SOCIOLOGY 338 SOCIOLOGY OF LATINOS SAN ANTONIO We begin with San Antonio for no particular reason. Please do not take it as paradigmatic in any way. Perhaps most significant is that it is the oldest of the four cities we will be looking at. Lets begin by taking a quick statistical over view of the city in the 1990s. Important to remember that it is part of Texas. History of Texas has shaped the Mexican-American experience there is particular ways as we will see. Texas is the second largest Hispanic state. Currently it is 60/12/28 (w/b/h), but the Hispanic population will practically double during the next 30 years producing a ratio of 47/14/39 by the year 2025. Texas is a relatively average state in terms of income, etc. although it has a very strong concentration of those under the poverty line (19.1%) A variety of economies but it appears that military, extraction, agriculture are highest-- relatively little manufacturing (this could be important) San Antonio shares this pattern with high dependence on military and service sector and little manufacturing. it is generally an economic backwater (though NAFTA may be changing this) a "pre-industrial" city Bexar Co (San Antonio) has roughly 50% Hispanic population 93% of which are Mexican-American--- this is an important consideration. We are talking about a majority population or relatively homogenous background when asked abut their race-- 65% of Hispanics said white and 35% said other-- again this may be important when we compare it to other sites. Especially in Texas, there has been consistent attempt by Mexican elite (at least) to distinguish Mexican population from African-Am. Almost 3/4 of these Hispanics claim to be speaking Spanish at home. Yet, relatively low number of immigrants----- only 8% of the total population of the city is foreign born (one figure indicates that it is 10% of the Hispanic population). Recent arrivals are very small part of the population. Again-- an important consideration when comparing it to Los Angeles or even Miami and New York--- history here goes back a relatively long way. Education-- fits the national pattern for Hispanics. while 85% of non-Hispanics> 25 have a HS diploma, only 55% of Hispanics do while close to 20% of non-Hispanics have a college degree, less than 8% of Hispanics have one. The gap between median school years achieved by whites and Mexicans has been narrowing, but remains high in the 1990s Most discouraging is that the income payoff of education for Mexicans is much less than for whites. Income-- again fits the national pattern Per capita income for ALL whites (including Hispanics) was 13,300, for Blacks it was 9,200. For Hispanics (of any race) it was 7300 (1989). while 35% of non-Hispanics households make less than $25,000, 60% of Hispanic HH make less. 24,000 Hispanic children under poverty line while 8% of non-H make over $75,000 only 2% of Hispanics do. Nevertheless significant middle class (25-75) forming roughly 40% of the Hispanic population. I want you keep this static picture in your mind of the San Antonio population. To this we will be adding descriptions of the other cases for comparison. Lets us take amore dynamic view-- going back to our categories of entry, integration and redefinition. I will not be covering all possible themes. For example, I will largely leave discussion of immigration until the section on LA. This does not imply that it did not play a role in San Antonio, but that recent immigrants are much less important there than in LA The story I will be telling of San Antonio will focus on the victory of Mexican Americans in politics. I will thus be making a closer analysis of the economic situation when dealing with California. Same applies to culture and gender issues since simply there is more information available on LA Entry-- Conquest through the 1836 Texas rebellion and the Mexican- American War of 1846-1848. This is important-- not so much as a difference in entry patterns (over 90% of the population of Texas arguably is descended from people who came after 1848), but because it is an important part of the identity culture of Mexican-Americans in SA and in Texas. Even prior to Conquest, Anglos had already created a perception of themselves as naturally superior. In the 1830s also a concentrated purchasing of land by Anglos. But important to remember that this had class and race connotations--- "white", elite Mexicans were acceptable and were part of the Alamo The Mexican population in San Antonio in the 1830s already divided by class and race. Categories and distinctions that Anglo settlers picked up on. For women, these categories were particularly crucial in determining opportunities. After the war, Mexicans were given one year to decide which country to claim citizenship. (despite the de facto maltreatment this is also important to remember when comparing Mexican-America and Afro-Am experiences--- the Mexicans were at least nominally recognized as citizens.) Despite guarantees, a wholesale transfer of land from Mexicans to Anglos took place over the next half century (described in the Montejano book). Different processes in different states: Texas: Over 19th Century Mexicans almost completely displaced by increasing commercial agriculture. "race" and class become increasingly correlated De-Mexicanization of Texas---- only 12,000 Mexicans by 1860---compared to 180,000 slaves. In general de-Mexicanization of politics. By the 1880s, Mexicans completed excluded from San Antonio City Council After Civil War increased interest in Mex pop to replace slaves. Mexican pop serves as a "mobile, colonized work force" New Mexico was quite different partly because of lack of penetration by commercial agriculture, partly because of sparseness of population, an partly because of the particular position (and racial makeup?) of Mexican elite, they are able to maintain their position for longer. still some dispossession through taxation of land. National Forest Service (issue of environmentalism?) some Mexican families, however, able to combine with Anglo interests. Many Mexican elite families serve as mediators--- becomes the bosses in Mexican neighborhoods this pattern also found in Texas. continued into the 1970s and 1980s people referred to this kind of patronage networks as "panzita politics" Integration---- The economy of SA was in ruins after the war, in part because of the destruction of trade networks with Mexico, in part because of smuggling from Mexico. Doesn’t really recuperate until after the Civil War increasing solidification of elite (part Mexican, part French, part German) in commerce. other important innovations was transfer of capital from commerce into banking and construction of RRs in 1880s. Late in 19th century, government support through cheap water and tariffs make commercial agriculture increasingly profitable. Establishment of share cropping system with Mexican getting the worst deals. Mex tenant got 1/7th of white one. Debt peonage very common. What we know of occupational structure indicates that large majority of non-farm workers were unskilled workers. Again, Mexican women suffered a double burden as in their type of jobs, "appearance" was always a central criterion. Key input for SW economy is availability of cheap labor--- that is the economic contribution to be made by the Mexican American population. also serve as surplus labor pool--- "strike insurance". recruiters make false promises and then can keep workers as long as they want Some violent resistance to this process throughout the SW--- - the legends of Tiburcio Vazquez and Joaquin Murrieta. also beginning in early 20th Century, increasing labor agitation-- El Paso was a center of this. The role of the Texas Rangers as enforcers of a racial and class order. The key is to standardize the availability of labor and control capacity for demands. Migration from Mexico is encouraged-- border is essentially open until 1924. Numbers are still relatively small--- 2000 p.a. or so during the teens and maybe close to 30000 p.a. in the early 1920s. Push and pull factors 1924 this changes with victory of isolationists and nativists. peak of "institutionalized" racism through science and media. typical descriptions of Mexicans as lazy and dangerous.---"their minds run to nothing higher than animal functions" by this point, Mexicans have grown to 12% of Texas population. Large majority of these are born in Mexico. in early 20th Century, construction of a political machine linked to elite interests AND with significant multi- cultural support. during the late 19th and early 20th, population boom increasing Anglo representation.-- San Antonio became less Mexican. shifts in political machines during this period, but in 20th century consolidation of machine politics with decreasing Mexican participation. political machine becomes more "property" of non-elite Anglos groups who use it to exclude Mexicans. combined with resistance of economic elite to industrialize (because this would challenge their position. thus Mexicans during this period are deprived of both a political and an economic ladder. but there is a tension with need for chap labor for farms and some factories. One solution is imposed assimilation through institutions combined with segregation. class and race help to support the elaboration of what Montejano calls the culture of segregation. Creation of Mexican areas "Mexican town" in the West Side of San Antonio with own schools and institutions this residential pattern continued well into the 1970s with thirty-five census tracts (relatively small units containing 55% of the Mexican population. white areas develop covenants and more informal boundaries to prevent Mexican incursion. Very poor qualities of service and availability of funds were lower in the West Side than in anglo parts of the city. West side in the 1940s had the highest rate of tuberculosis for cities that size and Mex-Am had a death rate four times that of whites this segregation has continued as Mexicans still tend to live in predominately Mexican neighborhoods and go to predominately Mexican schools. Segregation still a major part of life in the rural parts of South Texas well into the 1970s Once conflict between need for labor and racism is resolved- --- through Great depression, the Mexicans suffer a great deal in 1930s the city becomes relatively poorer-- compared to other centers. Mexican labor becomes so cheap that a famous Pecan factory actually demechanized the process because human hands were cheaper than machinery! Singled out as scapegoats (should sound familiar) Repatriation is used as a policy--- between 1929 and 1934, 400,000 Mexicans are "voluntarily repatriated"--- many of these (about half?) are actually US citizen estimates made that to do this is a lot cheaper than providing relief (about 1/6th) around this time, we see the beginning of many of the organization efforts that will lead to Mexican-American political participation later on. League for United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) founded in 1928-- but note that the name attempts to create a different image from "Mexican"--- class dynamic here as some of these groups and their constituency support efforts against poorer (and "darker"?) Mexicans LULAC even supporting some of the repatriation campaigns. again distinctions made according to skin color and cultural styles a critical development by the 1920s is the development of a Mexican middle class. Thomas Sheridan has described this for Tucson and Richard Garcia in San Antonio. In SA, this party reflects the veterans who return from WWI and the increasing industrialization of the city. creation of an explicit bi-culturalism with some integrationist tendencies. the geographical element is also important. Situation of Mexicans depended on whether they were in a Mexican majority community or not (see Montejano) Again-- key element of class--- where Mexicans can still own land, a very different situation than where they are purely purchased labor. one key finding is that miserable situation of Mex-Americans throughout this period is in part a direct product of decisions regarding how to play politics in SA an din Texas and the kinds of economic development that will be allowed to occur. W.W.II change once again the need for labor and you get a reversal in policy. Although racism persists--- zoot suit riots of 1940s. Bracero program begins in 1942---- inter-government agreement to get Mexican labor to the US. Perfect example of how migration serves interests of both countries. Still a great deal of racism--- "we didn't fight to sit next to Mexicans" Once you again establish a well regulated agricultural population, you get another swing in the pendulum--- in 1954 Operation Wetback you get deportation again. 3.8 million over the next 5 years are deported. Very rarely go through judicial procedures--- "Looking Mexican" is enough. Redefinition of Mexican population G.I Forum started in 1948 against refusal of communities to bury Mexican-Am veterans. (despite that fact that Mex-Am have the highest representation among Medal of Honor winners). During this same period you get attempts to challenge segregation through the courts Mendez vs. Westminster School District in 1945 in LA challenges segregation by national origin in 1947 effort moves to Texas where segregation was temporarily defended on language grounds in 1948, LULAC, GI Forum and UT student orgs fight-- Delgado case interesting here that a lot of the litigation uses the Mexicans are white argument real battle comes in enforcing desegregation- well into 1950s still goes on.-- the "era of subterfuges" as late as 1968 a survey of segregation in SW reported it was still high and worst in Texas.---but at least one battle had been won. (continued below) Another important development is increasingly the Mexican population is second or third generation economic and social stability and some formal access to political rights. in New Mexico, this had already occurred prior to W.W.II. Beginning in the late 1950s you get Mexican Americans in SA city government. Also beginning in the 1950s, you get creation of a new middle class of professionals and skilled workers--- see figures in Montejano p. 298. A new wave of protest and civil rights action in the 1960s. New organizations get an opening from collapse of city political machines in the late 1960s (in part helped by "new" Anglo elite of industrialists Most famous is the El Partido de la Raza Unida led by Jose Angel Gutierrez against political machines in South Texas. Also MALDEF begun in 1968. Mexican American democrats Southwest Voter Registration Project but again note opposition from some more "establishment" Mex Am such as Congressman Gonzalez from San Antonio. (But remember that Gonzalez had been fighting segregation in the Texas legislature since the 1950s) MALDEF in 1969 takes over desegregation battle. abandonment of Mexicans are white argument identification of Mexican Americans as a specific minority group (in order to apply Brown rulings) the implementation still being fought in 1980s a complicating issue was bilingual education-- replaced segregation as the major battle ground possible conflict between these. The increasing importance of the Hispanic vote for national campaigns ("Viva Kennedy"), collapse of old machines, and development of new institutions provides a political opportunity for new Mexican middle class. By 1970s, Mexican Americans begin to get close to parity in their representation in the SA political class---- between 1970 and 1980 representation in Mayors office county, legislative, administrative and judicial office almost doubles. rise of independent Mexican-Am political figures. HOW: in early 1970s, collapse of political machine that had controlled SA during the 1950s and 1960s. this in part due to divisions within economic elite. US Federal pressure creation of a Congressional District allows election of Henry Gonzalez in 1962. application of Voting Rights Act in 1975 eliminates many of the obstacles to Mex-Am political participation poll taxes until 1966 residency requirements annual and early registration English only information and ballots. creation of single member districts-- allowing for concentration of population have results. grassroots efforts: COPS not a formally Chicano organization, but membership is largely Mexican founded in 1973 by Ernie Cortes frustrations with non-responsiveness of political machine, he attended a seminar by the community organizer Saul Alinsky built on the networks within and between parishes. avoided "big" issues of civil rights and concentrated on local "hardware" issues such as drainage, etc. very closely linked to neighborhood concerns and governance fought government attention to northern suburban expansion in favor of white business became very influential by forcing disclosure of budgets etc. and also by encouraging business pragmatic approach voter mobilization and organization of confrontations gave it an almost veto power by 1980, it had an automatic ear in the city council-- agenda setting. in 1988 division with Mayor Cisneros over stadium-- power of COPS may be declining 1977 election signals the political ascendancy of Mex-Am start using this resource to funnel money to their areas. Henry Cisneros is the ultimate symbol of this climb to power. both a product of the West Side and of Texas A& M-- bridging both sides Harvard degrees and White House fellow Significant here that his first political appearance in 1975 he was associated with part of the Anglo elite-- did not run as a "Mexican" and received a disproportionate amount of support from Anglos. he was able to use his base in the Mex-Am community and expand it to Anglo support What does this Mex-Am community want to do with this power Survey indicate support for conservative social issues Despite some in-roads, however, still committed to Democratic Party One possible concern is increasing distance between Mex-Am and Afro-Am communities Survey in Houston in 1980 indicating that Mex-Am saw Blacks as getting more out of affirmative action and seen as more influential. Commitment to education as central public policy confusion on bilingual education-- what it means and whether they ant it. One Migrant Story: Political Road to Power Perhaps the most remarkable thing given the history of exploitation in Texas is that Mexican Americans have been very successful. in 1985, they accounted for 50% of Hispanic office holders. By every possible measure, they are the best represented Hispanic group on practically every level of government. Reasons include: active intervention of US government in 1975 relatively larger number of citizens as a percentage of the population. also despite a gap between Mex-Am and Anglos, Mex- Am increasingly likely to vote. small town nature of politics also makes it easier to participate as new political elites residential segregation and concentration some evidence that concentration and density of Mex-Am businesses is important for the development of Mex-Am entrepreneurs. cultural and social gulf between Anglos and Mex-Am Because of the enclave, there is also a sense of being on one's own turf. possible importance of sense of empowerment? but interesting that socialization of Mex-Am political elite seems to indicate that experience with racism important in determining career. organizational effort beginning with LULAC through COPS these kind of organizations have done a great deal of good-- for example forcing cities in Texas to link colonias of migrants to water networks. BUT: limits to what this kind of political power can accomplish since the community is still embedded in an economic and international system-- - we need to consider how Latinos fit into this and for that we go to LA.