10 page

This 10 to 12-page essay will ask you to answer one question; “What characteristics, traits, and/or approach(es) are necessary to successfully lead an organization or team that operates on the U.S./Mexico border?” You will be graded on your ability to elaborate on key issues discussed throughout the semester, demonstrate ethical and effective leadership skills in your responses, and synthesize concepts with real world issues. Students will be graded on the quality of the writing, the depth of critical thinking presented in the essay, the strength of their argument, and on the overall organization of the essay’s main ideas. I ask that you use proper citation formatting (MLA or APA). 5-8 sources (at least 4 academic articles and only 2 can come from our semester reading list). It is 10-12 pages of writing and must include a cover page and references page.

Some traits to include are inclusive narratives, understanding other cultures and upbringing, go out your way to establish connections you can choose the rest

First Reading from Semester you have to use

8

Immigration, Latinas/os, and the media

Leo R. Chávez

In a 1980 presidential debate, candidate Ronald Reagan made this comment:“Rather than talk- ing about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems? Make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit.And then when they want to go back, they can go back. Open the borders both ways” (Lee 2015).

Contrast those sentiments with presidential candidate Donald Trump at a Republican presi- dential debate on 16 June 2015:

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us.They’re bringing drugs.They’re bringing crime.They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

(TIME 2015)

Trump also said if elected president he would build a “huge” wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and ban all Muslims from coming to the United States. On the sixth day after taking office, President Trump signed executive orders to begin construction of a wall between the United States and Mexico (Chen et al. 2017).

What happened? The hyperbolic anti-immigrant discourse spewed by Donald Trump did not just appear suddenly in contemporary public discourse. Over the last 50 years, public dis- course on immigration has increasingly become less affirmative, or positive, and more alarmist. This chapter examines public discourse and media representations of immigration, especially from Mexico and Latin America, and Latinas/os in the United States, and what I have called the “Latino Threat” narrative (Chávez 2013).

Media representations of Latinas/os and Latin American immigrants fluctuate between affirming their place in U.S. society and viewing them as a threat to society (Chavez 2001). However, news media representations of Latina/o immigrants and their children have been less affirmative and more inflammatory since the 1970s (Santa Ana 2013). A study I conducted of magazine covers and their accompanying articles showed that immigrants and their children were increasingly associated with words and visual images denoting negative connotations such as floods, invasion, crisis, reconquest, broken borders, over-population, crime, over-use of social

115

Leo Chávez

services, and an inability to integrate socially and culturally. In contrast, stories that spoke posi- tively about immigration were common in the 1970s, but steadily decreased in the 1980s and 1990s (see Figure 8.1).This pattern exists in newspapers such as The NewYorkTimes, LosAngeles Times, Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal (Massey & Pren 2012).

Although historically immigrants may have been desired for their labor, new waves of immigrants to the United States have often been viewed with suspicion and outright hostility (Gerstle 2004, 2001). Immigrants have been characterized as lowering wages, expanding ethnic neighborhoods, lacking the ability or desire to assimilate, and carrying disease. Public discourse attributes these same threats to today’s Latinas/os. However, public discourse often characterizes Latinas/os as a threat to the nation in other important ways:Their high levels of immigration and fertility rates are said to fuel an invasion and they, particularly those of Mexican origin, pose a potential threat of a take-over, or reconquest, of the Southwest United States. A few examples of the Latino Threat will establish its prevalence as a pervasive narrative of the nation and anti- nation (see also: (Aguirre et al. 2011; Romero 2011; Santa Ana 2002; Coutin & Chock 1995).

In the 1970s, U.S. News & World Report began alerting the public that social, political, and demographic trends in Mexico posed future problems for the United States.Their covers had headlines such as “Crisis Across the Borders: Meanings for the U.S.” (13 December 1976), “Border Crisis: Illegal Aliens out of Control” (April 25, 1977) and “ILLEGAL ALIENS: Invasion Out of Control?” (29 January 1979). In all three cases, the subject was the growing flow of undocumented Mexican immigrants and their potential to take over the U.S. South- west and give it back to Mexico, and to over-use social services. U.S. News & World Report’s 4 July 1997 issue pointed to Mexican women’s unchecked fertility as the problem that was fueling the flow of Mexicans to the United States (see cover at: http://backissues.com/issue/ US-News-and-World-Report-July-04-1977).1

The 4 July 1977 U.S.News &World Report’s ( USNWR) cover reads:“TIME BOMB IN MEX- ICO: Why There’ll be No End To the Invasion of ‘Illegals.’” The accompanying image shows a group of men standing, most with their hands in the air or behind their heads.The scene is taking place at night, a strong light making the men visible.The men all have dark hair and appear Latino. A lone Border Patrol agent, barely visible in the background, helps to establish the scene’s loca- tion: the U.S.-Mexico border. Use of the word “invasion” conjures many images, none of them friendly or indicating mutual benefit. Friends do not invade; enemies invade. Invasion is an act of war, and puts the nation and its people at great risk. The war metaphor is enhanced by the

60 50 40 30 20 10

0

Figure 8.1

1970s

1980s Alarmist, N=48

1990s Affirmative, N=19

116

Affirmative and alarmist magazine covers over time, in percentages

prominence of the words “Time Bomb.” The text conjures up an image of Mexico as a bomb that, when it explodes, will damage the country.The damage, the message makes clear, will be the unstoppable flow of illegal immigrants to the United States.

The accompanying article cites predictions that Mexico’s population, then at about 64 mil- lion, could grow to as many as 132 million by 1997 or so (predictions that did not prove accurate).The yearly population increase at the time was somewhere between 3.2 and 3.5%. In addition to population pressures, Mexico had to confront high levels of unemployment and underemployment (then affecting about 40% of the working age population), rapid urbaniza- tion that further strained a limited infrastructure, a level of agricultural production that failed to meet the needs of the country, growing inequality between the rich and poor, and political corruption at all levels of government.Added to these problems was the political consideration of America’s interest in maintaining political stability in Mexico. In this sense, emigration is an “escape hatch” for Mexicans who might otherwise stay and foment political unrest. In short, all of these problems in the Mexican economy and society, combined with Mexico’s attitude towards emigration, mean, according to U.S. News & World Report, that controlling the flow of undocumented migrant workers across the border would be difficult.

The 1980s witnessed continued alarmist discourse about Mexican immigration. U.S. News & World Report’s 9 March 1981 issue featured the headline “OUR TROUBLED NEIGHBORS – Dangers for U.S.” The problem in Canada, according to this 1981 article, was the possible political turmoil resulting from the French-speaking Canadians’ movement against linguistic and political domination from English-speaking Canadians. On the Mexican side, continued immigration raised the possibility of growing Mexican demographic strength, which posed the probability of a separatist movement following the Quebec example. Two years later, on 7 March 1983, U.S. News & World Report returned to the invasion theme. The cover’s text announces: “Invasion from Mexico: It Just Keeps Growing” (see cover at: http://backissues. com/issue/US-News-and-World-Report-March-07-1983).2

This cover is momentous in that the metaphor of war – invasion – is attached to a particular foreign country, Mexico. Mexico is now explicitly placed in the role of aggressor and the United States is the nation whose sovereign territory is under attack by this hostile country and its people.The image on the cover is a photograph of women being carried by men across a canal of water.The people in the picture are phenotypically Latina/o, or Mexican. In the accompany- ing articles we learn about the “flood of illegal aliens in unparalleled volume” that is no match for the understaffed and beleaguered U.S. Border Patrol (Chaze and Migdail 1983, p. 37).The “invaders,” we learn, are desperate job seekers, willing to “risk all” to cross the border (Chaze and Migdail 1983, p. 38).With an increase in the clandestine flow across the border came a rise in the number of deaths due to exposure to the elements in rugged hill country and open deserts. Deaths also occurred from accidents as migrants frantically crossed busy streets or attempted to jump onto freight trains moving further north.

A year later, Newsweek’s 25 June 1984 issue carried the headline: “Closing the Door? The Angry Debate Over Illegal Immigration. Crossing the Río Grande.”The cover’s image relies on many of the same basic visual elements to tell its story as the U.S. News & World Report cover above. Once again we have a photographic image of a man carrying a woman across a shal- low body of water.The woman is wearing a headscarf and a long shawl.The man carries the woman’s handbag, which suggests she is traveling somewhere, moving with a purpose and for an extended amount of time. She holds a walking cane.

Leaving aside the text on this and the previous cover for a moment, the images themselves do a lot to establish the theme and location of the events taking place.They do so through the use of stereotypical phenotypes, clothing, and “common sense” understandings of how Mexicans cross

Immigration, Latinos, and the media

117

Leo Chávez

the border. In short, the images hit upon a number of touchstones related to undocumented Mexican immigration. For example, the water in the image could be anywhere, but the phe- notypes, complexion (the color photographs clearly show their brown skin and black hair), and clothing suggest the people are Mexicans. In addition, the people – Mexicans – in conjunction with the activity they are engaged in – crossing water – situates otherwise nondescript water as “border water.”This message derives from the American public’s cultural understanding of the history of Mexican immigration to the United States.As Claire F. Fox has observed,“Generally speaking, the Río Grande/Río Bravo and the fence are the two primary contemporary icons used to establish the location of a narrative in the border region” (Fox 1996, p. 60).The cultural stereotype is that Mexican immigration occurs over water (water is also a basic metaphor for immigration). Mexicans in this immigration narrative arrive “wet” after having crossed the Río Grande River to illegally enter the United States.The derogatory label “wetback,” commonly applied to undocumented immigrants from Mexico, derives from this migration narrative.The images rely on this commonly held understanding of Mexican immigration to develop their narratives and to engage the reader’s attention quickly.

There is also an important reference to women on the two covers. In both cases, it is a woman who is prominently featured as being carried across the water and into the United States. Since we are also warned that an “invasion” is occurring, the prominence of females in the images must be read as conveying an important message about the “invaders.” Rather than an invading army, or even the stereotypical male migrant worker, the images suggest a more insidious invasion, one that includes the capacity of the invaders to reproduce. The women being carried into U.S. territory carry with them the seeds of future generations. The images signal not simply a concern over undocumented workers, but a concern with immigrants who stay and form families and, by extension, communities in the United States.The images of the Mexican women being offered up, as it were, to American society bring to mind another image, that of the Trojan Horse. Indeed, a prominent feature of anti-immigrant discourse has been the fears of political unrest by the children of Mexican immigrants and a reconquest of U.S. ter- ritory by reproduction. Moreover, reproduction of immigrant families not only raises issues of population growth, but their use of prenatal care and children’s health services, education, and other social services. Importantly, the woman on Newsweek’s cover also carries a walking stick, which subliminally raises the possibility that she is infirm and may require medical services in the United States.

U.S. News & World Report’s 19 August 1985 cover escalated the invasion theme to a new level by suggesting that the United States is losing cultural and political control over its territory (see cover at: http://backissues.com/issue/US-News-and-World-Report-August-19-1985).3 The text announces:“The Disappearing Border:Will the Mexican Migration Create a New Nation?” But it is the image that so artfully and so colorfully tells a story of Mexicans taking over the United States.The cover’s image represents the relationship of the two nations through the strategic use of the colors in their respective national flags.Are the red and blue of the U.S. flag fading up into the sunset of history? Central to the image are the large block letters “U” and “S”; they are white.These letters sit in a field of green, and rest atop smaller red letters forming the word MEXICO (green and red being the principal colors in the Mexican flag). Placing the white U.S. letters on a field of green suggests that the question of which flag the color belongs to is irrelevant, since the United States is embedded in, and surrounded by the green of Mexico. The United States is already absorbed into Mexico’s field.

Inside the magazine, immigration-related issues are addressed in no less than six articles.The first of these is titled “The Disappearing Border,” and sets up the magnitude of the changes wrought by Mexican immigration and profiles the immigrants’ socioeconomic characteristics.

118

The article begins by telling a story, a narrative of contemporary Mexican immigration that establishes a “reconquest” theme:

Now sounds the march of new conquistadors in the American Southwest. . . .Their move- ment is, despite its quiet and largely peaceful nature, both an invasion and a revolt. At the vanguard are those born here. . . . Behind them comes an unstoppable mass . . . from below the border who also claim ancestral homelands in the Southwest.

(Lang 1985, p. 30)

Importantly, in U.S. News & World Report’s narrative of invasion and reconquest it is not just recent Mexican immigrants who pose a threat, but also Americans descended from the first Spanish-speaking explorers of the Southwest. Not even 400 years of living in the Southwest, over 150 years as U.S. citizens, reduces the threat posed by Latinas/os in the Southwest. Appar- ently, according to this argument, they have remained socially and linguistically separate, biding their time for a “revolt” and a takeover. In other words, the conspiracy for the reconquest of the Southwest has been in operation for generations and spans centuries.That so far-fetched and unsupported a scenario could be seriously presented in a national magazine attests to how deep the unquestioned assumptions about invasion and reconquest had, by this point, entered into public discourse.There is no critical perspective on the assumption of difference being put forward here, a difference so great and incommensurable that the people so designated are not even subject to the normal expectations of social and cultural change. It is as if Mexican Americans and other Latinas/os exist in an ahistorical space apart from the life that takes place all around them.They are cast as “alien-citizens” with divided allegiances, perpetual foreigners despite being U.S. citizens by birth, even after many generations (Ngai 2004, p. 11). Such notions have become an acceptable part of public discourse even among otherwise learned scholars.

As the nation entered the 1990s, two issues, multiculturalism and race, dominated the pub- lic discourse about the implications of immigration on the nation. Time’s 9 April 1990 cover confronts directly the changing racial composition of American society (see cover at: http:// content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19900409,00.html).4 The cover’s image featured an illustration of the American flag. The colors of the flag, however, were not the traditional red, white, and blue. The colors black, brown, and yellow now almost completely filled the three previously white stripes, which still retain a small amount of white along the edges. Gone are the white stars in the upper left field of blue.

What has happened to the flag? The flag stands for the nation and the colors represent race in America’s racial thinking.White, black, brown, and yellow represent white Americans,African Americans, Latinas/os, and Asian Americans, respectively. White Americans are becoming less demographically important as racial-ethnic minorities increase numerically.The message con- veyed by the image is reinforced by the text:“America’s Changing Colors:What will the U.S. be like when whites are no longer the majority?”

The article “Beyond The Melting Pot” discusses the demographic trends that will result in racial and ethnic groups outnumbering whites in the nation sometime in the 21st century. As Time put it, “The ‘browning of America’ will alter everything in society, from politics and education to industry, values and culture” ( TIME 1990, p. 28). This change represents a fun- damental shift from a “traditional” or “real” America that is envisioned by “some” as a white, European-origin society.The “browning of America” poses opportunities and risks.The risks are a multiracial society that is harder to govern as Hispanics “maintain that the Spanish language is inseparable from their ethnic and cultural identity, and seek to remain bilingual, if not primarily Spanish-speaking, for life“ ( TIME 1990, pp. 28–31) and as racial and ethnic conflict increases,

Immigration, Latinos, and the media

119

Leo Chávez

particularly as African Americans “feel their needs are getting a lower priority” ( TIME 1990, pp. 28–30).

Multiculturalism, in particular, poses a threat to those who believe that every society needs a universally accepted set of values ( TIME 1990, p. 31). The article predicts that demographic change and multiculturalism will cause serious adjustment among whites, who consider the nation as reflecting their own image.

The deeper significance of America becoming a majority nonwhite society is what it means to the national psyche, to individuals’ sense of themselves and the nation – their idea of what it is to be American. . . .White Americans are accustomed to thinking of themselves as the very picture of their nation.

(TIME 1990, pp. 30–31)

It is an interesting idea that a nation can be lost through demographic change. Differences in beliefs and behaviors attributed to races are not constructed; in this logic they come with the racial package of the person. Race, with the inherent beliefs attached to it, becomes equated with the nation. It is not American culture, values, ethics, etc. that define the nation, but rather the color of skin, the texture of hair, the shape of a face that characterize the nation.What Time is suggesting is that the nation can be lost should these physical traits change.

The National Review entered the debate over immigration and the nation’s changing racial composition on 22 June 1992 (see cover at: www.unz.org/Pub/NationalRev-1992jun22).5 The cover featured an illustration of the Statue of Liberty standing with a very serious expression on her face and her arm straight out with palm up in a halting gesture. She has been transformed into a traffic cop, stopping the flow of immigrant traffic into the nation. Actually, the text informs us that she is actually re-directing the flow of immigrants to another country:“Tired? Poor? Huddled? Tempest-Tossed? Try Australia. Rethinking Immigration.”

The feature article, “Rethinking Immigration,” begins with an image of an INS (Immigra- tion and Naturalization Service)6 waiting room, which the author, Peter Brimelow, suggests would have become a tenth Circle of Hell had Dante ever visited one. In the article, Brimelow presents his views on immigration, which he later expanded upon in his controversial book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster (Brimelow 1995). Brimelow, an immigrant from Britain, favors restricting immigration from Third World countries. He also advocates developing a policy that would reverse demographic trends so that Americans of European racial/national backgrounds would equal pre-1965 proportions.

There is much about immigration and today’s immigrants that Brimelow does not like, but underlying all his reasons seems to be race. His view of race appears to include both biological differences and difficult-to-lose beliefs and behaviors. Brimelow finds that Hispanics are par- ticularly troublesome, going so far as to claim they are “Symptomatic of the American Anti- Idea,” which is neither defined nor clarified. But Brimelow leaves no doubt what he means:

Symptomatic of the American Anti-Idea is the emergence of a strange anti-nation inside the U.S. – the so-called “Hispanics.” The various groups of Spanish-speaking immigrants are now much less encouraged to assimilate to American culture. Instead . . . they are treated by U.S. government agencies as a homogenous “protected class.”

(Brimelow 1992, p. 45)

The “anti-nation” Brimelow refers to is not located geographically, nor is its contours figured in any descriptive sense.But that it is out there somewhere is clear,at least in Brimelow’s mind.How these

120

characterizations of Latinas/os conform to the data on the use of English language among immigrants and their children and the climb of a goodly portion into the middle class by U.S.-born, English- speaking Latinas/os is not at all clear. But from this basis, Brimelow moves to deplore bilingualism, multiculturalism, multilingual ballots, citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, the abandonment of English as a prerequisite for citizenship, the erosion of citizenship as the sole qualification for voting, welfare and education for illegal immigrants and their children, and congressional and state legislative apportionment based on populations that include illegal immigrants (Brimelow 1992, p. 45).

Brimelow ends with a call to stop immigration into the United States.“It may be time to close the second period of American history with the announcement that the U.S. is no longer an ‘immigrant country’” ( National Review 1992, p. 46). Brimelow’s reasons for stopping immi- gration include his son, who “seems to like it here” (are we to assume from this that his son likes the country but not its people?) and the memories of Americans from his childhood.When he was a young boy in England at the end of World War II, Brimelow remembers American soldiers lodging with his aunt. One soldier’s wife showed his family color slides of Southern California, where she and her husband intended to settle after the war. He wondered what they, now old, might think of the “unprecedented experiment” that is changing the demographic makeup of California and the nation “they so bravely represented.” It is revealing that Brimelow does not say it, but we are supposed to assume that these soldiers were white. I suppose it did not enter into Brimelow’s mind that American soldiers during World War II consisted of every racial and ethnic background in the country, including African Americans, Latinas/os, Asian Americans (including Japanese Americans), and American Indians. His image of America, as symbolized by the soldiers in his story, was white, then and now.

In 1994, Patrick Buchanan, a nationally recognized conservative politician, expressed his deep concern that a Quebec-like threat loomed large in America’s future. In an opinion article in the LosAngelesTimes,Buchanan reasoned that sometime in the near future the majority ofAmericans would trace their roots not to Europe but to Africa,Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and the Pacific Islands (Buchanan 1994, p. B7). He thus asked:What would it mean for “America” if, for example, South Texas and Southern California became almost exclusively Latino? He provided the following answer, “Each will have tens of millions of people whose linguistic, historic and cultural roots are in Mexico,” and thus,“like Eastern Ukraine, where 10 million Russian-speaking ‘Ukrainians’ now look impatiently to Moscow, not Kiev, as their cultural capital, America could see, in a decade, demands for Quebec-like status for Southern California” (Buchanan 1994, p. B7). For Buchanan, Latina/o immigrants and their children pose the risk of a separatist movement, which would very likely seek to take over U.S. territory and return it to Mexico’s control.That some 15 years later the dire predictions of a demand for Quebec-like status by Latinas/os has not occurred has not given Buchanan pause, as his more recent writings indicate (see more later).

The new century was greeted with more alarmist news about the threat posed by Mexicans and other Latinas/os in the United States. In 2000, writing in The American Enterprise, Samuel P. Huntington wrote:

The invasion of over 1 million Mexican civilians is a comparable threat [to 1 million Mexi- can soldiers] to American societal security, and Americans should react against it with com- parable vigor. Mexican immigration looms as [a] . . . disturbing challenge to our cultural integrity, our national identity, and potentially to our future as a country.

(Huntington 2000, p. 22)

The new millennium witnessed continued media representations of Latinas/os taking over the United States. Time’s 11 June 2001 cover featured two Latina/o kids, looking “cool” with

Immigration, Latinos, and the media

121

Leo Chávez

sunglasses, wearing the current fashions for children (see cover at: http://content.time.com/ time/covers/0,16641,20010611,00.html).7 However, they were part of a threat, as the headlines alerted its readers:“Welcome to AMEXICA:The border is vanishing before our eyes, creating a new world for all of us.”That new world is suggested the blending of the words AMERICA and MEXICO to become AMEXICA.The colors in the word AMEXICA are a mix of red, white, and blue (the U.S. flag) with red and green (the Mexican flag). In short, Mexico and the United States are becoming one nation, a frightening thought to many of Time’s readers.

After September 11, 2001, public discourse in the United States focused on the dangers the country faces in the contemporary world.The new post-9/11 concerns for national security did not eclipse a public discourse on the alleged threat to the nation posed by Mexican immi- gration and the growing number of Americans of Mexican descent in the United States.The themes in this discourse have been so consistent over the last 40 years that they could be said to be independent of the current fear of international terrorism. Even though the events of 9/11 “raised the stakes” and added a new and urgent argument for confronting all perceived threats to national security, the Mexican threat still had currency in the new post-9/11 world. Consider this quote from Samuel P. Huntington’s article in the March/April 2004 issue of Foreign Policy, in which he compared Latinas/os, especially Mexicans, to earlier waves of European immigrants:

Unlike past immigrant groups, Mexicans and other Latinos have not assimilated into main- stream U.S. culture, forming instead their own political and linguistic enclaves – from Los Angeles to Miami – and rejecting the Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream.

(Huntington 2004a, p. 30)

He goes on to say:

In this new era, the single most immediate and most serious challenge to America’s tradi- tional identity comes from the immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially from Mexico, and the fertility rates of those immigrants compared to black and white American natives.

(Huntington 2004a, p. 32)

Also in 2004, Samuel Huntington published Who We Are: Challenges to America’s National Identity, which focused on the threat of Mexican immigration. He repeats the problems with Mexican immigration found in the quotations that began this chapter. He speaks of a Mexican “ recon- quista” or reconquest, a blurring of the border between Mexico and the United States, and the problem of a blending of cultures. This is happening, according to Huntington, because “Mexican immigrants and their progeny have not assimilated into American society as other immigrants did in the past and as many other immigrants are doing now” (Huntington 2004b, p. 222). He argues that Mexican immigrants and their children are not assimilating in the use of English, educational attainment, occupation and incomes, and intermarriage. He writes, “If this trend continues, it could produce a consolidation of the Mexican-dominant areas into an autonomous, culturally and linguistically distinct, economically self-reliant bloc within the United States” (Huntington 2004a, p. 227). In short, the “ reconquista” leads to the formation of a separate nation.

Huntington’s statements are all the more remarkable given the historical context in which they were made. At the time, the United States was waging war in Iraq, deeply involved in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, and still searching for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda operatives

122

worldwide. And yet amid all these crises, Huntington singled out Latin American, particularly Mexican, immigration as America’s most serious challenge.

BusinessWeek’s 15 March 2004 issue also raised the possibility of a “Hispanic Nation” emerg- ing within the United States.With a large and bold headline, its cover visibly shouts “HISPANIC NATION,” followed by,“Hispanics are an immigrant group like no other.Their huge numbers are changing old ideas about assimilation. Is America ready?” (see cover at: http://backissues. com/issue/Business-Week-March-15-2004).8 The cover’s text represents the Latina/o popula- tion as unique in contrast to other immigrant groups, which did not form separate independent nations in the United States and for which assimilation was, supposedly, a smooth and linear process. Assimilation for other immigrant groups, historically and today, is set up as the banner example of the “old ideas about assimilation.” We can only assume that the Hispanics who are the subject of BusinessWeek’s cover are changing these old ideas in ways that do not reflect assim- ilation but rather the social, cultural, and linguistic separatism that will result in a separate nation.

Pat Buchanan reiterated his dire predictions of the impact of Latinas/os on the nation. Speak- ing on MSNBC on 24 March 2009, he said:

Mexico is the greatest foreign policy crisis I think America faces in the next 20, 30 years. We’re going to have 135 million Hispanics in the United States by 2050, heavily concen- trated in the southwest.The question is whether we’re going to survive as a country.

(Buchanan 2009,YouTube)

Conclusion

Since the 2008 election of Barack Obama as president of the United States, there has been a growth in the number of militia groups. Government officials, worried by this trend, and an organization that tracks militias, cited two reasons for this growth: 1) the poor economy and a liberal administration led by a Black president; and 2) conspiracy theories about a secret Mexi- can plan to reclaim the Southwest amid the public debate about illegal immigration (Sullivan 2009, p. 36).This fear reverberates with the Latino Threat narrative.

What I have attempted to show here is that contemporary representations of Latinas/os, both immigrants and U.S.-born citizens, as threats to the nation have been part of the public discourse for decades. Most recently, President Trump’s diatribes about Mexican immigrants and their children, while jaw-dropping in their crudity, are not new.They come out of a clear set of articulated threats found in the media. Some may laugh off complaints of such rhetoric being offensive as being overly “politically correct.” However, the representations presented question whether or not Latina/o immigrants and their families really belong to the nation.The Latino Threat narrative so prevalent in the media construes Latinas/os as the enemy within rather than as contributing members of society.While many may not agree with such characterizations, the continued use of such representations creates taken-for-granted “truths” in the public’s imagina- tion that can be hard to refute and readily available to nativists, media pundits, and politicians who wish to use such views to their own ends.

Second Reading from the semester you have to use

Part II

Borderlands

Contested (im)migrations, culture, and citizenship

Introduction

One of the most innovative and influential theoretical formulations within Chicana/o Stud- ies is borderlands theory. Notions of borderlands are complex and have been used by writers and theorists in widely disparate ways. One of the most influential thinkers about borderlands, Chicana feminist lesbian poet and theorist Gloria Anzaldúa, in her canonical work Borderlands/ La Frontera:The New Mestiza (1987), argues that borderlands have multiple meanings. Literally, the borderlands include the geopolitical space around the U.S.-Mexico border characterized by the ongoing movement of people, products, and ideas.Anzaldúa’s theoretical formulation of “borderlands,” however, postulates the existence of spaces that transcend the geopolitical border area where women, men, and children adapt, resist, and innovate to cope with social inequalities based on racial, gender, class, and/or sexual differences.These expressions of agency incorporate spiritual transformations and psychic processes of exclusion and identification – of feeling “in between” cultures, languages, or places. Within these spaces, marginalized “others” voice their identities and resistance. All of these social, political, spiritual, and emotional transitions tran- scend geopolitical space.

Before Anzaldúa’s theoretical insights on the broad significance of borderlands, Chicana/o Studies and other fields concerned with the experiences and expressions of immigrants and subsequent generations addressed the presence and paradoxes of borders and how these sepa- rated Mexican and Chicana/o communities since 1848 within a mirror relationship.The two- pronged approach prevalent before the 1980s emphasized binaries, but Anzaldúa challenged scholars and activists to consider the material and discursive spaces that transcend geopolitical border areas. Borderlands theoretical applications now go beyond what Américo Paredes called Greater Mexico or a dual cultural conceptualization of both sides of the border. Borderlands is both a site and a metaphor where people live and where their history developed through time, but which includes multiple generations: Indigenous peoples, straight and queer, Anglo and Mexican, the past and the present.

There are four key dimensions within Chicana/o Studies borderlands scholarship: struc- tural, discursive, interactional, and agentic. Structural borderlands research critiques the effects of globalizing economies, neoliberal state practices, and growing regional interdependence and

Borderlands

(im)migration. Discursive elements of borderlands projects examine ideologies and practices as subjects to reconstruct “home” in environments where they are often strangers. Interactional borderlands inquiry analyzes how boundaries are actively produced, based on race, class, gender, and sexualities. Agentic borderlands research focuses on the ways that Chicanas/os negotiate agency within geopolitical and psychic borderlands.

In this section, the authors interrogate the multiple meanings of borderlands, boundaries and borders within the field of Chicana/o Studies. Borderlands is a space of new and old cultural expressions, that is, as a place where a home is sought. Borderlands also indicts contradictory conditions where violence takes root in many forms: conflict, legal status, media distortions, and representation of (im)migrants, feminicide (female genocide), drug wars, sexualities, and political wranglings.Within spatial, spiritual, and material borderlands, adaption, resistance, and the development of new strategies to negotiate, resist, and overcome social inequalities are ever- changing and challenging.

100

7

México y lo Mexicano in Aztlán A study of transborder economic, cultural,

Introduction

and political links

David R. Maciel and María Rosa García-Acevedo

Mexico has been a transcendental origin in the spirit and development of the Chicana/o com- munity, not only as its country of origin but as a fundamental essence of its cultural, social, and political process. Mexico’s ties with their compatriots in the United States have been constant, intense, all-encompassing, and ever-present. Concretely, such links are immersed in historical events that date back to the mid-19th century and have continued to the very present era. Since the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, the number of Mexicans in the United States has been increasing and this community has consistently maintained the closest of ties with its homeland, Mexico, in terms of language, traditions, social patterns, politics, identity, and even way of life. The special relationship of the so-denoted “Two Mexicos” derives from the very closeness of its geographical proximity (Meinig 1971, pp. 3–9). The ill-defined U.S.-Mexican border separating the two countries was totally porous throughout the latter half of the 19th century and the beginnings of the 20th.Although Mexicans were not always welcomed in the United States, it was rather easy to get a visa and even the “green card” granted to permanent residents. Later on, even though the United States implemented more stringent policies on immigration, placing greater control of the border, the transboundary links between the “Two Mexicos” never ceased (Monsiváis 1995 pp. 435–455). Thus, people, commodities, and ideas have managed to cross the border continuously, and a variety of personal, familial, and business ties have flourished.Importantly,close to 80% of all Chicanas/os have resided less than 200 miles from the border.Yet, despite these profound links, there have existed two ill-founded and much- accepted notions that are paramount in this relationship: 1) that Chicanas/os and Mexicans who reside permanently in the United States have turned their back to Mexico, and their priority has been to assimilate at the cost of their Mexicanness; 2) that Mexico has not demonstrated much concern, interest, or curiosity in “El México Perdido” (the Lost Mexico); and thus, it has not drafted any major policies towards its diaspora in the United States (Maciel 1988, pp. 435–455).

The purpose of this chapter is to contribute to dispel these misconceptions by providing clear examples of the continuity, the richness, and the complexity of the relationship between Mexico and the Mexican-origin community from the 19th century to the present day.We offer an interpretive overview with a detailed narrative of this complex relationship. As such,

101

David Maciel and María Rosa García-Acevedo

the chapter is divided into three sections: the first addresses the context of the links, while the other two sections analyze key topics of Chicana/o-Mexicana/o relations: Lo Mexicano in Aztlán; Culture across Borders; and Mexico’s outreach policies towards “El México de Afuera” (Mexico from the Outside). Collectively, these sections reveal the role and seminal importance that Mexico has represented for the Chicana/o community in terms of legacy, culture, and even political life.

Context

The war between Mexico and the United States that concluded with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo granted the annexation to the United States of 51% of the Mexican territory, which at that time was populated by around 120,000 Mexicans (Griswold del Castillo 1990, pp. 43–46). The Treaty stipulated that those Mexicans “left behind” would become legally citizens of the United States if they decided to stay in “the lost land” (Ibid, pp. 62–68). Soon after the conflict, the dominant Anglo-Saxon institutions exerted their condition of conquerors, entitled to all the spoils of their conquest.The end result was a set of principles and policies that legitimated “ El Gran Despojo” (The Great Plunder) or the “internal colonization” of the Chicanas/os (Maciel 1989, pp. 13–42). With few exceptions, most individuals of the incipient Chicano community were systematically dispossessed – through discriminatory laws, practices, and even violence – of their lands, privileges, leadership roles, and most of their civil rights.They in fact became “for- eigners in their own land” (Gómez-Quiñones & Ríos-Bustamante 1977, pp. 24–35).The process of dispossession of their property in many places (like in Texas) included the element of extreme violence (Carrigan & Webb 2013). Added to this situation were certain values including white supremacy, anti-mestizaje (racial mixture) attitudes, and overt discrimination and racism towards people of color, particularly those with Native American roots, such as Mexicans (De León 1983).

The response of the Mexican-origin community after 1848 to the new order was undoubt- edly mixed. Yet, in spite of class, regional, and circumstantial differences that existed in the American Southwest, Mexicans on the whole confronted a very difficult and frequently hostile environment. A few, mostly elites, embraced their newly gained citizenship with its benefits and idiosyncrasy. Often they became the gatekeepers between U.S. institutions and the Chicana/o community. The majority attempted to acculturate (by learning and practicing the ways of Anglo society) in order to obtain a somewhat advantageous niche in the United States. But, culturally, in spite of the forced “Americanization” process in the arenas of education, culture, and language, they maintained their Mexicanness, including the use of Spanish in households and in greater areas of the public arena.Another segment of the Chicano community opted for resistance and even open rebellion; they were the so-called social bandits.The one other alterna- tive for the Chicanos in the “El México Perdido” was to return permanently to Mexico (Weber 2008). Mexican official records indicate that a significant number of Mexican families did so right after 1848.Towns like Nuevo Laredo on the Mexican side of the border were founded during that time by repatriated Mexicans (González de la Vara 2000, pp. 43–59).

Mexican immigration to the United States has been an integral part of the Chicana/o expe- rience in innumerable ways for almost 170 years. It shows the artificiality of national boundaries between the two countries (Maciel & Herrera-Sobek 1998, pp. 3–20). In demographic terms, the flows of people from Mexico have contributed considerably to the overall growth of the Chicana/o community. As much as 20% of Mexico’s population over time has migrated and settled permanently in the United States (McWilliams 1990, pp. 162–189). Unlike other immi- grant groups whose arrival to the United States has been cyclical or a one-time phenomenon, even with ebbs and flows, Mexican immigration has been constant.

102

Because of the increasing jobs available (especially after 1880) in American agriculture, con- struction, industry, and transportation, Mexican workers began to migrate in great numbers to the Southwest. Mexicans supplied the workforce for these difficult and hazardous tasks, even becoming the dominant labor force in the region (Reisler 1976). In World War II and its after- math, Mexican migrants once again fulfilled a much-needed labor force. Both countries spon- sored the Bracero Program, an agreement guaranteeing Mexican workers specific labor rights (Durand 2016, pp. 121–156). From 1942 to 1964, the United States hired altogether around 5 million braceros (laborers) from Mexico. In 1964, after intense opposition by American labor and other interest groups, the Bracero Program was terminated unilaterally by the United States (Snodgrass 2011, pp. 79–102).

Yet, this would hardly be the demise of Mexican immigration to El Norte; throughout the 1970s and into the beginning of the new millennium, Mexican immigration – legal and undoc- umented – continued in a steady flow.The 1990s marked a highlight in terms of the number of immigrants from Mexico.The changes in Mexico’s economic model of development (the adoption of neoliberalism) has been highlighted as a main cause since it generated the bank- ruptcy of many small- and medium-size enterprises, the reduction of jobs within the govern- ment, and the rampant unemployment in many sectors of the formal economy as a corollary. In fact, between 1990 and 2006, the number of unauthorized immigrants from Mexico grew exponentially from 2,050,000 to 6,950,000 (Pew Research Center 2014).These flows joined the almost 3 million Mexicans who had already legalized their status under the U.S. compre- hensive immigration reform of 1986 (Goldring 2002).The new Mexican immigrants started to settle in untapped new regions of the United States, including the Far West and the South.The recent diaspora from Mexico (legal and undocumented) has become more varied and include people from all walks of life: from workers to entrepreneurs, professors, journalists, and even filmmakers, etc.They have crossed the border (frequently with their families) looking for better economic opportunities, fleeing the violence in Mexico, and increasingly in search of political refuge (Smith 2005).

After 2010, conditions dramatically changed in the United States that greatly stymied Mexi- can migration. Among the factors were: the Great Recession, the rise of violence at the border by organized crime and infamous groups, and the enforcement of U.S. policies oriented to “secure the borders” (e.g., deportations and reinforced surveillance along the border). A more accelerated recuperation of the U.S. economy and eventual changes in the situation of Mexico will provide clues whether or not this scenario is a more permanent tendency.

Lo Mexicano in Aztlán: culture across borders

Two seminal areas – at times overlapping – of cultural confluence have existed between Mexico and its diaspora: the constant struggle for the maintenance of lo mexicano; and the impact of immigrants as carriers of artistic experience and cultural motifs. Examples can be found in the era of the Mexican Revolution (1910), the advent of the Chicano movement (1960s and 1970s), and the contemporary era.

During the Revolution and its aftermath, the Mexican immigrants in the United States included numerous cultural figures who integrated into the life of the Chicana/o communities. They contributed to enhance a sense of ethnic consciousness while emphasizing the importance of the Mexican legacy; that is, the Spanish language. By settling in the United States and pursu- ing their craft, such immigrants rejuvenated artistic and cultural practices among the Mexican- origin community (Maciel 2003, pp. 305–325). Many of them continued their literary activity as journalists, creative writers, poets, and playwrights. Plus, illustrators and caricaturists found

México y lo Mexicano in Aztlán

103

David Maciel and María Rosa García-Acevedo

work in the Spanish-speaking newspapers while painters produced murals for stores, restaurants, and other public places in the Southwest and the Midwest. A selected few assimilated into the emerging film industry of Hollywood.

In the 1960s and 1970s, an impressive cultural renaissance took place inspired by the Chicano movement for civil rights – el movimiento.A central pillar was to regain its Mexican legacy, which had been negated and dismissed by dominant society. Mexico, as a symbol and inspiration, was to be in the front and center of its agenda, including in the arts. From the onset of the move- ment, pre-Columbian mythology and the origins of Aztlán would figure promptly in Chican- ismo. Aztlán refers to the mythical homeland where the Mexica (or Aztecs) originated prior to their pilgrimage to central Mexico, where they ultimately founded Tenochtitlan (current-day Mexico City). Also, border issues and the topic of immigration became essential and creative themes in this era of cultural flowering. Interestingly, in terms of diffusion of Mexican culture in the United States, the Mexican government has historically played an important role. Its con- sulates have sponsored a variety of activities regarding lo mexicano. At times, they have become the center of the sociocultural activity in the Chicana/o communities (Gómez-Quiñones 1975).

This section provides an overview of a variety of cultural manifestations of lo mexicano, including: theater, literature, journalism, plastic arts, music, and cinema.The theme of immigra- tion is one of great inspiration that cuts across all phases and practices of such manifestations.The overall majority of Chicana/o writers, journalists, artists, and filmmakers have fully embraced the immigrant experience from a multitude of perspectives. No other single theme of Chicano cultural production is as dominant and constant as Mexican immigration, producing an impres- sive body of work on the subject.At times,Mexican immigrants themselves have made seminal contributions.

Theater: From the end of the 19th century until the Great Depression (1929), the Spanish- language theater flourished as a popular cultural mode throughout the U.S. Southwest. Mexico’s theater companies traveled frequently across the border and staged their plays to very receptive audiences.The dislocation and chaos of the Mexican Revolution impacted the theater compa- nies, many fleeing and settling north of the border. Such companies performed in theater build- ings and carpas (itinerant theater groups).They became a fixture along the U.S.-Mexican border, but also in cities like Albuquerque, Los Angeles, Chicago, and San Antonio, with plays almost exclusively in Spanish.The golden period of the Spanish-language theater in Aztlán took place in the first three decades of the 20th century. Playwrights from Mexico had a key role. Many plays gained popularity because of their themes: historical episodes, overt racism, labor inequi- ties, questions of assimilation and acculturation, comedy and satire, immigration and deporta- tions, and political sketches. Examples of such plays were: Brígido Caro’s Joaquín Murrieta, La leyenda del bandido de California durante los días de la fiebre del oro (Joaquín Murrieta, the Legend of the California Bandit during the Gold Fever), based on the exploits of the social bandit, Joaquín Murrieta); Eduardo Carrillo’s El proceso de Aurelio Pompa (The Trial of Aurelio Pompa), which criticized the injustices of the U.S. judicial system regarding Mexicans; and Gabriel Navarro’s Los Emigrados (The Emigrees), which narrated the experiences of the Mexican immigrants in Los Angeles during the Revolution (Kanellos 1993, p. 251). The Chicano movement of the 1960s and 1970s fostered a new era for bilingual and Spanish-language theater. El Teatro Camp- esino, founded by Luis Valdez in 1965, became an innovative and creative way to denounce economic exploitation and continued racism and discrimination, as well as to bring attention to those issues to diverse audiences. His entire repertoire of plays and sketches used language, cultural themes, and political themes related to the Chicana/o experience.The famous play Zoot Suit is an outstanding example of this tradition, and actually has now become an iconic play of Chicano theater in the United States – and in Mexico since director Valdez has produced and

104

staged the play several times down there. Many other theater companies followed suit (such as Bilingual Foundation, El Teatro de la Esperanza, and El Teatro de la Gente) and continued to stage plays related to the heritage, society, traditions, and issues of Chicanas/os (Ramírez, pp. 234– 245).Also,Valdez and other emerging playwrights have continued the tradition of fomenting bilingual theater in the United States.

Literature: In the realm of literature, various works of fiction, poetry, drama, autobiography, and short stories have narrated critical episodes of the history and legacy of the Chicana/o com- munity related to Mexico. Some early examples are: Apuntes históricos interesantes de San Antonio de Béxar, La historia de Alta California (recently found), and the memoir on leadership in 19th- century Texas by Juan N. Seguín (Seguín 2003, pp. 177–181). In other words, most Chicana/o texts have certainly been influenced “by the geographical region now divided between the United States and Mexico” (Barvosa 2000, p. 263); for example, the epic poem of Rodolfo “Corky” Gonzalez Yo Soy Joaquín, Gloria Anzaldúa’s Borderlands/La Frontera:The New Mestiza, and Sandra Cisneros’s Woman Hollering Creek:And Other Stories.

The topic of the Mexican immigrant experiences has been particularly critical for Chicana/o writers. The first known novel on the subject, Daniel Venegas’s Las aventuras de Don Chipote o cuando los pericos mamen, published originally in 1928 and re-edited in 1984, was written by a Mexican immigrant.The text deals with the dramatic adventures of a Mexican undocumented migrant and his dilemma of either staying in the United States and being subjected to constant discrimination and exploitation, or returning to Mexico. By the early 1960s, the immigrant experience was central in creative writings, such as Barrio Boy by Ernesto Galarza, Rain of Gold by Víctor Villaseñor, Days of Obligation: An Argument with My Mexican Father by Richard Rodríguez, The Cariboo Cafe by Helena María Viramontes, The House on Mango Street and Caramelo by San- dra Cisneros, and Trini by Estela Portillo Trambley (Ledesma 1998, pp. 67–69). Also, emblematic expressions of this dimension are the acclaimed Peregrinos de Aztlán by Miguel Méndez, Klail City y sus alrededores by Rolando Hinojosa, and Canícula by Norma Cantú (Tatum 1990).

Journalism: Newspapers in Spanish flourished in the United States since the second part of the 19th century as a form of cultural maintenance and resistance.Among the many dailies were El Clamor Público and LaVoz de México in California,as well as El Boletín Popular, El Independiente, and Bandera Mexicana in New Mexico. For the Chicana/o community, newspapers performed important tasks: to denounce injustices, highlight important events in the community, and also inform on newsworthy happenings in Mexico like Benito Juárez’s struggle against the French army in the 1860s and the Mexican Revolution of 1910. Ignacio Lozano, a young journal- ist from Mexico, founded two major newspapers in Spanish: La Prensa in 1913 (San Antonio, Texas) and La Opinión in 1926 (Los Angeles, California). Both reported at length the stages of the Mexican Revolution and its aftermath, and provided new horizons for journalism in the Southwest.Their original staff was comprised almost entirely by Mexican expatriates of the post-Revolution that brought their craft to the United States (Gómez-Quiñones 1975).

In later decades, a new crop of publications in Spanish emerged in various cities inspired by the Chicano movement. Nowadays Spanish-language newspapers not only have proliferated but have successfully thrived in the digital world, such as La Opinión. Moreover, all major cities of the United States from Los Angeles to New York with a large Chicano/Mexicano population have at least one such major daily (Chabrán & Chabrán 1993, pp. 365–369).These newspapers have something important in common: their readership is better informed on issues of the Chicana/o community and Mexico’s subject matters. In stark contrast, the English-language dailies had little or no such coverage on these topics.

Cinema: The cinema of Mexico has been, by many accounts, an influential transborder and cultural vehicle since the early 20th century.The advent and popularity of cinema displaced

México y lo Mexicano in Aztlán

105

David Maciel and María Rosa García-Acevedo

theater as a mass media entertainment (Kanellos 1993).The Chicano/Mexican audiences – like others in the Spanish-speaking world – were fascinated by the images projected on the screen but much more so with the cultural issues and the familiar images and narratives represented. Mexican cinema clearly reflected life experiences and traditions with which Chicanas/os could identify.Also,the films exposed the public to historical and nationalistic themes in their repre- sentations. Thus, audiences flocked to the theaters, supporting and enjoying Mexican cinema from the silent era to the movies of its Golden Era (1920–1960).

Another reason for the success of Mexican cinema north of the border was due to the fact that Hollywood productions of that period had nothing to offer to Chicano audiences artisti- cally and thematically.The few Mexican/Latino characters represented in American films were portrayed rather negatively and much stereotyped most of the time.A prime example was the cycle of “greaser” Hollywood films. These and other similar American productions were so offensive and degrading that the Mexican authorities banned them from ever exhibiting in Mexico (Ramírez-Berg 2002).

The distribution and exhibition of Mexican cinema occurred in all major cities that had a considerable Chicano/Mexicano population.The weekly attendance to cinemas became a well- established tradition among families throughout the United States (Serna 2014, pp. 180–215). By the late 1940s and 1950s, there were simultaneous debuts of Mexican films on both sides of the border. Most of the famed stars of the Golden Age traveled consistently to the Southwest for personal appearances, such as to the emblematic Million Dollars Theatre in Los Angeles (Maciel 1995). In fact, audience attendance for Mexican cinema flourished all the way up to the 1960s. Its demise started in the 1960s because of the decline of the Golden Era and the uneven quality of the Mexican cinema at that time (Agrasánchez 2011).

Currently, the interest in Mexican cinema, in spite of practically no theater exhibition, has not altogether declined in the United States. The Golden Age cinema is still popular in the Mexican American communities given that local channels in Spanish broadcast such movies (e.g., Channel 22 in Los Angeles). Besides, most cable and satellite television companies in the United States carries a “Latino package,” which includes at least one movie channel (such as De Película Clásica or Cine Clásico) that broadcast 247 films exclusively from the Golden Era. In addition, such packages also include channels devoted to most contemporary Mexican cinema.

Music: The cultural influence of Mexico in Aztlán can also be attributed to such areas as Mexican music. Mexican folk songs and corridos have been popular among the Chicana/o community since the 19th century.Their main themes frequently narrated historical events, the exploits of local heroes and “social bandits,” or immigration issues. The dissemination of radio programs in Spanish increased the popularity of Mexican music in the Southwest. Pedro J. González became a pioneer radio personality in the late 1920s and 1930s. He migrated to Los Angeles, California, fearing for his life after the defeat of General FranciscoVilla. Originally hired to advertise commercials in Spanish, his successful performance of Mexican songs on a trial basis landed him on a daily radio program, Los Madrugadores. González convinced the own- ers to include a repertoire of Mexican songs, a huge success that opened the door for other Spanish-language broadcasting in the following decades ( Break of Dawn 1988). By the 1950s, radio stations showcasing Mexican music started their expansion from coast to coast.Two dec- ades later, an interesting experiment was organized by Hugo Morales, a Mexican immigrant. He founded Radio Bilingüe to serve farm workers in the area of Fresno, California with diverse programming in Mexican music. In two decades its audience reached 1 million all over the country, with its signal distributed to 20 stations by satellite (Gómez-Quiñones 2000, pp. 56–59)

Today, the music of performers of all genres of Mexican music is successfully played and sold throughout the United States. New scores and albums are usually released simultaneously

106

in both countries. In fact, many major Mexican bands and singers now reside permanently or temporarily in the United States, such as Los Tigres del Norte and the singer Lila Downs. They, like many other artists, address in their musical themes issues related to the border and other binational issues that affect both communities. From the 1990s to the present, Spanish- language radio stations thrive because of the increasing number of Chicanos/Latinos and their strong inclination to listen to radio (93%).According to Nielsen ratings, Mexican regional music ( banda, norteño/tejano, ranchera) is the most popular format (Montoya-Coggins 2014, p. 1). How- ever, these radio stations broadcast almost every genre of Mexican music, including oldies, hard rock, and pop, for an ever-growing audience with different musical tastes. As in the past, such radio stations successfully manage to combine music with community affairs and news about Mexico (Sheridan 2009, p. 148).

Muralism: Mexican themes have inspired Chicana/o artists since the first decades of the 20th century and have continued to the present. Artists, especially muralists, have sought par- ticular artistic motifs to express their identity and enhance the principles of their social struggle (Ybarra-Frausto 1983, p. 91). Murals are a unique popular art form that is creative as well as didactic. They convey political and ideological stands in public spaces for everyone to see; in other words, they are people’s art.The great muralistas of Mexico’s Escuela Mexicana de Pintura of the post-Revolution: José Clemente Orozco, Diego Rivera, and David Alfaro Siqueiros traveled and resided for certain periods of time in the United States.All interacted with the Chicana/o community and greatly influenced various subsequent generations of Chicano muralists (Hurl- burt 1989). During 1920 to 1949, early Chicano muralists, such as Salvador Corona, Antonio García, Consuelo González, Margarita Herrera, Octavio Medellín, and Porfirio Salinas, inspired by the Escuela Mexicana de Pintura, recreated Mexican historical and contemporary themes as well as religious iconography (Loste 1983, pp. 124–126).

In the 1960s and 1970s, during the cultural renaissance inspired by el movimiento, many of the emerging Chicano/a artists were also much inspired by the great muralists and their legacy. Their murals have in common that they have become “cultural agents of social change” (Vargas 2000, pp. 191–233). Their themes combined the depiction of socially relevant topics with his- tory and popular culture, and certainly addressed transboundary motifs, including immigration. Moreover, they all include the struggles of the Chicano movement. Many incorporated symbols of Mexico, especially from the pre-Columbian world and the Mexican Revolution. From the 1960s to the new millennium, such murals proliferated in the Southwest, Midwest, and beyond. One example is the famous Chicano mural Untitled (1968) by Antonio Bernal, which mixes images of Mayan art with the portrayals of the icons of the Mexican Revolution such as Fran- cisco Villa, Emiliano Zapata, and “La Adelita” along with Chicano civil rights icons like César Chávez (Ibid., pp. 197–199). In 1983, Judy Vaca culminated the mural Great Wall of Los Angeles that combines elements of David Alfaro Siqueiros “with brilliant ‘Chicano’ color” (Cockcroft ES 1993, p. 197).Thus, in all of its expressions and practices, Chicano art has been closely aligned with Mexican art.

In defense of La Raza (the People): Mexico’s outreach policies towards the Chicana/o community

Mexico’s outreach policies to “El México de Afuera” (Mexico from the Outside) have fomented important ties. After 1848, thanks to the política de protección, the Mexican government made every effort (with varying degrees of success) through its consulates to protect the civil rights of its compatriots, advocating a policy of protest and pressure on the U.S. government and its institutions against the violations of such rights and the atrocities directed at Chicanos. Public

México y lo Mexicano in Aztlán

107

David Maciel and María Rosa García-Acevedo

opinion via its Mexican newspapers, such as El Siglo Diecinueve, during that time generally sup- ported this policy (Gómez-Quiñones 1975).

As massive migration waves from Mexico crossed the border during and after the Revolu- tion, various Mexican governments upheld a dual policy of protección for those immigrants. On the one hand, they implemented policies aimed to dissuade its citizens from leaving the country while pleading for them to stay and help in the reconstruction of the country. On the other hand, they disseminated information on the hostile treatment of Mexicans by U.S. institutions (Maciel 1986). During the Great Depression, Mexico formulated intense efforts to make the forced repatriations (by the American authorities), or the “voluntary” repatriation (because of the lack of jobs), more humane.The Mexican consulates along with their lawyers and organiza- tions of the community embarked on a crusade to help the deportees during the early 1930s. The consulate in Los Angeles under Rafael de la Colina was particularly successful in construct- ing this alliance, and ultimately became a great advocate for Mexican nationals who faced great hardships and violations of their civil and labor rights during that tragic decade (Balderrama 1982, pp. 15–32).

Another major action of the política de protección took place in the 1940s regarding a high- profile case of discrimination.The Mexican government raised its voice in an infamous incident that took place in Los Angeles, charged with racial conflict and violence. This situation was directed at a segment of the Chicano youth: the so-called Zoot Suiters, whose defiance, dress modes, and behavior were found offensive by the dominant Anglo-Saxon society.The Mexican government issued a formal protest to American authorities after massive student demonstra- tions were held in Mexico City against the injustices directed at Mexicans in the United States (Griswold del Castillo 2000, pp. 367–392). The intervention of the Mexican government was critical in curtailing and ultimately ending this tragic episode.

From the 1970s to the present, the outreach policies and initiatives of Mexico aimed at “El México de Afuera” were revamped. Specifically, the política de protección was reinforced; for exam- ple, a new division of the Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) was created for this purpose. In addition, the then-named Cónsules de Protección were hired to work in Mexican consulates specifically to perform tasks related to the defense of the civil and labor rights of Mexicans in the United States (Saavedra 1980).

In the contemporary period, an important innovation took place in 1996. Responding to the constant demand of organizations of Mexicans in the United States on dual nationality, the Mexican Congress passed a constitutional amendment. It permitted Mexicans abroad to keep their nationality, even if they were granted U.S. citizenship. For Mexico, the rationale for passing such an amendment was that it was a sort of updated version of the política de protección: Mexican legal residents who were U.S. citizens (3.5 million at that moment) could now better defend their civil rights because they could vote and increase their influence in the United States (Fine- man 1996).The Mexican government has continued supporting this initiative.

The política de protección was not the only area of Mexico’s outreach policy. Beginning in the 19th century, Mexico has perceived Chicanos/Mexicans as a potential “asset,” and in fact they have certainly come to Mexico’s aid in times of crises. For example, during the French Invasion in the 1860s (that ended up with the imposition of the Austrian-born prince, Maxi- milian, as Emperor of Mexico), Mexicans in the United States through their Juntas Patrióticas supported the forces of resistance of President Benito Juárez and many eventually enrolled in its army (Gómez-Quiñones 1996, pp. 65–68). Later on, prior and during the Mexican Revolution (1910–1920), several Chicano organizations were founded to aid particular political causes in Mexico. At the onset of the Revolution, los Clubes Liberales supported the cause of Francisco Madero. Subsequently, the Juntas Constitucionalistas contributed to the consolidation of power of

108

Venustiano Carranza – later president of Mexico. Chicanos also aided the activities of Ricardo Flores Magón and his followers against the various Mexican governments that did little to implement social change during the Revolution (Ibid, pp. 69–72).

In the 1960s, the political links between Mexico and its diaspora increased exponentially. They involved a range of constituencies and leadership.These efforts were conducted by pro- gressive organizations, individuals, and the Mexican government. One example was the meetings among left progressive organizations from both sides of the border, specifically those pursued by the Centro de Acción Social Autónomo or CASA (Gómez-Quiñones 1983, p. 435).Within the Mexican government, the ties with Chicanos have evolved from ad hoc efforts to more institu- tionalized ones from 1970 to the present. Of particular importance were the extensive meetings held by President Luis Echeverría (1970–1976) with key leaders of the Chicano movement, including José Angel Gutiérrez (from The Raza Unida Party) and Reies López Tijerina (from the Alianza Nacional de Mercedes or the National Land Grant Alliance). Gutiérrez proposed and succeeded in the creation of educational and artistic programs for Mexican-origin students, funded by the government, to study in Mexico; for example the pioneer program of 150 schol- arships or Becas para Aztlán for Chicanos to study medicine and other disciplines in Mexican universities. Other successes were the organization of conferences and publications on Chicano themes, the distribution of Mexican-related books and educational material in the Southwest (Gutiérrez, A. 1986, p. 50), and the production of the film Raíces de Sangre that dealt with the common labor struggles of Mexicans on both sides of the border (Treviño 1978).Tijerina had interest in maintaining close contacts with Mexico.There was not a favorable resolution for his demand that the Mexican government revisit the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on the issue of the loss of land, as he would have wished. He did back the creation of an Office of Chicano Affairs (preferably at the presidential level) within the Mexican government that would deal with an increasingly ambitious Chicana/o-Mexican agenda, a suggestion that ultimately mate- rialized in the 1990s (Tijerina 1978).

The subsequent administration of President José López Portillo (1976–1982) encountered a new scenario in terms of Chicana/o leadership: a novel group of organizations that emerged in the aftermath of the Chicano movement. He promoted the establishment of an ad hoc forum, the Comisión Mixta de Enlace, that could provide formal structure to the ongoing dialogue with various Chicana/o and Latina/o organizations, integrated into the newly created umbrella organization, the Hispanic Commission, and Mexico’s Minister of Labor with the avail of his office.The topics of common interest were educational links and U.S. proposals on immigration policy (Gutiérrez J A 1986). As a result of an agreement between the Comisión Mixta and the Hispanic Commission1 in the early 1980s, for example, Mexico’s Ministry of Public Education contacted the Association of Mexican American Educators in order to implement a teachers’ exchange program.Thus, a pioneer group of 110 Mexican bilingual teachers were sent to Los Angeles to work closely with the school district, and Chicana/o teachers came to Mexico for summer courses (Maciel Interview 1989).

Under President De la Madrid (1982–1988), the Ministry of Public Education expanded its activities in the United States in the realm of bilingual education. Also in 1986, President De la Madrid had the National Council of Population (Consejo Nacional de Población 1987) elaborate the first Mexico’s comprehensive policy memorandum on outreach policies towards Mexicans in the United States (Consejo Nacional de Población 1987). Unfortunately, this pro- ject (drafted just a year before President De la Madrid finished his term) did not fully materialize because of the time frame. Interestingly, at the end of President De la Madrid’s term, the Mexi- can presidential campaigns of 1988 became a landmark in terms of the political participation of Mexican nationals in the United States. Heberto Castillo, presidential candidate from the

México y lo Mexicano in Aztlán

109

David Maciel and María Rosa García-Acevedo

Partido Socialista Unificado de México, visited various U.S. cities to openly campaign. Tak- ing note, other candidates such as Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas (Partido Auténtico de la Revolución Mexicana or PARM), Manuel Clouthier (Partido Acción Nacional or PAN), and Carlos Salinas de Gortari (Partido Revolucionario Institucional or PRI) would also travel frequently to vari- ous cities in the United States seeking political support among “El México de Afuera.” Cárdenas was undoubtedly the most popular, and a Cardenista movement was founded. One of its key demands was precisely that Mexican nationals could vote in upcoming Mexican presidential elections – a demand that did not materialize immediately (Santamaría 1994, pp. 148–206).With the shadow of solid evidence of a fraud-tainted election, Salinas de Gortari (PRI) was inaugu- rated in 1988. Many voices on both sides of the border openly denounced electoral fraud, and even called for a dismissal of the results (Cárdenas 2006, pp. 243–254).

A main objective of Salinas’s regime was to deter what had been the increasing support for the Mexican opposition parties by the Chicana/o and Mexicana/o communities in the United States.As one Mexican high-level official argued in the late 1980s,the dangers of the criticism from the Chicana/o community towards the political order needed to be prevented. Otherwise, the next generation would turn into “the worst enemy of Mexico” (Maciel, Interview 1997). The first major shift was the creation of the Dirección General del Programa Presidencial para la Aten- ción de las Comunidades Mexicanas en el Exterior in 1990 (PCME) within the Ministry of Foreign Relations as a major effort to institutionalize the links with the Chicana/o community and to further “legitimize” this outreach policy within the foreign policy of Mexico.The PCME laid out an agenda that included the participation of many Mexican governmental actors, whose tasks included the “revalorization of Mexico” among “Mexicans and their descendants who live outside of the confines of the country” as well as the coordination of the outreach policies at the different levels of the government (Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores 1990).The network of Mexican consulates in the United States was in charge of implementing the new policies of the PCME (Rozenthal 1993, p. 124). Overall, the Programa was the most successful of all previ- ous endeavors because of its more comprehensive goals, its multiple targets, and the fact that it delivered (García-Acevedo 2008).

Later on, the PCME was transformed under the presidency ofVicente Fox (2000–2005), and finally became the Instituto para los Mexicanos en el Exterior (IME) in 2002. In the voice of President Fox, the IME had the task to transform "community initiatives into concrete [gov- ernmental] programs” (Proceso 2002). Specifically, the Consulting Council (CCIME) of the IME, following principles of participatory democracy, had the faculty to interact with Mexico’s policymakers in the formulation of certain provisions of the outreach policy.

Besides all the progress, the demands for the right to vote for Mexicans abroad were not met. The vote of Mexicans abroad was perceived with suspicion by many politicians and observers. Yet, the change regarding dual nationality in 1996 (mentioned before) slowly cleared the way for the provision approved in 2005 by the Mexican Congress, permitting the casting of absentee voting starting in 2006. Still, the red tape related to obtaining the absentee ballot as well as to the prerequisite of having the voting card explained a low turnout in the presidential elections of 2006 and 2012 (Suru & Escobar 2006; Instituto Federal Electoral 2006; Instituto Federal Electoral 2012). Finally, after other electoral reform, in 2016, Mexico’s voting card started being issued by the Mexican consulates, and the forms to obtain an absentee ballot were simplified. These changes may well signify an increasing turnout of Mexican nationals in Mexico’s presi- dential elections of 2018.

Finally, in economic terms, the Mexican-origin community is an “asset” for its homeland nowadays.The increasing amount of the individual remittances ($25.6 billion in 2015) are more important than ever for Mexico. In 2016, for example, because of the drastic fall of oil prices,

110

such remittances became the main source of dollars for the country.Also,the monies sent back home are vital to the very survival of families, and are the lifeblood of various rural and urban areas all over Mexico (Serrano & Jaramillo 2016, p. 124). Many Mexicans in the United States and their organizations are also involved in other transboundary activities, such as financing public works in numerous localities in Mexico. For example, since the 1990s, the Mexican “Hometown Associations” (HTAs) in the United States have financed in partnership with the Mexican government many public works throughout the so-called Programa 3x1, coordinated by the Ministry of Social Development (SEDESOL).This program refers to a policy of match- ing the money fundraised by the HTAs for a project (e.g., a road, a school, a water plant) with similar amounts granted by local, state, and federal governments. In 2009, 1,000 HTAs were already financing 6,000 projects that benefited 27 of the 32 states of Mexico (Aparicio FJ & Mesenguer C 2011, p. 1). Ultimately, the leaders of the HTAs have become de facto stakehold- ers in the design and implementation of public policies at the three levels of the government, especially the municipal one (Soto-Priante 2006).

Final reflections

Today, Mexican cultural practices and manifestations are represented and acknowledged in a wide array of arenas and facets of the Chicana/o experience. Innovations like the Internet have permitted the multiplication of individual cultural interactions within the Chicana/o commu- nity and regarding the homeland. As never before, Chicanas/os and Mexicans on both sides of the border are in contact on a day-to-day basis. Moreover, language is an important unifying element of the “Two Mexicos,” as the United States is the second largest country of Spanish- speaking individuals worldwide.There exist many factors that will only make this phenomenon increase in the future. For example, the Chicana/o and Latina/o youth are realizing that, beyond cultural reasons, competence and maintenance of Spanish is critical for pragmatic reasons: their future careers as professionals.The Spanish-speaking media also contribute to reinforcing the language. UNIVISION – the principal but not the only Spanish-language commercial net- work – achieves among the highest ratings of the nation. Its national news program Noticiero Univisión, is now the single most viewed in the United States, and its more renowned anchor Jorge Ramos was recently included as one of the 100 most influential persons in the country, according to Forbes magazine. UNIVISION’s great appeal is that its newscasts cover the U.S. Latina/o community in its totality as well as Latin America, including accurate and critical information about Mexico – unlike others in mainstream television media.

Mexicans residing in the United States participate in a wide array of transboundary activi- ties connected to Mexico, including the sending of remittances, the membership to home- town associations, church groups, civic organizations, and political parties. Mexican nationals can now vote in Mexican presidential elections; the number of voters could increase once some organizational barriers can be removed.Those who have U.S. citizenship can vote and ultimately influence American domestic matters, but also the direction of U.S. issues with consequences in Mexico (such as immigration policy).The exciting implications of this dual political participa- tion is still uncharted territory.

Examining the current status of the ties between Mexico and its diaspora in the United States, it can be stated that Mexico’s outreach policy has certainly gained full legitimacy in the context of foreign policy.The items of its agenda are frequently innovative, plus the agents and targets that participate in such outreach policy have grown exponentially. Among the future challenges in this arena is how to rejuvenate the themes continuously while creating new mech- anisms for receiving feedback from the evolving Chicano/Mexican community.

México y lo Mexicano in Aztlán

111

David Maciel and María Rosa García-Acevedo

Thus, because of all these factors and relationships, Mexico y lo mexicano will without any question remain a reference point, an essential dimension in Chicana/o thought, culture, fam- ily, society, political experience, and identity for present and future generations.The fact is that culturally and spiritually Chicanas/os continue to accentuate their Mexicanness, and Mexico is and will always be the spiritual homeland for La Raza.