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.
That same man, Felix Longoria, went to segregated white highschools in Texas, and fought in the white units of the army. Those are things that he would not have been able to do if he were a minority or a "person of color".
Yes, that is true. At the same time, you need to consider the totality of impacts on how Hispanics Americans could be treated:
A. Federal law (Hispanics counted as white for census and army purposes)
B. State law of Texas (no law forcing segregation such as there were for blacks. But no law stating that Hispanics could notbe discriminated against either.) and...
C. Social custom as to who was, and who was not white.
"C" is where things got complex for Hispanics. Whether or not Hispanics were considered white in the social sense could depend on many factors. These factors included the skin tone of the individual, how long the individual's family had been in the country, attitudes of local whites, local customs of the area, the individual Hispanic's socio economic status etc.
In short, some Hispanics were considered fully white and not socially discriminated against at all. Some were considered largely white, and given some, or many white privelages. Others were considered non white and given no white privelages. Even more confusing is that the treatment was not uniform. Felix Longoria shows that:
- White enough to go to a white high school
- Not white enough to be buried in a particular funeral home
- Probably white enough to eat in some cafes, not white enough to eat in others.
Mexicans were *not* racial minorities. The social discrimination they often faced was more similar to what those white ethnic groups experienced.
Can you post a link to material stating directly and emphatically that white Italians, Greeks or Poles would not be served at a public cafe?
I doubt such social discrimination against these groups existed by 1940- especially for soldiers. Sure, there were probably some clubs where non WASPs were not welcome and that were quick to kick out say, a group of Italians who caused trouble or in some cases "trouble". I doubt, however, that any public clubs, cafes, theatres etc. were banning Italians, Poles, Greeks etc. out right by 1940, or even by 1917.
Mexicans were *not* racial minorities. The social discrimination they often faced was more similar to what those white ethnic groups experienced.
That's what Mexicans, Cubans and other "Spanish" people were then. They were white ethnics, not distinguised from European nationality groups.
I and other posters have already largely debunked this narrative. White Mexicans were "white ethnics." The same cannot be generally said for non-white Mexicans.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 01-24-2017 at 08:15 PM..
Yes, that is true. At the same time, you need to consider the totality of impacts on how Hispanics Americans could be treated:
A. Federal law (Hispanics counted as white for census and army purposes)
B. State law of Texas (no law forcing segregation such as there were for blacks. But no law stating that Hispanics could notbe discriminated against either.) and...
C. Social custom as to who was, and who was not white.
"C" is where things got complex for Hispanics. Whether or not Hispanics were considered white in the social sense could depend on many factors. These factors included the skin tone of the individual, how long the individual's family had been in the country, attitudes of local whites, local customs of the area, the individual Hispanic's socio economic status etc.
In short, some Hispanics were considered fully white and not socially discriminated against at all. Some were considered largely white, and given some, or many white privelages. Others were considered non white and given no white privelages. Even more confusing is that the treatment was not uniform. Felix Longoria shows that:
- White enough to go to a white high school
- Not white enough to be buried in a particular funeral home
- Probably white enough to eat in some cafes, not white enough to eat in others.
Of course, I posted more than just a simple sign (which is nonetheless informative).
That was not actually common, which is why people always show the same two signs. There were just as many signs that barred the Irish "No Irish need apply" or Italians "No wops".
That was not the norm. In general "white only" included Mexicans.
Quote:
I posted info on Mexican Americans' fight to desegregate schools
That case is being misstated today. If you read the court documents it proves what im saying.
- It was not a race related case then.
- both parties argued that Mexicans were white.
- "Mexican" schools were special needs elementary schools based on language and not racial segregation.
- Separate schools were not the norm. Just a few scattered districts took it upon themselves to force Mexicans into these remedial schools. Elsewhere in California Mexicans were not in separate schools.
- Separate schools for Mexicans were not legally sanctioned in California.
- They won the case on the basis that they were white and any forced segregation was illegal.
Quote:
Mexicans being lynched.
Lynching was mob justice that anyone accused of a crime could fall victim to. Its not necessarily race related. People of all origins were lynched. Italians were lynched, Anglo-Americans were lynched, etc
People constructing this historical fantasy of Hispanics as minorities should explain why almost every public segregated white highschool and University in Texas always had Mexican and other Latin American Students , why Mexicans were always able to marry white, why all historical records (not just the census) list Mexicans plainly as white irrespective of physical appearance, why Mexicans were able to proudly fight in the white units of the army, why laws explicity stated that Mexicans were white and entitled to the rights thereof...etc
How did all that happen if they were racial minorities?
That was not actually common, which is why people always show the same two signs. There were just as many signs that barred the Irish "No Irish need apply" or Italians "No wops".
That was not the norm. In general "white only" included Mexicans.
That case is being misstated today. If you read the court documents it proves what im saying.
- It was not a race related case then.
- both parties argued that Mexicans were white.
- "Mexican" schools were special needs elementary schools based on language and not racial segregation.
- Separate schools were not the norm. Just a few scattered districts took it upon themselves to force Mexicans into these remedial schools. Elsewhere in California Mexicans were not in separate schools.
- Separate schools for Mexicans were not legally sanctioned in California.
- They won the case on the basis that they were white and any forced segregation was illegal.
Lynching was mob justice that anyone accused of a crime could fall victim to. Its not necessarily race related. People of all origins were lynched. Italians were lynched, Anglo-Americans were lynched, etc
People constructing this historical fantasy of Hispanics as minorities should explain why almost every public segregated white highschool and University in Texas always had Mexican and other Latin American Students , why Mexicans were always able to marry white, why all historical records (not just the census) list Mexicans plainly as white irrespective of physical appearance, why Mexicans were able to proudly fight in the white units of the army, why laws explicity stated that Mexicans were white and entitled to the rights thereof...etc
How did all that happen if they were racial minorities?
Lynching wasn't necessarily race related, but it overwhelmingly was. Lynchings of racial minorities was the norm. Lynchings of whites was not the norm. Most estimates put the number of lynched persons in this country at around 4,800 between 1882 and 1968: Lynching Statistics for 1882-1968 Of those lynched, less than 28% were "white," with many of these whites being lynched for helping blacks or for being anti-lynching. And of that 28%, a very large percentage seem to have been Mexican (based on the numbers we do have for Mexicans lynched): https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/o...-mexicans.html. Yes, lynching as practiced in this country was overwhelmingly a racial thing.
No, a sign stating "No Irish" is not akin to a sign saying "No Mexicans" when we are talking about Mexicans of non-European descent. Indeed, unlike non-white Mexicans, no one was going to inherently know you were an Irish or Italian immigrant when you talked into a restaurant for a meal. Non-European Mexicans and other racial minorities did not have this luxury.
More to this point: you mentioned earlier that "Cubans" and "Mexicans" were considered ethnic whites. I (an African American) have Cuban (black Cuban relatives) relatives who lived in that country during the period in question. The notion that they would've been seen as "ethnic white" if they immigrated to this country because they were "Cuban" is as unbelievable as non-European Mexicans being considered as "ethnic whites." You need to distinguish between white Cubans, white Mexicans, and Cubans and Mexicans (and others) who were not of European descent. There was and is a difference in terms of societal norms and treatment.
Moving along, yes discrimination against Mexican Americans and Mexicans in this country was widespread (limiting my review to the Southwest, which is where most Mexican Americans lived during the period in question): Introduction . A Class Apart . American Experience . WGBH | PBS
Here's another case of a clear race-based discrimination against non-white Mexicans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation During Mexican Repatriation, between 500,000 and 2 million (number probably closer to 2 million given that CA estimates that 400,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans were removed from that state alone) Mexicans and Mexican Americans were, without due process, rounded up and sent "back to Mexico" by immigration authorities. Why? Because of their "proximity of the Mexican border, the physical distinctiveness of mestizos, and easily identifiable barrios": From out of the shadows: Mexican women in twentieth-century America And you want to tell me and others that non-white Mexicans were treated as "white" as a general matter simply because they were able to list themselves as such on many US Censuses?
Your problem is that when you're referring to Mexicans, you're not distinguishing that "Mexicans" came and come in different races. Again, Mexicans or predominately European ancestry, had it easier. Although, with additional research, I'm not comfortable estimating how much easier they had it as they faced discrimination as well. But Mexicans who were racial minorities have a long history of facing racial discrimination in this country. Nothing that I am coming across shows otherwise. But don't just take my word for it: just take a look at the different sources I've provided, from scholarly articles to the PBS piece to other selected works.
And you want to tell me and others that non-white Mexicans were treated as "white" as a general matter simply because they were able to list themselves as such on many US Censuses?
Not just in the census, but in ANY historical record, including birth certificates and vital records. In court cases, such as the cases that you cite they are always regarded as white.
They also lived worked and went to school with whites in the segregated south and enjoyed white privileges denied to racial minorities.
Quote:
Your problem is that when you're referring to Mexicans, you're not distinguishing that "Mexicans" came and come in different races.
You're asking me to make a distinction that history did not. There were no other kind of Mexicans. All, whether light or darkskinned, were considered white.
Quote:
But don't just take my word for it: just take a look at the different sources I've provided, from scholarly articles to the PBS piece to other selected works.
Youre not reading your own sources. The fact that Mexicans were white was the crux of the argument in the Hernandez case.
Pete Hernandez went to a bar (a white bar), got drunk, got into a fight, and shot a man, killing him.
He was guilty, and his only recourse was to say that he was being "discriminated" because there were no Mexicans in the jury that convicted him.
He argued that he was entitled to a jury of his peers. The court told him that it *was* a jury of his peers because Mexicans were white.
The case was a attempt to get 14 amendment protections for Mexicans, who were a white nationality group. To do this, they had to convince the court that they were somehow different from other white people. Thats whats meant by "a class apart".
All of this for a guilty man who got into a drunken fight and shot somebody.
Lynching wasn't necessarily race related, but it overwhelmingly was. Lynchings of racial minorities was the norm. Lynchings of whites was not the norm. Most estimates put the number of lynched persons in this country at around 4,800 between 1882 and 1968: Lynching Statistics for 1882-1968 Of those lynched, less than 28% were "white," with many of these whites being lynched for helping blacks or for being anti-lynching. And of that 28%, a very large percentage seem to have been Mexican (based on the numbers we do have for Mexicans lynched): https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/o...-mexicans.html. Yes, lynching as practiced in this country was overwhelmingly a racial thing.
No, a sign stating "No Irish" is not akin to a sign saying "No Mexicans" when we are talking about Mexicans of non-European descent. Indeed, unlike non-white Mexicans, no one was going to inherently know you were an Irish or Italian immigrant when you talked into a restaurant for a meal. Non-European Mexicans and other racial minorities did not have this luxury.
More to this point: you mentioned earlier that "Cubans" and "Mexicans" were considered ethnic whites. I (an African American) have Cuban (black Cuban relatives) relatives who lived in that country during the period in question. The notion that they would've been seen as "ethnic white" if they immigrated to this country because they were "Cuban" is as unbelievable as non-European Mexicans being considered as "ethnic whites." You need to distinguish between white Cubans, white Mexicans, and Cubans and Mexicans (and others) who were not of European descent. There was and is a difference in terms of societal norms and treatment.
Moving along, yes discrimination against Mexican Americans and Mexicans in this country was widespread (limiting my review to the Southwest, which is where most Mexican Americans lived during the period in question): Introduction . A Class Apart . American Experience . WGBH | PBS
Here's another case of a clear race-based discrimination against non-white Mexicans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation During Mexican Repatriation, between 500,000 and 2 million (number probably closer to 2 million given that CA estimates that 400,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans were removed from that state alone) Mexicans and Mexican Americans were, without due process, rounded up and sent "back to Mexico" by immigration authorities. Why? Because of their "proximity of the Mexican border, the physical distinctiveness of mestizos, and easily identifiable barrios": From out of the shadows: Mexican women in twentieth-century America And you want to tell me and others that non-white Mexicans were treated as "white" as a general matter simply because they were able to list themselves as such on many US Censuses?
Your problem is that when you're referring to Mexicans, you're not distinguishing that "Mexicans" came and come in different races. Again, Mexicans or predominately European ancestry, had it easier. Although, with additional research, I'm not comfortable estimating how much easier they had it as they faced discrimination as well. But Mexicans who were racial minorities have a long history of facing racial discrimination in this country. Nothing that I am coming across shows otherwise. But don't just take my word for it: just take a look at the different sources I've provided, from scholarly articles to the PBS piece to other selected works.
Below is a link to an article on the urban myth of massive deportations of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans during the depression. The 400-odd officers of the Border Patrol during that period would have really had their hands full deporting two million people in addition to guarding more than two thousand miles of border with Mexico in addition to the Gulf Coast and the Canadian border. I have seen, in the old port of entry in Presidio, Texas, handwritten cards filled out by U. S. immigrant inspectors during that time noting Mexican families that stopped by as they returned to Mexico and listed U. S.-born children in anticipation of their return during better economic times:
For example, in 1931 The Salt Lake Desert News quoted immigration officials as claiming that in Southern California 70,000 Mexicans had “been deported to their native country….” INS statistics, however, show that in 1930 the agency deported a total of 18,142 aliens, 8,335 of whom were Mexicans. Exaggerated reports like this one have led some researchers to see Mexican repatriation in the 1930s as the result of a single massive program, rather than a combination of several factors.
Below is a link to an article on the urban myth of massive deportations of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans during the depression. The 400-odd officers of the Border Patrol during that period would have really had their hands full deporting two million people in addition to guarding more than two thousand miles of border with Mexico in addition to the Gulf Coast and the Canadian border. I have seen, in the old port of entry in Presidio, Texas, handwritten cards filled out by U. S. immigrant inspectors during that time noting Mexican families that stopped by as they returned to Mexico and listed U. S.-born children in anticipation of their return during better economic times:
For example, in 1931 The Salt Lake Desert News quoted immigration officials as claiming that in Southern California 70,000 Mexicans had “been deported to their native country….” INS statistics, however, show that in 1930 the agency deported a total of 18,142 aliens, 8,335 of whom were Mexicans. Exaggerated reports like this one have led some researchers to see Mexican repatriation in the 1930s as the result of a single massive program, rather than a combination of several factors.
No urban myth. I was careful to mention immigration authorities vs. INS agents. Its been well-established that state authorities, federal authorities, and private citizens acting under color of state authority (or willful ignorance of federal authorities) played a part in this process. And the estimates of 500,000 to 2 million is an estimate precisely because there wasn't an official record kept of all of the forced removals.
Not just in the census, but in ANY historical record, including birth certificates and vital records. In court cases, such as the cases that you cite they are always regarded as white.
They also lived worked and went to school with whites in the segregated south and enjoyed white privileges denied to racial minorities.
You're asking me to make a distinction that history did not. There were no other kind of Mexicans. All, whether light or darkskinned, were considered white.
Youre not reading your own sources. The fact that Mexicans were white was the crux of the argument in the Hernandez case.
Pete Hernandez went to a bar (a white bar), got drunk, got into a fight, and shot a man, killing him.
He was guilty, and his only recourse was to say that he was being "discriminated" because there were no Mexicans in the jury that convicted him.
He argued that he was entitled to a jury of his peers. The court told him that it *was* a jury of his peers because Mexicans were white.
The case was a attempt to get 14 amendment protections for Mexicans, who were a white nationality group. To do this, they had to convince the court that they were somehow different from other white people. Thats whats meant by "a class apart".
All of this for a guilty man who got into a drunken fight and shot somebody.
1) No one is disputing that historical records generally listed Mexicans and Mexican Americans as "white" (with the exception of the 1930 Census, of course, which is an important point as it directly rebuts the argument that "any" historical record proves your claim). The issue here is over societal acceptance of Mexicans--particularly non-white Mexicans (white being understood to be Mexicans of European ancestry)--as being white.
2) No, the fact that Mexicans were considered "white" on paper is not the crux of the argument in the Hernandez case, and certainly not the crux of the opinion. In the Hernandez case, the State of Texas argued that the only two races protected under the 14th Amendment were "white and Negro." The Court, however, explicitly wrote that the Hernandez proved that Mexicans constituted a separate class, "distinct from whites." In reaching its decision, the Court noted that, among other factors, the testimony of "responsible officials and citizens contained the admission that residents of the community distinguished between "white" and "Mexican." Also, Hernandez wasn't demanding that there be Mexicans on his particular jury, but rather argued that the general practice of exclusion denied him even the possibility of a fair trial in violation of the equal protection guaranteed under the Constitution. Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../475/case.html (the actual text of the case)
3) Again, the records I provided show widespread discrimination against Mexicans on racial grounds. If you won't accept what I've provided, that's fine. Mestizo Mexicans were not treated as "white" as a general matter as far as social norms went in this country.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 01-25-2017 at 01:56 AM..
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.
