Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 09:02:58 -0600
[Gus Seligman, co-editor of H-West, poses a question for joint discussion among the subscribers
of H-West and H-Ethnic. All responses will be cross-posted. Thanks to Elliott West, co-editor if
H-West, for forwarding this query. JB]
I would like to pose a question about the existence of a Chicano/Mexican American History. By
that I mean: Is there anything that ties this group together historically, or is their history a
sub-field of state histories? When I compare the hispanic experience in Texas, New
Mexico/Colorado, and California in the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries, I am hard
pressed to see overall themes that work. If I look at these experiences as integral parts of the
state histories and impacted by these state histories then the differences make sense.
Gus Seligmann
gus@cas.unt.edu
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 08:56:08 -0600
[Daniel B. Glos <dglos@PSC.LSA.UMICH.EDU> responds to Gus Seligman's query:]
In response to Gus Seligman's question about 19th Century Mexican-American history, there is a
recent book by Tomas Almaguer, Assistant Professor of Sociology here at the University of
Michigan, entitled _Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California_.
There might be some good analysis here of Mexican-American history, but I am not sure as I have
not yet read it. My hunch is that all Mexican-Americans/ Chicanos have been affected in multiple
ways by White Supremacy, and that this is therefore something which binds them together as a
group. Good luck.
* Daniel B. Glos
___________________________________________________________________________
Daniel B. Glos E-mail: dglos@umich.edu
Department of Sociology Home Ph: (313) 741-4982
University of Michigan (if busy): 662-5730
[Co-editor's note: Almaguer's *Racial Fault Lines* was published by the
University of California Press in 1994. JB]
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 11:36:19 -0600
[In respone to Gus Seligman's query, three scholars of
Chicano/Mexican-American history offer their reflections: John Chavez, of
Southern Methodist University, Joseph Rodriguez, of the University of
Wisconsin at Milwaukee, and Emilio Zamora, of the University of Houston. JB]
1) John Chavez <jchavez@SUN.CIS.SMU.EDU> leads off:
Chicano history begins in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that transferred what is
now the Southwest to the U.S. This is the defining moment in our history because with that event
the first communities of American citizens of Mexican descent are incorporated into the U.S.
These communities are of course those that had been part of Mexico and the Spanish empire. The
roots of our history lie in the Mexican and Spanish periods, but also in the Pre-Columbian past
since we are a mestizo people. Chicano history since 1848, whether in CA, TX, or elsewhere, has
involved many common themes, but the most important has been that of the necessary adjustment
to the new society established in the Southwest by the U.S. Mexican Americans whether the
descendents of Spanish colonists in California or of recent immigrants have had to adapt to a
culture introduced into the region after their own. There's much more, obviously, but I'll leave it
there.
2)Joe Rodriguez <<joerod@CSD.UWM.EDU> follows:
There are numerous approaches to Mexican American history in the southwest. You can begin
with how Spain viewed its "northern borderlands" in the 16th-119th centuries as a "buffer zone"
to protect more valuable holdings in Mexico. This led to the establishment of missions,
conversion of Indians into spanish citizens. See books by David Weber SPANISH FRONTIER IN
NORTHERN AMERICA and David Monroy, THROWN AMONG STRANGERS. Monroy and
others make the point that internal divisions divided the missionaries, poorer mestizo settlers and
newer arrivals (cholos), and so internal differentiation is an important theme uniting all Hispanic
settlement in the southwest. See Ramon Gutierrez, WHEN JESUS CAME THE CORN
MOTHERS WENT AWAY and Monroy.
Internal differentiation (ie Californios, Tejanos vs. cholos) is also discussed in David Montejano,
ANGLOS AND MEXICANS AND THE MAKING OF TEXAS and books by Mario Garcia, and
Arnoldo de Leon. For a recent discussion of this issue see David Gutierrez, WALLS AND
MIRRORS which summarizes a lot of secondary literature and brings the issue to the present.
Another theme is cultural interaction, which begins with racial mixing, the creation of mestizaje
(mixed bloods), but includes the mixing of various cultural elements including law, religion and
labor systems. A good example is the Anglo adaptation of the cowboy culture from mexicans and
the spanish.
A couple of other important themes are: 1. the southwest as an "extractive economy or colonial
economy prior to wwii; the southwest as dependent on the northeast markets, and dominated by
agriculture and mining, low paid, low skilled professions that required an abundance of cheap
labor.
Finally, the issue of identity is important. The Spanish "Hispanos" in New Mexico, the idea of the
immigrant-Mexican American-Chicano generations (see Maria Garia, MEXICAN
AMERICANS). On the idea of multiculturalism, mixing and crossing/recrossing "borders"
sexual, racial, and ethnic, physically and psychologically see the work of Gloria Anzaldua,
BORDERLANDS: THE NEW MESTIZA and the performance artist Guillermo Gomez Pena,
GRINGOSTROIKA.
Joe Rodriguez
UW-Milwaukee
3) And Emilio Zamora <emilio@UH.EDU> challenges Gus Seligman to elaborate his
original query:
This is in response to the questions posed by Seligman: "Is there anything that ties this group
together historically?", "I am hard pressed to see overall themes that unite" in the 19th and 20th
centuries.
I would ask that Seligman elaborate his questions further. He could begin by telling us if he is
challenging the fundamental premise of a conceptually unified field of study (with obvious time
and place-specific variations) or if he is asking us for suggested readings that would satisfy his
curiosity and guide his inquiry.
"quisque suae fortunae faber" (Each the maker of their own fortune)
* Motto of Sir John Fyneux, Chief Justice of King's Bench, 1495-1525
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 11:13:04 -0600
[Marc Rodriguez <mrod@MERLE.ACNS.NWU.EDU> continues the thread on
Chicano/Mexican American history:]
I would add that despite the romantic view of pre-invasion Spanish, or Hispano settlement, one
must accept that the great mass of Chicanos/Mexican Americans in the Southwestern United
States are post Mexican revolution [ twentieth century] migrants. As such, Mexicano migrants
adapted to an Anglo dominated world which, despite hardship, offered prosperity not found in
Mexico. These migrants became Texas-Mexicans, California-Mexicans,etc., and as they entered
the Midwest, and Northwest, changed further. It seems that research of the type done by Dennis
Valdez, and Zargarosa Vargas focused on the Midwest, needs to be carried out in the future with
increased attention to identity formation.
Is it language that holds Mexican Americans together as a people? What of Chicanos who speak
little or no Spanish? Is it race? If race is the issue should not Mexican American identity studies
take advantage of theories in African American studies, or colonial studies?
Marc Rodriguez
Northwestern U.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 11:08:47 -0600
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995
From: Steven L. Davis 245-3861 <SD03@a1.swt.edu>
A few unifed elements of Mexican-American history pop into mind immediately:
First, there is the common history of land loss to the Anglos. Many of the Mexicans living in
what became the United States owned large amounts of land. And from California to New
Mexico to Texas there has been a common history of those lands being lost (through both "legal"
and illegal methods) to the Anglos who came to dominate the area economically. This history is
also present in several novels: "The Squatter and the Don" by Maria Amparo Ruiz de Burton tells
of a California family's slide from propertied class to laborers. (This novel was written in the late
1800s and was reprinted in the 1990s.) John Nichols' "The Milagro Beanfield War" speaks to the
battles over land in New Mexico. And Texas authors such as Rolando Hinojosa and Americo
Paredes have written about the conflicts over land in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas.
Here are some other common themes in Mexican-American history in the United
States:
Mexican-Americans originally became a minority as a result of conquest of their homelands.
Despite some acculturation, strong cultural ties with Mexico have remained due to its proximity,
and the continued influx of new immigrants from south of the border.
There is a "between two worlds" psychology at work in Mexican-American culture in the
Southwest. The group doesn't feel completely at home in either Mexico or the United States.
Resistance, too, is evident in the history of Mexican-Americans in the Southwestern U.S. From
the war in Lincoln County New Mexico to the Plan of San Diego in Texas, Mexicanos have
struggled against Anglo political and economic domination.
Economic exploitation is another historical reality for the Mexican-Americans in the Southwest.
(reinforced by the encouragement of laborers from Mexico.) And how about social forms of
control such as school segregation?
As I said, these are just a few of the ideas that pop into mind immediately. I'm sure there are
plenty of other general themes present in the history of Mexican Americans.
Steve Davis
Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos
sd03@a1.swt.edu
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 11:14:50 -0500
[John Chavez <jchavez@SUN.CIS.SMU.EDU> writes:]
In response to Marc Rodriguez's comment about the "romantic view" of Mexican-American
history. I hope he is familiar with Mario Barrera's Race and Class in the Southwest: A Theory of
Racial Inequality. That work advances a theory of internal colonialism that ties Mexican
Americans into some of the same theoretical frameworks that have been applied to African
Americans. If Rodriguez is simply seeing us as a twentieth-century immigrant group, he is
missing half our history, a half fundamental to our current situation.
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 11:20:04 -0500
[Thanks to Elliott West, co-editor of H-West <h-west@msu.edu> for sending
this digest of two recent postings in this ongoing joint discussion. JB]
(1)
>Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995
>From: "G. L. Seligmann (AcadCore, x3399)" <GUS@cas.unt.edu>
After I had read Elliott's posting of my question (he posted it verbatim) I realized it needed some
amplification. It follows. I should also note that I am fully aware that if my last name were
Sanchez instead of Seligmann I might see things differently. And having said that I will now
partially contradict myself by noting that while I think ethnicity very, very important I do not think
it the sole determining factor in an individual's makeup.
I first begin thinking about the question when I, along with Professors Rosaldo and Calvert were
putting together our pioneering (not to strong a word considering the date) anthology
CHICANO: THE EVOLUTION OF A PEOPLE in 1971-2, it was published in 1973. In reading
California and Texas history I realized that the experiences of the Mexican Americans there had
very little in common with what I knew about New Mexico. To give but one example: the MA
"takeover" in the early 1960s of the Crystal City City Council and later the School Board and the
county government is rightly considered a major event in the history of Texas. Dona Ana County,
New Mexico, Las Cruces county seat, where I grew up, elected in 1992 its first Anglo sheriff
since Pat Garrett in the late 19th century. The statement of political differences represented by
those two events is, I would argue, massive.
And let me raise an aspect of ethnicity. You are a labor organizer in El Paso organizing garment
workers at one of the assembly plants located there to take advantage of a large cheap labor
force. You have read Jose Vasconcellos and truly believe in the concept of "La Raza Cosmica".
Your mostly Hispanic union workers go out on strike and management replaces them with green
card holders from Juarez. What happens when belief and economic reality clash? And please do
not accuse me of creating a "hypothetical". This happened.
Having added these qualifiers I will signoff for now.
Gus Seligmann
gus@cas.unt.edu
===================================================================
(2)
>Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 15:08:37 CST6CDT
>From: "G. L. Seligmann (AcadCore, x3399)" <GUS@cas.unt.edu>
THE BEST WAY I KNOW TO DO WHAT I WANT TO DO WITH PROFESSOR DAVIS'
WELL THOUGHT COMMENTS IS TO PLACE MY COMMENTS RIGHT AFTER WHAT I
AM COMMENTING ON AND TO DO IT IN ALL CAPS, NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR
IMPORTANCE BUT TO ENABLE READERS TO MORE EASILY FOLLOW THE
CONVERSATION. GUS SELIGMANN
A few unifed elements of Mexican-American history pop into mind immediately:
First, there is the common history of land loss to the Anglos. Many of the
Mexicans living in what became the United States owned large amounts of land.
THIS STATEMENT REQUIRES CONSIDERABLE QUALIFICATION. LARGE MEXICAN
LAND OWNERS IN NEW MEXICO WERE IN THE CLEAR MINORITY BEFORE AND
AFTER CONQUEST. SMALL LAND OWNERS TENDED TO HOLD ON TO THEIR
HOLDINGS ALTHOUGH THEN RAN INTO MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH COMMUNITY
LAND GRANTS SUCH AS THE TIERRA AMARILLA AND LAS VEGAS GRANTS AND
SOME HAD WATER RIGHT PROBLEMS. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE CALIFORNIA
SITUATION IS THAT IT CONSISTED OF NOT VERY MANY PEOPLE HAVING FAIRLY
LARGE HOLDINGS. (IT SHOULD BE NOTED HERE THAT THE TOTAL HISPANIC POP.
OF CA AT THE TIME OF THE TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO WAS ESTIMATED
AT AROUND 7,000 PEOPLE.)
* And from California to New Mexico to Texas there has been a common history of those lands
being lost (through both "legal" and illegal methods) to the Anglos who came to dominate the
area economically. This history is also present in several novels: "The Squatter and the Don" by
Maria Amparo Ruiz de Burton tells of a California family's slide from propertied class to
laborers. This novel was written in the late 1800s and was reprinted in the 1990s. John Nichols'
"The Milagro Beanfield War" speaks to the battles over land in New Mexico.
IN 1990 WHEN I GAVE THE DINNER ADDRESS TO THE NM HIST. SOC. I TOYED
WITH THE IDEA OF SPEAKING ON THE TOPIC "WHAT CAN A PERSON LEARN
ABOUT NM FROM THE NOVELS OF JOHN NICHOLS". I DECIDED AGAINST THE
TOPIC WHEN I REALIZED MY ANSWER WOULD BE "NOT MUCH AND MOST OF IT
WRONG". IT IS GOOD NOVEL AND A WORSE MOVIE AND THAT IS ABOUT ALL
ONE CAN SAY ON THE MATTER WITHOUT GOING INTO A LONG DISCUSSION ON
ITS AGRARIAN, ROMANTIC, 1960S RADICAL INTERPRETATIONS.
* Texas authors such as Rolando Hinojosa and Americo Paredes have written about the conflicts
over land in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas.
Here are some other common themes in Mexican-American history in the United States:
* Mexican-Americans originally became a minority as a result of conquest of their homelands.
NO ARGUMENT HERE. BUT HAS THIS WORKED ITSELF OUT IN A COMMON
MANNER OR HAS
IT BECOME A FUNCTION OF THE STATE IN WHICH THEY RESIDE?
Despite some acculturation, strong cultural ties with Mexico have remained due to its proximity,
and the continued influx of new immigrants from south of the border.
MY READING OF THE CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS IN UPSTATE NM, THE ONLY
REGION OF
THE SOUTHWEST WITH A SIZABLE NON-NATIVE AMERICAN POPULATION IN THE
1848,
IS THAT THEIR ISOLATED STATE WAS CAUSING THEM TO GROW APART FROM
MEXICO BY
1848 AND THAT THIS HAS CONTINUED. THE 20TH CENT. INFLUX OF
IMMIGRATION INTO THE SW HAS NOT BEEN INTO THE LAND NORTH AND WEST
OF SANTA FE WHERE THE BULK OF THE ORIGINAL MA POPULATION RESIDED.
>There is a "between two worlds" psychology at work in Mexican-American culture in the Southwest. The group doesn't feel completely at home in either Mexico or the United States.
SEE ABOVE AND ALSO REALIZE THAT THE BULK OF THE MA POPULATION OF
THE SW HAS ARRIVED SINCE 1900. THE TOTAL MEXICAN POPULATION FROM
TEXAS TO CALIF. IN 1848 WAS PROBABLY LESS THAN 90,000 WITH ABOUT 50,000
LOCATED IN UPSTATE NM. I WOULD ARGUE THAT THOSE WITH THE CLOSEST
AFFINITIES TO MEXICO ARE THE NEWBIES.
>Resistance, too, is evident in the history of Mexican- Americans in the Southwestern U.S. From
the war in Lincoln County New Mexico to the Plan of San Diego in Texas, Mexicanos have
struggled against Anglo political and economic domination.
NO QUARREL HERE ALTHOUGH I THINK LAS VEGAS IS A FAR BETTER EXAMPLE
THAN LINCOLN COUNTY (SEE ROBERT ROSENBAUM ON THIS POINT) AND THE
ONLY PEOPLE WRITING ABOUT THE PLAN DE SAN DIEGO WHO HAVE MADE
WHAT I THINK IS A GOOD CASE AS TO ITS IMPORTANCE ARE HARRIS AND
SADDLER. UNFORTUNATELY THEY PLACE IT IN A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT
CONTEXT.
>Economic exploitation is another historical reality for the Mexican-Americans in the Southwest. (reinforced by the encouragement of laborers from Mexico.) And how about social forms of control such as school segregation?
GIVEN THE PRESENCE OF THE WEALTHY "RICOS" IN NM WHO QUICKLY LEARNED
HOW TO SURVIVE AND MANY STILL DO, I QUESTION THE UNIVERSALITY OF THIS THEME.
DITTO SCHOOL SEGREGATION. IN NM THE SEGREGATION WAS LIMITED TO
AFRICAN AMERICANS AND IN TEXAS AT LEAST AFTER THE 40S I UNDERSTAND
THE SITUATION WAS AT LEAST DE JURE THE SAME. DE FACTO MAY HAVE BEEN
ANOTHER STORY ALTHOUGH THE SEGREGATION OF THE 40S IN EL PASO WAS
BASED ON RESIDENCE WITH CHILDREN OF MIDDLE CLASS MAs GOING TO
PLACES LIKE EL PASO HIGH, ETC.
> As I said, these are just a few of the ideas that pop into mind immediately. I'm sure there are
plenty of other general themes present in the history of Mexican Americans.
>
Steve Davis
Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos
sd03@a1.swt.edu
and Gus Seligmann
Univ. of North Texas
gus@cas.umt.edu
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 12:54:52 -0500
[Jaime Aguila <JAIME.R.AGUILA@ASU.EDU> writes:]
I just read the initial point so I apologise if I am redundant.
Immigration can be used as a comparative approach. How has it changed from 1848 on? Why?
Regional differances and how various push pull factors affected immigration to differant areas can
produce imporatant conclusions about who left and who returned. How have Mexican Americans
seen immigration, especially in periods of economic growth? For example LULAC's opposition to
the Bracero program explains much about economic concerns for Mexican Americans but a social
history could tell us how these people interacted in everyday life.
Jaime Aguila
History Department
Arizona State University 85287-2501
(602) 965-5773
Jaime.R.Aguila@asu.edu
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 14:08:22 -0500
[Marc Rodriguez <mrod@MERLE.ACNS.NWU.EDU> continues a fruitful thread of
discussion:]
John Chavez is right in pointing out the importance of the pre-USA Mexican colonial Southwest,
but being personally familiar with my family's experiences as migrant farmworkers from Crystal
City, Texas, this past, which Seligman points out applied to a small minority of Spanish or
Mexican colonials ["THE TOTAL HISPANIC POP. OF CA AT THE TIME OF THE TREATY
OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO WAS ESTIMATED AT AROUND 7,000 PEOPLE."] was less
important in terms of cultural/identity formation than were their experiences as farmworkers in a
20th century Texas-Midwest migratory labor system that was shaped by the Colonial
Mexico/Texas Republic/and USA periods, but which was impacted by positive factors including
increasing literacy [English], connection to the United States [via military service in Korea and
Vietnam], which led many [families and individuals] to embrace the American system as they
retained their culture,as they rejected the domination and racism of Texas. In leading the revolt
against the Anglos in Texas, and the Canneries in Wisconsin, Crystal City Mexican-Americans,
relied upon many histories to inform their organized movements.
Marc Rodriguez
Northwestern University
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 16:55:45 -0500
[Co-editor's note: Gus Seligmann, co-editor of H-West, responds to an H-Ethnic discussion of
his original post. I have added two headings, in order to mark major divisions in Professor
Seligmann's contribution. Note that Profesor Seligmann authored all of Pt. 1: Introduction, and
that he authored all CAPITALIZED SENTENCES, save for book titles, in Pt. 2:
Response. JB]
From: "G. L. Seligmann (AcadCore, x3399)" <GUS@cas.unt.edu>
Organization: University of North Texas
To: gus@cas.unt.edu
Date sent: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 13:47:51 CST6CDT
[Pt. 1: Introduction]
And Gus Seligmann replies to the three scholars of Chicano/Mexican American History and their
reflections.
I would like to begin with a sort of a ground rule. It is unlikely that any one of you will call me
worse things then my friends have and we are still friends. In short I would encourage you to be
blunt and not worry a whole lot about my sensibilities. I am a big boy and I will give as well as I
get.
The format that I will use in my response is one I have used before. I will comment in the text of
the original post. My comments will be in caps not becasuse of their importance but for the
reader's ease in determining who said what.
Thirdly I will comment on the last of the three comments first because it seems to me to that
answering Professor Zamora's questions will set the stage for the rest of my dscussion.
THE ANSWER TO PROFESSOR ZAMORA:
To elaborate further I am not asking for suggested readings to guide my inquiry. With the
exception of WHEN JESUS CAME... I have read all of the titles suggested and far more. My
major field of interest is New Mexico politics in the late 19th and 20th centuries and I have been
working in that area since I began graduate work in the late 1950s. This research has by the very
nature of the topic led to a very close involvement in the history of the Mexican American. As I
said in an earlier post to H-WEST which I think was reposted to H-ETHNIC I began working on
this question in the early 1970s when co-editing CHICANO: THE EVOLUTION OF A PEOPLE
(Winston Press, 1973, 461pp.) which was when it came out the most comprehensive anthology
available on the topic. I am, in his well turned phrase questioning "the fundamental premise of a
conceptually unified field of study" and asking what, if any, are the conceptually unifying themes.
Hopefully this additional comment will give all of us a better idea of the parameters of my
question.
[Pt. 2: Response]
In response to Gus Seligman's query, three scholars of
Chicano/Mexican-American history offer their reflections: John Chavez, of
Southern Methodist University, Joseph Rodriguez, of the University of
Wisconsin at Milwaukee, and Emilio Zamora, of the University of Houston. JB]
1) John Chavez <jchavez@SUN.CIS.SMU.EDU> leads off:
Chicano history begins in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that transferred what is
now the Southwest to the U.S. This is the defining moment in our history because with that event
the first communities of American citizens of Mexican descent are incorporated into the U.S.
These communities are of course those that had been part of Mexico and the Spanish empire. The
roots of our history lie in the Mexican and Spanish periods, but also in the Pre-Columbian past
since we are a mestizo people. Chicano history since 1848, whether in CA, TX, or elsewhere, has
involved many common themes, but the most important has been that of the necessary adjustment
to the new society established in the Southwest by the U.S. Mexican Americans whether the
descendents of Spanish colonists in California or of recent immigrants have had to adapt to a
culture introduced into the region after their own. HERE JOHN CHAVEZ AND I CLEARLY
DISAGREE. THERE WERE NEXT TO NO MEXICAN INHABITANTS IN CALIFORNIA
AND VERY FEW ACCORDING TO THE CENSUS OF 1850 IN TEXAS. THE ONLY AREA
IN WHERE THIS OBSERVATION IN RE ORIGINAL SETTLERS (THE PEOPLE THE
BORDER CROSSED) HAS ANY VALIDITY IS IN NEW MEXICO. AS FOR HIS
STATEMENT AS TO THE NEED OF "RECENT IMMIGRANTS" TO ADJUST (A) THAT IS
QUITE TRUE AND (B) UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. OF COURSE THEY HAD TO ADJUST
THEY HAD CONSCIOUSLY COME TO ANOTHER COUNTRY. I REALIZE THAT FLIES
IN THE FACE OF HIS ARGUMENTS IN *THE LOST LAND* BUT I CONSIDER THOSE
ARGUMENTS TO BE A SORT OF MEXICAN IRREDENTIST ARGUMENT AND NOT
VALID. IF HIS LOGIC IS PUSHED AT ALL ONE COULD CONCLUDE THAT THE
MOORS SHOULD STILL RULE SPAIN UNLESS ONE GOES PAST THE 8TH CENTURY.
AND FOR THAT MATTER "CHAVEZ" IS NO MORE A NATIVE AMERICAN SURNAME
THEN IS "SELIGMANN" There's much more, obviously, but I'll leave it there.
2)Joe Rodriguez <<joerod@CSD.UWM.EDU> follows:
There are numerous approaches to Mexican American history in the southwest. You can begin
with how Spain viewed its "northern borderlands" in the 16th-19th centuries as a "buffer zone" to
protect more valuable holdings in Mexico. This led to the establishment of missions, conversion
of Indians into spanish citizens. IN MY OPINION THE PROBLEM WITH THIS AS A
UNIFYING THEME IS TWOFOLD: (A) AS MARC RODRIGUEZ PUT IT MOST
SUCCINCTLY IN A H-WEST POST MOST MA IN THE UNITED STATES ARE 20TH
CENTURY IMMIGRANTS, AND (B) EVEN IF THAT WERE NOT SO THE MOST
EXTENSIVE MISSION NETWORK IS IN CALIF. WHICH HAD, ACCORDING TO THE
BEST CENSUS ESTIMATES I HAVE SEEN (RICHARD NOSTRAND'S) AN 1846
HISPANIC POPULATION OF AROUND 7,000. THE OTHER EXTENSIVE MISSION
NETWORK, THAT OF NEW MEXICO, WAS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY NATIVE
AMERICAN AND REMAINS SO TO THIS DAY. See books by David Weber SPANISH
FRONTIER IN NORTHERN AMERICA and David Monroy, THROWN AMONG
STRANGERS. Monroy and others make the point that internal divisions divided the
missionaries, poorer mestizo settlers, RICHER MESTIZO SETTLERS and newer arrivals
(cholos), and so internal differentiation is an important theme uniting all Hispanic settlement in the
southwest. HERE I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH "INTERNAL DIFFERENTIATION" AS A
UNIFYING THEME IN THAT IT IS SO BROAD AS TO BE ALMOST MEANINGLESS.
EVERY AREA OF THE UNITED STATES HAS A PAST MARKED BY "INTERNAL
DIFFERENTIATION". MY RESPONSE BIG DEAL See Ramon Gutierrez, WHEN JESUS
CAME THE CORNMOTHERS WENT AWAY and Monroy.
Internal differentiation (ie Californios, Tejanos vs. cholos) is also discussed in David Montejano,
ANGLOS AND MEXICANS AND THE MAKING OF TEXAS and books by Mario Garcia, and
Arnoldo de Leon. For a recent discussion of this issue see David Gutierrez, WALLS AND
MIRRORS which summarizes a lot of secondary literature and brings the issue to the present.
Another theme is cultural interaction, which begins with racial mixing,
the creation of mestizaje (mixed bloods), but includes the mixing of
various cultural elements including law, religion and labor systems. A
good example is the Anglo adaptation of the cowboy culture from mexicans
and the spanish. THIS POINT HAS SOME VALIDITY ALTHOUGH I DON'T THINK
HIS EXAMPLE IS A PARTICULARLY GOOD ONE ESPECIALLY WHEN ONE REALIZES
THAT THE MA POPULATION OF THE US IS AND HAS BEEN SINCE WWII
FUNDAMENTALLY URBAN
A couple of other important themes are: 1. the southwest as an "extractive economy or colonial
economy prior to wwii; the southwest as dependent on the northeast markets, and dominated by
agriculture and mining, low paid, low skilled professions that required an abundance of cheap
labor. THIS IS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT BUT HARDLY UNIQUE TO THE
HISPANIC POPULATION. THE ECONOMY OF THE SW WAS DOMINATED BY THE NE
BUT THAT HELD TRUE FOR THE ENTIRE ECONOMY NOT JUST THE HISPANICS. I
REALIZE FULLY THAT I AM REJECTING THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO FANON, A
GOOD BOOK FOR DESCRIBING ALGERIA AND THE FRENCH, BUT ITS RELEVANCE
TO THE SOUTHWEST IS LOST ON THIS READER.
Finally, the issue of identity is important. The Spanish "Hispanos" in New Mexico, WHAT DO
THE "HISPANOS" OF TRUCHAS NM HAVE IN COMMON WITH THE CHOLOS OF LOS
ANGELES OR SAN ANTONIO? MY READING IS NOT HISTORY, THE CULTURES ARE
SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT, AND I WONDER IF LANGUAGE IS ENOUGH. the idea of
the immigrant- Mexican American- Chicano generations(see Maria Garia, MEXICAN
AMERICANS). On the idea of multiculturalism, IS THIS TO BE DEFINED IN ETHNIC
TERMS ONLY? I, AN ANGLO PRESBYTERIAN, AM MORE AT HOME AT A HISPANIC
ROSARY SERVICE FOR THE DEAD THEN I AM AT A BAPTIST FUNERAL. IS THERE
ANY ROOM IN "MULTICULTURALISM" FOR CULTURE? mixing and crossing/recrossing
"borders" sexual, racial, and ethnic, physically and psychologically see the work of Gloria
Anzaldua, BORDERLANDS: THE NEW MESTIZA and the performance artist Guillermo
Gomez Pena, GRINGOSTROIKA. HERE I MUST CONFESS IGNORANCE, I HAVE NOT
READ ANZALDUA NOR HAVE I READ/SEEN PENA.
Joe Rodriguez
UW-Milwaukee
GLS I look forward to your comments. Gus
FOR MY COMMENTS ON THIS SEE THE BEGINNING OF THE POST.
3) And Emilio Zamora <emilio@UH.EDU> challenges Gus Seligman to elaborate his
original query:
This is in response to the questions posed by Seligman: "Is there anything that ties this group
together historically?", "I am hard pressed to see overall themes that unite" in the 19th and 20th
centuries.
I would ask that Seligman elaborate his questions further. He could begin by telling us if he is
challenging the fundamental premise of a conceptually unified field of study (with obvious time
and place-specific variations) or if he is asking us for suggested readings that would satisfy his
curiosity and guide his inquiry.
"quisque suae fortunae faber" (Each the maker of their own fortune)
* Motto of Sir John Fyneux, Chief Justice of King's Bench, 1495-1525
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 17:30:28 -0500
[Joe Rodriguez <joerod@CSD.UWM.EDU> writes:]
Since Mr. Seligmann seems to agree with much of what I said yet still rejects the ideas as a
unifying concept I doubt that what I have to say could ever convince him that any concept
actually exists. I think the search for a unifying concept for Mexican American history is running
into the same problems that are now part of all immigrant history: upon close examination our
myths do not hold. Walter Nugent and others argue that immigrants to the US were no different
than immigrants to other nations in desire or motivations. American exceptionalism is now dead.
Our cherished myths are being destroyed. For example, one-third of all Italian immigrants
returned to Italy. So is it surprising that generalizations about the Mexican American experience
turn out to be largely unsupportable?
Yet I teach a survey of the history of Latinos in the US, and so not only must deal with the
Mexican American experience but also with Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and increasingly other Latino
groups. I find the theme of colonialism very helpful in drawing links across historical periods and
between groups.
Seligmann asked a couple of specific questions. What do the Hispanos and cholos have in
common besides langauge? My point was to emphasize the continued importance of internal
differentiation as a unifying theme in Mexican American history. The population has always had to
grapple with the debate over outsiders and insiders, Mexicans and Americans, and this involves
issues of identity. When the Hispano faces discrimination he/she becomes a cholo, becoming in
effect "outsiders." This is the issue that Anzaldua and Pena deal with: the many identities of those
who live along the border possess at various times in their lives depending on social situations: ie
American, Mexican, Mexican American, or American.
The other point is that the extractive economy was important for several reasons. It fueled
anti-Mexican prejudice by creating demand for large pools of low-skilled labor, and imposed a
dual labor system. This led to segregated schools, and internal divisions as Mexican Americans
sought to differentiate themeselves from recent arrivals. Anglos were also the victims of the
extractive (or colonial) economy, since capitalists used racism to divide divide and conquer. It's
true this occurred elsewhere in the US, yet in the SW Mexican labor leaders were arrested and
deported (often by the US National Guard or other police forces supposedly not associated with
capitalists) and so were more vulnerable to harrassment. Someone else mentioned resistance as
an important theme and resistance is related to the imposition of the extractive economy. Corridos
celebrate the exploits of famous "rebels" who fought the commodification of land, fencing, and
the railroad's arrival.
It's true that after WWII the majority of Mexican Americans were urbanites. Yet the historical
continuity is important. These cities were founded by Spanish and Mestizos, given Spanish names,
and increasingly boosters emphasized the cities' "Hispanic" roots. By the 1960s the MA middle
class was promoting public awareness of Spanish and Mexican history in these cities as a way of
drawing tourists and raising appreciation for Mexican culture.
The idea that somehow because most Mexicans were immigrants and only around 100,000 were
present in 1848 seems irrelevant. In fact Mexicans arriving to the Southwest today tend to view
US border controls as illegitimate partly because of their knowledge of the American conquest of
the region in 1848.
The idea that culture is somehow "pure" and handed down from generation to generation is old
fashioned and largely disproven. In fact what many scholars stress is cultural mixing, switching of
identities, and multiple identities depending on the situation. Therefore, it is quite logical that the
great varieties of experiences within the Mexican American population would show evidence of
cultural commonality and differentiation depending on the period and situation.
Joe Rodriguez
UW-Milwaukee