Minority Reports: the Emergence of Pan-Hispanic Politics, 1945-1980
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MINORITY REPORTS: THE EMERGENCE OF PAN-HISPANIC POLITICS, 1945-1980 A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History By Benjamin Francis-Fallon, M.A. Washington, DC June 22, 2012 Copyright 2012 by Benjamin Francis-Fallon All Rights Reserved ii MINORITY REPORTS: THE EMERGENCE OF PAN-HISPANIC POLITICS, 1945-1980 Benjamin Francis-Fallon, M.A. Thesis Advisor: Michael Kazin, Ph.D. Abstract This dissertation examines the efforts of activists, elected officials, and bureaucrats to make Hispanic identity into a meaningful tool in postwar U.S. politics. Opposing radical nationalism as well as assimilation, Mexican American and Puerto Rican leaders sought to convince all “Spanish-speaking Americans”—irrespective of nationality, immigration status, or language ability—to see themselves as a single, nationwide ethnic group. They gained support from liberals reinventing their creed amid the New Deal coalition’s collapse. They also found allies in conservative Republicans, who perceived a chance to exploit anti-black sentiment among Latino Democrats. Bipartisan interest in these voters produced a consensus that “Hispanics” deserved government recognition as a distinct national minority group, with their own presidential advisors, a unique place in federal statistics, and parity in the civil service. There were limits, however, to pan-Hispanic politics. Mexican American and Puerto Rican congressmen who attempted to unify grassroots political activists found they would not subordinate their distinct national identities to pan-ethnic solidarity. Furthermore, even as Hispanics came to be recognized as “America’s second largest minority,” presidents remained more concerned with the Electoral College than with ethnic fairness. Their favoritism toward certain segments of this population exposed and exacerbated national origin rivalries, challenging leaders who sought to mobilize the country’s “Latino Vote.” This electorate’s iii failure to realize its vast potential—its status as a “sleeping giant” of politics—became itself a key component of Hispanic identity, which activists would deploy in an effort to achieve the political power that long eluded them. iv CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 PART I. BECOMING A NATIONAL MINORITY 21 Chapter 1. Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, and the Politics of Recognition, 1945-1964 22 Chapter 2. The Challenges of Civil Rights for Mexican Americans, 1961-1966 62 Chapter 3. The Johnson Way of Handling the “Mexican American Problem,” 1966-1968 103 PART II. INSTITUTIONALIZING PAN-ETHNICITY 130 Chapter 4. A Difference that Unifies: Creating a Federal Advocate for Spanish-Speaking Americans 131 Chapter 5. Becoming Spanish Origin, 1969-1971 158 PART III. POLITICIZING THE “SPANISH-SPEAKING CONCEPT” 180 Chapter 6. The Silent Minority: Republicans Develop a Spanish-Speaking Strategy, 1969-1971 181 Chapter 7. Unidos: Democratic Congressmen and the Spanish-Speaking Coalition, 1971-1972 217 Chapter 8. Nixon’s “Brown Mafia” and the Middle-Class Road to Ethnic Votes in 1972 249 PART IV. INSTITUTIONAL LEGACIES 285 Chapter 9. Towards a Representative Bureaucracy: Affirmative Action and the Spanish- surnamed Government Worker, 1970-1980 286 Chapter 10. “In statistics, as in our children, lies our future”: Becoming Hispanics, 1970-1980 330 EPILOGUE. From “Shotgun Wedding” to “Sleeping Giant” 371 BIBLIOGRAPHY 377 v Introduction As I peer into the future and I see this crass materialism that is beginning to infect and poison American life, and in fact imperil and endanger its very essence of liberty and freedom, I see this great Hispanic people of the Southwest then rendering their great contribution, because of the nature of their being, spiritual, idealistic, they will contribute to offsetting the destructive and noxious effects of this crass materialism. They, like a giant stream that for generations and years and centuries flows underground unseen by human eye, will through some event, fortuitous event, suddenly arise to the full surface, in full flood and majestic grandeur. —Walt Whitman to the Citizens of Santa Fe, New Mexico, ca. 18651 Identifying an ethnic group is a complicated act. It requires attention to nuance, and it should not be casually undertaken. The prominent Mexican American intellectual and civil rights activist George I. Sánchez delivered this message during the early 1950s in a friendly critique of a young sociologist’s research. Sánchez, who taught at the University of Texas at Austin, found the study of a Colorado health care program for “Spanish Americans” impressive, but questioned its interpretations. Particularly concerning was what present-day academics might call the paper’s “essentialism.” “For gosh sakes,” he wrote, “don’t characterize the Spanish-American with what is obviously true for the human race, and then imply, by commission or omission, that his characteristics are peculiarly his and, OF COURSE, radically different from those of the ‘Anglos’!” Specific complaints followed: 1. We insist that “Latin American” (“Spanish-American,” “Mexican-American,” etc.) has no precise meaning nor does the term connote generalized cultural attributes. 2. We say that, for convenience, all non-Latins are to be called “Anglos” (Germans, Italians, Jews, Catholics, Baptists, hill-billies, Bostonians, poor whites, Texans, Minnesotans, AD INFINITUM) have a precisely defined common culture whose features can be correlated 1 Quoted in Henry B. González, “It’s Our Choice to Make,” Box 327, Henry B. González Papers, 1946-1998, The Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, The University of Texas at Austin. 1 with the non-existent (or, at best, undefined) features of the Latin “culture.”!!!! . The time orientation of a “poor white” is no different from that of a poor Negro or of a poor Spanish. Neither can provide for the future; each has to live for the present; after laboring for 14 hours or day, none of them has the energy or interest or curiosity to go to PTA’s or to Association meetings. You wouldn’t eit75 her, nor would I – nor would Abraham Lincoln!2 Sánchez had previously warned the young scholar, Julian Samora, against the tendency to view social distinctions as the product of “ethnic” differences. Even before Samora had begun his research, Sánchez had advised him that, “the characteristics that distinguish the Spanish- speaking group in any part of the United States are much less ethnic than they are socio- economic.” He regarded the ethnic framework as especially problematic for Samora’s likely subjects, because “there is no real ethnic sameness among the various subdivisions of the same Spanish-speaking group, and the socio-economic factors vary considerably.” He therefore recommended that Samora “define ‘ethnic’ in very broad terms so as not to give the impression that they are a distinct ethnic group.”3 It was a greater scholarly mistake in his eyes, however, to suggest that the Southwest’s diverse “Spanish-Mexican” populations should be understood as part of a pan-ethnic group. To illustrate this point, he sent Samora a scathing review he had written of the sociologist John H. Burma’s 1954 book, Spanish Speaking Groups in the United States. In addition to disparaging Burma’s research, Sánchez cast doubt on the entire concept of such a book. It “takes a veritable 2 George I. Sánchez to Julian Samora, undated, Box 42, Folder 5, Julian Samora Papers, Benson Latin American Collection, University Libraries, the University of Texas at Austin. 3 George I. Sánchez to Julian Samora, February 20, 1952, Box 42, Folder 5, Julian Samora Papers, Benson Latin American Collection, University Libraries, the University of Texas at Austin. 2 shotgun wedding to make Puerto Ricans, Spanish-Mexicans, and Filipinos appear to be culturally homogeneous,” he wrote.4 Sánchez’s advice seems ironic in retrospect, since Julian Samora was to become a leader in the establishment of both Mexican American and Latino studies, and one of the most influential Mexican American scholars and public intellectuals of the second half of the century. Nevertheless, the conversation is an important artifact. It marks a time when Mexican American leaders and thinkers often downplayed their cultural distinctiveness in public debates. Instead, they argued that material improvements in jobs, housing, and schools would not only allow them to live better but would reveal their fundamental similarity with other Americans. The exchange also suggests that the desire for intellectual accuracy, no doubt informed by a certain assimilationist sentiment, produced in many Mexican American leaders strong reservations about the existence of a national pan-Hispanic identity. Sánchez expressed this view clearly in 1963, after the great flow of Cuban exiles to the United States had begun: They are just too many different peoples to be adequately covered under one umbrella. While they could be called, loosely, “Americans who speak Spanish” they would have to be treated in separate categories – for, by way of illustration, though a Cuban in Florida and a Mexican in Laredo both speak Spanish, they really have little else in common (even though both may be aliens or citizens, or a combination).5 Federal policies in the middle third of the twentieth century sustained this analysis. Before the civil rights revolution of the 1960s, the national government did not recognize U.S. populations of Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans,