Lecture: Chicana/o and Latina/o Experiences I: Conquest, Labor, and the Courts
Lecture script · about 15–20 minutes spoken · Week 9
Opening
Picture a drive through a small town in the Southwest. The town's name is Spanish, and so are the names of most of the streets you pass on the way to the grocery store. You could drive those streets every day and never ask who named them, or when. In this lecture, I want you to ask.
Here's why it matters beyond the map. If you study agriculture or public health, you may work beside farmworkers. If you teach, you may work in a school district that once kept children apart by ancestry. And if you're ever called for jury duty, you'll sit in a seat that the courts once had to open by law. This week's records shaped all three of those places.
Let me remind you where we've been. In Week 3, you drew the line between immigrant peoples and colonized or incorporated peoples. In Week 4, you read the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. In Weeks 6 and 7, you followed the 14th Amendment into Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. And in Week 8, you practiced reading an oral history as evidence.
This week begins a new unit. We'll read a treaty from 1848, the removals of the 1930s, a labor agreement between two governments, one worker's account from the course archive, and two court cases. One word on names first. Hispanic and Latino are the federal terms. Chicana and Chicano name a self-chosen political identity that rose with the movement of the 1960s, which Week 10 takes up. Latinx and Latine are newer forms whose use is debated. This week, we mostly name people as the records of the time do: Mexicans and Mexican Americans.
1. The 1848 treaty: the border moved
Imagine you've lived in the same house your whole life. One morning a new flag flies over the town hall, and the mail comes from a different country. You didn't pack a bag. You didn't cross a line. The line crossed you.
That's the plain idea behind a cession, a formal handing over of territory by one country to another, usually by treaty. The people living on ceded land don't 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. Then the treaty turned to the people. Its 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.
Let's place it in time. The treaty came in 1848. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. That's 20 years apart. So the people of the ceded lands lived under U.S. rule for 20 years before the Constitution gained the clause their grandchildren would later carry into court.
Now bring back Week 3. Immigrant peoples came by choice under the country's 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.
Pause and try this. A classmate calls the Mexican families living in the ceded lands after 1848 "new immigrants." Using Article VIII, what's wrong with that?
Ask yourself who moved: the people, or the border.
Here's the answer. They didn't immigrate. Article VIII let the Mexicans who stayed keep Mexican citizenship or acquire U.S. citizenship where they already lived, so they were incorporated by conquest, not by immigration.
2. The 1930s removals: voluntary in name
Think about a time someone told you that you were free to leave a job, or a team. Then think about what came with that offer. Maybe your hours were cut. Maybe everyone made it plain you weren't wanted. You left, but you didn't leave freely.
During the Great Depression of the 1930s, many Mexicans and Mexican Americans faced a choice like that. Mexican repatriation of the 1930s is the departure for Mexico, during the Great Depression, of Mexicans and Mexican Americans. Few left by formal federal removal. Most left 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. Sources give the number differently, so this course teaches the range in words and never asks you to memorize one figure.
Let's slow down on the definition, because each piece matters. Officially voluntary means the programs called each trip a choice. Often coercive means pressure pushed people to make that choice. And the programs were run by state and local governments and charities, not by one federal office.
Pause and try this. A summary says the 1930s removals involved only noncitizens. Which group named in the record does that summary leave out?
Look back at the definition's first line.
Here's the answer. It leaves out Mexican Americans. The record names Mexican Americans as well as Mexicans among the people who left, so the removals did not involve only noncitizens.
3. The Bracero Program: an agreement between two governments
Picture a seasonal job: picking strawberries for one summer, or working a holiday rush at a warehouse. You sign a contract. It names your pay, your housing, and the day the job ends. When the season ends, so does the contract, and you go home.
That's 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 on one of those contracts, with papers issued under an agreement between the two governments.
The program began in August 1942 and ended in December 1964. Take 1942 from 1964 and you get 22 years. For 22 years, two governments signed agreements that moved workers north a season at a time.
The Library of Congress records the hard side of the program, too. Braceros faced charges for room and board, deducted pay, and exposure to dangerous chemicals. A contract can be legal and still be hard on the person who signs it.
Here's why this matters for how we talk about people. A bracero didn't slip across a border unseen. He came with a contract and with papers two governments had agreed to.
Pause and try this. Someone says the Bracero Program was unauthorized migration. What one fact about the program answers that?
Name who signed the agreements.
Here's the answer. The program was a series of legal agreements between the governments of Mexico and the United States, with contracts and work permits. A bracero came with papers from both governments, so the program was authorized by both.
4. Reading E1 against the record
A contract tells you what was promised. A worker's memory tells you what it was like to live under that contract. The course archive is an illustrative, unnamed public library's collection, built for this course. Its excerpts are identified by role and decade, and none of them is a real person's words.
Excerpt E1 comes from a farmworker who came on a bracero contract in the 1950s. He was interviewed in the 2000s. He signed his first contract in 1956. At the reception center, he says, they looked at the men's hands to see if they were really farm workers. The contract said what they would be paid, but money was taken out for the food and the bunk. They picked lettuce, then tomatoes, and went home when the season ended. He came back for three more seasons. And when people say they came illegally, he tells them he had papers from two governments.
Let's walk the reading in the field's order. What does it say? A contract, deductions, and seasons of work. Who made it? A narrator, decades later, telling how the contract felt to one worker. Whom did it affect? The worker, the men checked beside him, and the family he went home to. What does it leave out? The state, the farm, the wage, and the amount taken out. So we check its dates against the record. His first contract in 1956 came 14 years into the program. One first season plus three more makes four seasons. And the program ended 8 years after his first contract.
Now add a comparison. The archive's E2 excerpt comes from a family that 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.
Pause and try this. E1 never gives his wage. Does that mean his account can't be used as evidence?
Think about what an oral history is for.
Here's the answer. No. An oral history is read for experience and meaning, and its dates are checked against the record. His 1956 contract falls inside the program's span, and his line about papers from two governments names the program for what it was.
5. Mendez v. Westminster: which court decided it
Think about a school district map. A line on that map decides which building a child attends. Now imagine the line is drawn around children's family names, their looks, or their home language, not around their street.
Mexican American families in one school district faced a line like that in the 1940s. First, 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, decided in 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, 1 year later. The Library of Congress describes the case as strengthening the ground for Brown v. Board of Education, which came in 1954, 8 years after the district court ruling.
Set it on a thread you know. Separate schools run from the federal Indian boarding schools you met in Week 4, to Mendez v. Westminster in 1946, to Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. And a district rule that assigns children to separate schools by ancestry is institutional discrimination, the idea from Week 2. The rule itself produces unequal treatment, whatever any one teacher believes.
Pause and try this. A friend says Mendez v. Westminster was a Supreme Court case. Which court actually decided it, and which court affirmed it?
Picture the ladder of courts from the bottom rung.
Here's the answer. A federal district court decided it in 1946, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed it in 1947. It never reached the Supreme Court, yet it helped prepare the ground for the case that did.
6. Hernandez v. Texas and the week together
Picture a jury box in a county courthouse. Year after year, people of one ancestry never sit in those seats, though many live in the county and qualify. No rule says "keep them out". The empty seats say it anyway.
That pattern reached the Supreme Court in 1954. In Hernandez v. Texas, decided in May 1954, two weeks before Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court held unanimously that excluding people from jury service because of their ancestry or national origin violated the 14th Amendment. The Court also rejected the two-class theory, the narrow reading of the 14th Amendment under which its protection reached only discrimination between two classes, white and Black. The Court held that the protection reaches further.
Count from the amendment. It was ratified in 1868, and the case came in 1954. That's 86 years. For 86 years the promise was on paper, and in 1954 the Court read it to reach Mexican Americans in the jury box.
Now let me pull the week together. The people of the ceded lands were incorporated by conquest: the border moved. Braceros came under an agreement between two governments, a season at a time. And in the courts, Mexican American families used the 14th Amendment to claim equal standing in schools and on juries. Week 3's frameworks help you see these differences, but they're tools, and no framework settles a family's story on its own.
Pause and try this. Which of this week's records shows people becoming part of the United States without moving at all?
Think back to the new flag over the town hall.
Here's the answer. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848. Under Article VIII, the Mexicans who stayed could become U.S. citizens where they already lived, because the border moved and they did not.
Closing
Let me recap in the order we built it. In 1848 the border moved, and Article VIII let the Mexicans who stayed become citizens without immigrating. In the 1930s, removals that were voluntary in name pushed Mexicans and Mexican Americans to leave. From 1942 to 1964, the Bracero Program moved workers north under legal agreements between two governments. E1's account showed what those contracts felt like, and the record checked his dates. Mendez v. Westminster was a district court case that strengthened the ground for Brown v. Board of Education. And Hernandez v. Texas rejected the two-class theory, so the 14th Amendment reached discrimination by ancestry.
Next in this module come the slide deck, the Readings and Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, and the quiz. Then, in Week 10, Chicana/o and Latina/o Experiences II: Movements and Many Communities, you'll meet the movement that answered these laws, and the many communities the word Latino gathers together.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com