I was going to provide a summary of the effects of “El Gran Boicot,” but I will have to be honest, I think was a draw on both sides. It is easy for me I can claim victory because the boycott was felt through the nation as business owners and managers were forced to were many hats due to the lack of employees. But it can also be said by the other side because many city’s really didn’t come to a standstill and those who really oppose immigrants will say, it didn’t do anything but create a backlash. So the choice is up to you as the undecided reader because both sides can state their points effectively.
Within the Hispanic community, there are some who don’t feel they really need to be involve because they are viewed as “others” or if we really want to go with the demeaning labels, mojados, wetbacks.
Spring resident Martinez, 39 [and born in the U.S.], said that “when people think of Mexicans, they don’t think of people like me.” They think of the immigrant and the laborer, not someone who went to college and listens to pop radio.
Here in the US, Hispanics is not considered as a race, but an ethnicity. From the biological point of view, races simply do not exist. From the cultural and political point of view, however, the concept of “race” is extremely important. Mexican national identity has been constructed in terms of the idea that Mexicans are the product of a creative mixing of Indians and Europeans. In Miriam Jimenez Roman’s article entitled “Africa’s Legacy in Mexico: What is a Mexican?,” Roman writes:
in the interest of a national identity based on a mixture of indigenous and European cultural mestizaje. In practice, this ideology of “racial democracy” favors the European presence; too often the nation’s glorious indigenous past is reduced to folklore and ceremonial showcasing.
Mexican Americans were considered an ethnicity minority only after the end of the U.S.-Mexico War of 1848 and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, when Mexico ceded the territory that today is California, New Mexico, Nevada, and parts of Colorado, Utah, and Arizona, and also approved the prior annexation of Texas.
The treaty promised US citizenship to former Mexican citizens and all Native Americans -who were Mexican citizens – in the ceded territories.
Since 1848 Native Americans and Mexican Americans have struggled to achieve political and social equality within the United States, often citing the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo as a document that promised civil and property rights. Although the treaty promised U.S. citizenship to former Mexican citizens, the Native Americans in the ceded territories, who in fact were Mexican citizens, were not given full U.S. citizenship until the 1930s. Former Mexican citizens were almost universally considered foreigners by the U.S. settlers who moved into the new territories. In the first half century after ratification of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, hundreds of state, territorial, and federal legal bodies produced a complex tapestry of conflicting opinions and decisions bearing on the meaning of the treaty. The property rights seemingly guaranteed in Articles VIII and IX of the treaty (and in the Protocol of Queretaro) were not all they seemed. In U.S. courts, the property rights of former Mexican citizens in California, New Mexico, and Texas proved to be fragile. Within a generation the Mexican-Americans became a disenfranchised, poverty-stricken minority.
It must be noted, these events took place before the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Shedding Indeginous Roots For “Whiteness”
Anglo-Americans never considered Mexicans their racial equals and, moreover, regarded them as mixed peoples. In 1897, a federal district court upheld the right of Mexicans to naturalize under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Ricardo Rodriguez, a native of Mexico who had lived in Texas for ten years, petitioned to become a naturalized U.S. citizen. Government attorneys argued against his eligibility on the grounds that Rodriguez was “not a white person, not an African, nor of African descent.” U.S. District Judge Thomas Maxey wrote:
“as to color, [Rodriguez] may be classed with the copper-colored or red men. He has dark eyes, straight black hair, and high cheek bones.”
Knowing that Mexicans were considered mestizos, the judge had a hard time making his ruling, however, Judge Maxey concluded that because Rodriguez knew “nothing of the Aztecs or Toltecs, [h]e is not an Indian” and therefore Rodriguez was given citizenship. Since then, many communities like their counterpart in Mexico have been trying to “deinidianised” after the Revolution of 1910 by ceasing to identify themselves as Indians. However, in the US, Mexicans were still considered a race as Mae Ngai notes:
by the late 1920s, a Mexican “race problem” had emerged in the Southwest, impelled by contradictions wrought by the burgeoning of commercial agriculture, an all-time high in Mexican immigration, and the formation of a migratory, landless agricultural proletariat and of segregated communities.
Even the 1930 Census Bureau, Mexicans were considered as a separate race, as persons born in Mexico or with parents born in Mexico and who were “not definitely white, Negro, Indian, Chinese, or Japanese.” It was not until the 1940, with the help of Mexico and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the US finally gave in and reclassified persons of Mexican descent as “white.”
In 1929, during the height of a nativist movement, business leaders created the LULAC. It was during this time the US was at the height of the nativist movement.
When the United States of North America annexed a third of Mexico’s territory following the Mexican War, nearly 77,000 Mexicans became U.S. citizens. For generations, these citizens were to be plagued by a prejudicial attitude which would result in overt acts of discrimination and segregation which in turn brought about the curtailment of many of their civil rights, privileges, and opportunities. The sign, “No Mexicans Allowed” was to be found everywhere.
Prejudicial attitude and discrimination acts in Texas had reached such extreme proportions that Mexican Americans started organizations as defensive measures against such un-American practices. Outstanding among these were three organizations: The Order of the Sons of America with councils in Sommerset, Pearsall, Corpus Christi, and San Antonio. The second was The Knights of America in San Antonio. And the third was The League of Latin American Citizens with councils in Harlingen, Brownsville, Laredo, Penitas, La Grulla, McAllen, and Gulf.
It was during this height in America’s darkest period, discrimination against Mexican Americans ran wild. According to LULAC:
Discrimination against Mexican Americans was awful. One of the best kept secret in American history is that in those years there were more Mexican Americans hung then the total number of blacks that had been hung during the civil war.
It was during this time, Mexican Americans were caught between being a “noble savage” and less than a second class, Hispanics had no other reason but to denounce their heritage just to survive.
In those days, Mexican Americans had to be real careful anytime they gathered. If they gathered in large numbers, they would cause suspicions and faced charges of communism. Yes, there were many that felt insulted and considered LULAC members as a bunch of “vendidos.” They could not understand why LULAC members would go out of their way to embrace an anglo society that had been so cruel to Mexican Americans. However, the founders of LULAC had seen many Mexican American organizations flourish and disappear within a couple of years, and without accomplishments. LULAC founders were determined not to let this occur to LULAC. Therefore, the founders of LULAC, in order to avoid suspicions of un-American activities and a safe haven for its members, forewent many of their convictions. Many of the official rites which LULAC adopted had never be adopted by any other Mexican American organization. Adopted was the American Flag as the official flag, America the Beautiful as the official song, and The George Washington Prayer as the official prayer. Also, adopted were Robert Rules of Order as the governing rules during meetings and conventions.
So why do some Mexican Americans look down on foreign born Hispanic? It’s no secret that many older Mexican Americans resent being lumped together in the “minority” status with immigrants who, they believe, have not suffered the degree of discrimination and exclusion they have. Perhaps some Mexican Americans remember the days when Mexican Americans insisted on their status as whites in the days before affirmative action. Or perhaps some Mexican Americans still have the old caste system ingrained for centuries where the more indigenous you are, the more backward and traditional they are seen. As more young Hispanics are beginning to accept their indigenous roots and as Mexico, Central and South American indigenous groups are excreting their rights, we have to wonder if Hispanics Americans and foreign born Hispanics can find common ground.
“Not quite!” -NDD
I will tell you what I know in my heart to be true, but my thoughts are also based on a recollection.
And that is; You’d best believe that nearly all figures of authority are sincerely concerned to have those numbers of people protesting in the streets. And that these protests are having a much greater effect than we all realize.
Why do I say this with confidence?
I have never read the Pentagon Papers (Daniel Ellsburg sp?)but what they supposedly revealed is that the anti-VN war demonstrations during the LJB administration were having a serious impact on that administration’s thinking.
Assume that these protests are having a great effect, and also assume you will not likely know how great an effect until years later.
The authorities will always be nervous with huge numbers of people in the streets, ’cause they know the people ultimately have the power.
Thank you.
It is funny how businesses try to downplay the boycott and I am very sure I must have missed a bunch of other cities when I was trying to do some live blogging on it.
But you have given me an idea for my next diary, based on your comment. Now I am off to read….oops, skim, through the Pentagon Papers.
BTW, the Pentagon Papers is 7,000 pages long, ya wanna help, we can split the reading, you take the first 1,000 pages, I’ll take the next 1,000…..just kidding, just kidding. I’ll take your summary and some some cliff notes version of it and run with it.
Great research. Thanks for doing it and bringing it here to us.
As for the boycott, I think that the real impact will only be seen over time. The boycott stirred many people into action who normally would take none. It forced many American citizens to see immigrants as actual human beings instead of easily dismissed stereotypes. If a decent percentage of the participants in the boycott continue to be activists who insist that American citizens as well as the government recognize the validity of their lives, then I think the boycott can be seen as a major success.
I felt it really needed to be said, because the news reports will quote a Hispanic like Mr. Martinez. And I am not going to lie, I do have relatives who is willing to use the word mojado as if it was just an everyday word. The rethugs also use LULAC against us by stating how they were also in favor of deporting the immigrants during “operation wetback” and not realizing they were forced too. It was continue living in fear at a time when the country and the state of Texas was very violent towards minorities or survival.
But views are changing, more young Xicanos, like me, are in touch with our roots, the indigenous side that has been wiped out from our history because of shame. There are even families today that favor one kid over another because of their skin color. But times have changed and views are being to change and the can be seen when people are sympathizing with the Zapatista movement, Evo Morales (the first indigenous to be elected President), and how other Latin American countries are starting to recognizing their indigenous groups. Sure it will take a long time to change those internalized attitudes of a goal to be white while shedding an indigenous past, but it can be done.
I’m the grandchild of four immigrants. My grandparents did not want to talk about life before they came to the states and the second generation was so intent on being real Americans they never wanted to know. By the time my generation was old enough to want to fully understand our heritage, we had lost the opportunity to have the story of our grandparents’ life journey.
The desire of immigrants and their children to assimilate can be very strong. I admire those who withstand that pull and understand that to admire and love one’s living history is valuable both to them as individuals and to a living culture that is strengthened by being the sum of all the people participating in it.
Of course there will be a backlash. The entire “conservative” movement since the 70s-80s can be boiled down to this essence: backlash.
Backlash against the coming day (already visible on most all radar screens) where the white european judeo christian culture will be done.
Its a tough backlash because th WEJCC has all the weapons at its disposal.
Only real question of consequence: will the weapons be used or will the WEjcc finally bow to the immense will of the worlds people and go out quiet? Capital will still be ascendent in my opinion, so they will keep their money if they play their cards right.
Thanks for putting this together.
A bit of history:
I learned in the 1980’s (from other activists in San Francisco) about the terminology debate in the course of connections being made for more political clout and federal funds. To say “Spanish surname” or “Spanish-speaking” was insufficient (and excluded Portuguese and Brazilian immigrants and descendants). On the East Coast, where there were greater populations of Puerto Rican and Cuban descent, “Latino” was used. Further west, “Chicano” was heard most often, but it was exclusive, referring to those of Mexican descent, omitting the many from Central and South America.
The compromise was “Hispanic.”
Thanks for the insight. It makes a lot of sense, being in the Southwest the Hispanic -Chicano- community gives it’s own spin where the word came from.
Yet, we will never get anywhere if we keep fighting each other for a label.
Read and recommended this last night-as always a great diary. I always learn so much from your diaries.
As for choosing which spin to put on May 1, I’ll go along with it being something wonderful. Sure there will be a backlash but that happens every single time any group of people take to the streets for any particular issue or ideal-it is to be expected. In fact you could say the more vocal the backlash people are the more you’ve hit a nerve and have those people worried. I certainly hope so.
I don’t know if there ever will be a bill in congress about immigration that really does address many issues instead of what we have now. The real issues should be funding adequately the Immigration Bureau so that process is not the nightmare it has become for almost everyone, discuss and fix NAFTA so it becomes fair trade not simply free trade, arrest employers who hire undocumented workers and do not pay a standard fair wage, work with Mexico on comprehensive aid package to help workers, farmers, small businesses in Mexico to lift themselves out of poverty..instead we get two bills, both basically idiotic, racist and doesn’t do a damn thing to promote any kind of real solution-other than make some racists idiots happy.
You are correct. Mexico has a long history regarding the elite and US corporations which does not what to give up their power, the upcoming election will be interesting. If the leftest wins, it can have a major impact, just like the way they voted to legalize drugs.
We will see
I’ve been trying to read up a bit on unions in Mexico and the miners union with the strikes/marching-also that the Carlyle Group owns an interest in this one particular mine.(what a crappy surprise) All interesting reading though on what the union is doing and like here how shitty the government is towards unions.
Vicente Fox went Business School of Harvard University but he did not obtain an MBA degree. And he worked for The Coca-Cola Company as a supervisor of Coca-Cola’s operations in Mexico, and then in all of Latin America.
I guess that shouldn’t be a surprised as to why Mexico is anti-union.
Coca-Cola-crap…one of the very worst corporations in the whole world.
And before Fox, Zedillo earned his Ph.D. at Yale University in economics and returned to Mexico to start a career in finance.
Zedillo currently works at Yale University in the United States, where he teaches economics and heads the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. He is also a member of the board of directors of Procter & Gamble, Union Pacific and Alcoa. Mr. Zedillo is also a member of the Coca-Cola Company International Advisory Board. Union Pacific owns some of the railroads that Zedillo privatized while being President of México.
You rock. I love how you’re giving a voice to the history that has been re-written and defiled in the textbooks of America.
hi manny-I agree, I’ve got all of these diaries saved.