Chapter Nine
Hispanic Americans:
Colonization, Immigration, and
Ethnic Enclaves
Soc 327 Dr. Santos
Colonized or Immigrant
Minority Group?

Before Jamestown was founded, the ancestors of some
Hispanic groups were already in North America.

Evolving official labels: Spanish-Speaking (50s), Hispanics
(80s), Latinos/as (90s to now)
Hispanics are partly an ethnic group & partly a racial
minority group.
Hispanic Americans as of July 2007 were 45.5 million or
15.1% of the total population; they became the largest U.S.
minority group in the spring of 2001.
About 60% of Latinos are native-born, 40% foreign-born.
By 2050, 1 out of every 4 Americans will be Hispanic.
Already majority Latinos in many counties & cities.




State Latino Demographics,
July 2007




California (13.2 million) had the largest Hispanic population
of any state as of July 1, 2007, followed by Texas (8.6
million) and Florida (3.8 million).
Texas had the largest numerical increase between 2006 and
2007 (308,000), followed by California (268,000) and Florida
(131,000).
In New Mexico, Hispanics comprised the highest proportion
of the total population (44 percent), with California and
Texas (36 percent each) next in line.
In Kern County, Latinos will soon be half the population; the
BCSD is > 75% Latino students.
Mexican Americans

Mexicans were conquered and colonized in the 19th century
and used as a cheap labor in many areas of the Anglodominated economy in the Southwest.

By the dawn of the 20th century, Mexican Americans
resembled Native Americans in some ways, and southern
African Americans in other ways.

The most crucial difference was the proximity of the
sovereign nation of Mexico, which facilitated constant
population movement across the border continually
rejuvenating Mexican culture, diplomatic support against
egregious abuses, and the persistence of Spanish language as
they were attacked and marginalized by Anglo society.
Mexican Americans

The overwhelming majority of Mexican Americans are Catholic.

There is little difference between the value systems of Mexican
Americans and other Americans of similar backgrounds: family
values, work ethic, etc.
Though Mexican Americans place more value on family
relations and obligations; and machismo & patriarchy, though
accentuated, is a matter of degree rather than kind


These cultural differences, especially language & darker skin
among some, have served as the basis for excluding or
restricting Mexican Americans from the larger society; however,
they also have provided a basis for group cohesion, identity and
unity, that has sustained common action and protest activity.
Recent Grow of the Hispanic
American Population
Distribution of Latinos by Regional
Orgin or Ethnicity
Mexican Migration Waves into U.S.

Since the early 1900s (and especially since the 1960s) the Mexican
American experience has been largely shaped by fluctuating
immigration that can be explained by conditions in Mexico, the
varying demand for labor in the low-paying, unskilled sector of
the U.S. economy, and by changing federal immigration policy as
US hegemony rose and declined in the 20th Century .
 Uneven foreign economic development and the 1910 Mexican
Revolution
 WWI and European and Asian immigration restrictions
 Depression and repatriation campaigns (early 30s)
 WWII, the Bracero Program, and “Operation Wetback” (mid50s)
 1965 Immigration Act and family preferences
 Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
 Immigration Reform of 1996 with renewed restrictions
Mexican Americans

The flow of population from Mexico was and is stimulated
and sustained by powerful political and economic interests
in the United States.

XX Century Mexican immigrants entered a social system in
which a colonized status for the group had already been
established.

The twisting history of U.S. policy on Mexican
immigration should serve as a reminder that levels of
prejudice, racism, xenophobia and discrimination increase
as competition and the sense of threat between nativeforeign groups increases and as foreigners are
scapegoated: Anti-Mexican sentiment has dramatically
risen since the 1990s.
Mexican Americans in the XX
Century

Throughout much of the 20th century, Mexican Americans were
limited to the less desirable, low-wage jobs; split labor markets have
been common.

The workforce has often been further split by gender, with Mexican
American women assigned to the worst jobs and receiving the lowest
wages in both urban and rural areas.

Until the Chicano Movement of the late 1960s, Mexican Americans
were excluded from political, educational, and legal institutions of
the larger society by law and by custom.

Discrimination in the criminal justice system, labor exploitation, and
civil rights violations were continual grievances of Mexican
Americans throughout the century, usually deemed “foreigners”
despite changing ratios of f-born to n-born.
Mexican Americans in the XX
Century

Unlike immigrants from Europe, Mexican Americans tended
to work and live in rural areas distant from and marginal to
the urban centers of industrialization and opportunities for
education, skill development, and upward mobility.

As Chicanos urbanized, they continued to serve as a
colonized, exploited labor force concentrated at the lower end
of the stratification system.

The flow of immigration kept Mexican culture and the
Spanish language alive.

Although some Mexican Americans have acculturated and
integrated, a large segment of the group continues to fill the
same economic role as their ancestors.
Mexican Americans

Organized local resistance and protest stretch back to the
original conquest period in the mid-19th century: Gorras
Blancas in N.M., social banditry, mutualista associations.

Regional and national organizations made their appearance
early in the 20th century and were integrationist and
assimilationist in nature—LULAC.

Mid-20th century labor organizing and WWII brought about
new organizations that changed the focus from assimilation per
se, and worked to address a broad array of community, labor,
problems and to increase political power—Community Service
Organization and the American GI Forum.
Chicano Movement

The 1960s/70s Chicano movement was guided by a renewed
ethnic identity & militant assertion of Chicanismo, captured byt
the slogan “Chicano Power”.

The movement questioned the value of assimilation, instilled
ethnic pride, and exposed the continuing exploitation &
exclusion of Mexican Americans from the mainstream of US
life.

The movement produced important organizations and leaders:




Reies Lopez Tijerina and Alianza de Pueblos (1963) in NM
Rodolfo Gonzalez and Crusade for Justice (1965) in CO
Jose Angel Gutierrez and La Raza Unida Party (1973) in TX
Cesar Chavez & Dolores Huerta and United Farm Workers (1965) in CA
Chicanas in the Movement

Dolores Huerta was a central figure in the movement to organize
farm workers and worked closely with Cesar Chávez. She’s still
active in local, national, and international social justice issues.

However, Chicanas as such encountered much sexism and gender
discrimination within the movement, => fought back!

Chicanas helped to organize poor communities and worked for
educational opportunity, welfare reform, against the Vietnam War,
etc..

Continuing issues include domestic violence, child care, and the
racial and gender oppression that limits all women of color.
New Salience of Immigration Issue



The immigration-related issues have become much more salient since
the 1970s:
Enormous demographic growth fed by immigration
Issue of (mostly Mexican, Central American & Caribbean)
unauthorized (illegal) immigration:







Family unification issues: most households are mix-status
Human trafficking & deaths: over 4000 since 1996 Operation Guardian
Labor exploitation: still farmworkers (> 70%) but mostly urban-bound to
certain occupations (construction, hotels, etc.)
Labor & social organizing: Federaciones, Remittances, and the New
Immigrant Rights Movement!
Renewal of xenophobia in the U.S. affecting Latino-non-Latino relations:
prop’s 187, 209, 227
Affecting U.S.-Mexico relations: the border wall.
Affecting U.S. politics, state-federal relations, electoral trends, etc.
Half of all Mexican-born
in the US are undocumented
Mexican Legal Migration to U.S.
Foreign Born: Totals & Percentages,
1850-2006
The US experienced two waves of inmigration
1820-2004
LegalU.S.
US Immigration
immigration,
1820-2004
10,000,000
European
9,000,000
Latin/Asian
(no prior visa required)
(prior visa required)
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
Africa
Asia
5,000,000
America
Europe
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
4
-2
0
2
0
01
-2
91
9
1
0
0
0
0
-9
0
1
9
81
-8
0
1
9
71
-7
0
1
9
61
-6
0
1
9
51
-5
0
1
9
41
-4
0
1
9
31
-3
0
1
9
21
-2
0
1
9
11
-1
0
0
9
1
9
-1
91
8
1
01
0
-9
0
1
8
81
-8
0
1
8
71
-7
0
1
8
61
-6
0
1
8
51
-5
0
1
8
41
-4
0
31
-3
1
8
1
21
1
8
8
20
-
Immigration to, Deportation from U.S., 1820-2004
Immigrated 1820-2004 = 69.9 million
Deported 1825-2004 = 45.1 million
16,000,000
14.5
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
10.2
8,000,000
8.0
7.5
Europe
6,000,000
America
4,000,000
Asia
4.7
4.0
Africa
2,000,000
Deported
1.6
Deported
Asia
Europe
1991-2000
1951-60
1931-40
1911-20
1891-1900
1871-80
1851-60
1820
1831-40
1971-80
1.4
-
European Union Free Transit Area
Puerto Ricans

Puerto Rico became a territory of the United States after
the defeat of Spain in the Spanish-American War of 1898.

As the century wore on, U.S. firms began to invest in and
develop the sugarcane industry that decreased
opportunities for economic survival in the rural areas and
forcing many peasants to move into the cities (Portes,
1990, p. 163).

Movement to the mainland began gradually and
increased slowly until the 1940s, when the number of
Puerto Ricans on the mainland increased more than
fourfold, to 300,000, and during the 1950s, it nearly
tripled, to 887,000 (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1976,
p. 19).
Puerto Ricans

Puerto Ricans became citizens of the United States in
1917, which facilitated their movement.

Unemployment was a major problem on the island.

Puerto Ricans were “pulled” to the mainland by the
same labor shortages that attracted Mexican
immigrants during and after World War II.



Puerto Ricans moved to the Northeast
Took jobs in the low-wage, unskilled sector of the
job market
Concentrated in urban labor markets (Portes, 1990,
p. 164)
Puerto Ricans

Movement was facilitated by affordable air travel between
San Juan and New York City, the major center of settlement
for Puerto Ricans even before annexation.

Puerto Ricans on the mainland remain centered in New
York City, and more than two thirds currently reside in the
cities of the Northeast (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000m).

The rate of Puerto Rican migration has followed the cycle of
boom and bust, just as it has for Mexican immigrants.

Although economically diversified, the bulk of the group
remains concentrated in lower-status jobs as unskilled
factory and service sector laborers (males), or employed as
domestics or seamstresses for the garment industry
(females) in New York City (Portes, 1990, p. 164).
Puerto Ricans

Puerto Ricans are overwhelmingly Catholic, but the
religious practices and rituals on the mainland are
quite different from those on the island.

Even though skin color prejudice still exists in Puerto
Rico, it was never as categorical as on the mainland.

In the racially dichotomized U.S. culture, many Puerto
Ricans feel they have no clear place.
Puerto Ricans

Puerto Ricans arrived in the cities of the Northeast long
after the great wave of European immigrants and several
decades after African Americans began migrating from
the South.

Puerto Ricans share many problems with other urban
minority groups of color: poverty, failing educational
systems, and crime.

Puerto Ricans on the mainland combine elements of both
an immigrant and a colonized minority experience.

Puerto Rican culture retains a strong vitality and is
continually reinvigorated by the considerable movement
back and forth between the island and the mainland.
Cuban Americans

The contact period for Cuban Americans dates back to
the Spanish-American War.

Despite its nominal independence, the United States
remained heavily involved in Cuban politics and
economics for decades, and U.S. troops actually
occupied the island on two different occasions.

The development of a Cuban American minority
group bears little resemblance to the experience of
either Chicanos or Puerto Ricans.
Cuban Americans

The conditions for a mass immigration were created in
the late 1950s when a Marxist revolution brought Fidel
Castro to power in Cuba.

The first Cuban immigrants to the United States tended
to come from the more elite classes and included affluent
and powerful people.

The U.S. government welcomed the new arrivals as
political refugees fleeing from communist tyranny.

Many profoundly Americanized Cuban exiles viewed
southern Florida as an ideal spot from which to launch a
counterrevolution to oust Castro. (Portes, 1990, p. 165).
Cuban Americans

Immigration was considerable for several years.

In 1980, a wave of immigrants generated a great deal
of controversy in the United States because the Cuban
government used the opportunity to rid itself of a
variety of convicted criminals and outcasts.

However, the Marielitos also included people from
every segment of Cuban society, a fact that was lost in
the clamor of concern about the “undesirables”
(Portes & Manning, 1986, p. 58).
Cuban Americans

Today, Cuban Americans remain one of the most spatially
concentrated minority groups in the United States (67% in
Florida; 52% in Miami; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000s),
which has created a great deal of civil disorder over the
years.

Cuban Americans rank higher than other Latino groups on
a number of dimensions, a reflection of the educational and
economic resources they brought with them from Cuba and
the favorable reception they enjoyed from the United States
(Portes, 1990, p. 169).

The differences run deeper and are more complex than a
simple accounting of initial resources would suggest as
Cubans adapted to U.S. society in a fundamentally different
way than the other two Latino groups.
Cuban Americans

Cuban Americans are an enclave minority.

An ethnic enclave is a social, economic, and cultural
subsociety controlled by the group itself, located in a
specific geographical area or neighborhood inhabited
solely or largely by members of the group.

The enclave encompasses sufficient economic
enterprises and social institutions to permit the group
to function as a self-contained entity, largely
independent of the surrounding community.
Cuban Americans

The fact that the enclave economy is controlled by the
group itself is crucial.

The ethnic enclave provides a platform from which
Cuban Americans can pursue economic success
independent of their degree of acculturation or
English language ability.

The fact that success came faster to Cubans that were
less acculturated reverses the prediction of many
theories of assimilation.
Cuban Americans

Cuban Americans are neither the first nor the only
group to develop an ethnic enclave, and their success
has generated prejudice and resentment from the
dominant group and from other minority groups.

Higher-status Cuban Americans have been
stereotyped as “too successful,” “too clannish,” and
“too ambitious.”

This stereotype of Cubans is an exaggeration and a
misperception that obscures the fact that poverty and
unemployment are major problems for many members
of this group.
Contemporary
Hispanic-White Relations

The level of Latino prejudice has declined, but
prejudice and racism against Latinos tend to increase
during times of high immigration.

Research shows that Hispanic groups’ rates of
acculturation increase with length of residence and are
higher for the native born

Racial factors have complicated and slowed the
process of assimilation for many Latinos.

Cultural differences reflect the recency of immigration.
Contemporary
Hispanic-White Relations

Regional concentrations of Latinos in 2000 reflect the
legacies of their varied patterns of entry and
settlement.

Within each of these regions, Latino groups are highly
urbanized.

Hispanics are generally less residentially segregated
than African Americans but more segregated than
Asian Americans, with the highest levels of segregation
in the cities of the Northeast
Contemporary
Hispanic-White Relations
Contemporary
Hispanic-White Relations
Contemporary
Hispanic-White Relations

Levels of education for Hispanic Americans have risen
in recent years but still lag behind national standards.

Lower levels of education are the cumulative results of
decades of systematic discrimination and exclusion
further reduced, in the case of Mexican Americans, by
the high percentage of recent immigrants who bring
very modest educational backgrounds.

Given the role that educational credentials have come
to play in the job market, these figures support the idea
that assimilation will be segmented and suggest that
opportunities for upward mobility will continue to be
limited.
Contemporary
Hispanic-White Relations
Contemporary
Hispanic-White Relations

The political resources available to Hispanic Americans
have increased over the years, but the group is still
proportionally underrepresented.

The number of Hispanics of voting age has more than
doubled in recent decades, yet the Hispanic
community has not had an impact on the political
structure proportionate to its size.

With their rapid growth rate, it is clear that the
Hispanic voters will have a much greater impact on
politics in the future, especially as second- and thirdgeneration children reach voting age (Del Pinal &
Singer, 1997, p. 42).
Contemporary
Hispanic-White Relations

The economic situation of Hispanic Americans is
mixed.

The unemployment rates for Hispanic Americans run
about twice the rate for non-Hispanic whites, and the
poverty rates for the group as a whole are comparable
to those of African Americans (Camarillo & Bonilla,
2001, pp. 110-111).

As was the case with African Americans and Native
Americans, these economic differences are even wider
when we consider wealth (savings, property, stocks
and bonds, etc.) as opposed to income.
Contemporary
Hispanic-White Relations
Contemporary
Hispanic-White Relations
Contemporary
Hispanic-White Relations
Contemporary
Hispanic-White Relations
Contemporary
Hispanic-White Relations

The socioeconomic profiles of Mexican Americans and Puerto
Ricans reflect their concentration in the low-wage sector of the
economy, the long tradition of discrimination and exclusion,
and the lower amounts of human capital (education, job
training) controlled by these groups.

Cuban Americans, buoyed by a more privileged social class
background and their enclave economy, rank higher on
virtually all measures of wealth and prosperity.

These figures point to a split labor market differentiated by
gender, within the dual market differentiated by race and
ethnicity.

Female-headed Latino families are affected by a triple
economic handicap: They have only one wage earner, whose
potential income is limited by discrimination against both
women and Latinos.
Contemporary
Hispanic-White Relations

The extent of intimate contact between Hispanic
Americans and the dominant group is probably
higher than for either African Americans or Native
Americans.

Some studies report that contact is greater for the
more affluent social classes, in the cities, and for the
younger generations (who are presumably more
Americanized)

Rates of intermarriage are higher for Latinos (3.5%)
than for African Americans (< 1%)
Assimilation and
Hispanic Americans

As test cases for what we have called the traditional
view of American assimilation, Latinos fare poorly as
there is no single experience or pattern of adjustment to
the larger society.

Their experiences also illustrate some of the
fundamental forces that shape the experiences of
minority groups: the split labor market and the U.S.
appetite for cheap labor, the impact of
industrialization, the dangers of a permanent urban
underclass, the relationships between competition and
levels of prejudice and rejection, and the persistence of
race as a primary dividing line between people and
groups.