Progressive Era Reform and
Jim Crow in the Southwest
Mexicans in the United States, 1897-1920
Major Themes






Progressive Era “Reform” in the Southwest often
meant segregating Mexicans.
Racialization is a process that occurs locally,
regionally and nationally.
Individuals, civic groups, courts and governments all
had an effect on how Mexicans were racialized.
Mexicans contested their subordinate position.
For Mexicans there were significant benefits to
claiming “legal whiteness” and denying Indian
ancestry.
Women of all groups were key participants in shaping
Progressive Era “reforms”.
Key Questions







What is the Progressive Era?
What was a “racial prerequisite?”
During the Progressive Era individuals from which
racial groups could become citizens?
What did the In Re Rodriguez case establish?
What is de facto segregation? de jure?
What was a Mutualista?
What role did historical memory play in racializing
Mexicans?
The Progressive Era, 1890s-1920

Reform
through laws
and
government
regulation.
 Nadir of
race
relations
From Upper Left: March Supporting Voting Rights for Women, 12 Year Old Mill Worker in
Vermont, March of 40,000 Ku Klux Klan members in Washington, D.C. 1925
Racial Prerequisites, Desirable
Citizens and Racialization
Name of Case and
Year
In re Ah Yup
(1878)
In re Camille
(1880)
Decision of Court
Chinese are not
White.
Rationales
(Justifications
cited in t he courtÕs
decision)
Scientific evidence
Common
knowledge
Congressional
intent
Legal precedent
In re Kanaka Nian
(1889)
Persons half White
and half Native
American are not
White.
Hawaiians are not
White.
In re Hong Yen
Chang (1890)
Chinese are not
White.
Legal precedent
In re Po (1894)
Burmese are not
White.
In re Saito (1894)
Japanese are not
White.
Common
knowledge
Legal precedent
Congressional
intent
Common
knowledge
Scientific evidence
Legal precedent
Legal precedent
Congressional
intent
Legal precedent an
International treaty
In re Gee Hop
(1895)
Chinese are not
White.
In re Rodriguez
(1897)
Mexicans are
White.
In re Burton (1900)
Native Americans
are not White.
Japanese are not
White.
In re Ya mashita
(1902)
Scientific evidence
No explanation
Legal precedent
Name of Case and
Year
In re Balsara (1909)
In re Najour (1909)
In re Halladjian (1909)
United States v. Dolla
(1910)
In re Mudarri (1910)
In re Alverto (1912)
In re Yo ung (1912)
In re Dow (1914)
Dow v. Uni ted States
(1915)
In re Mallari 1916)
In re Sadar Bhagwab
Singh (1917)
In re Thind (1920)
United States v. Ali
(1925)
In re Feroz Din
(1928)
In re Cruz (1938)
Decision of Court
Asian Indians are
probably not White.
Syrians are White.
Armenians are White.
Rationale
(Justifications
cited in t he courtÕs
decision)
Congressional intent
Scientific evidence
Scientific evidence
Legal precedent
Asian Indians are
Visual inspection of
White.
skin color
Syrians are White.
Scientific evidence
Legal precedent
Persons three-quarters Legal precedent
Filipino and one-quarter Congressional intent
White are not White.
Persons half German
Legal precedent
and half Japanese are
not White.
Syrians are not White
Common knowledge
Congressional intent
Syrians are White.
Scientific evidence
Congressional intent
Legal precedent
Filipinos are not White. No explanation
Asian Indians are not
Common
White.
knowledge
Congressional intent
Asian Indians are
Legal precedent
White.
Punjabis (whether
Common knowledge
Hindu or Ar abian) are
not White.
Afgh anis are not White. Common knowledge
Persons three-quarters
Native American and
one-quarter Afri can are
not African.
Legal precedent
In these tables are a sampling of the 52 racial prerequisite cases decided in various state,
district and federal courts between 1878 and 1952. Information adapted from White by Law
by Ian Haney-Lopez.
In Re Rodriguez
(1897)

Ricardo Rodriguez
Seeks Citizenship
Jim Crow and the Segregation of
Mexicans

De Jure=By Law
 De Facto=By Practice
 Disenfranchisement
 Segregation in Education,
Housing and Public
Facilities
D.W. Glasscock
Arizona Orphan Incident
Photos From Left: Mexican Miners, Mexican Miner’s Family (both in Clifton-Morenci
area around turn of the century), Clifton in 1903.
Mutualistas

Focused on
Mexican identity,
nationalist
 Based in
reciprocity and
altruism
 Many went beyond
self-help and
organized against
exploitation
Adina de Zavala vs. Clara Driscoll
Mexican Immigrants 1900 Census
Mexican Immigrants 1920 Census
Further Reading
Bederman, Gail. Manliness & Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the
United States, 1880-1917. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Flores, Richard R. Remembering the Alamo: Memory, Modernity, and the Master Symbol.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2002.
Frankel, Noralee, and Nancy S. Dye. Gender, Class, Race, and Reform in the
Progressive Era. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1994.
Gonzalez, Gilbert G. A Century of Chicano History: Empire, Nations, and Migration. New
York: Routledge, 2003.
Gordon, Linda. The Great Arizona Orphan Abduction. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press, 1999.
Haney-López, Ian. White by Law. New York: New York University Press, 2006.
Lomelí, Francisco A., Víctor A. Sorell, and Genaro M. Padilla. Nuevomexicano Cultural
Legacy. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2002.
Menchaca, Martha. Recovering History, Constructing Race: The Indian, Black,and White
Roots of Mexican Americans. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001.
Painter, Nell Irvin. Standing at Armageddon: United States, 1877-1919. New York: W.W.
Norton, 1987.
Zamora, Emilio. The World of the Mexican Worker in Texas. Texas A&M University Press,
1993.