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.