Occupied america a history of chicanos 7th edition pdf

Reflection #1

You will need to respond to each question in complete sentences / paragraph format. Your response to each question should be approximately 150-200 words, and include supporting details. Submit the file by the deadline.

1. In the "Overview of the Course" file, you were provided with information about identity, ethnic studies programs, student learning obstacles, etc. What information did you find most important?

2. How was borderland culture transformed following the Mexican American War?

3. Reflect on the sources and views presented in Topic Two. Which two views/sources made the greatest impact on you and why?

, Introductions, Occupation and Internal Colonization

Mexicans viewed the conquest of their land very differently. Suddenly, they were “thrown among those who were strangers to their language, customs, laws, and habits.” The border had been moved, and now thousands of Mexicans found themselves inside the United States. The treaty permitted them to remain in the United States or to move across the new southern border. If they stayed, they would be guaranteed “the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States according to the principles of the Constitution.”

1

Most remained, but they felt a particular alienation. “Our race, our unfortunate people will have to wander in search of hospitality in a strange land, only to be ejected later,” Mexican diplomat Manuel Cresción Rejón predicted. “Descendants of the Indians that we are, the North Americans hate us, their spokesmen depreciate us, even if they recognize the justice of our cause, and they consider us unworthy to form with them one nation and one society, they clearly manifest that their future expansion begins with the territory that they take from us and pushing aside our citizens who inhabit the land.” A few years later, Pablo de la Guerra vented his frustrations before the California Senate. The “conquered” Mexicans, he complained, did not understand the new language, English, which was now “prevalent” on “their native soil.” They had become “foreigners in their own land.”

2

….Dominant in the state legislature, Anglos enacted laws aimed at Mexicans. An anti-vagrancy act, described as the ‘Greaser Act,’ defined vagrants as “all persons who [were] commonly known as ‘Greasers’ or the issue of Spanish or Indian blood….and who [went] armed and [were] not peaceable and quiet persons….. ….Mexicans soon became a minority as Anglos flocked to Santa Barbara. In 1873, Mexican voters were overwhelmed at the polls. Thought they elected Nicolas Covarrubias as county sheriff, they lost the positions of county assessor, clerk, treasurer, and district attorney. Politically, the Anglos were now in command. “The native population wear a wondering, bewildered look at the sudden change of affairs,” a visitor noted, “yet seem resigned to their unexpected situation, while the conquerors are proud and elated with their conquest.” Mexican political participation declined precipitously in Santa Barbara—to only 15 percent of registered voters in 1904 and only 3 percent in 1920.

3

….Mexican parents sent their children to segregated schools….[where they] were trained to become obedient workers. Like the sugar planters in Hawaii who wanted to keep the American-born generation of Japanese on the plantations, Anglo farmers in Texas wanted the schools to help reproduce the labor force. “If every [Mexican] child has a high school education, “sugar beet growers asked, “who will labor?” A farmer in Texas explained: “If I wanted a man I would want one of the more ignorant ones…Educated Mexicans are the hardest to handle….It is all right to educate them no higher than we educate them here in these little towns. I will be frank. They would make more desirable citizens if they would stop about the seventh grade.”

4

Source Excerpt: Ronald Takaki, From a Distant Mirror: A History of Multicultural America, 1993.

1 Rodolfo Acuna, Occupied America: A History of Chicanos (New York, 1981), p. 199; David J. Weber (ed.),

Foreigners in Their Native Land: Historical Roots of the Mexican Americans (Albuquerque, N.M. 2003); David Hunter Miller, Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1937), Vol. 5 2 Personal Memoirs of John N. Seguin, From the Year 1834 to the Retreat of General Woll from the City of San

Antonio, 1842 (San Antonio, 1858) reprinted in Weber, pg. 178. 3 Albert Camarillo, Chicanos in a Changing Society: From Mexican Pueblos to American Barrios in Santa Barbara

and Southern California, 1848-1930 (Cambridge, Mass., 1979), p. 23, 46, 41, 187. 4 Sarah Deutsch, No Separate Refuge: Culture, Class, and Gender on an Anglo-Hispanic Frontier in the American

Southwest, 1880-1940 (New York, 1987), p. 141; Rosalinda m. Gonzalez, Chicanas and Mexican Immigrant Families, 1920-1940: Women’s Subordination and Family Exploitation, in Lois Scharf and Joan M. Jensen (eds.), Decades of Discontent: The Women’s Movement, 1920-1940 (Westport, Conn., 1983), p. 66

2327, Introductions, Occupation and Internal Colonization

…it is my contention that the conquest of the Southwest created a colonial situation in the traditional sense—with the Mexican land and population being controlled by an imperialistic United States. Further, I contend that this colonization—with variations—is still with us today. Thus, I refer to the colony, initially, in the traditional definition of the term, and later (taking into account the variations) as an internal colony. From the Chicano perspective, it is obvious that these two types of colonies are a reality. In discussions with non-Chicano friends, however, I have encountered considerable resistance. In fact, even colleagues sympathetic to the Chicano cause vehemently deny that Chicanos are—or have been— colonized. They admit the exploitation and discrimination, but they add that this has been the experience of most “Americans”—especially European and Asian immigrants and Black Americans. While I agree that exploitation and racism have victimized most out-groups in the United States, this does not preclude the reality of the colonial relationship between the Anglo-American privileged and the Chicano. I feel that the parallels between the Chicanos’ experience in the United States and the colonization of other Third World peoples are too similar to dismiss. Attendant to the definition of colonization are the following conditions:

1. The land of one people is invaded by people from another country, who later use military force to gain and maintain control.

2. The original inhabitants become subjects of the conquerors involuntarily. 3. The conquered have an alien culture and government imposed upon them. 4. The conquered become the victims of racism and cultural genocide and are relegated to a

submerged status. 5. The conquered are rendered politically and economically powerless. 6. The conquerors feel they have a “mission” in occupying the area in question and believe that

they have undeniable privileges by virtue of their conquest. These points also apply to the relationship between Chicanos and Anglos in Mexico’s northwest territory. In the traditional historian’s viewpoint, however, there are two differences that impede universal acceptance of the reality of Anglo-American colonialism in this area.

1. Geographically the land taken from Mexico bordered the United States rather than being an area distant from the “mother country.”

Too many historians have accepted—subconsciously, if not conveniently—the myth that the area was always intended to be an integral part of the United States. Instead of conceptualizing the conquered territory as northern Mexico, they perceive it in terms of the “American” Southwest. Further, the stereotype of the colonialist pictures him wearing Wellington boots and carrying a swagger stick, and that stereotype is usually associated with overseas situations—certainly not in territory contiguous to an “expanding” country.

2. Historians also believe that the Southwest was won in fair and just warfare, as opposed to unjust imperialism.

2327, Introductions, Occupation and Internal Colonization

The rationale has been that the land came to the United States as the result of competition, and in winning the game, the country was generous in paying for its prize. In the case of Texas, they believe Mexico attacked the “freedom-loving” Anglo-Americans. It is difficult for citizens of the United States to accept the fact that their nation has been and is imperialistic. Imperialism, to them, is an affliction of other countries. ….The colonization still exists today, but as I mentioned before, there are variations. Anglo-Americans still exploit and manipulate Mexicans and still relegate them to a submerged caste. Mexicans are still denied political and economic determination and are still the victims of racial stereotypes and racial slurs promulgated by those who feel they are superior. Thus, I contend that Mexicans in the United States are still a colonized people, but now the colonization is internal—it is occurring within the country rather than being imposed by an external power. The territories of the Southwest are states within the United States, and theoretically permanent residents of Mexican extraction are U.S. citizens. Yet the rights of citizenship are too often circumvented or denied outright…… Source: Rodolfo Acuna, Occupied America: A History of Chicanos (New York, 1981).