← Introduction to Ethnic Studies outline

Week 9 · Chapter

Chapter 9 — Chicana/o and Latina/o Experiences I: Conquest, Labor, and the Courts

Introduction to Ethnic Studies Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~30–40 minutes · Objective 6 (analyze Chicana/o and Latina/o experiences, from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo through the Bracero Program, the courts, the Chicano movement, and Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Central American experiences, and explain who uses which group term), Objective 3 (compare theories of belonging (assimilation, cultural pluralism, segmented assimilation, internal colonialism, and double consciousness) as frameworks with named authors and named critics, and distinguish immigrant from colonized or incorporated peoples), Objective 5 (analyze African American experiences from slavery through emancipation, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the Great Migration, and the civil rights and Black freedom movements, reading the laws and court decisions that shaped them) · Read it first this week; the lecture, the slides, the tutorial, the quiz, and the workshop all build on it.

In plain language

This chapter follows Mexicans and Mexican Americans from 1848 to 1964 through three kinds of record: a treaty, a labor agreement, and two court cases. In 1848 a cession (a formal handing over of land from one country to another) moved the border, so many Mexicans became part of the United States without moving at all. In the 1930s many people were pushed to leave for Mexico, and from 1942 to 1964 the Bracero Program (a set of agreements between two governments) brought Mexican men north on short work contracts. In the courts, Mexican American families used the 14th Amendment to fight school segregation and exclusion from juries. You will learn to read one worker's account beside the dated record and say, in one plain sentence, what each one shows.

Why you already care about this

Picture a drive through a town in the Southwest (an illustrative scene). The town's name is Spanish. So are the names of 6 of the 10 streets you cross on the way to the grocery store. You may have driven down roads like these every day without asking who named them, or when.

An ethnic studies reader asks that question out loud. Were the names chosen by the people who already lived there? Did the land change hands? Did the people? This week, those questions lead to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848, to the farm fields of the 1940s and 1950s, and to two courtrooms where Mexican American families asked the law to treat them as equals.

A word on names before we start. Hispanic and Latino are the federal terms, written together as "Hispanic or Latino". Chicana/o is a self-chosen political identity that rose with the movement of the 1960s, which Week 10 takes up. Latinx and Latine are newer gender-inclusive forms whose use is debated, and Week 10 lays out that debate with each side's case. This week we mostly name people as the records of the time do: Mexicans and Mexican Americans.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

explain what the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) and its Article VIII did for the Mexicans who stayed, and why they were not immigrants;
describe the 1930s removals of Mexicans and Mexican Americans, and why "voluntary" does not tell the whole story;
explain the Bracero Program (1942 to 1964) as a legal agreement between two governments, and work out its span in years;
read the archive's E1 excerpt for what it says, who made it, whom it affected, and what it leaves out, and place it on the timeline;
explain what Mendez v. Westminster (1946) and Hernandez v. Texas (1954) decided, and in which courts.

Carry this sentence with you: For the people of the ceded lands, the border moved — they did not.

Where we are

Already covered: Week 3 drew the line between immigrant peoples and colonized or incorporated peoples. Week 4 read the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 as an agreement between nations. Week 6 taught the 14th Amendment and its equal protection clause. Week 7 taught Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Week 8 taught how to read an oral history as evidence.
This week: a new unit begins on Chicana/o and Latina/o experiences: the 1848 treaty, the 1930s removals, the Bracero Program, and two court cases, Mendez v. Westminster (1946) and Hernandez v. Texas (1954).
How they connect: the 1848 treaty tests Week 3's line between immigrant and incorporated peoples, and the court cases use the same 14th Amendment that Weeks 6 and 7 followed into Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
Where we're going next: Week 10, Chicana/o and Latina/o Experiences II: Movements and Many Communities, turns to the Chicano movement and to Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Central American experiences.

Here is what this chapter leans on most. Colonized or incorporated peoples are peoples who became part of the United States by conquest, annexation, or force; Week 3 named Mexicans in the lands ceded in 1848 as one example. The equal protection clause is the part of the 14th Amendment (1868) that forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Week 8 added one more habit: read an oral history for experience and meaning, and check its dates against the dated record.

1. Read the 1848 treaty: the border moved

Imagine you have lived in the same house your whole life. One morning a new flag flies over the town hall, and the mail now comes from a different country. You did not pack a bag or cross a line. The line crossed you.

That is the plain idea of a cession.

A cession is a formal handing over of territory by one country to another, usually by treaty. The people living on ceded land do not move, but the country that governs them changes.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed in February 1848, ended the war between the United States and Mexico. Mexico ceded 55 percent of its territory, including present-day California, Nevada, and Utah and most of Arizona and New Mexico. The National Archives keeps the treaty as one of its milestone documents.

The treaty also said what would happen to the people. Article VIII let Mexicans who stayed in the ceded lands keep Mexican citizenship or acquire U.S. citizenship, and it promised that their property would be respected. For them the border moved, and they did not immigrate.

Worked example — placing the treaty beside two you know. Use the law-and-case timeline (Dataset B).

The treaty. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo came in 1848.
The amendment. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.
The gap. 1868 − 1848 = 20 years apart.
The other treaty. Week 4's Fort Laramie Treaty also came in 1868, the same year as the 14th Amendment.

In words: the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo came in 1848 and the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, so 1868 − 1848 = 20 years apart. Twenty years after the people of the ceded lands came under U.S. rule, the Constitution gained the clause that their grandchildren would later use in court.

Now use Week 3's frameworks. Immigrant peoples came to the United States by choice under its immigration rules. Colonized or incorporated peoples became part of the country by conquest, annexation, or force. The Mexicans who stayed in 1848 fit the second group: they were incorporated by conquest. That is also why the classic immigrant path of assimilation fits them poorly, a criticism of assimilation theory you met in Week 3. A framework is a tool, though, and here is a caveat: no framework settles a real family's story on its own.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Think of a place near you with a name from an earlier language. What would you want to know about who named it, and when?
(b) A promise in a treaty, such as respecting property, is words on paper. What kind of record would you look for to see whether a promise like that was kept?

Misconception check. Students often think the treaty made the Mexicans in the ceded lands immigrants. That is tempting, because today we often picture Mexican Americans as people whose families crossed a border. But Article VIII let the people who stayed keep Mexican citizenship or acquire U.S. citizenship where they already lived. The cure: ask who moved, the people or the border. In 1848 it was the border.

2. Name the 1930s removals: "voluntary" was not the whole story

Think about a time someone told you that you were "free to leave" a job, a team, or a group chat. Then think about what came with the offer. Maybe your hours were cut, or everyone made it clear you were not wanted. You chose to go, but you did not choose freely.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, many Mexicans and Mexican Americans faced a choice like that, on a much larger scale.

Mexican repatriation of the 1930s is the departure for Mexico, during the Great Depression, of Mexicans and Mexican Americans, few by formal federal removal and most through officially voluntary but often coercive repatriation programs run by state and local governments and charities.

How many people left? The USCIS History Office gives an estimate of 400,000 to 1,000,000 people. Notice the width of that range. Sources give the number differently, so this course teaches it in words and never asks you to memorize one figure.

Read the definition slowly, because each part matters. "Few by formal federal removal" means the national government deported only some of them. "Officially voluntary" means the programs called the trips a choice. "Often coercive" means pressure pushed people to take that choice. And the programs were run by state and local governments and charities, not by one federal office. That is one more limitation to keep in mind: a record that says "voluntary" tells you what an office called the trip, not what pushed a family onto it.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Name a time when a choice was offered to you, or to someone you know, under pressure. What made it less than free?
(b) If you found an old train ticket marked "voluntary repatriation", what two questions would you ask before deciding what it shows?

Misconception check. Students often think the 1930s removals involved only noncitizens. That is tempting, because "repatriation" sounds like sending people back to the country they came from. But the record names Mexican Americans as well as Mexicans among the people who left. The cure: read who was named in the record, not only what the program was called.

3. Read the Bracero Program: an agreement between two governments

Picture a seasonal job you might take (an illustrative scene): picking strawberries for one summer, or working a holiday rush at a warehouse. You sign a contract. It says your pay, your housing, and the day the job ends. When the season ends, so does the contract, and you go home.

That is the shape of a bracero contract.

The Bracero Program is the series of agreements between the governments of Mexico and the United States, from 1942 to 1964, that issued temporary work permits to Mexican men on short-term contracts to work in agriculture and on railroads.
A bracero is a Mexican worker who came to the United States on a short-term labor contract under the Bracero Program, with papers issued under an agreement between the two governments.

The Library of Congress records that the program brought more than four million braceros. It also records the hard side: braceros faced charges for room and board, deducted pay, and exposure to dangerous chemicals.

Worked example — counting the program's span. Use the dated record.

The start. The program began in August 1942.
The end. It ended in December 1964.
The span. 1964 − 1942 = 22 years.

In words: the Bracero Program ran from August 1942 to December 1964, so 1964 − 1942 = 22 years. For 22 years, two governments signed agreements that moved workers north for a season at a time.

Here is why this matters for how we talk about people. A bracero did not slip across a border. He came with a contract and papers that two governments had agreed to. Compare that with the people of the ceded lands in section 1: they did not come at all, because the border came to them. Neither group fits the picture of an immigrant who arrived to stay under immigration rules.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Think of a job contract you have signed or seen. What did it promise, and what did it leave out?
(b) Why might it matter to a worker, and to his family later, that his papers came from two governments?

Misconception check. Students often think the Bracero Program was unauthorized migration. That is tempting, because public talk about farm work and the border often mixes many different stories together. But the program was a series of legal agreements between the governments of Mexico and the United States, with contracts and work permits. The cure: name the agreement before you name the worker.

4. Read the record and the voice: E1 against the timeline

A contract tells you what was promised. A worker's memory tells you what it was like to live under that contract. You need both.

The course's running archive (Dataset A) is an illustrative, unnamed public library's collection. Its excerpts are constructed for this course, identified by role and decade, and never presented as a real person's words. Here is E1: a farmworker who came on a bracero contract in the 1950s, interviewed in the 2000s.

"I signed my first contract in 1956. At the reception center they looked at our hands to see if we were really farm workers. The contract said what we would be paid, but they took money out for the food and the bunk. We picked lettuce, then tomatoes, and went home when the season ended. I came back for three more seasons. When people say we came illegally, I tell them I had papers from two governments." (E1, illustrative)

Worked example — reading E1 in the field's order. Walk the five questions every reading asks, and place the excerpt in time.

What it says. He signed his first contract in 1956. Workers' hands were checked at the reception center. The contract named the pay, but money was taken out for the food and the bunk. He worked lettuce and tomatoes, went home each season, and came back for three more seasons.
Who made it. It is a first-person account recorded decades later, which tells how the contract felt to one worker; the dated record tells what the agreements between the two governments set up.
Whom it affected. The worker himself, the men checked beside him at the reception center, and, by implication, the family he went home to each season.
What it leaves out. It does not name the state, the farm, the wage, or the amount taken out, so its dates are checked against the program's 1942 start and 1964 end.
- Into the program: E1's first contract came in 1956, so 1956 − 1942 = 14 years after the program began.
- His seasons: one first season plus three more seasons, so 1 + 3 = 4 seasons.
- To the program's end: 1964 − 1956 = 8 years from E1's first contract to the end of the program.
What a comparison adds. E2's family moved north in 1943 inside the country and stayed. E1 crossed a border on contracts signed by two governments and went home each season, so E1 is neither an immigrant story nor unauthorized migration.

In words: E1 is an illustrative account of work under the Bracero Program, in which the deductions match what the Library of Congress records about charges for room and board, and "papers from two governments" names the program for what it was, a legal agreement between Mexico and the United States.

Notice what the comparison with E2 shows. Both families moved for work. E2's family moved inside one country, as citizens, and built a new life there. E1's moves were set by a contract's calendar, so each season ended with a trip home. One plain sentence holds it: moving for work can mean settling or returning, and the law behind the move decides which.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) What is one thing E1 tells you that the program's agreements could never tell you?
(b) What is one thing the program's dated record tells you that E1 could never tell you?

Misconception check. Students often think that because E1 does not give his wage or the amount taken out, his account cannot be trusted. That is tempting, because numbers feel like proof. But an oral history is read for experience and meaning, and its dates are checked against the record; here 1956 falls inside the program's 1942 to 1964 span. The cure: check what can be checked, and read the rest for what it meant to him.

5. Read Mendez v. Westminster: which court, and why it mattered

Think about a school district map. A line on that map decides which building your child attends. Now imagine the line is drawn around children's family names, skin color, or home language, not around their street.

That is what Mexican American families in one school district faced in the 1940s. First, though, you need one piece of court vocabulary.

A federal district court is the trial-level federal court where a case begins; its ruling can be reviewed by a federal court of appeals and then by the Supreme Court.

In Mendez v. Westminster (1946), a federal district court ruled that segregating Mexican American students by ancestry, appearance, and language violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The federal court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed it in 1947. The Library of Congress describes the case as strengthening the ground for Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

Worked example — placing the case on the separate-schools thread. Use Dataset B and Dataset F.

The district court. Mendez v. Westminster (1946) was decided in a federal district court.
The appeal. The Ninth Circuit affirmed it in 1947, so 1947 − 1946 = 1 year apart.
The Supreme Court case it helped. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) came 1954 − 1946 = 8 years after the district court ruling.
The thread. The separate-schools thread (Dataset F) runs from the federal Indian boarding schools you met in Week 4, to Mendez v. Westminster (1946), to Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

In words: a federal district court decided Mendez v. Westminster (1946), the Ninth Circuit affirmed it 1 year later, and Brown v. Board of Education (1954) came 8 years after the district court ruling. The case never reached the Supreme Court, yet it helped prepare the ground for the case that did.

Set the thread beside Week 2. A district rule that assigns children to separate schools by ancestry is institutional discrimination: the rule itself produces unequal treatment, whatever any one teacher believes.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Think of a rule at a school you attended that sorted students. What was it based on, and who decided?
(b) Why might a ruling from a lower court still matter to a case that later reaches the Supreme Court?

Misconception check. Students often think Mendez v. Westminster (1946) was a Supreme Court case. That is tempting, because it is famous and it is linked to Brown v. Board of Education (1954). But Mendez v. Westminster (1946) was decided by a federal district court and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit; it never reached the Supreme Court. The cure: name the court along with the case.

6. Read Hernandez v. Texas and compare conquest, contract, and the courts

Picture a jury box with twelve seats. Now picture a county where, year after year, people of one ancestry never sit in those seats, even though many live in the county and qualify. No single rule says "keep them out". The empty seats say it anyway.

That pattern reached the Supreme Court in 1954.

In Hernandez v. Texas (1954), decided in May 1954, two weeks before Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court held unanimously that excluding people from jury service because of their ancestry or national origin violated the 14th Amendment.
The two-class theory is the narrow reading of the 14th Amendment, rejected by the Supreme Court in Hernandez v. Texas (1954), under which its protection reached only discrimination between two classes, white and Black; the Court held that the protection reaches further.

Worked example — counting from the amendment to the case. Use Dataset B.

The amendment. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.
The case. Hernandez v. Texas (1954) came in 1954.
The gap. 1954 − 1868 = 86 years.

In words: Hernandez v. Texas (1954) came 1954 − 1868 = 86 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified. For 86 years the amendment's protection was on paper; in 1954 the Court read it to reach Mexican Americans in the jury box.

Now pull the week together. Each record shows a different way of belonging, or of being kept out.

Four Week 9 records compared by how people came under U.S. law and what each record did
Record	Year	How people came under U.S. law	What the record did
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo	1848	by conquest: the border moved	offered citizenship and promised respect for property
Bracero Program	1942 to 1964	by contract between two governments	issued temporary work permits for a season at a time
Mendez v. Westminster	1946	already living and schooling in the United States	ruled school segregation by ancestry unconstitutional
Hernandez v. Texas	1954	already living and serving in the United States	ruled jury exclusion by ancestry unconstitutional

Read across the rows. The people of the ceded lands were incorporated by conquest. Braceros came under an agreement between two governments. In the courts, Mexican American families used the 14th Amendment to claim equal standing in schools and on juries. In one plain sentence: conquest made Mexican Americans part of the country, contracts brought workers for a season, and the courts were where families claimed the equal protection the 14th Amendment promised.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Why might an empty jury box matter to the person on trial, and to the people who never got to serve?
(b) Choose two rows of the table. What does setting them side by side show that either row alone does not?

Misconception check. Students often think the 14th Amendment was only about Black and white Americans. That is tempting, because Week 6 met it in the years after slavery ended. But in Hernandez v. Texas (1954) the Court rejected the two-class theory and held that the amendment's protection reaches discrimination by ancestry or national origin. The cure: read the amendment as one that every later group in this course has used.

Key terms

Cession — A formal handing over of territory by one country to another, usually by treaty; the people living on ceded land do not move, but the country that governs them changes. (first used: 1. Read the 1848 treaty: the border moved)
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo — The treaty signed in 1848 that ended the war between the United States and Mexico, under which Mexico ceded 55 percent of its territory, including present-day California, Nevada, and Utah and most of Arizona and New Mexico. (first used: 1. Read the 1848 treaty: the border moved)
Article VIII — The part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) that let Mexicans who stayed in the ceded lands keep Mexican citizenship or acquire U.S. citizenship and promised that their property would be respected, so that for them the border moved and they did not immigrate. (first used: 1. Read the 1848 treaty: the border moved)
Mexican repatriation of the 1930s — The departure for Mexico, during the Great Depression, of Mexicans and Mexican Americans, few by formal federal removal and most through officially voluntary but often coercive repatriation programs run by state and local governments and charities; the USCIS History Office gives an estimate of 400,000 to 1 million people. (first used: 2. Name the 1930s removals: "voluntary" was not the whole story)
Bracero Program — The series of agreements between the governments of Mexico and the United States, from 1942 to 1964, that issued temporary work permits to Mexican men on short-term contracts to work in agriculture and on railroads. (first used: 3. Read the Bracero Program: an agreement between two governments)
Bracero — A Mexican worker who came to the United States on a short-term labor contract under the Bracero Program, with papers issued under an agreement between the two governments. (first used: 3. Read the Bracero Program: an agreement between two governments)
Federal district court — The trial-level federal court where a case begins; its ruling can be reviewed by a federal court of appeals and then by the Supreme Court. (first used: 5. Read Mendez v. Westminster: which court, and why it mattered)
Mendez v. Westminster — The 1946 federal district court case, affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in 1947, which ruled that segregating Mexican American students by ancestry, appearance, and language violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. (first used: 5. Read Mendez v. Westminster: which court, and why it mattered)
Hernandez v. Texas — The 1954 Supreme Court case in which the Court held unanimously that excluding people from jury service because of their ancestry or national origin violated the 14th Amendment. (first used: 6. Read Hernandez v. Texas and compare conquest, contract, and the courts)
Two-class theory — The narrow reading of the 14th Amendment, rejected by the Supreme Court in Hernandez v. Texas (1954), under which its protection reached only discrimination between two classes, white and Black; the Court held that the protection reaches further. (first used: 6. Read Hernandez v. Texas and compare conquest, contract, and the courts)

Summary

In 1848 the border moved: Article VIII let the Mexicans who stayed become citizens without immigrating.
The 1930s removals were mostly "voluntary" in name and coercive in practice, and they included Mexican Americans.
The Bracero Program (1942 to 1964) was a legal agreement between two governments, not unauthorized migration.
E1 is read beside the record: the program's dates check his 1956 contract, and his voice shows the deductions.
Mendez v. Westminster (1946) was a district court case, affirmed in 1947, that strengthened the ground for Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
Hernandez v. Texas (1954) rejected the two-class theory: the 14th Amendment reaches discrimination by ancestry.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

An illustrative summer-camp job (not a real one) hires counselors on a contract that lasts one summer and takes money out of each paycheck for meals. A counselor works a first summer and comes back for 2 more. How many summers did the counselor work, and what document would you check to see what was taken out?
A classmate writes, "Mexican families living in California in 1850 were recent immigrants." Explain what is wrong with the sentence and how to fix it.
An illustrative case (not a real one) is decided by a federal district court, affirmed by a court of appeals 2 years later, and followed by a related Supreme Court case 6 years after the district court ruling. How many years passed between the appeal and the Supreme Court case, and which court decided the first case?
A summary of this week says, "In the 1930s, Mexican citizens chose to go home." Name two problems with the sentence and rewrite it.

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

Add the seasons: 1 + 2 = 3 summers. To see what was taken out, check the written contract and the pay records, since the contract names the pay and the deductions. Notice that this is a fresh, illustrative job, not E1's contract.
The sentence treats the families as immigrants. Under Article VIII of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), Mexicans who stayed in the ceded lands could keep Mexican citizenship or acquire U.S. citizenship where they already lived; the border moved, and they did not. A fixed sentence: "Mexican families living in California in 1850 had been there before the border moved in 1848; they became part of the United States by conquest, not by immigration."
The appeal came 2 years after the district ruling, and the Supreme Court case came 6 years after it, so 6 − 2 = 4 years passed between the appeal and the Supreme Court case. A federal district court decided the first case, which is the same pattern as Mendez v. Westminster (1946): a district court ruling, affirmed on appeal, not a Supreme Court decision.
First, it says only "Mexican citizens", but the record names Mexican Americans as well as Mexicans among the people who left. Second, "chose" hides that most left through officially voluntary but often coercive repatriation programs run by state and local governments and charities. A fixed sentence: "In the 1930s, Mexicans and Mexican Americans left for Mexico, a few by formal federal removal and most through officially voluntary but often coercive repatriation programs."

Next up in this module: the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, and the quiz — and next week, Chicana/o and Latina/o Experiences II turns to the movement that answered these laws, using the same reading method you practiced on E1.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com