Who are ‘Mexican Americans?’
The history of Mexican Americans extends over more than four centuries and is one that is very colorful. It is also one that is filled with anguish and loss. Mexican- Americans have an identity forged over almost a century; their history is one that is filled with loss and that has called for great perseverance. There are different categories of Mexican Americans: there are those who have just recently immigrated into the United States and those who are first or second generation Americans because their parents settled in America decades back. Then there are the Mexican Americans whose ancestors settled in America when that part of the country was still under Spanish or Mexican rule. Mexican Americans fall under the Hispanic or Spanish ethnic minority groups.
The conflicts in regards to Mexican property ownership
One of the reasons why there were and still are problems with the land that was granted to the Mexicans in America when their country ceded territory to the U.S, is the conflicting ideas that the two sides have towards land ownership; the Mexicans lay emphasis on the ‘informal’ system of land ownership where on connections and patronage while the Americans are more concerned with the differentiation between public and private ownership where an individual is entitled to absolute control over a piece of property (Montoya, 2002 ).
The United States legal system failed the Mexicans living in America because it did not comprehensively try to incorporate Mexican approach of land ownership into the system. Because the Mexican system of granting land was based not strictly on formal written contracts but on mutual trust, the unspecific documents that have been presented by Mexican Americans in courts of law have been dismissed as not being able to stand on their own (Montoya, 2002).
The Mexican land grants were to be best understood if they were looked at in the historical, social and cultural context under which they were drawn. In the 1800s, the Mexicans’ way of business was based more highly on mutual trust than on formal documents. Rarely were these even drawn up; the agreements between two individuals or groups conducting a transaction would be verbal because the one’s given word was as good as the written one.
However, the American legal system was and still is unwilling to understand this aspect of the Mexican culture. While the Mexican land grant system has its roots in the Spanish civil law system, the more formal ad rigid American one originates from English common law. Perhaps this can help explain why the two are so incompatible and why the jurists and property owners of today find it so difficult to understand this system (Montoya, 2002).
The reason why the United States government was so unwilling to recognize the Mexican systems of land ownership were at times rooted in ulterior motives. While the Mexican usufructuary rights allow land owners to exploit the resources on common land at will, the American fee simple absolute dictates the opposite. If the U.S legal system would have awarded land owners their usufructruary rights as dictated by the Mexican system, it means they would have been denied an opportunity to use the resources on the said piece of land. This led to the dismissal of usufructruary rights as being inapplicable under U.S law.
It can then be concluded that the major underlying conflict between the two sides has been and remains to be what Montoya terms as ‘translation’. In the eyes of the Mexicans, the land was by all rights theirs; the procedures they went through to get the land made it legally and fully their property. The U.S legal system sadly however does not recognize these processes, the system has its own requirements into what it takes to be entitled to property and these are not in any way aligned to what the Mexicans perceive as rites to land ownership. Both sides feel they are right, the winner only being determined by the one with more clout in the present circumstance, that being the U.S legal system (Montoya, 2002).
Yours for the taking: the ‘empty’ American West phenomenon and its impact on Mexican American property ownership
The fact that the American west was seen as a vast uncivilized, inhabited territory that was up for grabs laid down the groundwork for the property rights trouble. It was as if the Mexican land owners who were there before the Anglo-American inhabitants were not at all recognized. This made it plausible for them to be unceremoniously ousted.
The system of land ownership that had been used by the Mexicans was simply neither acknowledged nor honored by the Anglo-American settlers. This led to the perpetuation of the myth that the land was free for all, that there were no established institutions with which they had to contend; that there was no one wronged in the process of their settling and how they acquired the land was in a manner that was completely transparent and unacceptable. This has worked against Mexican Americans in cases of litigation because the myth has become so widely spread and so common it has practically replaced the truth. That is why both historians and jurists find it hard to see this issue from the perspective of the Mexican Americans.
The undocumented colonization of the American west
To be colonized is simply to be subdued by a more powerful external force. Colonization has several universal characteristics; the colonizer comes in peace, under a harmless guise with Trojan like gifts in hand. Over time, he starts exerting his presence and before long the roles change and he is master. The next step is to lay claim to anything that catches his eye, clamoring over it as fiercely as the natives do and crying foul if it is to be taken away from him. Once the colonialists settle in, he instigates change and tries to rearrange his environment until it suits him. He then invites others of his own kind who soon use up and have control of the resources that were once the lifeline of the natives.
In this context, the Mexican Americans were colonized as much as the indigenous tribes in Africa were by the British and the French. Why not much attention was paid to the plight of thousands of Mexicans loosing their homes and lands to Anglo-American settlers is because it was considered incredible that the new and free America which made so much of liberty and equality for all people would be the home t o such a vice especially after 1776 (Montoya, 2002 ). It is only in more recent times that historians have revisited under what conditions the United States acquired its western states, land of which once made up the total area of Mexico. It comes to light that there might have been some underhanded methods used and some coercion involved (Montoya, 2002).
On the surface, this did not appear to be so because the people who were living in the acquired territories namely Texas, California, Colorado and New Mexico were welcomed into the American fraternity on seemingly equal footing; they had the same presentation in congress as their Anglo-American counterparts and on top of that they were allowed to vote.
Losing land and pride; the discrimination of Mexican Americans
The annexation of Texas by the United States in 1845 provoked the Mexican American war that was fought from 1846 to 1848. At the end of the two year war, the treaty of Guadalupe- Hidalgo was signed and Mexico conceded Texas to the U.S. In 1853 the Gadsden Purchase Mexico conceded further territory that covered present day New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Utah and parts of Wyoming. At first, the Mexicans living in these areas took their new earned U.S citizenship as a reprieve from the despotic leadership of the then president General Santa Anna. Furthermore, the U.S government offered to keep away the Indians who were notorious for raiding the Mexican’s farms. There was also the prospect of peace, something that had been elusive from the region of a long time; the Mexicans believed that if they did not have to constantly keep fighting, there might finally be the chance of settling down and generating wealth.
But things did not turn out as rosily as they had at first appeared to be. While there had been concessions Made in the treaty for that assured land owners they would be able to keep their land, the U.S government reneged on their part of the bargain. The treaty was altered in congress so that the Mexicans were not protected by it anymore. While the original treaty had article ten which stated that the U.S government was bound to honor land grants made to Mexicans living on areas that had been ceded to the government, this article was dropped. The other article altered was article eight which said that Mexican citizens who remained in America for a full year after the cession would become full American citizens if or choose to keep their Mexican citizenship if they so wished. However, this was changed to the time for gaining U.S citizenship as being indefinite, the period of time was to be determined by the Congress. Because of these alterations, thousands of Mexicans lost their property when they presented their cases before sate and federal courts. These landowners who were mostly semi literate or illiterate could not standup in the face of the legal system. Many of these people lost their land in the form of litigation fees they paid as they fought for the rights to keep their property.
The role played by the U.S government in aggravating discrimination against Mexican Americans
Having lost their property, the Mexicans were thus left without a source of income and with no way to sustain themselves. They also felt a deep resentment for the Anglo- Americans who had committed these injustices against them; yet they had to swallow their bitterness and live side by side with their adversaries, watching as they plowed ad mined land that had once belonged to them.
It was these disenchanted people who formed pockets of resistance that tried to hit back at the Anglo-American invaders. Groups such as Las Gorras Blancas in New Mexico showed their anger and frustration by burning down buildings that belonged to the whites as well as destroying their property. The Mexicans had become fugitives in their won home.
The U.S government did not step in to intervene against the injustices that were being committed against the Mexicans. The government stood aside as more and more Anglo-Americans occupied the ceded territories, buying out the land that rightfully belonged to the Mexicans and putting it to their own use. In California, during the years of the Gold Rush, the Anglo-American settlers came in a deluge. There was no stopping the invasion once it started.
There began to emerge a reorganization of the social classes among Mexican Americans in the American west, depending on who was the wealthiest and thus who had the most clout. There were the landowners who made the elite; they had the ranches and their business was in the raising of cattle. These were the people at the very top of the social ladder. Then came those who had smaller pieces of property, who were referred to as ‘rancheros’. They had smaller herds of cattle and horses and which they relied on for their livelihood. At the bottom of the rung came the landless that also made up the majority called ‘peons’ ‘vaqueros’ and the cart men.
This lowest group was nothing more than slaves. They had no property to their name; usually they were in the employ of the wealthy ranch owners. They were so dependent on their employers that they could not even get married without being granted permission. They lived in shanties that were on the same compound as but far enough from the main ‘hacienda’ where they were employed. They were not even afforded the luxury of building materials and had t make do with mud for walls and whatever thatching materials for their roofs. It was a very degrading life to live.
The justice system completely failed the Mexican American community between the years after the cession up to the 1930s, maybe even up to date, not only in terms of the loss of land, but also in terms of not protecting their basic human rights. Other than the segregation of Mexican Americans which continued to worsen and at some point became open racism, there were hundreds of cases when violence was perpetrated against members of these communities without cause. Between the years of 1848 and 1930, there are an estimated close to600mexicans who lost their lives to mob justice. There was never nay reparation for the afflicted, neither were their cases presented before a court of law because in most pars of the American west, Mexican Americans were denied such a privilege though they were citizens as much s every other person at the time.
Factors that led to the segregation of Mexican Americans and who was responsible
The life of Mexican laborers was literally not their own. Jose Alamillo recalls his childhood lived in southern California with his parents who worked on the limoneira farm, a lemon growing farm.
The farm, which was and still is the biggest lemon ranch in the country, depended heavily on the Mexican immigrants for labor, as it still does today. Alamillo recounts that his family lived in a house owned by the same company that owned the lemon farm. The store where they bought their groceries plus the entertainment joints where they went all belonged to the all pervasive company. The laborers answered to the ranch supervisor whose duty it was to keep watch over the lemon groves.
It was not easy working on the lemon groves. The job was a seasonal one and there were times of the year when the author’s mother had to do extra chores in people’s houses so as to meet their financial needs. During the fruit season, when the packing had to be done, the author says his mother had to work day and night with short breaks in between. His father had to wake on the chilliest of nights so that they could go and keep the smudge pots burning to ensure that the fruit was not destroyed by the cold. The conditions under which the workers labored were dangerous to their health, and the long working hours left them completely drained.
And the worst of all these was that the wages paid for the work done by the laborers was pitiful. It was barely enough to sustain the laborer’s families’. Since the workers bought their supplies from a company owned store, the company had autonomy over the prices set, so was the rent which made the laborers vulnerable to exorbitant prices.
The laborers highly treasured their leisure time; those few hours of reprieve when they could revel in their freedom. Because of their shared agony, the laborers forged very close community ties. They attended weddings and birthdays and marked holidays with great pomp and ceremony. It was as if these occasions, like rare gems of happiness were representative of the full lives that they could live, free of oppression and constant working and worrying and the unrelenting poverty of which they were faced with every day. Their leisure time was a symbolic act of defiance against their superior; it was that their way of saying that they may be owned body and possessions, but that their spirits were free, strong and unwilling to succumb.
There was outright abuse of human rights going on in farms such as lemoneira across the American west. Jose Alamillo’s position along with his family was not a unique one. It was the same story for Mexican workers all over the U.S. however, the workers were determined to empower themselves and fight back.
As early as 1900 Mexican Americans were already forming unions that would fight for the rights of their laborers. One of the more infamous union groups was the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) which fought for improved working conditions for mine workers and farm laborers as well. However, the American government retaliated by the mass deportation of its members in the Bisbee deportation of 1917.
The government was not very covert about the role it played in the discrimination of Mexican Americans. After the Great depression of 1929, there was the state sponsored repatriation program under which people of Mexican descent were encouraged to go back to Mexico. However, the repatriation was not y choice because most of those people, more than five hundred, were deported against their will.
There were movements such as the League of United Latin American Citizens which was formed in 1929 to fight against the discrimination of Mexican Americans who have kept up the fight up to this present day.
Conclusion
The history of the American west did not start with the coming of the Anglo American settlers to that region. There were people who lived on those lands.
The cultural and social history of Mexicans living in the American west could not be boiled down to a few stiff documents specifying boundaries and ownership. Just because the U.S legal system did not comprehend the Mexican land grant system put them in no position to abuse it. The injustice done to Mexican Americans over the past century is one that the U.S government should acknowledge. Though there is no recompense that can be sufficient for the Mexican Americans who had to go through the humiliation of losing hearth and home, of being reduced to nothing more than a
The tragedy of the Mexican American property ownership in Western America boils down to the collision of cultures.
It has been a long and hard fight for Mexican Americans to reclaim a birthright that they were once cheated out of. There have been few victories along the way, interspersed with periods of bitterness, loss and humiliation. Though they may never get all that was rightfully theirs in the first place, Mexican Americans have exhibited great courage in the face of stronger adversaries in trying to obtain social, cultural and economic equality. They have earned their place as part of the American nation.
Bibliography
Alamillo, José. M. Making lemonade out of lemons: Mexican American labor and leisure in a California town, 1880-1960. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2006.
González, Gilbert. G. Labor and Community: Mexican Citrus Worker villages in a Southern California county, 1900-1950.Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994.
Gonzalez, Gilbert. G. Culture of Empire: American Writers, Mexico, and Mexican Immigrants, 1880-1930. Denton: University of Texas Press, 2004.
Montoya, 2002 MarÃa. E. Translating property: the Maxwell Land Grant and the conflict over land in the American West, 1840-1900. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.
Ramos Raúl A. Beyond the Alamo: forging Mexican ethnicity in San Antonio, 1821-1861. North Carolina: UNC Press, 2008.