How were Hispanics treated during Civil Rights Movement? (Spanish, France, Ireland)
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.
There was considerable tension that existed between the Italians on one side vs. the Irish and the Anglo-Protestants on the other (actually, considering what was going on in Europe at the time, and what had gone on 25 years earlier,it's pretty funny that the Irish Catholics and the WASP Protestants were allied!) When the Irish-American police chief Hennessy was killed, some Sicilian immigrants were blamed, they were declared not guilty, but then a mob stormed the jail and lynched them.
And Italy did come close to war with the US at the time because of these lynchings.
However, as a result of the lynchings, the mayor of New Orleans who let the lynchings happen and made excuses for them, Joseph Shakespeare, was voted out of office because the Italians for the first time flexed their political power as a response to the atrocity.
The above-mentioned Victor Schiro and Carlos Marcello (Majoun's post #17) were Italian Americans, as were almost everybody else who had any political power in New Orleans in the middle of the 20th century.
Exitus
.
Spanish settlers in California, I believe they are a large group totally assimilated, they were called "Californios".
Spanish settlers in Tao, New Mexico. A group of Spaniards that settled in New Mexico in the XVIIIth Century. They have been living there in isolation since then fighting Indians, Mexicans and Americans.
In Texas, I believe there were Spanish "hacendados" that sided with Texas. I don't know much about them.
In some occasions, I've found people with Spanish or Catalan last names in the South that didn't even knew the origin of their last name.
Another group are Basques, some from Spain and some from France. They live in Idaho, Nevada and Montana.
All interesting points. (That's 'Taos', NM, by the way...). Those early day Hispanics you mention in Northern New Mexico DID live in isolation, it's true...often feeling cut off from the Spanish authorities in Mexico. They sent a yearly caravan up for support, but some years the caravan didn't happen. This early-day colony included the San Luis Valley of present-day Colorado...and I believe the tiny village of San Luis (near Alamosa) is today considered the 'oldest town in Colorado'.
This long-isolated area retains several cultural practices right out of 'the Dark Ages' in Spain..including 'los Penitientes', those who mortify the flesh during la Santa Semana, whipping and beating themselves to symbolically purify themselves of sins...up to and including one or more who may even volunteer for a sort of 'crucifiction'. (These practices ALSO happen on occasion in The Philippines). Most of this today is illegal under US law, and these things, if they're carried on, must be done in secret.
Here in California, my spouse is considered an American Indian but has SOME Californio ancestry...and today, we live on a tiny remnant of a land-holding given her family from the King of Spain which once totaled 11,000 acres...(actually a SMALL ranch by the standards of that day). Today, the place totals 6 acres, but is still in the same family.
"Californios" brings up the sticky issue of 'reconquista', and the often-heard mantra that 'the SW US once BELONGED to us' (Mexicans). That is arguably based in fact...but Mexico only held the place 25 years or so (after the Spanish, before the Americans)...they secularized the missions, and generally neglected things before the 'gringos' arrived in force...(actually, a number of gringos were here earlier). I recall reading somewhere that about 8% of all US Hispanics are descended from people who were in the area of the present-day US, before it BECAME the US....if that's true, it means that the other 92% are here because of immigration. So for a FEW people, it's true that "We didn't cross the border...the border crossed us'.....but for the most part, that's romantic exaggeration.
As for the Basques, as you know, they're not technically Hispanic...the language apparently has no parallel anywhere on earth...and one scholar even went so far as to state that "the Basque language is no more related to Spanish, or French, than it is to Japanese". Nevertheless, as you say, MOST US Basques do orginate from Spain,(they call their homeland 'Euzkadi') and can be found pretty much anywhere in the West where sheep are...(or were once) raised. Bakersfield, CA has an old Basque community...so does Chino. So do SE Oregon and most of Nevada. Their traditional US 'Capitol' is Elko, Nevada, which hosts a huge get-together each year. One-time Nevada governor Paul Laxalt, as I recall, was a Basque...and proud of his sheep-raising ancestors.
Amazingly, as of just a few years ago, young single male Basques were STILL coming to the American West...by plane, direct from Europe. They were among the few people willing to commit to a long-term contract to herd sheep, alone, for months on end, in the far reaches of the Great Basin. Their skills in that area were that respected. Not sure if this still goes on...but it was true as recently as 10 years ago.
"Californios" brings up the sticky issue of 'reconquista', and the often-heard mantra that 'the SW US once BELONGED to us' (Mexicans). That is arguably based in fact...but Mexico only held the place 25 years or so (after the Spanish, before the Americans)...they secularized the missions, and generally neglected things before the 'gringos' arrived in force...(actually, a number of gringos were here earlier). I recall reading somewhere that about 8% of all US Hispanics are descended from people who were in the area of the present-day US, before it BECAME the US....if that's true, it means that the other 92% are here because of immigration. So for a FEW people, it's true that "We didn't cross the border...the border crossed us'.....but for the most part, that's romantic exaggeration.
Many of the hundreds of thousands of descendants of Californios do not identify as Hispanic and don't have Spanish last names.
Many of the hundreds of thousands of descendants of Californios do not identify as Hispanic and don't have Spanish last names.
Explain, please. I'm interested in the subject. Are you considering early-day East-coast 'gringos' and others, (including Russians), and other non-Mexican colonials, to be 'Californios', since they were here during Spanish rule? I realize there were a FEW of these (I can think of a few I know personally), but I always thought the overwhelming majority of California residents during Spanish rule either had Spanish surnames, or were Indians who were assigned such names. Interested to hear your take on this...
There never were very many 'Californios' even in their heyday, regardless of WHO you're including in that category. Interesting subject..
Explain, please. I'm interested in the subject. Are you considering early-day East-coast 'gringos' and others, (including Russians), and other non-Mexican colonials, to be 'Californios', since they were here during Spanish rule? I realize there were a FEW of these (I can think of a few I know personally), but I always thought the overwhelming majority of California residents during Spanish rule either had Spanish surnames, or were Indians who were assigned such names.
I was referring to many descendents of Californios being the product of intermarriage between "Anglo" males and "Californio" Hispanic females. In Old West California, the overwhelming majority of white women would have been Hispanic Californias, and thus marriage between "Anglo-American" men and Hispanic women was very common. (It also helped preserve the lands, businesses, and properties of some of the Californio families from suffering in the great economic frauds of 19th century which had a traumatic effect on Hispanic wealth in California.) Hispanic males marrying "Anglo" females in 19th century California, otoh, was quite rare.
The descendants of the "gringos", Russians, Brits, etc. who married Californio women or otherwise had children with them would obviously be of Californio ancestry.
"It can be conservatively estimated that there are between 320,000 and half-a-million descendants of Californios alive today"
I once read a fascinating book about that era. Many American settlers, such as Griffin, I believe, married daughters of Hacendados. It was, as just said, a symbiosis, that helped them preserve their holdings when U.S. Legal Scams stripped Californios of their hand holdings.
I don't recall the name of the book, it was a 19th Century book, "Old California" or something similar. There was also a great bestseller during the 19th Century, some sort of Gone With the Wind but related to California, the book is called Ramona.
Yes, I believe that most of the oldest and some of the richest families in California are Californios by their own right.
I read that Irish were favoured.
I remember there was a TV SERIES about the subject, "High Chaparral".
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.
Huh? I've never seen a Hispanic that dark &
