Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All of recorded history. Literally, any historical record. They have never not been white.
That's what's so crazy about this. It's not like I'm making it up. People who are saying otherwise want you to believe something other than what the records show. Don't listen to me, you can google it.
We also don't have to read books about this, you can talk to the people that were alive then. Do you know any elderly people who remember the days of segregation? - somebody at least 70 years old and from the South West? Anybody will tell you that Mexicans were white.
Quote:
While I can believe that Mexicans of primarily European descent were considered white, I find it hard to believe that indigenous/Native American Mexicans were considered white.
Even if they were darkskinned, that was white. "White" meant anybody that wasn't black.
In Texas there were two races, whites and blacks - no such thing as a "hispanic". Mexicans were part of the white community.
All of recorded history. Literally, any historical record. They have never not been white.
That's what's so crazy about this. It's not like I'm making it up. People who are saying otherwise want you to believe something other than what the records show. Don't listen to me, you can google it.
We also don't have to read books about this, you can talk to the people that were alive then. Do you know any elderly people who remember the days of segregation? - somebody at least 70 years old and from the South West? Anybody will tell you that Mexicans were white.
Even if they were darkskinned, that was white. "White" meant anybody that wasn't black.
In Texas there were two races, whites and blacks - no such thing as a "hispanic". Mexicans were part of the white community.
I'm finding mixed results. Yes, with the exception of the 1930 Census (more on that below), Census enumerators were instructed to list Mexicans as white. Due in large part to lobbying by the Mexican government, the 1940 Census reverted back to treating Mexicans as "white." But, simply taking a look at Mexican presidents at that time (they were largely of European descent), it seems like the Mexican ruling class/elites were largely of European descent (as is the case today). I'd bet that this played a role in the classification as Mexicans of largely European ancestry wanted to protect their status. And, while all Mexicans, including Mexicans of overwhelmingly American Indian descent would be "classified" as white under most Census rules for that period, I have a hard time believing, still, that Mexicans of overwhelming American Indian descent (i.e. deeply dark-skinned Mexicans) were considered to be white by the public at large; I'd bet that they were considered to be "Indians" like their U.S. American Indian brethren, even if only socially-speaking. No, I find it hard to believe that a dark-skinned Mexican American Indian was viewed as white by American whites during the Jim Crow era. And I've found nothing to support this either. Race and Multiracial Americans in the U.S. Census | Pew Research Center
Note, even today, most American Hispanics self-identify as white, but I'd argue that this is because most of them are of largely European ancestry. Even though the law allows these Hispanics (whether Mexican or not) to be considered as white, legally-speaking, much of the public doesn't view them as being "white," and, instead, treat Hispanic as a race, even though its an ethic category.
In those times, 40's, most Latins in private Catholic Schools were foreign students from Latin America. Many Latins from Mexico were Northeners, white. Sure, there were braceros but were a rarity in most of the country. Latins were less descriminated than other Catholics, Italians, for example. Italians were lynched one centure ago, as many "braceros" just for their colour.
Jesuits Schools and Universities were a haven for blacks and in sme cases, Jews. Jesuits did never care for race, they were after bright people since their foundation.
If you study all the American black aristocracy, yes, there is, Andrew Jackson for example, they all studied in Catholic Universities.
As to the US Census Bureau, what can you expect? Just phony politics, just as when they classified Irish as Iberian mongrels.
All of recorded history. Literally, any historical record. They have never not been white.
That's what's so crazy about this. It's not like I'm making it up. People who are saying otherwise want you to believe something other than what the records show. Don't listen to me, you can google it.
We also don't have to read books about this, you can talk to the people that were alive then. Do you know any elderly people who remember the days of segregation? - somebody at least 70 years old and from the South West? Anybody will tell you that Mexicans were white.
Even if they were darkskinned, that was white. "White" meant anybody that wasn't black.
In Texas there were two races, whites and blacks - no such thing as a "hispanic". Mexicans were part of the white community.
On the bold wanted to note that white was anyone who didn't have confirmed or suspected African ancestry.
Today, people who don't know about these labels are shocked that Arabs are actually considered "white" even dark skinned people from Persian countries and even Northern Africa. They are "white." That is always funny to me considering that to be "black" one has to be a "person from any of the black racial groups in Africa." There are many black Northern Africans lol. There are black people in the Middle East. People in America are unaware that there was also a slave trade to the Middle East and they have a population that is similar to that of black Americans. But they can be considered "white" based on US Census classifications.
On the old censuses it really was more up to the enumerator. I have many relatives who where born in the 1910s through 1930s who were classified as "mullatto" in 1910s, "black/negro" in the 1920s (they stopped using "mullatto" by the 1930 census), and "white" in the 1930s and 1940s even though I personally knew these people and they always said they were "black" and they lived in "black" neighborhoods and went to "black" churches, etc. I remember asking my great grandmother why she told the census people she was "white" in 1940 (she was in her 20s in the 1940s). She said she would never have said that, they must have just classified her that themselves or maybe her mom told them she was white. Her father in 1940 was classified as "black" and the rest of the family were labeled "white."
And, while all Mexicans, including Mexicans of overwhelmingly American Indian descent would be "classified" as white under most Census rules for that period, I have a hard time believing, still, that Mexicans of overwhelming American Indian descent (i.e. deeply dark-skinned Mexicans) were considered to be white by the public at large; I'd bet that they were considered to be "Indians" like their U.S. American Indian brethren, even if only socially-speaking. No, I find it hard to believe that a dark-skinned Mexican American Indian was viewed as white by American whites during the Jim Crow era. And I've found nothing to support this either. Race and Multiracial Americans in the U.S. Census | Pew Research Center
This is where you have to talk to people that were living then. They say more Mexicans were European looking in the past, but even a "brown" Mexican was socially regarded as white just the same. Dark-skinned Mexicans were completely allowed in environments that were segregated and for whites only. My relatives from Texas all say that Mexicans were white.
There's also famous examples. I remember seeing a documentary on rock-and-roll star Ritchie Valens in the early 90's, and in it, several people were interviewed and asked if Ritchie, who toured in Texas and other places that were still segregated, was ever discriminated for his (hispanic)"race". They interviewed his girlfriend Donna, his manager, several friends, and all were confused by the question and said "No, he was white!".
His girlfriend Donna Ludwig was confused and shocked by the assertion that she had been in an interracial relationship, and said, "In those days, Mexicans were white! I always went to school with Mexicans!"
None of the people interviewed even knew what a "hispanic" was, saying "that's not what people were called then." and insisting that he was white.
Ritchie was not European looking, but that was white then.
They also mentioned in the documentary that Buddy Holly, one of the rock stars he traveled with, was married to a Puerto Rican. They also were not a mixed marriage. That was normal then.
Quote:
Even though the law allows these Hispanics (whether Mexican or not) to be considered as white, legally-speaking, much of the public doesn't view them as being "white," and, instead, treat Hispanic as a race, even though its an ethic category.
I'd argue that this happened only after the concept of "hispanics" as minorities was promoted in the media. Elderly people who grew up going to school with Mexicans and other Latin-Americans during segregation swear that "Spanish people were just white".
Goes to show how much ground has been lost by the introduction of identity politics. I think it's hard for people who only know that concept to understand how much better things were then.
I'm from MN and we had migrant workers from TX come every spring to work in the fields. It's hard to know what attitudes people had about them. I certainly know that they weren't considered White by community members.
Perhaps Texas had more experience with people of different nationalities and comfort level. But where I lived we were very homogenous and insular.
I know they felt they were well-treated because they came for generations and now some of their descendants live here. But it is difficult to determine the level of discrimination because
1. I was a child.
2. They were artificially segregated by living in separate housing where they worked.
3. There were economic disparities which may have influenced the way people perceived them.
This is where you have to talk to people that were living then. They say more Mexicans were European looking in the past, but even a "brown" Mexican was socially regarded as white just the same. Dark-skinned Mexicans were completely allowed in environments that were segregated and for whites only. My relatives from Texas all say that Mexicans were white.
There's also famous examples. I remember seeing a documentary on rock-and-roll star Ritchie Valens in the early 90's, and in it, several people were interviewed and asked if Ritchie, who toured in Texas and other places that were still segregated, was ever discriminated for his (hispanic)"race". They interviewed his girlfriend Donna, his manager, several friends, and all were confused by the question and said "No, he was white!".
His girlfriend Donna Ludwig was confused and shocked by the assertion that she had been in an interracial relationship, and said, "In those days, Mexicans were white! I always went to school with Mexicans!"
None of the people interviewed even knew what a "hispanic" was, saying "that's not what people were called then." and insisting that he was white.
Ritchie was not European looking, but that was white then.
They also mentioned in the documentary that Buddy Holly, one of the rock stars he traveled with, was married to a Puerto Rican. They also were not a mixed marriage. That was normal then.
I'd argue that this happened only after the concept of "hispanics" as minorities was promoted in the media. Elderly people who grew up going to school with Mexicans and other Latin-Americans during segregation swear that "Spanish people were just white".
Public schools were also segregated. There were “whites only” schools and Mexican schools.
In 1945 when the Mendez kids were rejected from enrolling in their community school, Gonzalo Mendez, Sylvia’s father, took the issue to court.
Mendez v. Westminster became the first case in U.S. history to rule on desegregation, forcing schools in Orange County to integrate in 1947. The landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that later ended legal segregation in all public schools nationwide used some of the arguments used in the Mendez case.
And this:
Quote:
The Lonestar Restaurant Association based in Dallas distributed this sign to its members to hang in the windows of their restaurants, where American Indians, Mexicans, and African Americans were subjected to Jim Crow laws and racial discrimination. These types of laws existed until the 1960s.
The lynching of persons of Mexican origin or descent has been largely overlooked by historians of American mob violence. This essay offers the first attempt to construct a systematic set of data on the subject. The authors contend that between 1848 and 1928, mobs lynched at least 597 Mexicans. Traditional interpretations of western violence cannot account for this phenomenon. The actual causes of mob violence against Mexicans were several-fold: race and the legacy of Anglo American expansion, economic competition, and diplomatic tensions between Mexico and the United States.
For the scholarly article above, I believe the author contends that Mexicans being lynched by white mobs in this country's history is often overlooked as they were identified as "white" in official records.
I'm not saying that there were exceptions, but I continue to believe (and, indeed, there is plenty of evidence to support) that dark-skinned Mexicans of predominately American Indian ancestry were not considered white in social terms during the Jim Crow era.
For the scholarly article above, I believe the author contends that Mexicans being lynched by white mobs in this country's history is often overlooked as they were identified as "white" in official records.
I'm not saying that there were exceptions, but I continue to believe (and, indeed, there is plenty of evidence to support) that dark-skinned Mexicans of predominately American Indian ancestry were not considered white in social terms during the Jim Crow era.
What was the "Lonestar Restaurant Association"? I can't find a single reference to it on the web except for this sign.
For the scholarly article above, I believe the author contends that Mexicans being lynched by white mobs in this country's history is often overlooked as they were identified as "white" in official records.
I'm not saying that there were exceptions, but I continue to believe (and, indeed, there is plenty of evidence to support) that dark-skinned Mexicans of predominately American Indian ancestry were not considered white in social terms during the Jim Crow era.
The problem is as a race issue that you can Google and find the same sign with Irish instead of Mexican
The problem is as a race issue that you can Google and find the same sign with Irish instead of Mexican
Of course, I posted more than just a simple sign (which is nonetheless informative). I posted info on Mexican Americans' fight to desegregate schools and on Mexicans being lynched.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
