Here's a rough draft of my Wikki material; feel free to critique and provide suggestions.
cheers,
Daniel
History of Latino/a Immigration
The topics of Latino’s in America and immigration are closely bound in the minds of many Euro- and African-Americans, but this link is somewhat misguiding. Much of the South West was settled by Latino’s (both peninsulares and mestizos) long before Anglos arrived, and many Mexicans found themselves suddenly U.S. citizens after the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Thus it is incorrect to view Latinos in the U.S. as essentially “immigrants.”
Nevertheless, no story of Latino’s in the U.S. would be complete without telling about the experience of Latino immigrants. Mexicans, Cubans and Puerto Ricans represent the three largest groups and will be covered briefly below. The last few decades have also seen increased immigration from Central American countries. Juan Gonzalez notes that there is a push-pull phenomenon that has and will continue to compel Latinos to immigrate. On the one hand, a persistently bad economic situation in much of Latin America drives Latinos to seek a livelihood elsewhere, while on the other hand the demand for cheep labor and the media barrage from the United States draws them here (Gonzalez, p.205).
Cuban Immigration
Historically Cuba and the U.S. have shared close ties. Cuba produced large amounts of sugar that the U.S. craved and the U.S. in turn profited from exporting goods to the island. Before Fidel Castro took power many of the elite in Cuba had foraged close ties in the U.S. thus after the 1959 revolution many looked northward. Furthermore, during the height of the Cold War the U.S. was willing to extend many favors to Cuban immigrants that it did not extend to other Latino groups. The first wave of Cuban immigrants were well educated (often from U.S. universities) and aristocratic, and the bulk of them settled in Miami and Dade County. In the 80’s things began to change, however, as large numbers of poorly educated and economically destitute Cubans began to show up off the coast of Florida, called the Murial boat people. The arrival of these unskilled, poorly educated Cubans began to change national sentiment towards new immigrants from that country, and in 1994 President Clinton brought an end to the special treatment of Cuban immigrants.
Puerto Rican Immigration
Puerto Rico stands in an ambiguous place, a product of manifest destiny and colonialism that is unwanted by the now neo-colonial United States. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens by birth, yet are consistently treated as second-rate citizens at best and foreigners at worst. In the post WWII years Puerto Ricans settled predominantly in New York City and New Jersey, though subsequent generations have formed enclaves elsewhere.
Mexican Immigration
People of Mexican descent represent by far the largest single group of Latinos in the U.S. (Juan Gonzalez claims two out of three Latinos living in the U.S. is of Mexican heritage). The history of Mexican-Americans (also called Chicanos) and Mexican immigration is also key to understanding the story of Latinos in California. Furthermore, Mexican-Americans can claim the distinction of having the longest presence on this soil of any ethnic group besides Native Americans. Many Mexicans found themselves suddenly citizens of the United States after the Mexican-American war and the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo made much of the South West (including Texas and California) United States territory. Thus many Latinos can claim deeper roots in this land than most Anglos.
Since Guadalupe Hidalgo the U.S. has experienced several waves of Mexican immigration, often followed by corresponding anti-immigration backlash. As Gonzalez puts it, “Mexicans…have historically been ‘pulled’ here only to be treated as easily deportable labor” (Gonzalez, p. 202). The first big wave of migrant labor from Mexico followed close on the heels of World War I, when large growers began to increase their profits by hiring cheap Mexican labor. Things changed with the onset of the depression as the dust-bowl drought and subsequent exodus of large numbers of whites from the dust-bowl regions to more prosperous regions such as California and Washington created competition with the Mexicans working in these areas. Political pressures lead to the rounding up and deportation of hundreds of thousands of Mexicans (including many who were now American citizens) through out the early thirties, and to make matters worse the decade saw a precipitous decline in wages.
Post WW II Immigration Boom
With the arrival of WW II came shortage of white men to work farm jobs, once more creating a demand for Mexican labor. This war-time demand lead to the construction of the bracero program, in which Mexico and the United States cooperated to import migrant labor from Mexico—the US provided the transportation, jobs and related benefits, and Mexico provided a ready supply of workers. Unfortunately this program turned out in reality to be a tool for the growers, with which they could keep the labor market sufficiently flooded to depress wage levels. This negative effect was felt most deeply by Mexican-American workers, who found themselves edged out of the market by their non-naturalized counterparts. Merle Wells notes, “bracero contracts had offered growers an option to replace domestic workers any time that union efforts might be made to improve migrant wages and conditions” (Wells, p. 69). This program was eventually discontinued in 1964, but was interrupted by a draconian backlash termed “Operation Wetback” in ’54 when the U.S. government, without due process, deported between 1 and 2 million immigrants in a matter of months (Gonzalez, p. 203).
As Gonzalez noted, the push-pull phenomena will only continue to compel Mexicans (and other Latinos) to el Norte (the North). An article from 1986 observes that “as risky as these crossings have become, the Mexican continues to view the United States as a sort of economic magnet where his financial travails will be alleviated. Tragically he will often face exploitation, discrimination, and risks to health and life. He is willing to suffer these…in an attempt to improve his lot and that of his family…”(Machado, p. 64).
Recent Immigration Issues: Proposition 187 and Minutemen
The last decade has seen a marked trend in public opinion against Latino immigration, particularly against Mexicans. The debate has focused on illegal immigrants, who have been viewed with particular suspicion in the years following 9.11.2001. In California voters passed proposition 187 which aimed to stem the flow of immigrants by denying undocumented individuals access to various social services, including health services and education for children. While this proposition later died in the courts, its passage at the ballot box has been seen as an indication of the shift in public perception.
More recently, several citizens groups have organized to take boarder patrol into their own hands. Groups like the Minuteman Project organize groups of individual civilians to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border and report illegals, as well as staging protests and petitioning governmental officials. The rhetoric of such groups tends towards the xenophobic and reactionary, nevertheless Jim Gilchrist, the founder the Minuteman group, recently garnered 25% of the vote in a special election for Orange County’s 48th congressional seat. Such recent events illustrate that there is a pressing need for the church to seek to understand Latino immigration.
Mexican Labor in California
Early on Mexican and Chicano workers played an important, albeit poorly paid, part in this profitable enterprise. Reisler quotes a 1930’s produce executive on the key role Mexican labor played in agriculture at that time: “Large-scale production would be impossible without Mexican field labor. Without the Mexicans costs would be increased 50 percent.” However, Chicanos were not always unskilled laborers. At the signing of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 there were very few Anglos living in California and Mexican ranchers owned most of the land. In 1849 the gold rush brought a flood of Anglo immigrants, who rapidly became the majority. The excellent online book Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California, published by the National Park Service, notes that as the fledgling state drafted laws Californios (pre-conquest Mexican Californians) repeatedly got the short end of the stick. The tax system disproportionately taxed land instead of production, which disadvantaged Californios who sought to continue their livelihood as ranchers. Most glaringly, the 1850’s “Foreign Miners Tax” classified Californios as foreign, even though the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo supposedly made them U.S. citizens.
As a result of these and other anti-Mexican laws and attitudes, Californios found themselves loosing their land, being forced out of their traditional trades, and relegated to unskilled or semi-skilled labor. The Park Service book concludes that, “Loss of land contributed heavily to relegation of Mexican Americans to the lower echelons of the California socio-economic system. The loss eroded their economic base, undermined their political power, and displaced ranchworkers. …Many found employment in railroads, construction, and food processing.” It is striking that Mexicans and Chicanos as a group are often associated with such labor to this day.
Movements to organize farm workers have a long history, beginning as early as 1928 with the Imperial Valley strike, however they did not gain much momentum until after the bracero program came to a close. In the wake of the Bracero program came efforts began to organize the migrant workers without governmental oversight, most notably Cesar Chaves and his United Farm Workers. Chaves’ Union lead strikes against California grape producers from 1965 through 1970, gaining contracts with the majority of wine and table grape producers. Such movements are still underway, most recently Taco Bell came to an agreement with their tomato suppliers that aimed to improve the lot of farm workers.
Chicano Movement
Mexican-Americans first began to organize groups to promote their causes and defend their rights early in the twentieth century. The first major group to form was the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) which provided legal support to Mexican Americans and fought for their rights. The Vietnam era and civil rights movements of the 60’s saw the development of a distinct Mexican-American self-identity, called the Chicano movement. The term Chicano is a truncation of mexicano, and in earlier eras was used as a derogatory term. The term was subverted and deconstructed by Mexican-American activists and has since been used to promote Mexican-American identity and culture, along with the term la raza (the people). In many ways Cesar Chavez became the spiritual leader of the movement, much like Martin Luther King Jr. lead the African-American struggle for civil rights. The Chicano movement has promoted Latino interests in politics as well as economic and social projects.
Cultural Implications of Latino History
The history of Latino’s in the United States, both as immigrants and as citizens, has profoundly effected the group as a culture. Thomas Weyr in the introduction to his book Hispanic U.S.A. notes that pessimism and despair have marked Latino culture (Weyr uses the term Hispanic). As a result of centuries of struggling up-hill against hostile structures and systems Latino culture, according to Weyr, has become skeptical and pessimistic about its future social and political prospects in this country.
However, there are other ways to read the effects of history on Latinos. Silvio Torres Saillant notes that one thing that unifies Latinos (an extremely diverse social group) is the common theme of oppression, inequality and exploitation in their histories. “We share the experience of being uprooted by large socioeconomic forces from our original homelands. We come from societies with a history of unequal association with the United States, a country that has influenced and sometimes even dictated political behavior in Latin America." Ultimately, both observations have a modicum of truth. Their often tragic and unjust history helps to define what it is to be Latino for good and ill.
Finally, some alarmists have noted the tenacity of the Spanish language and culture: whereas former immigrant groups have assimilated within the first few generations, Latino’s have maintained their cultural and linguistic differences over centuries. One writer suggests that Latino’s will be the immigrant group that “crack the melting pot”; because of the longevity and vitality of Latino culture, it poses a serious challenge to the hegemony of the dominant, Euro-American culture. Some have read this apocalyptically, however one might also suggest that Latino culture may pave the way for the U.S. to become truly pluralistic and multicultural by overturning the claim that “American” culture is essentially Anglo.
I would suggest that this cultural tenacity is a result of Latino history in the U.S. Latinos have lived here as long or longer than any Euro-American group, indeed Anglos were the immigrants in the mid-nineteenth century. Consequently, Latino’s are in many ways not immigrants and so there is no reason for them to “assimilate.” Furthermore, the Spanish language has serious ground on which to challenge the dominion of English, both in terms of history and breadth of usage. In short, there are serious grounds on which to challenge the concept that Latino’s are immigrants at all in the normal sense of the word. Perhaps Latino’s are outsiders and immigrants in concept only, and perhaps it is high time Euro-Americans abandoned this incorrect perception.
No comments:
Post a Comment