Thread: IL-Immigration mural vandalized by racist slurs

Let's see if I understand this correctly. When Hispanics put up racist "murals" it's art. When anyone else responds, it's racism and hatred.

Originally Posted by ReggieMay

Let's see if I understand this correctly. When Hispanics put up racist "murals" it's art. When anyone else responds, it's racism and hatred.

I think you understand it perfectly RM!

..one can assume that the sponsoring organization is probably one of the 500 affiliates of the National Council of La Raza...and what a coincidence that this so-called "art mural" is timed along with LA RAZA's conference in Chicago. Pilsen is a part of Chicago that looks more like Tijuana ...and the residents are quite militant about sticking together as "Mexicans" not Americans, not Chicagoans...but Mexicans even to the exclusion of other "latinos". Pilsen isn't a place any needs to visit.

If the city of Chicago can destroy any mural they find offensive, I hope that they do this one too.

Check this out as an example:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2...al_on_priv.php

Originally Posted by ChiWatcher2

If the city of Chicago can destroy any mural they find offensive, I hope that they do this one too.

Originally Posted by ChiWatcher2

Check this out as an example:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2...al_on_priv.php

LOL.....only problem is that Chicago cannot legally destroy any mural they find offensive. Looks like Balcer caused a bit of a problem for the city by taking "the law" into his own hands:


BALCER: Yeah, I'm the alderman here. I was told about it and I okay'd it and I stand by it.
11th ward alderman James Balcer says he called in the graffiti blasters because the owner of the building never got a permit for the mural. He says he got 3 or 4 complaints from residents. He says he got some from police too and he says he agreed that the piece was distasteful.


There's just one minor problem: there is no such law:

A spokesman for Chicago's buildings department says section 13 25 50 of the City Code requires building owners to have a permit for painted signage or to alter or repair painted signage on a building. But a spokesperson for the city's law department says there's no permit necessary for a mural on the side of a private building as long as it's not an advertisement and as long as the property owner has given their permission.



Must be that "When in Chicago do what obama does.......in DC" mindset

Yollocalli Arts Reach, Pilsen, IL, Mission Statement (in English):
http://www.yollocalli.org/english/aboutus.html

Sources of funding listed at the bottom; full website menu listed at the top.

Thanks for the info T2Step!



I wonder what this is supposed to mean?





Sure looks like it's commentary on an attack being launched against the US. Very militant in nature and not disimilar to the style of art seen from a lot of anti-American, pro-reconquista sites, posters, etc.

Nice to see what our tax dollars are being used for

Caption for photo above: We Demand that the DREAM ACT be passed, too!

"I was just really saddened by the words that were put on there," said Vanessa Sanchez, youth programs project manager for Yollocalli Arts Reach, a youth organization that is part of the National Museum of Mexican Art. "You know this is a mural that we're putting out for our community."

I didn't know that threse was such a place, and why isn't it located in mejico?? After all he said it was for 'their community'.

to me, thats not a mural.