregations of ethnic minorities now con stitute the majority in many of California's largest cities, demands to commemorate ethnic symbols and leaders will increase. However, as happened in San

Jose, these commemorations are likely to be con tested by certain sectors in these communities for

cultural, racial, and ideological reasons. Such con troversies are also likely to be complex, with vari ous ethno-cultural and political groups vying with one another in ever-changing coalitions. For exam

ple, last year in Fresno, center of a region dominated

by large corporate farms, controversy ensued over

renaming a major artery of the city Cesar Chavez Boulevard. The city council voted in favor, four to

three, to rename the artery to commemorate the labor union leader. The renaming was opposed by some non-Chicanos for racial, cultural, and political rea

sons, and on November 30, 1993, the city council reversed its initial pro-Chavez Boulevard vote and Chicanos are now organizing to present the proposal again to a newly elected city council.58 More recently in San Jose, the Vietnamese community presented a

proposal to the city council to name a district where a significant number of Vietnamese reside

"Saigontown." The proposal ignited opposition from various ethnic groups on the grounds that the region was a multicultural community, that "Saigontown" did not reflect the district's diverse population, and that property values would decline. The mayor and

ra||z^s|l^B^L^L^r^L^L^LBB

WSmfmimr^JKB

An unidentified man touches Quetzalcoatl's coils

during the 1994 unveiling. Photo copyright DanaL. Grover.

the city council tabled the proposal because of the

strong opposition to the project.59 Events in Fresno and San Jose are indicative of

future commemorations that will reflect the state's diverse population. However, with such efforts to

commemorate, which involve ethnic peoples' pro moting cultural identity and political empower ment, racial, cultural, and political conflict may develop. The controversy over the Quetzalcoatl

sculpture should be viewed within that context, [chs]

See notes beginning on page 364.

Ramon D. Chacon is an associate professor of history and eth nic studies at Santa Clara University. He received his B.A. in

history and Spanish from California State University, Fresno, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in history from Stanford University. He has published articles in several anthologies and numerous

journals, among them the Social Science Quarterly, Jour nalism History, Peasant Studies, the Journal of Church & State, and the Latino Studies Journal. His areas of research include ethnic communities, labor studies, and the Mexican Revolution in Yucatan, Mexico.

FALL 1995 339

Dow


ay 2020

quetzalcoatl in san jose: conflict over a commemoration · significance of this case study is with...

Documents